2749 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyria]

But it would also make the War Assets do something. Imagine scenes where the War Assets are shown to be fighting the Reaper menace instead of being just some numbers on a screen. It would give the ending new life more so than the EC did.

[BansheeOwnage]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Thanks for the support guys!

The thread needs it lol.

Not anymore Jade! IT is LOCKED!

[sr2josh]

Now that Christina Priestly has locked down the IT thread and threatened all BSN users from ever discussing it again, does this mean we can't discuss interpretations of the endings at all anymore?

[Jadebaby]

I'm going to make this blatantly clear right now. I said a couple of pages ago that I don't want this thread turning up like the IT, and I still mean that.

If you are going to post in this thread please make it strictly related to the theory and any question or queries you may have about it and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability. As I'm sure other posters can try to help answer any questions also.

Please don't talk about the IT being locked or anything else that's off-topic.
If you would like to discuss off-topic things with other Puzzle Theorists, you can find a group for that here

Thank you.

[Jadebaby]

Hyrule_Gal wrote...

A complaint I keep seeing when PT is discussed is that an alternate ending would make the crucible “pointless”. Well the war asset mechanic  (the thing this whole game is based around) we have now IS pointless. Doesn’t the existence of a crucible that doesn’t really take into account your past decisions make playing ME3 rather pointless too? You spent the whole game making a diverse army and it turns out it doesn’t amount to much since the EMS requirement to get all the endings is quite low ( Especially now with the new DLC) and no matter what your choices were, it results in the same RBG choice. So really, these theories are trying to fix an already existing pointless component to the game. A very high war asset ending would fix that.

If people enjoy their choice of RBG, sincerely like them I mean, then such an alternate ending shouldn’t threaten that enjoyment. You really think your shep needs to die? Or merge all life with synthetics ? Then why the sour face when others simply want an ending choice that is different from yours. Is it a misery loves company thing?

I tackled this in another thread called "Building up for a Conventional Victory"

I will repost it here as it's on-topic.

"Now that it's been some months later and i've settled down a bit, I can tackle this.

The crucible plotline leading to a dead end (aka a Reaper trap) would be more thematically fitting than using it in the literalist interpretation of the endings. Therefore the crucible plot line would still exist but as a Reaper trap. Then you must find an alternate means of defeating the Reapers.

Also, Shepard and crew are too informed of Reaper tactics for them to use other means to try and trap the Normandy and crew. Therefore they need some kind of new tactic to trap them, enter Crucible. The best thing about the crucible is that Shepard and crew think it's completly free of Reaper influence, which isn't true."

[BansheeOwnage]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

"Now that it's been some months later and i've settled down a bit, I can tackle this.

The crucible plotline leading to a dead end (aka a Reaper trap) would be more thematically fitting than using it in the literalist interpretation of the endings. Therefore the crucible plot line would still exist but as a Reaper trap. Then you must find an alternate means of defeating the Reapers.

Also, Shepard and crew are too informed of Reaper tactics for them to use other means to try and trap the Normandy and crew. Therefore they need some kind of new tactic to trap them, enter Crucible. The best thing about the crucible is that Shepard and crew think it's completly free of Reaper influence, which isn't true."

I saw this in the other thread. Awesome!

[Nightvayne5749]

Honestly since the game has proven conventional victory is possible in the codex I do not see why bioware will not allow a total victory possible with refuse.You don't have to add a new ending just extend one based on your ems and having certain things aquired that you would not expect to help you along the way to aquire it.Or before the endings take place have a DLC that goes to reaper dark space and take something out that will allow ally forces to push reaper forces toward total destruction.Considering in arrival if you let the clock countdown you see a glimpse of a unknown reaper and that reaper could stay back and it is what makes reapers hard to destroy.

[shepskisaac]

I'm not a PT supporter but this thread has lots of interesting ending discussions anyway So I'm bringing back stuff from few pages back, about Crucible forcing the Catalyst to comply theory:

It just hit me that he says "But I would be forced to accept it" when talking about being replaced by Shep in Control.

But then, I remembered that he doesn't straight out says "the Crucible forces me" when Shep asks "why help him". Could someone post a direct quote what he answers to that question, it was something "You've changed variables". Would appreciate!

