80611 réponses à ce sujet

[ebuchala]

demersel wrote...

I didn't say anything about a gun. The analogy was about intent, and lack of it. If you REALY mean it you can kill a wolf with your bare hands. 

And my point is that when you show up to kill the wolf, whether you listen to him babble or not, you KNOW that when you shoot him with your gun or break his neck with your bare hands, that HE WILL DIE. Because you're using a weapon that you're familiar with and you know that the weapon will work.

When Shepard is standing on the Citadel listining the starbrat wolf babble, he DOES NOT KNOW if the Destroy option will actually kill the wolf. His intentions may be to destroy the monster but the only weapon he has in the literal version is the Crucible which he has no experience with and very little knowledge of so he doesn't KNOW that it will actually destroy the monster.

In IT, his only weapon is his brain. Meaning he has to be able to put together the information he receives from the starbrat/wolf and determine what portions of it he can trust and what portions he can't trust. Now, in my opinion, there really isn't much of anything the starbrat says that's trustworthy because...well, he's a Reaper.

In fact, truth is you're giving more weight to the starbrat's logic and premise by choosing Destroy than someone who chooses Refuse because you're acknowledging that when the starbrat tells you that Destroy will actually kill the monster, you believe him that the weapon will work. That holds true for either the literal or IT ending.

[Arashi08]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

If the transmission is fake, then why does Hackett not question the follow-up to the Mars mission? Don't buy it. Don't buy the Glyph is evil nonsense either. Not everything in the game has to be boiled down to "because indoctrination" or "because Reapers".

Agreed.  There's looking for valid evidence through research and an understanding of the universe and then there grasping at whatever seems even slightly out of place and calling it "indoctrination."

[smokingotter1]

Flog61 wrote...

Guys, how about this:

Shepard isn't dreaming; he woke after being hit by harby, and he goes into the beam.

However, although he sees reality, his mind is being flooded by indoctrination attempts.


And this way, destroy is the non-indoctrinated ending, refuse shouldn't also end with a breath scene, and the breath scene can still take place on the citadel.


What do you think?

No, the only way in game Shepard can actually make it to the beam is if he accepts the reaper logic of synthesis. Harbinger has to be 100% sure that Shepard is indoctrined. That's why control (resisting and trying to control the reapers is to one side and fighting the reapers is on another) Shepard never makes it to the beam unless you submit to the reapers.

The game is rigged that there is no way for Shepard to make it to the conduit and keep his soul intact.

Plus think about it. Would Harbinger risk it? No of course not. That's why the decision chamber is an overlay of the conduit run. Harbinger (who never misses) wouldn't let Shepard get close to the conduit unless he submitted.

[Lokanaiya]

Regarding the debate about whether or not Refuse is a good option, I just want to throw in my two cents and say that in Refuse, you're essentially telling the Reapers that no matter what, you will NEVER compromise with them and NEVER accept their values, even if that means the entire galaxy is screwed. In Destroy however, you stay true to your purpose of ending the Reaper threat once and for all, even if you have to accept one of their options. Yes, Refuse is incredibly stupid. Yes, Destroy is the only option that actually kills all the Reapers.

In Destroy, however, you reveal you have an ultimate purpose-- You want to save the entire galaxy, and especially this cycle. You're even willing to accept one of the self-proclaimed leader of the Reapers' options to do this. It's not much, but a purpose is something that the Reapers, master manipulators that they are, can work with and turn to their advantage. You gave them a fingerhold, and if they can just turn your purpose to their advantage, somehow, you're indoctrinated.

Reject, on the other hand, is a bull-headed, stubborn option that says that you will never, EVER compromise with the Reapers at all. You reject everything they are and everything they say. You are willing to let the entire galaxy die if it just means that you never give anything, anything at all, to the Reapers. Selfish, yes. Ideological, yes. Mind-blowingly stupid, definitely. But what you reveal to the Reapers is that you will never compromise, never give an inch, to them.

That's different than what you try to do in Destroy. In Destroy, you want a better future for everyone AND will compromise with the Reapers, just a little, and accept one of their options if it means a better future for your LI, your squadmates, and everyone you know and love. Sound familiar?

