2749 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

BleedingUranium wrote...

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.

Because refuse is completely impartial to the child.

Okay, I'm fairly typsy right now, but I'm going to use this to fuel this response, be ready because it might become an (Arian Dynas) wall of text.


As many people have said, Saren represented Synthesis, in others many people have said that TIM represents control. Both are equally valid. But both aren't Shepard.

Therefore, it could be said that Shepard's *true* indoctrination attempt could be destroy. Because, let's face it, destroy, even in the IT interpretation, is pretty easy to see and break.

As for the breath scene, I never saw (and I've said this before) that IT's strongest evidence was the breath scene, in fact, I always thought it was the weakest. Because I don't believe that scene is actually happening. I believe that it is only to give people false hope until everything is understood in regards to the endings.

In the same way that once the dlc schedule ends, the stargazer scene will be removed because it clearly wont make sense if there is "no other story" and EA/BioWare's constant reminders that "there will be no Shepard in ME4" only reinforces that something must happen in ME3 in regards to Shepard's fate.

Therefore, what Shepard needs is an option to say that they don't need the Child's (A reaper's) help at all. And if they die, the will die "free".

The very defintion of dying free is to die without assistance and to fight for what you truely believe in (fighting for everyone). Now, while it may be arguable that Shepard (renegade or no) doesn't care about synthetics, a common goal every Shepard shares across the trilogy is that they begin to fight for the entire galaxy, and that galaxy includes synthetics.

I can't think of anything else atm, but if you respond we can continue this debate

[shepskisaac]

But the common Shep goal is also not to get all the spacefaring races killed.

[BleedingUranium]

I understand why Refuse is appealing, but you're still wrong about two key IT points:

-Destroy is not presented or created by the kid in any way at all

-Indoctrination, by definition, is willingly aligning with Reaper goals, thus, in any interpretation, Destroy cannot be indoctrination. Ever. It could be some kind of trap, like in the Deception Theory, but not indoctrination.

[shepskisaac]

BleedingUranium wrote...

-Destroy is not presented or created by the kid in any way at all

It ain't created by the Catalyst, but it is presented by it, even when it is the ONLY choice. And when you have Control only, the Catalyst has the same approach to presenting that 1 single choice. Control isn't "Reaper option" either. The Catalyst only starts talking "finding new solution" and getting all salesman when Synthesis is available.

The Crucible forces the Catalyst to present all Crucible options.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 08 janvier 2013 - 02:30 .

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

But the common Shep goal is also not to get all the spacefaring races killed.

Geth are spacefaring races.

BleedingUranium wrote...

I understand why Refuse is appealing, but you're still wrong about two key IT points:

-Destroy is not presented or created by the kid in any way at all

"It is now in your power to destroy us" this is exactly what the child says, so stating that he does not present this choice is complete and utter ignorance. I agree it's not created by the child like control (he could not control us because he already controlled him) and synthesis (the solution to "the problem") are. But it is still presented by him, you simply cannot argue that.

-Indoctrination, by definition, is willingly aligning with Reaper goals, thus, in any interpretation, Destroy cannot be indoctrination. Ever. It could be some kind of trap, like in the Deception Theory, but not indoctrination.

No, indoctrination, by defintion, is teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically, this can apply to destroy.

What kind of trap was Destroy in Deception theory?

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

But the common Shep goal is also not to get all the spacefaring races killed.

Geth are spacefaring races.[

There's a big difference between killing 1 race (which is a possibility already on Rannoch or ME1 - Rachni, or Tuchanka - Krogan cure) and killing every. single. one.

[ElSuperGecko]

BleedingUranium wrote...
-Destroy is not presented or created by the kid in any way at all

...not strictly true, the Catalyst does discuss Destroy as a potential use of the Crucible, but presents it in almost a completely negative light (it won't discriminate/it will kill the geth/you might die too/it won't solve anything in the long run).

BleedingUranium wrote...
-Indoctrination, by definition, is willingly aligning with Reaper goals, thus, in any interpretation, Destroy cannot be indoctrination. Ever. It could be some kind of trap, like in the Deception Theory, but not indoctrination.

Willingly or unwittingly aligning with Reaper goals.  Saren willingly sides himself with the Reapers, TIM doesn't - he believes he's working against them, right up to the end.  However, you're right in that Destroy is clearly against the Reapers goals - hence the Catalyst trying to put you off the idea.  It Destroys the Reapers, and apparently doesn't solve the chaos that the Catalyst is working to prevent.  It couldn't be more opposite to their goals.

