1238 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

[quote]The Crucible never needed the Star Child to do anything[/quote]
And how do you know that? You don't, and you cannot. You're inventing facts to support your argument.
[quote] Shepard is forced to accept this assertion. However, this is the least of Shepard's trust problems as will be covered in later segments of this thesis. Shepard's lethargic tendency to accept the Catalyst's assertions actually make sense in an indoctrination scenario. [/quote]
Yes. They also make sense in the "the writing just sucks" scenario. Your conclusion (it must be indoctrination) is privileging the hypothesis.
[quote] In other words, it has to hope indoctrination succeeds.[/quote]
No. This is simply not true. It is perfectly sufficient to outwit Shepard - there is a difference between Star Child deceiving Shepard, and Star Child assuming Direct Control TM of Shepard.
[quote]The Reaper forces at Earth alone outnumber the entire allied fleet assembled by Shepard and even that is merely a fraction of their forces. What we are talking about here is controlling possibly trillions of minds.[/quote]
Where are you going with this? Unless you're assuming a lot of stuff about the details of how Control works, this is meaningless.
[quote]Control - The Illusive Man's Folly
[...][/quote]
Sorry, what? What are you trying to say here, exactly? Your argument, if any seems rather dubious.
[quote]Never mind the fact that Shepard is not an organic-synthetic hybrid himself. I believe EDI, Liara (if romanced) and Doctor Chakwas dismiss this notion[/quote]
Their opinion is completely irrelevant.
[quote]Synthesis is submission to the Reapers[/quote]
No. You have shown that synthesis is somewhat similar to Saren's philosophy of submission, but this does not mean it's identical.
[quote] It’s quite the gamble considering the option to destroy the Reapers and guarantee victory is right there.[/quote]
Incorrect. You have to assume that Star Child's instructions are accurate (i.e. that shooting the tube triggers Destruction, jumping into the beam triggers Synthesis, etc). This is because they had bet everything on the Crucible fixing things and would have lost without Star Child's intervention. Shepard is bleeding to death and everyone is dying. If Star Child is lying about the mechanism, your dead anyway, so you might just as well assume that he's not.

[quote]Hallelujah!!! What a wonderfully packaged Deus Ex Machina. Obviously this better that destroying the reapers, right? And if this is too much for you there is always Control. They are both better choices than destroy after all. It’s no brainer, right? [/quote]
Yes, it's quite possible that Star Child is trying to deceive us. I certainly think so.
[quote]Yeah, because your brain has been rotted by indoctrination.[/quote]
No. Indoctrination has nothing to do with it per se - you don't have to convince Shepard to not destroy the Reapers if he was indoctrinated.

I am starting to wonder if you have a hidden agenda...

[quote]The Catalyst is a Deceiver and a Manipulator[/quote]
Sorry, but that's just speculation (and a bit of sophistry)

[quote]The Catalyst is quick to point out the negatives of using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers. It then goes on to paint a picture of roses and butterflies to describe an attempt to control the reapers or synthesize all life in the galaxy. The Reapers clearly want Synthesis over Control and states they wouldn't look forward to Shepard taking control to give the impression it's something they don't want Shepard to attempt. The previous encounter with an indoctrinated TIM shows they did want Shepard to consider it. But boy do they want Synthesis, the Grand Deus Ex Machina. And of course the player, now focusing more on doing the reaper's social studies assignment instead of destroying a terribly gruesome heartless sadistic enemy, is seeing things through reaper goggles. Now the focus is fixing some asserted galactic crisis that isn't evident while the only real crisis is right in front of you. The writer's intent is that the player will lose sight of the ball.[/quote]
Yes, I can agree with that. I am not entirely sure how it actually *follows* from the preceding posts, but never mind that.
[quote]If Control and Synthesis ended like the Refusal Ending or had a Critical Failure message at the end it would invalidate them for the player[/quote]
Oh dear. And you were doing so well.

That is a meta concern. It has no place in this discussion. Regardless of the motivation, you get an epilogue and a "Buy more DLC" message - that is clearly not Shepard's view any more but the (very overused) omniscient viewpoint. Arguing that this is, in fact, a Matrix-esque simulation in a scenario where the Reapers actually won and everyone's dead is just silly.

And yet again, your privileging the hypothesis - you're checking that it's consistent with what you observed (if Shepard was indoctrinated, then the Reapers would fake a "Buy more DLC" message - check) and conclude that Shepard must therefore be indoctrinated. [/quote]


Oh shut up. You have no imagination, and to hell with you if you want to act that why to a person who is not forceing you to believe. And saying IT is bad writing. You have no idea what Bioware could do to IT if they go with it. But you and many others are just a**holes to them because it's not what you wanted, well nor did we, but we are speculating like Bioware said to do. We are here, and we asked Bioware to tell us yes and no, but you know what we got, Speculate, and it's a Valid Possibility for the endings.

[zambot]

masster blaster wrote...