In Reject, your ultimate purpose is no surrender, no retreat, NO COMPROMISE with the Reapers. Incredibly bull-headed, but maybe that's what it takes to defeat indoctrination. An undying conviction to have nothing to do with the Reapers, no matter what.

[demersel]

ebuchala wrote...

demersel wrote...

I didn't say anything about a gun. The analogy was about intent, and lack of it. If you REALY mean it you can kill a wolf with your bare hands. 

And my point is that when you show up to kill the wolf, whether you listen to him babble or not, you KNOW that when you shoot him with your gun or break his neck with your bare hands, that HE WILL DIE. Because you're using a weapon that you're familiar with and you know that the weapon will work.

When Shepard is standing on the Citadel listining the starbrat wolf babble, he DOES NOT KNOW if the Destroy option will actually kill the wolf. His intentions may be to destroy the monster but the only weapon he has in the literal version is the Crucible which he has no experience with and very little knowledge of so he doesn't KNOW that it will actually destroy the monster.

In IT, his only weapon is his brain. Meaning he has to be able to put together the information he receives from the starbrat/wolf and determine what portions of it he can trust and what portions he can't trust. Now, in my opinion, there really isn't much of anything the starbrat says that's trustworthy because...well, he's a Reaper.

In fact, truth is you're giving more weight to the starbrat's logic and premise by choosing Destroy than someone who chooses Refuse because you're acknowledging that when the starbrat tells you that Destroy will actually kill the monster, you believe him that the weapon will work. That holds true for either the literal or IT ending.

no  - He asks you want you WANT to do. I want to kill the reapers no matter the cost. I came there do that. It is my goal. I want to kill him regarless of what he says - that was my initial intent.  It may not do what i want it to do. (like - - you want to kill me? shoot this tube. Ha-ha! s4cker.) But it is stil what I want to do.  

BUT if i listen to him and suddelny decide i don't wan't to kill him then you accept that what he says is legitimate.
If you drop all the details refuse boils down to "I can't make a choice whether i want to kill you, control you, or help you do that thing you want to do, so i'm gonna do nothing. I shall not make this choice, because i don't like you and don't trust anything you say.)
Why would you not want to kill him if everything he say is not true? If it is happening in shepard's mind - why would you not express the desire to kill him regardless of what he says?


Again this is all based on the things that are in the game AT THE MOMENT. New DLC comes out and it all may be changed. But untill it does - it is this way. 

[demersel]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Regarding the debate about whether or not Refuse is a good option, I just want to throw in my two cents and say that in Refuse, you're essentially telling the Reapers that no matter what, you will NEVER compromise with them and NEVER accept their values, even if that means the entire galaxy is screwed. In Destroy however, you stay true to your purpose of ending the Reaper threat once and for all, even if you have to accept one of their options. Yes, Refuse is incredibly stupid. Yes, Destroy is the only option that actually kills all the Reapers.

In Destroy, however, you reveal you have an ultimate purpose-- You want to save the entire galaxy, and especially this cycle. You're even willing to accept one of the self-proclaimed leader of the Reapers' options to do this. It's not much, but a purpose is something that the Reapers, master manipulators that they are, can work with and turn to their advantage. You gave them a fingerhold, and if they can just turn your purpose to their advantage, somehow, you're indoctrinated.

Reject, on the other hand, is a bull-headed, stubborn option that says that you will never, EVER compromise with the Reapers at all. You reject everything they are and everything they say. You are willing to let the entire galaxy die if it just means that you never give anything, anything at all, to the Reapers. Selfish, yes. Ideological, yes. Mind-blowingly stupid, definitely. But what you reveal to the Reapers is that you will never compromise, never give an inch, to them.

That's different than what you try to do in Destroy. In Destroy, you want a better future for everyone AND will compromise with the Reapers, just a little, and accept one of their options if it means a better future for your LI, your squadmates, and everyone you know and love. Sound familiar?