[dreamgazer]

IsaacShep wrote...

Could someone post a direct quote what he answers to that question, it was something "You've changed variables". Would appreciate!

"You've altered the variables", I believe.

[shepskisaac]

dreamgazer wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Could someone post a direct quote what he answers to that question, it was something "You've changed variables". Would appreciate!

"You've altered the variables", I believe.

But what after that? Ehh, just gonna hit YouTube

EDIT: Just checked. He says "You have altered the variables. The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities" in all versions of the endings. But some things change. In low EMS, when Destroy/Control is the only ending Shep says "Now What?", the Catalyst responds "that depends on you" instead of "we find a new solution" when Synthesis is available.

But I also remember his line "And I won't" (make this/these solutions happen) line, where was it? Wasn't it after "The crucible changed me blah blah, but I can't make them happen, and I wont"?

Modifié par IsaacShep, 08 janvier 2013 - 05:01 .

[shepskisaac]

Anyone has a video in which Control & Destroy are both available but Synthesis is not? (EC version of course)

[XXIceColdXX]

Shepards last line  'if I die, ill know I did everything I could to stop you, and ill die free'  just works for a successful refuse.

Love being able to tell the Catalyst and his flawed logic to jammit. Succesful refuse would be the icing on the cake.

[Jadebaby]

I agree, and for the record. I just watched the low-EMS destroy ending before trying to find that video for IsaacShep - sorry buddy, I couldn't find it - but even in the low-ems destroy ending, it would be great to be able to refuse and try and win, even though you would ultimately perish because you didn't have enough war assets, it would still be good to tell the Catalyst to cram it when he says "You have no choice in this, there is only one path that lies ahead."

[XXIceColdXX]

Jade8aby88 wrote...
I agree, and for the record. I just watched the low-EMS destroy ending before trying to find that video for IsaacShep - sorry buddy, I couldn't find it - but even in the low-ems destroy ending, it would be great to be able to refuse and try and win, even though you would ultimately perish because you didn't have enough war assets, it would still be good to tell the Catalyst to cram it when he says "You have no choice in this, there is only one path that lies ahead."

Even in this scenario , at least you can still shoot the catalyst. Still doesn't compare to telling him to jammit.

Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 08 janvier 2013 - 09:47 .

[Galbrant]

You know after refusing... and escaping on some ship in the citadel assuming the reapers didn't had time to destroy them. I would get on Hacketts flagship and kill him for putting me in prison for six months. Then go start Plan B Code Name: Super Awesome Level 5 Secret LOL You Can't See Me Omega Zeta Congo HAR8R1NG3R SUX @ Hide and Seek plan.

[BleedingUranium]

If you play the game from a literal perspective, then everything happens as you see it, even Synthesis. The kid is not lying at all. So if you don't want Synthesis, the so-called best (but disgusting) one, pick Control, and if you don't like the idea of the Reapers becoming Space Big Brother, pick Destroy. Refuse is just plain worse than Destroy, in every single way possible.

If you play the game from an IT perspective, then Destroy isn't one of the kid's choices. The choices are just metaphors for Shepard's possible goal: destroying the Reapers, attempting to control them, or adopting their methods and goals as your own. Every single Shepard, no matter how you play yours, enters the room wanting to destroy the Reapers, and since they're just representations of possible goals, and that is Shepard's goal, it has to exist. All the kid can do is tell you you shouldn't do it and that it's bad, but he cannot make it go away.


So, in either case, there's no reason to pick Refuse. The only actual reasons are to say FU to Bioware/the kid/the end/whatever, but those are meta reasons and have nothing to do with the actual narrative.

[Jadebaby]

[quote]BleedingUranium wrote...

If you play the game from a literal perspective, then everything happens as you see it, even Synthesis. The kid is not lying at all. So if you don't want Synthesis, the so-called best (but disgusting) one, pick Control, and if you don't like the idea of the Reapers becoming Space Big Brother, pick Destroy. Refuse is just plain worse than Destroy, in every single way possible.[/quote]

Just simply stating that Refuse is the worst doesn't prove anything, and listing all the other endings, then proceeding to tackle Refuse by simply stating it's the worst doesn't shine it as any less of a light than it already is.

