80611 réponses à ce sujet

[CoolioThane]

Jesus christ. "Trying to help us" by "showing us how stupid the IT is"

Dude...if we wanted your help we'd ask for it lol

As we've said many times, we've had a helluva lot of fun discussing this theory (read as valid an intepretation of the game as literal) whether you like it or not. We find out it's not true, we move on. It's a ****ing video game lol

We find out we're right...well that'd be hilarious

[Restrider]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Restrider wrote...

My first playthrough ended in Refuse.
It felt natural considering the circumstances.

I sometimes wonder if I had played after the EC for the first time if I would have chosen that myself.

Yep, I guess it would've been under the top-two choices, if it was included in the main-game.
I'm still torn...
If Refuse in the end is a worse ending than Control/Synthesis in the light of IT, that would really surprise me.
I still hope Refuse was the planned ending for the supposed IT-DLC, but was released earlier (but without any successful outcome yet).
Meh, a man can dream...

[hermiona15]

Hi IT-ers! I have started today my 5'th playtrough of ME3 and I noticed something. Anderson has full pack of skills. He has Frag Grenade, bonus for Assault Rifle and for Sniper Rifle. Why? He is our squadmate just for a few minutes, and has only a pistol. It's like BW where planning a biger role for Anderson in ME3 but we didn't see it. It would be perfect occasion for him, to help Shepard get out of the debris and fight on the Citadel with Reaper forces.

[TheConstantOne]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Eryri wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

So, i am curious, who, the first time, went with Control or Synthesis?

I confess, I went with synthesis.

What can I say? I was tired. I was confused. It seemed a good idea at the time...

Please don't judge me. 

Tired, confused... yeah that would hamper decision-making. I don't blame you.

I chose synthesis the first time through.  I felt it was better to force just this one choice on the galaxy rather than kill off an entire species or establish a Reaper Empire.

Of course, then as I reflected upon the ending when I woke up the following morning I was like "hey, that was the Reaper overlord I just helped...huh, go figure."

I found this thread while I was researching the endings, required war assets to see each ending, and so on and so forth.

I believe that IT makes a lot of sense and fits into the ME story exceptionally well IF the Shepard going into the decision room has all the necessary war assets to see every ending.  It even fits semi-well with the control low EMS ending.  But I do continue to have issues with how IT explains low EMS Destroy...to me that remains the weak spot in the theory.

[BatmanTurian]

Restrider wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Restrider wrote...

My first playthrough ended in Refuse.
It felt natural considering the circumstances.

I sometimes wonder if I had played after the EC for the first time if I would have chosen that myself.

Yep, I guess it would've been under the top-two choices, if it was included in the main-game.
I'm still torn...
If Refuse in the end is a worse ending than Control/Synthesis in the light of IT, that would really surprise me.
I still hope Refuse was the planned ending for the supposed IT-DLC, but was released earlier (but without any successful outcome yet).
Meh, a man can dream...

Perhaps they are yet two paths to the same goal.

[BatmanTurian]

hermiona15 wrote...

Hi IT-ers! I have started today my 5'th playtrough of ME3 and I noticed something. Anderson has full pack of skills. He has Frag Grenade, bonus for Assault Rifle and for Sniper Rifle. Why? He is our squadmate just for a few minutes, and has only a pistol. It's like BW where planning a biger role for Anderson in ME3 but we didn't see it. It would be perfect occasion for him, to help Shepard get out of the debris and fight on the Citadel with Reaper forces.

That's interesting. I don't know if I'd call it for post-ending DLC yet though.

[BatmanTurian]

TheConstantOne wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Eryri wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

So, i am curious, who, the first time, went with Control or Synthesis?

I confess, I went with synthesis.

What can I say? I was tired. I was confused. It seemed a good idea at the time...

Please don't judge me. 

Tired, confused... yeah that would hamper decision-making. I don't blame you.

I chose synthesis the first time through.  I felt it was better to force just this one choice on the galaxy rather than kill off an entire species or establish a Reaper Empire.

Of course, then as I reflected upon the ending when I woke up the following morning I was like "hey, that was the Reaper overlord I just helped...huh, go figure."

I found this thread while I was researching the endings, required war assets to see each ending, and so on and so forth.

I believe that IT makes a lot of sense and fits into the ME story exceptionally well IF the Shepard going into the decision room has all the necessary war assets to see every ending.  It even fits semi-well with the control low EMS ending.  But I do continue to have issues with how IT explains low EMS Destroy...to me that remains the weak spot in the theory.

Nah, it just means Shepard didn't have enough mental fortitude to resist completely and died anyway.

[RavenEyry]

hermiona15 wrote...

Hi IT-ers! I have started today my 5'th playtrough of ME3 and I noticed something. Anderson has full pack of skills. He has Frag Grenade, bonus for Assault Rifle and for Sniper Rifle. Why? He is our squadmate just for a few minutes, and has only a pistol. It's like BW where planning a biger role for Anderson in ME3 but we didn't see it. It would be perfect occasion for him, to help Shepard get out of the debris and fight on the Citadel with Reaper forces.