In Reject, your ultimate purpose is no surrender, no retreat, NO COMPROMISE with the Reapers. Incredibly bull-headed, but maybe that's what it takes to defeat indoctrination. An undying conviction to have nothing to do with the Reapers, no matter what.

Ok. Makes sense. 

But also, don't you think that reapers are playing you by your desire never compromise with them in any way, even if it means doing nothing? Doesn't that sounds like manipulating you into inaction by letting you do what you like dto do the most - reject everything the reapers are and everything they say? (this is all you do when speak to any of them - this is your most predictable pattern of behavior, in regards of reapers - you hear reapers - and the next moments you give an uplifting speach how you reject everything they are and you're gonna fight them all the way anywhere any time, until your last breath, but you will never give in). Just a thought. 

Also, this means that initially, there was no way to win the game even with the IT being true. EC wasn't planned, (but you may argue with that, that's whole another debate).   Why i say it wasn't planned - cause unlike the rest of the game it is really clamsy in execution, wrighting, pacing. and really when you look at it it looks like a checkelist of things that was wrong with the game according to the community, except that it doesn't get rid of the catalyst and doesn't give an entirely new ending, which were the MAIN demands. 

Modifié par demersel, 21 août 2012 - 10:32 .

[smokingotter1]

Flog61 wrote...

smokingotter1 wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

Guys, how about this:

Shepard isn't dreaming; he woke after being hit by harby, and he goes into the beam.

However, although he sees reality, his mind is being flooded by indoctrination attempts.


And this way, destroy is the non-indoctrinated ending, refuse shouldn't also end with a breath scene, and the breath scene can still take place on the citadel.


What do you think?

No, the only way in game Shepard can actually make it to the beam is if he accepts the reaper logic of synthesis. Harbinger has to be 100% sure that Shepard is indoctrined. That's why control (resisting and trying to control the reapers is to one side and fighting the reapers is on another) Shepard never makes it to the beam unless you submit to the reapers.

The game is rigged that there is no way for Shepard to make it to the conduit and keep his soul intact.

Plus think about it. Would Harbinger risk it? No of course not. That's why the decision chamber is an overlay of the conduit run. Harbinger (who never misses) wouldn't let Shepard get close to the conduit unless he submitted.

I think that harbinger has momentarily broken free of starjar binks' control, and wants shepard to make it to the chamber so he can save them.

Than why does the kid have Shepard's voice? Why does Shepard see his double in a nightmare unless to imply that his own mind is turning against him.



If there was some kind of reaper civil war going on that might lead us to believe that the reapers have some kind of grievance with some "master" than maybe, but there is not a lot leading up to lead anyone to believe that the reapers need to be saved.

The more simple logical explanation is that Harbinger is doing exactly he said he was going to do for sometime: indoctrinate and/or kill Shepard. Each one of the choices reinforces that narrative.

Edit: What do I mean I preemptively answer-

Destroy: Shepard refuses to cooperate, walks to his death via "exploding" tube (Harbinger's laser) "Shepard, you could have been useful" oh well...

Control: Reapers can't be controlled period, but if the reapers can plant the idea that they can in Shepard's mind they can set him off on a wild goose chase while sabotaging allied efforts against the reapers, just like TIM. Since Shepard in his mind is still fighting them, or resisting them they don't let him into the conduit.

Synthesis: Full submission to the ideals the reapers represent, Shepard can now be trusted to enter the conduit.

Refuse: Shepard doesn't even try to make it to the crucible, the crucible is safe for the reapers.

Everychoice is a TRAP.

Modifié par smokingotter1, 21 août 2012 - 10:35 .

[ebuchala]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Regarding the debate about whether or not Refuse is a good option, I just want to throw in my two cents and say that in Refuse, you're essentially telling the Reapers that no matter what, you will NEVER compromise with them and NEVER accept their values, even if that means the entire galaxy is screwed. In Destroy however, you stay true to your purpose of ending the Reaper threat once and for all, even if you have to accept one of their options. Yes, Refuse is incredibly stupid. Yes, Destroy is the only option that actually kills all the Reapers.