The fact is, the outcome of refuse is the worst - and in that light, you are correct - but the act of refusing isn't. And that's what this whole thread revolves around. Not defending refuse in it's current state. But a successful refuse.


[quote]If you play the game from an IT perspective, then Destroy isn't one of the kid's choices. The choices are just metaphors for Shepard's possible goal: destroying the Reapers, attempting to control them, or adopting their methods and goals as your own.[/quote]

Exactly, then that means that not only is Destroy not the Kid's Choice, but no choice is the kids choice, they are all just metphors for either indoctrination or refusal of indoctrination.


[quote]Every single Shepard, no matter how you play yours, enters the room wanting to destroy the Reapers, and since they're just representations of possible goals, and that is Shepard's goal, it has to exist. All the kid can do is tell you you shouldn't do it and that it's bad, but he cannot make it go away.[/quote]

Exactly, but you're missing the point. In refuse Shepard also wants to destroy the Repears. This is a point that often gets looked over.

"And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you, and I'll die free."

Ergo, everything they can do to stop the Child, and by extention, the Reapers as a whole. The line where they say that they will die free, means that they will die without any help from the Reapers.

Because we all know where taking help from the Reapers leads people in the past.


[quote]So, in either case, there's no reason to pick Refuse. The only actual reasons are to say FU to Bioware/the kid/the end/whatever, but those are meta reasons and have nothing to do with the actual narrative.[/quote][/quote]

I appreciate you coming to this conclusion before hearing my rebuttal. Thanks!

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 08 janvier 2013 - 01:38 .

[BleedingUranium]

You missed where I said IT-Destroy is not a Reaper option/choice.

[Jadebaby]

BleedingUranium wrote...

You missed where I said IT-Destroy is not a Reaper option/choice.

Neither is refuse.

[Jaison1986]

But in the end Jade, isn't the PT just trying to create an 2.0 destroy ending? It haves the same premise: reaper are destroyed, galaxy is saved. Only difference is that the geth and EDI survive.

[BleedingUranium]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

You missed where I said IT-Destroy is not a Reaper option/choice.

Neither is refuse.

Obviously, but then why would/should Refuse be better?

[Fur28]

Jaison1986 wrote...

But in the end Jade, isn't the PT just trying to create an 2.0 destroy ending? It haves the same premise: reaper are destroyed, galaxy is saved. Only difference is that the geth and EDI survive.

Not really, we dont exactly know how the fight would go, maybe we loose the salarians or the geth still. sacrifices willl be made

[SimonTheFrog]

Fur28 wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

But in the end Jade, isn't the PT just trying to create an 2.0 destroy ending? It haves the same premise: reaper are destroyed, galaxy is saved. Only difference is that the geth and EDI survive.

Not really, we dont exactly know how the fight would go, maybe we loose the salarians or the geth still. sacrifices willl be made

Well the biggest issue obviously being that destroy is also in accordance with the catalyst. It's his proposition, after all.

Refuse is the only ending that is truely self-reliant.

[Jadebaby]

Fur28 wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

But in the end Jade, isn't the PT just trying to create an 2.0 destroy ending? It haves the same premise: reaper are destroyed, galaxy is saved. Only difference is that the geth and EDI survive.

Not really, we dont exactly know how the fight would go, maybe we loose the salarians or the geth still. sacrifices willl be made

You're both right, but whatever loses are to be had, would arise naturally through the plot of the game and not because some overlord tells you that you have to sacrifice an entire race for the galaxy to survive.

That's the other thing, sure as Fur28 said, we might lose the entire Geth fleet still. We might lose the entire Salarian fleet.

But does that mean that every Geth or Salarian in the entire galaxy is lost? No.

They can and will rebuild, if we are allowed this option.

BleedingUranium wrote...
Obviously, but then why would/should Refuse be better?

In the IT interpretation?

[BleedingUranium]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
Obviously, but then why would/should Refuse be better?

In the IT interpretation?

Indeed. Refuse is a loss, but PT aims to make it better in Literal, and that's fine, but I can't see a basis for that in IT.