Refuse doesn't side with the Reapers goals, but it also doesn't prevent the harvest.  The Catalyst's original solution will continue... unless, as per Puzzle Theory, conventional victory eventually becomes possible...

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

But the common Shep goal is also not to get all the spacefaring races killed.

Geth are spacefaring races.[

There's a big difference between killing 1 race (which is a possibility already on Rannoch or ME1 - Rachni, or Tuchanka - Krogan cure) and killing every. single. one.

You're missing the key of this thread, it doesn't support the result, thus the very reason of "successful" in successful refuse.

ElSuperGecko wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
-Destroy is not presented or created by the kid in any way at all

...not strictly true, the Catalyst does discuss Destroy as a potential use of the Crucible, but presents it in almost a completely negative light (it won't discriminate/it will kill the geth/you might die too/it won't solve anything in the long run).

Even in this rebuttal you're not being honest. He doesn't represent destroy as negative as this, he never actually states that Shepard will die.

El Super Gecko wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
-Indoctrination, by definition, is willingly aligning with Reaper goals, thus, in any interpretation, Destroy cannot be indoctrination. Ever. It could be some kind of trap, like in the Deception Theory, but not indoctrination.

Willingly or unwittingly aligning with Reaper goals.  Saren willingly sides himself with the Reapers, TIM doesn't - he believes he's working against them, right up to the end.  However, you're right in that Destroy is clearly against the Reapers goals - hence the Catalyst trying to put you off the idea.  It Destroys the Reapers, and apparently doesn't solve the chaos that the Catalyst is working to prevent.  It couldn't be more opposite to their goals.

Refuse doesn't side with the Reapers goals, but it also doesn't prevent the harvest.  The Catalyst's original solution will continue... unless, as per Puzzle Theory, conventional victory eventually becomes possible...

Exactly, which is why this theory doesn't exactly support refuse in it's current state. It simply tries to predict what BioWare might be doing with the refuse ending..

They said that they had to switch around the DLC schedule before the EC.. As per Gambles tweet..

"Hardest. Day. Ever. Seriously, if you people knew all the stuff we are planning…you’d, we’ll – hold onto your copy of [Mass Effect 3] forever."

After this tweet it was confirmed that they rearranged their dlc schedule.

Now my guess is it was to allow Leviathan to come first in the dlc schedule (instead of Omega maybe). And that maybe refuse would have been incorporated into the final dlc. But instead that implanted the "catalyst" for this ending in the EC to give people hope.

[BleedingUranium]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
-Destroy is not presented or created by the kid in any way at all

...not strictly true, the Catalyst does discuss Destroy as a potential use of the Crucible, but presents it in almost a completely negative light (it won't discriminate/it will kill the geth/you might die too/it won't solve anything in the long run).

BleedingUranium wrote...
-Indoctrination, by definition, is willingly aligning with Reaper goals, thus, in any interpretation, Destroy cannot be indoctrination. Ever. It could be some kind of trap, like in the Deception Theory, but not indoctrination.

Willingly or unwittingly aligning with Reaper goals.  Saren willingly sides himself with the Reapers, TIM doesn't - he believes he's working against them, right up to the end.  However, you're right in that Destroy is clearly against the Reapers goals - hence the Catalyst trying to put you off the idea.  It Destroys the Reapers, and apparently doesn't solve the chaos that the Catalyst is working to prevent.  It couldn't be more opposite to their goals.

Refuse doesn't side with the Reapers goals, but it also doesn't prevent the harvest.  The Catalyst's original solution will continue... unless, as per Puzzle Theory, conventional victory eventually becomes possible...

True, Gecko, he does present it, though that's not really relevant. It would be the same as him "presenting" Refuse by saying something like "It is now in you power to not make a choice".

Exactly, we're dealing with Reaper indoctrination, which is specifically is about Reaper goals. Destroying the Reapers is not a goal of the Reapers.

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

You're missing the key of this thread, it doesn't support the result, thus the very reason of "successful" in successful refuse.

And if, say, Bioware introduced a War Asset in next DLC that let's non-Reaper synthetics survive Destroy? Would you still campaign for Succesful Refuse?

BTW, finally found the video in which Destroy & Control are available but Synthesis is not: youtu.be/JrAlm-sn2So Quick notes, Caty still doesn't talk about "finiding new solution", he still says "that depends on you". There's also another highly interesting line I never heard before @ 10:42 when Shep picks Renegade option on Control choice. The Catalyst literally says he's bound by these decisions

[Restrider]

Though I see Refuse as a valid way to break the indoctrination, I have to say that the following line about Destroy supports Blur's assertions:

"I know you have thought about destroying us." - The Guardian.