In Destroy, however, you reveal you have an ultimate purpose-- You want to save the entire galaxy, and especially this cycle. You're even willing to accept one of the self-proclaimed leader of the Reapers' options to do this. It's not much, but a purpose is something that the Reapers, master manipulators that they are, can work with and turn to their advantage. You gave them a fingerhold, and if they can just turn your purpose to their advantage, somehow, you're indoctrinated.

Reject, on the other hand, is a bull-headed, stubborn option that says that you will never, EVER compromise with the Reapers at all. You reject everything they are and everything they say. You are willing to let the entire galaxy die if it just means that you never give anything, anything at all, to the Reapers. Selfish, yes. Ideological, yes. Mind-blowingly stupid, definitely. But what you reveal to the Reapers is that you will never compromise, never give an inch, to them.

That's different than what you try to do in Destroy. In Destroy, you want a better future for everyone AND will compromise with the Reapers, just a little, and accept one of their options if it means a better future for your LI, your squadmates, and everyone you know and love. Sound familiar?

In Reject, your ultimate purpose is no surrender, no retreat, NO COMPROMISE with the Reapers. Incredibly bull-headed, but maybe that's what it takes to defeat indoctrination. An undying conviction to have nothing to do with the Reapers, no matter what.

^^^Yes!! More eloquently and concisely worded than mine but this is essentially what I'm getting at. I find the idea of putting your personal morals and convictions above the safety of the universe unbelievably selfish but I also find it very difficult to believe anything the starbrat says, including "shoot this tube and destroy all of the reapers, yourself and some of your friends." From a purely ethical perspective, it makes more sense to believe the starbrat and do SOMETHING to try and end it all. But from a logical perspective, it makes more sense to me that the starbrat lies, lies, lies and that Destroy is part of those lies.

And now, I have to go make supper so I'll check in later on. It was a fun debate. Definitely gives me more meat to chew on regarding the Refuse option.

[paxxton]

It only seems like a wall of text.

demersel wrote...

paxxton wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

paxxton wrote...

An unsettling idea (if IT isn't true). What if the mediocre ending is a consequence of DLC-based model? I mean it's not fully comprehensible because we don't have the full context which DLCs are supposed to provide. This (the lack of all the details) also allows BioWare to tease fans with "not denying, not proving IT" comments, even though they already now how the ending should be viewed.

This is the best extra-textual analysis of the endings. It doesn't make sense of them based on in-game events, lore, etc... But it does make sense of them.

This is why I believe IT is a valid interpretation. I believe an indoctrination interpretation was intended- lots of speculations- but chiefly as a device to keep people talking and interested. And buying DLC. They did not see the furore coming.

Leviathan will provide another piece of the (literal) puzzle, but will not "debunk" IT. It will throw more fuel to the fire, I think.

I still hope for IT to be true. What I wrote above is a more business-centric, if you will, explanation for why ME3 is the way it is. The DLC-based dev model allows for story fragmentation which may result in obscuring important details until a later time.

Well, they are not the first to employ this business model. And it is not even a first time they do that - The DLC for ME2 each also provide crucial parts to the story, especially LOtSB and Arrival.   Why not make DLC even more story relevant - they sell you main game as Pilot of sorts - if you like it you can buy new episodes later, and you won't feel as if they are tucked on, or just speculation or useless, no they will continue the story you love, or give you a new angle on it. If you don't like the pilot - the main game you just don't buy DLC. that way everyone gets what he wants. 

Few years ago game industry already tryied to adapt episodic business model  - Valve did it with Half-life's two add'ons. and there also was Sin Episodes. Also other developers work on episodic model - back to the future, sam and max etc. 

Makes sense. It's like with ink printers or game consoles. You pay less for hardware (main game) and then pay a lot for cartridges/games. But ME3 wasn't especially cheap.

I'm still waiting for Half-Life 2: Episode 3.

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I don't mind DLC so long as its handled correctly. What I don't like is having to wait month's after a game's release to have its true ending revealed, but I guess it's the only way they're going to keep Mass Effect relavent without immediately spilling the beans on Mass Effect 4.

One way or the other Mass Effect 3 really needs the DLC treatment. The game feels awfully short when compared to Mass Effect 2 with all of its DLC.