The woman in arrival had skills too. It might just be a consistency thing.

[dorktainian]

I have no problem with the refuse option. its a hell of a lot better than control or synthi-bodge. I've picked the synthesis option and although it looks all nice and stuff, i found it morally abhorrent. Control....i like the way shep states he'll watch over his friends - but in what way shep? my guess is they are reaper sushi - as a part of him. yeah they really deserved that end didnt they? (well a few did)

[TheConstantOne]

BatmanTurian wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Eryri wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

So, i am curious, who, the first time, went with Control or Synthesis?

I confess, I went with synthesis.

What can I say? I was tired. I was confused. It seemed a good idea at the time...

Please don't judge me. 

Tired, confused... yeah that would hamper decision-making. I don't blame you.

I chose synthesis the first time through.  I felt it was better to force just this one choice on the galaxy rather than kill off an entire species or establish a Reaper Empire.

Of course, then as I reflected upon the ending when I woke up the following morning I was like "hey, that was the Reaper overlord I just helped...huh, go figure."

I found this thread while I was researching the endings, required war assets to see each ending, and so on and so forth.

I believe that IT makes a lot of sense and fits into the ME story exceptionally well IF the Shepard going into the decision room has all the necessary war assets to see every ending.  It even fits semi-well with the control low EMS ending.  But I do continue to have issues with how IT explains low EMS Destroy...to me that remains the weak spot in the theory.

Nah, it just means Shepard didn't have enough mental fortitude to resist completely and died anyway.

Yes, but the same score of EMS leads to him surviving in low EMS Control but as an indoctrinated servant according to IT.  He should, then still survive but retain free will in low EMS Destroy and that just does not happen.  I know that Reapers cause pain to those who start actively resisting their orders while under indoctrination but Shepard hasn't been indoctrinated yet.  So such pain spasms can't be what kills Shep off in low Destroy...

I don't know.  I've heard the explanations for low Destroy before but they always seemed a bit contrived to me.  Just my opinion

[BatmanTurian]

TheConstantOne wrote...

Yes, but the same score of EMS leads to him surviving in low EMS Control but as an indoctrinated servant according to IT.  He should, then still survive but retain free will in low EMS Destroy and that just does not happen.  I know that Reapers cause pain to those who start actively resisting their orders while under indoctrination but Shepard hasn't been indoctrinated yet.  So such pain spasms can't be what kills Shep off in low Destroy...

I don't know.  I've heard the explanations for low Destroy before but they always seemed a bit contrived to me.  Just my opinion

You are free to have an opinion. IT is not a monolith.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 16 décembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[Rankincountry]

RavenEyry wrote...

hermiona15 wrote...

Hi IT-ers! I have started today my 5'th playtrough of ME3 and I noticed something. Anderson has full pack of skills. He has Frag Grenade, bonus for Assault Rifle and for Sniper Rifle. Why? He is our squadmate just for a few minutes, and has only a pistol. It's like BW where planning a biger role for Anderson in ME3 but we didn't see it. It would be perfect occasion for him, to help Shepard get out of the debris and fight on the Citadel with Reaper forces.

The woman in arrival had skills too. It might just be a consistency thing.

I can think of a couple of possibilities - just ideas, so if anyone knows better, debunk away . Most boring: the game engine requires all npcs to be given a full skill set. It could be an easter egg of sorts - observant players learn a bit more about Anderson, in this case the things he can do in a fight. He may have originally been intended to have a larger part alongside Shepard. Or... it could be in prep for a future DLC.

Kenson fights alongside Shepard in Arrival against quite a few waves of Batarian prison guards, so her abilities are actually useful and needed. She looks like an engineer of some type which makes sense for her character - she has incinerate amongst other things.

[Sejborg]

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

[TheConstantOne]

BatmanTurian wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...

Yes, but the same score of EMS leads to him surviving in low EMS Control but as an indoctrinated servant according to IT.  He should, then still survive but retain free will in low EMS Destroy and that just does not happen.  I know that Reapers cause pain to those who start actively resisting their orders while under indoctrination but Shepard hasn't been indoctrinated yet.  So such pain spasms can't be what kills Shep off in low Destroy...

I don't know.  I've heard the explanations for low Destroy before but they always seemed a bit contrived to me.  Just my opinion

You are free to have an opinion. IT is not a monolith.

Haha oh I know.  I included that statement to try and establish the conversational tone I'm using.  It's extremely easy for others on the internet to read in a different mood for a comment

[TheConstantOne]

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

In order to make the other options of ending the Reapers appear to be genuine.  After all, if Shepard were offered only Control and Synthesis, but Destroy was completely absent, wouldn't you be a little more suspicious?

[Eryri]

dreamgazer wrote...

I agree with him at this point about invalidating choices. There was a window months ago where it would've been interesting, when the iron was hot for the striking. People have established their interpretations and have (mostly) moved on at this point; pulling the rug out would be a very, very dicey move, not to mention the fact that tons of folks simply wouldn't care now.