[BleedingUranium]

Restrider wrote...

Though I see Refuse as a valid way to break the indoctrination, I have to say that the following line about Destroy supports Blur's assertions:

"I know you have thought about destroying us." - The Guardian.

Exactly. I'm not actually trying to argue against PT or Refuse, I'm trying to point out some points that are wrong, like that.

[GreyLycanTrope]

IsaacShep wrote...

And if, say, Bioware introduced a War Asset in next DLC that let's non-Reaper synthetics survive Destroy? Would you still campaign for Succesful Refuse?

BTW, finally found the video in which Destroy & Control are available but Synthesis is not: youtu.be/JrAlm-sn2So Quick notes, Caty still doesn't talk about "finiding new solution", he still says "that depends on you". There's also another highly interesting line I never heard before @ 10:42 when Shep picks Renegade option on Control choice. The Catalyst literally says he's bound by these decisions

I wouldn't but in this case Destroy wouldn't fundementally undermine the concpets presented within Refuse would it? You don't destroy an entire form of existance within the galaxy you specifically kill the reapers and do not commit genocide on a race who is allied with you. That is the difference.

It depends on you in the High EMS version as well "but I can't make (the solutions) happen" just because he doesn't explicitly say it doesn't mean it not the case. However this doesn't mean he is at your mercy these are still alterative solutions to the problem he's presented with solving he's not entirle happy with them because Synthesis is his ideal but that doesn't make them any less his solutions simply solutions he thinks are less effective so he's displeased with them.

He is bound because he's dead in one and replaced in the other so whatever the solution he can't undo it that's what he means be bound.

[ME859]

Quick question is there a puzzle theory that doesn't involve multiplayer?

[Jadebaby]

BleedingUranium wrote...
True, Gecko, he does present it, though that's not really relevant. It would be the same as him "presenting" Refuse by saying something like "It is now in you power to not make a choice".

Exactly, we're dealing with Reaper indoctrination, which is specifically is about Reaper goals. Destroying the Reapers is not a goal of the Reapers.

So you're done with our debate? Good to know.

And to state that Reaper indoctrination is specifically about Reaper goals is to miss the point completely

Look at Amanda Kenson. She wasn't indoctrinated by Reaper goals. She was indoctrinated through guilt of destroying an entire Batarian system, Indoctrinated into "finding another way" though what way that was, was never stated.

IsaacShep wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

You're missing the key of this thread, it doesn't support the result, thus the very reason of "successful" in successful refuse.

And if, say, Bioware introduced a War Asset in next DLC that let's non-Reaper synthetics survive Destroy? Would you still campaign for Succesful Refuse?

BTW, finally found the video in which Destroy & Control are available but Synthesis is not: youtu.be/JrAlm-sn2So Quick notes, Caty still doesn't talk about "finiding new solution", he still says "that depends on you". There's also another highly interesting line I never heard before @ 10:42 when Shep picks Renegade option on Control choice. The Catalyst literally says he's bound by these decisions

That last line is interesting, actually I'm completely thrown out by this, I was under the impression that the only way you could get the refuse speech was if you atttained the synthesis ending. but this video disproves that assertion.

I will investigate this when I get home.

Also, he doesn't say he is bound by these choices, he says, and I quote "You are bound to these decision, just as I am."

But that isn't true, if Shepard refuses, he proves right then that he is not bound to these decisions. So if he was wrong about that, how do you know he is telling the truth or just plain wrong about himself being bound to these choices?

Restrider wrote...

Though I see Refuse as a valid way to break the indoctrination, I have to say that the following line about Destroy supports Blur's assertions:

"I know you have thought about destroying us." - The Guardian.

In fact, that lends more credence to the fact that the destroy ending is corrupted.

[Jadebaby]

ME859 wrote...

Quick question is there a puzzle theory that doesn't involve multiplayer?

Can I enquire as to why?

[BleedingUranium]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

"I know you have thought about destroying us." - The Guardian

In fact, that lends more credence to the fact that the destroy ending is corrupted.

Wrong again. That shows that the kid didn't create it, Shepard's subconscious put it there and the kid's simply noting that. I'm not sure why you think this is a debate, I'm simply informing you of how a certain part of IT works.