Waiting is always the worst part. Like now for Leviathan.

That's an interesting point. I, too, noticed that ME2 seems incredibly diverse in comparison to ME3 which has a single goal (like ME2) but all your actions directly revolve around achieving it. No squadmates' loyalty missions.

Modifié par paxxton, 21 août 2012 - 10:33 .

[demersel]

ebuchala wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Regarding the debate about whether or not Refuse is a good option, I just want to throw in my two cents and say that in Refuse, you're essentially telling the Reapers that no matter what, you will NEVER compromise with them and NEVER accept their values, even if that means the entire galaxy is screwed. In Destroy however, you stay true to your purpose of ending the Reaper threat once and for all, even if you have to accept one of their options. Yes, Refuse is incredibly stupid. Yes, Destroy is the only option that actually kills all the Reapers.

In Destroy, however, you reveal you have an ultimate purpose-- You want to save the entire galaxy, and especially this cycle. You're even willing to accept one of the self-proclaimed leader of the Reapers' options to do this. It's not much, but a purpose is something that the Reapers, master manipulators that they are, can work with and turn to their advantage. You gave them a fingerhold, and if they can just turn your purpose to their advantage, somehow, you're indoctrinated.

Reject, on the other hand, is a bull-headed, stubborn option that says that you will never, EVER compromise with the Reapers at all. You reject everything they are and everything they say. You are willing to let the entire galaxy die if it just means that you never give anything, anything at all, to the Reapers. Selfish, yes. Ideological, yes. Mind-blowingly stupid, definitely. But what you reveal to the Reapers is that you will never compromise, never give an inch, to them.

That's different than what you try to do in Destroy. In Destroy, you want a better future for everyone AND will compromise with the Reapers, just a little, and accept one of their options if it means a better future for your LI, your squadmates, and everyone you know and love. Sound familiar?

In Reject, your ultimate purpose is no surrender, no retreat, NO COMPROMISE with the Reapers. Incredibly bull-headed, but maybe that's what it takes to defeat indoctrination. An undying conviction to have nothing to do with the Reapers, no matter what.

^^^Yes!! More eloquently and concisely worded than mine but this is essentially what I'm getting at. I find the idea of putting your personal morals and convictions above the safety of the universe unbelievably selfish but I also find it very difficult to believe anything the starbrat says, including "shoot this tube and destroy all of the reapers, yourself and some of your friends." From a purely ethical perspective, it makes more sense to believe the starbrat and do SOMETHING to try and end it all. But from a logical perspective, it makes more sense to me that the starbrat lies, lies, lies and that Destroy is part of those lies.

And now, I have to go make supper so I'll check in later on. It was a fun debate. Definitely gives me more meat to chew on regarding the Refuse option.

Ok. You are right. (let's say). Why there is a breath scene after destroy, and there is no such thing after refuse? 

Let's come back to basics. 

It all comes down to this. I assume that destroy is the right choise because it has breath scene after it. (actually i assume it was the right choice because it was mine first and only choice back in april when i beat the game for the first time AND because there is a breath scene). 

You assume that Refuse is ultimately the right choice, because this is the only choice where the catalyst speaks in reaper voice, showing genuine discontent. all your logic comes after then and grows on that fact. And also because you don't like the options that were there at start. 

If you distract subjective motives, and thought experiments from this from this, and leave only facts - it is breath scene vs reaper voice. I say at the moment breath scene wins (this is the IT thread after all and here breath scene is viewed as breaking free from the indoctrination.)

[Hrothdane]

In regards to the DLC expanding the story, my personal theory is that the overly stringent time constrain placed upon Bioware by EA (BW wanted another YEAR to finish the game) led Bioware to a risky decision: in order to still tell the story they intended and circumvent the time constraint, Bioware would release a game with an incomplete ending and "finish it" via DLC. EA could buy into the idea because it would mean more cash for them, and Bioware would get to tell a story of the length they wanted.