Actually I think waiting a while for the reveal would be a safer move. Some folks became passionately attached to Control or Synthesis as their favoured choices, and would have been furious if an IT reveal had pulled the rug out from underneath them immediately after completing the game. No one likes being told they made a bad decision

But as you say, people don't care as much now. It's much less of a sting to find out that Control and Synthesis were traps and they fell for them.

In addition, remember the controversy surrounding From Ashes? People were furious that Javik's mission had been completed, yet was sold separately from the main game. If a "True Ending" dlc had been revealed too soon, the same furore would have occured. Bioware would have been accused of deliberately witholding finished content just to make a extra buck.

Now that were further in future, Bioware have more of an excuse - they simply needed this extra time to do the hard work of creating this content.

I don't think Bioware deliberately created a "bad" ending in order to sell a better one later as DLC. I think they sincerely believed that the ending as shipped, was sufficiently good to satisfy people until IT was revealed. They were mistaken in that belief (boy were they mistaken) but they were not deliberately mendacious.

Modifié par Eryri, 16 décembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[RavenEyry]

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

Shepard is not indoctrinated. The choice is a delusion of a mind under attack.

[dorktainian]

TheConstantOne wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

In order to make the other options of ending the Reapers appear to be genuine.  After all, if Shepard were offered only Control and Synthesis, but Destroy was completely absent, wouldn't you be a little more suspicious?

they offer the choices assuming he's indoctrinated.  under indoctrination destroy would be a bad choice.  control would be a good choice.  synthesis would be an even better choice.

Husks everywhere for the win.

[demersel]

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

Because it is really all happening only in his head, and that is the exact precise moment that will determine whether he get's indoctrinated by the reapers or not? 

[BatmanTurian]

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

Because in IT Harbinger is the one creating the mindspace Shepard is in, Since Harbinger is made of Leviathans and therefore must use Shepard's mind to construct this space, Destroy will always be there because that is Shepard's goal from the first mission of ME1 and it is so ingrained in him that even in a moment of weakness and mental confusion, it is strongly defined. They can't remove it completely from his mind without choice, so all they can do is sway him away from it, which is what they do.

EDIT: Oh yes, that is a common misconception of IT. We have never said Shepard is actually indoctrinated. He is only in the process of it until he makes a choice to change his point of view to allign with the Reapers. This is done because it's a slow indoctrination and not a fast one, which would break Shepard and render Shepard useless to them as an agent of chaos and treachery.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 16 décembre 2012 - 08:38 .

[Eryri]

demersel wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

Because it is really all happening only in his head, and that is the exact precise moment that will determine whether he get's indoctrinated by the reapers or not? 

Indeed. According to the classical version of IT. Shepard is not even on the Citadel. Choosing to destroy the reapers will actually do nothing of the kind. It will merely signal Shepard's continued resolve to defeat them. It's a test of his / her mental fortitude.

[dorktainian]

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

Because it is really all happening only in his head, and that is the exact precise moment that will determine whether he get's indoctrinated by the reapers or not? 

Indeed. According to the classical version of IT. Shepard is not even on the Citadel. Choosing to destroy the reapers will actually do nothing of the kind. It will merely signal Shepard's continued resolve to defeat them. It's a test of his / her mental fortitude.

breaking free of any potential hold harbinger has on him i would assume.

[Rankincountry]

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

Under IT, the decision chamber where Shepard chooses control, synthesis, destroy or refuse is either partly or entirely taking place in Shepard's mind - it's a metaphor for the reaper indoctrination attempt. Destroy represents Shepard successfully resisting indoctrination and sticking to his original mission to destroy the reapers. Control or Synthesis represent being won around to reaper ideals - and winning the victim around to reaper ideals is the purpose of indoctrination, a process of subtle subversion rather than direct mind control. Refuse represents Shepard realising something is wrong but lacking the will to carry out his mission.

Why do I think it's a metaphor? Short answer, the breath scene. It only happens with Destroy and if you think about it logically, Shepard can't be on the Citadel - he'd never survive the explosion that we see in the Destroy ending. So it's reasonable to assume he is not on the Citadel. The dreamlike quality of the ending post beam run and after Harbinger hits Shepard suggests that this is where reality says goodbye.

This isn't a complete and detailed explanation and there are alternative explanations for most of the points I've raised - it is just a theory. But that's pretty much how I think it looks, and what I understand.

[paxxton]

RavenEyry wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

Shepard is not indoctrinated. The choice is a delusion of a mind under attack.

No, the choice is real but has a different meaning. Destroy is actually staying true to his beliefs and willing to pursue the goal of destroying the enemy.

[Sejborg]

TheConstantOne wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

I have a question. Not trying to troll you guys or anything I am just wondering about IT.

Why is Shepard offered an option to kill all the reapers if he is indoctrinated by the reapers?

In order to make the other options of ending the Reapers appear to be genuine.  After all, if Shepard were offered only Control and Synthesis, but Destroy was completely absent, wouldn't you be a little more suspicious?

I'm not sure I understand. Why should the reapers care if Shepard becomes suspicious? I mean. Shepard is under their control, so why should they care what he thinks about the options?