PT can work with IT, but Destroy is not, and cannot, be a trap, or indoctrination. You have to work around that.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:19 .

[shepskisaac]

Greylycantrope wrote...

It depends on you in the High EMS version as well "but I can't make (the solutions) happen" just because he doesn't explicitly say it doesn't mean it not the case.

No, when Synthesis is available, he says "we find a new solution" instead of "it depends on you", big difference.

Greylycantrope wrote...

However this doesn't mean he is at your mercy these are still alterative solutions to the problem he's presented with solving he's not entirle happy with them because Synthesis is his ideal but that doesn't make them any less his solutions simply solutions he thinks are less effective so he's displeased with them.

He is bound because he's dead in one and replaced in the other so whatever the solution he can't undo it that's what he means be bound.

Control & Destroy are not solutions to his problem. With Destroy, he says it himself that the chaos will return as soon as new synthetics are made. If he doesn't consider Reapers a solution anymore because it has been proven already to be a solution that can be broken (by crucible docked in Citadel) and even if Shep refuses it is only a matter of time before another cycle will finish that thanks to passing of information that the Catalyst understimated, then why would he consider Destroy a solution? It's not, he already knows Destroy will end up in the same place = this is not a solution for him. It may be a solution for Shep and galaxy's Reaper problems, but not for his problem he was ordered to solve.

And with control, he simply has 0 guarantee of any solution. For all he knows, Shep may fly the Reapers into a blackhole for fun. There's just no proof for him this will solve anything for his problem.

Only synthesis is something that he actually likes from the stuff the Crucible's capable of and what can be a solution for him.

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

That last line is interesting, actually I'm completely thrown out by this, I was under the impression that the only way you could get the refuse speech was if you atttained the synthesis ending. but this video disproves that assertion.

I will investigate this when I get home.

Also, he doesn't say he is bound by these choices, he says, and I quote "You are bound to these decision, just as I am."

But that isn't true, if Shepard refuses, he proves right then that he is not bound to these decisions. So if he was wrong about that, how do you know he is telling the truth or just plain wrong about himself being bound to these choices?

This is not Refuse speech Jade, it quickly ends and doesn't lead to "die free" lines. However, this is something that doesn't appear in high-ems conversation because the lines are cut short after Shep says "not if I refuse" after Control presentation, in high-ems Caty starts talking about "there's another solution synthesis blah blah" and you never hear "bound by choices" thing

Also, he doesn't say he is bound by these choices, he says, and I quote "You are bound to these decision, just as I am."

So translation is that he does says he is bound by these decisions. He may be wrong about Shep but he is not Shep. But when it comes to himself, I would think he would know what he can and cannot do lol don't you think?

Modifié par IsaacShep, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:23 .

[ME859]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

ME859 wrote...

Quick question is there a puzzle theory that doesn't involve multiplayer?

Can I enquire as to why?

Simple.  I dislike multiplayer but still would love to see a succesful refuse ending option.  

[Jadebaby]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

"I know you have thought about destroying us." - The Guardian

In fact, that lends more credence to the fact that the destroy ending is corrupted.

Wrong again. That shows that the kid didn't create it, Shepard's subconscious put it there and the kid's simply noting that. I'm not sure why you think this is a debate, I'm simply informing you of how a certain part of IT works.

PT can work with IT, but Destroy is not, and cannot, be a trap, or indoctrination. You have to work around that.

No, you have to accept that not only your interpretation is the right one. Crap I'm going to have to drink more to hide my emotions from boiling to the point of not being able to write a coherent response....

Okay, let's go.

First of all, simply stating that "Wrong again" is just completely obnoxious and arrogant considering all the endings are a matter of interpretation. Just simply saying that makes me want to take everything you said after like a joke.

But I'm going to endulge you. Of course the Kid didn't create it. One question, have you ever read Mass Effect: Evolution?

TIM (Jack Harper) always showed a trait of dominance and human superiority. The Reaper didn't create his lust for power via control. He always had that trait and they played on it the same way the Reapers could be playing on Shepard's trait in Destroy.

Also, I love the way you ignore most of my rebuttals and only target the things you think you can.

Lastly, if you want to think about IT that close-mindedly than fine. Think about IT however you want. Let's discuss indoctrination in the endings, completely seperate from the IT.