If you want to get even FURTHER into wild mass guessing territory, the unsatisfying endings pre-EC may have even been intentionally made unsatisfying and way too open-ended. If people were happy with the endings as is, they would revolt if they found out the entire ending sequence was basically a big trick. Bioware realized they overdid it a little after the massive backlash and decided to throw us a bone with the EC, which just toned down the problems but didn't really fix the endings.

Most of that is just currently unprovable theorizing, but I figured it might offer some interesting perspective.

[paxxton]

BioWare wanted a whole year? I heard about 6 months.

I would be amazed at BioWare's craftsmanship if I found after 2 years that the ending (of a computer game) was a trick on the player, and a one well executed. I guess I would think more about the achievement than that I was fooled.

Modifié par paxxton, 21 août 2012 - 11:15 .

[ebuchala]

demersel wrote...

Ok. You are right. (let's say). Why there is a breath scene after destroy, and there is no such thing after refuse? 

Let's come back to basics. 

It all comes down to this. I assume that destroy is the right choise because it has breath scene after it. (actually i assume it was the right choice because it was mine first and only choice back in april when i beat the game for the first time AND because there is a breath scene). 

You assume that Refuse is ultimately the right choice, because this is the only choice where the catalyst speaks in reaper voice, showing genuine discontent. all your logic comes after then and grows on that fact. And also because you don't like the options that were there at start. 

If you distract subjective motives, and thought experiments from this from this, and leave only facts - it is breath scene vs reaper voice. I say at the moment breath scene wins (this is the IT thread after all and here breath scene is viewed as breaking free from the indoctrination.)

Actually, my argument for the Refuse option has nothing to do with the starbrat's voice changing to a reaper voice when you refuse it. I wasn't thinking about that at all during this discussion. I really was just focusing on the fact that the starbrat is a Reaper and the Reapers have spent all three games trying to destroy us (albeit in a roundabout way during the first two games) and, therefore, everything the child says is a lie or a carefully constructed version of the truth designed to mislead me. If I believe that he's lying to me or even sharing half-truths and partial accuracies about the options, then why would I choose any of them, especially without really understanding the consequences. One could almost argue that choosing Destroy is irresponsible because you really don't know what it's going to do after you've shot the tube.

It has nothing to do with his voice changing. When I first heard that, I initially just thought it was BW's way of making that option's consequences sound more ominous and dramatic.

[NebuchadnezzaRT]

Hrothdane wrote...

In regards to the DLC expanding the story, my personal theory is that the overly stringent time constrain placed upon Bioware by EA (BW wanted another YEAR to finish the game) led Bioware to a risky decision: in order to still tell the story they intended and circumvent the time constraint, Bioware would release a game with an incomplete ending and "finish it" via DLC. EA could buy into the idea because it would mean more cash for them, and Bioware would get to tell a story of the length they wanted.

If you want to get even FURTHER into wild mass guessing territory, the unsatisfying endings pre-EC may have even been intentionally made unsatisfying and way too open-ended. If people were happy with the endings as is, they would revolt if they found out the entire ending sequence was basically a big trick. Bioware realized they overdid it a little after the massive backlash and decided to throw us a bone with the EC, which just toned down the problems but didn't really fix the endings.

Most of that is just currently unprovable theorizing, but I figured it might offer some interesting perspective.

I've heard that what they added in the EC was what they wanted to do with the endings, so maybe they created the original endings so they had a chance to go back and add to them since EA cut them short, of course it's immpossible to tell anything, I think people have exhausted The Final Hours material and anything from the mouths of Hudson to Merizan has to be taken with a grain of salt..

[paxxton]

OMG this thread is really REALLY slow.

Modifié par paxxton, 21 août 2012 - 11:30 .

[NebuchadnezzaRT]

paxxton wrote...

OMG this thread is really REALLY slow.

When is CUT coming out?

[GethPrimeMKII]

Do you think IT would have been less convincing to people if we had gotten what the EC added from the get go?

[paxxton]

NebuchadnezzaRT wrote...

paxxton wrote...

OMG this thread is really REALLY slow.

When is CUT coming out?

LOL. Dunno. When it's done.