IsaacShep wrote...
This is not Refuse speech Jade, it quickly ends and doesn't lead to "die free" lines. However, this is something that doesn't appear in high-ems conversation because the lines are cut short after Shep says "not if I refuse" after Control presentation, in high-ems Caty starts talking about "there's another solution synthesis blah blah" and you never hear "bound by choices" thing

That's completely beside the point, the very fact that the dialog line of "No, I wont." appears or the fact that Shepard can shoot the Catalyst disproves that Shepard is bound by those choices. It doesn't matter if it's the Refuse speech or not. C'mon, I consider you one of the more smarter posters on this forum, how did you not see this?

Isaac Shep wrote...
So translation is that he does says he is bound by these decisions. He may be wrong about Shep but he is not Shep. But when it comes to himself, I would think he would know what he can and cannot do lol don't you think?

This point I will concede, even in the Indoctrination interpretation (see the wording I used there BU ) it is clear that he is bound by these choices, because it's either Indoctrination (see that again Blur?) or Literal, in either case. He is bound as no other options presented by him are present.

But, as you said, he was wrong about Shepard.

[ElSuperGecko]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
...not strictly true, the Catalyst does discuss Destroy as a potential use of the Crucible, but presents it in almost a completely negative light (it won't discriminate/it will kill the geth/you might die too/it won't solve anything in the long run).

Even in this rebuttal you're not being honest. He doesn't represent destroy as negative as this, he never actually states that Shepard will die..

I was merely summarizing the Catalyst's opinion of Destroy.  I can dig out the Catalyst's exact speech if you'd prefer, but we all know what the Catalyst means when he says "even you are partly synthetic."  He is implying that Shepard may well die as a result of choosing Destroy, and using it as a deterrent.

Odd then that the Catalyst also tells us that Shepard will die in Control and Synthesis, but in those instances, he doesn't use it as a deterrent... implying that it will be a noble sacrifice, that we (or all life) will become somethign greater as a result.

[Jadebaby]

ME859 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

ME859 wrote...

Quick question is there a puzzle theory that doesn't involve multiplayer?

Can I enquire as to why?

Simple.  I dislike multiplayer but still would love to see a succesful refuse ending option.  

It doesn't matter if you don't play it.

That's another common misconception. You don't have to play MP to have access to the successful refuse ending.

It's just a community thing in each operation that is helping the war effort in SP to reach the successful refuse ending goal.

Make more sense? Or did you have all that down already?

[BleedingUranium]

I never said IT was a fact, at all. What I said was that the things I said are facts within the Indoctrination Theory.

[GreyLycanTrope]

IsaacShep wrote...

No, when Synthesis is available, he says "we find a new solution" instead of "it depends on you", big difference.

Again just because he doesn't explicitly say it doesn't mean it's not the case.

Control & Destroy are not solutions to his problem.

Excpet they are he flat of states they are here. You hear that? "There is another solution" he says this after presenting control and Destroy as optoions before presenting synthesis, implying the other options are solutions as well. Take this within the proper context after lines like "We find a new solution" again implying there is more than one, and it's pretty apparant that like it it or not Destroy and Control still count as solutions even if they're far from ideal.

With Destroy, he says it himself that the chaos will return as soon as new synthetics are made. If he doesn't consider Reapers a solution anymore because it has been proven already to be a solution that can be broken (by crucible docked in Citadel) and even if Shep refuses it is only a matter of time before another cycle will finish that thanks to passing of information that the Catalyst understimated, then why would he consider Destroy a solution? It's not, he already knows Destroy will end up in the same place = this is not a solution for him. It may be a solution for Shep and galaxy's Reaper problems, but not for his problem he was ordered to solve.

And with control, he simply has 0 guarantee of any solution. For all he knows, Shep may fly the Reapers into a blackhole for fun. There's just no proof for him this will solve anything for his problem.

Only synthesis is something that he actually likes from the stuff the Crucible's capable of and what can be a solution for him.

Destory is the reset button of solutions, it's a short term solution much like the cycles are. In both cases the chaos returns but in both cases you still have a safe guard against synthetics destroying organics, in the cycles you have the Reapers, in Destroy you still have the crucible, you can rebuild synthetics but nothings stoping the galaxy from building the giant kill all robots button again, we have a new safe guard.

Excpet we see that happen in Control, at all. There's no proof any of his solutions will actually solve anything aside from the Catalyst's broken assumptions that hasn't stopped him form acting on them before, hence the current situation.

He doesn't have to like it for something to be considered a solution, his creators didn't approve of him creating the Reapers but that didn't stop him from implementing them. His objective isn't to like a particular solution it's to get the best results with the tools he has avaiable, Shepard being one of them.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:40 .