[desert_beagle]

Just got home from work. I was thinking about the threads regarding the Mars mission and Glyph. Has anyone pointed out that Liara mentions that the previous Shadow Broker, the yahg, was in fact serving the Reapers? Glyph has been passed down from SB to SB.

It may even be that the "position" of Shadow Broker in fact is another agent for the Reapers through each cycle. The Broker's ship is mentioned to be ancient by Liara in the DLC and was meant to stay completely hidden, even though TIM found it and destroyed it. The SB position may just be one of those agents that the Reapers take a long time to indoctrinate vs. the quickies they pull on most normal people. That way the SB retains complete cognitive function while still serving the Reaper's purposes.

With the SB as one of their agents, the Reapers can pass and receive pretty much all information throughout the known galaxy from all races they plan on harvesting.

[NebuchadnezzaRT]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Do you think IT would have been less convincing to people if we had gotten what the EC added from the get go?

Haha Are you saying if the endings were'nt left so open-ended  or that the EC eliminated evidence?

Honestly, I think the fact would remain that a few extra investigate options with SC, a goodbye to our LI, and a slide-show ending do not make up fir the mass of incongruities in the stories and still large amount of evidence found pre endgame.

[paxxton]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Do you think IT would have been less convincing to people if we had gotten what the EC added from the get go?

Oh, definately. IT wouldn't have been formed so soon after the release. It would take much longer to gather the support it has now. IT would be much weaker.

[GethPrimeMKII]

Where does the story mention the Shadow Broker serving the reapers?

[jgibson14352]

demersel wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

If the transmission is fake, then why does Hackett not question the follow-up to the Mars mission? Don't buy it. Don't buy the Glyph is evil nonsense either. Not everything in the game has to be boiled down to "because indoctrination" or "because Reapers".

I think the connection is kinda shaky, too. Nevertheless, these are questions that are worth asking, even if for no other reason than to lead us to conclude that there is not enough proof.

We do have some compelling evidence that the Reapers are using the Crucible as a trap, but we just don't have the evidence to start saying that Hackett is indoctrinated or that Glyph is a Reaper plant.

In fact, I would argue we have evidence that Hackett is NOT indoctrinated by the fact that he so adamantly states that "dead Reapers is how we win." He always comes across as too focused on winning whatever way possible to have doubts, which seems inconsistent with indoctrination.

HOWEVER - he does have some connection with the Cerberus, and there is also unexplained fact that he didn't send at least a heads up, when reapers came to earth - he was there waiting for them to come in the beginning of the game, remember? I'm saying he is indoctrinated, or that reapers control him fully, all i'm sayng, there are ligit questions to be asked. 

no.....no he doesnt....at all, the only thing hes ever done regarding cerberus is lead the attack on their base and step on the normandy in me2, which if you play cronologically, wasnt a cerberus ship.

he couldnt send a heads up, the comm buoys were down, and he was literally waiting at the doorstep, a warning would be kind of pointless when basic satelites and even the naked eye can see the debris and reapers landing

you can make a valid fanfic about glyph being a spy if you want, theres no evidence to the contrary (or any other kind) but anything about hackett being indoctrinated is just wrong.

and yes, there can be interference using the QEC, we saw it in me2 with just about all the holograms between TIM and Shepard, they werent perfect, they were a little grainy and twitchy.

i realize this post is very late, but somebody (ill edit the name in later) said it quite well, theres a difference between studying evidence and claiming every little odd thing is indoctrination

[GethPrimeMKII]

NebuchadnezzaRT wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Do you think IT would have been less convincing to people if we had gotten what the EC added from the get go?

Haha Are you saying if the endings were'nt left so open-ended  or that the EC eliminated evidence?

Honestly, I think the fact would remain that a few extra investigate options with SC, a goodbye to our LI, and a slide-show ending do not make up fir the mass of incongruities in the stories and still large amount of evidence found pre endgame.

Not quite. I'm wondering if having EC material from the beginning would have given the literal side a slightly more stable position to argue from. They patched some things up in the EC such as the catalyst at least trying to explain what each solution would do (although his explanation is still riddled with logical flaws).