Well let me say this. Why the hell does the Catalyst turn off the Crucible. Why the hell does Liara not mention Shepard at all to the next cycle. You would think she would tell the next cycle about Shepard. And don't say it's bad writing. because we have evidence to back up this.

It is implied that Liara mentioned Shepard, otherwise, how would the new Stargazers know who "The Shepard" was?  While there are several instances of bad writing, this is not one.

Also Shepard does sh**. He lets teh Catalyst roll all over him/her, and Shepard shuts up after the Catalyst tells Shepard So BE IT in a Reaper voice. So in refuse Shepard is not willing to go the extra mile to wake up, hence Destroy with high EMS, higher than Synthesis he/she wakes up.

Maybe your Shepard gave up.  My Shepard and the entire galaxy went down fighting.

Also not once did Hackett mention Shepard, not once did he say thanks to Commander Shepard we have a future, but in Control, and Synthesis they do.

So what? 

The way I see it. In Synthesis you give the Reapers self being like the catalyst said. " Everything you are will be sent out...."

Well I think it's a reaper uprade, to use Shepards personality to complete them as one.

I'm glad that's how you see it and that it works for you.  It is not how I see it.

[DoomsdayDevice]

With all due respect to the OP, all of this is exactly what IT is about. Despite some of you having misconceptions of IT being just about silly plot-hole details, no, this kind of analysis is exactly what IT is about. Sure, we try to find other clues in the game, but the whole idea of IT is derived from analyzing the story/lore of the ME games with respect to the ending, just like the OP does.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:20 .

[masster blaster]

zambot wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Well let me say this. Why the hell does the Catalyst turn off the Crucible. Why the hell does Liara not mention Shepard at all to the next cycle. You would think she would tell the next cycle about Shepard. And don't say it's bad writing. because we have evidence to back up this.

It is implied that Liara mentioned Shepard, otherwise, how would the new Stargazers know who "The Shepard" was?  While there are several instances of bad writing, this is not one.

Also Shepard does sh**. He lets teh Catalyst roll all over him/her, and Shepard shuts up after the Catalyst tells Shepard So BE IT in a Reaper voice. So in refuse Shepard is not willing to go the extra mile to wake up, hence Destroy with high EMS, higher than Synthesis he/she wakes up.

Maybe your Shepard gave up.  My Shepard and the entire galaxy went down fighting.

Also not once did Hackett mention Shepard, not once did he say thanks to Commander Shepard we have a future, but in Control, and Synthesis they do.

So what? 

The way I see it. In Synthesis you give the Reapers self being like the catalyst said. " Everything you are will be sent out...."

Well I think it's a reaper uprade, to use Shepards personality to complete them as one.

I'm glad that's how you see it and that it works for you.  It is not how I see it.

Oh so your Shepard just did noting after he/she saw the Reaper blow up that Alliance ship. Went down fighting my ***. Shepard let everyone die, and guess what by refuseing the Catalyst you believe that they Catalyst is right with all of his BS about Control, ans Synthesis. And I like to point ouw why is the Breath scene only for Destroy if you have high EMS, if Shepard was not going to die, then why his Shepard alive at all.

If you want to talk more go to the new IT thread and we will talk there. i don't want to have the op thread turn into a agrument battle.

[masster blaster]

Hey and you all want to now something we spent our time for 4 and a 1/2 months going through every little detail of ME3, and we have went through everything that is mass Effect, and Biowares comments. So all I am asking, is that **** up, and look at all the evidence we have on IT, that can just blow the bad writing crap out of the water.

[zambot]

masster blaster wrote...

Oh so your Shepard just did noting after he/she saw the Reaper blow up that Alliance ship. Went down fighting my ***. Shepard let everyone die, and guess what by refuseing the Catalyst you believe that they Catalyst is right with all of his BS about Control, ans Synthesis. And I like to point ouw why is the Breath scene only for Destroy if you have high EMS, if Shepard was not going to die, then why his Shepard alive at all.

Sorry, what?  That did not make much sense.  By refusing the Catalyst I believe that he is right about Control ans Synthesis?

If you want to talk more go to the new IT thread and we will talk there. i don't want to have the op thread turn into a agrument battle.

No thanks.  I have no desire to be burned at the stake.

Modifié par zambot, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:27 .

[SubAstris]

masster blaster wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

I am not saying it's going to be IT

There's not really a "going to be" about it, BW have said that's it, no more ending DLC. So if you believe in IT, you don't get an ending. Rather simple (I know people so desperately don't want this to happen but the evidence is not in ya favour)

Oh will you just stop. Bioware has said a lot of things, but they plan out f****** lie Subartris. That's what they paid to do. And for the last time I asked, and so many of us asked Bioware please tell us it's right or wrong, but no they say speculate. And that's what the hell we are doing, instead of saying it's not going to happen, and it's bad writing. Lame *** speculations if you ask me why the hell are you still here? I know why, but do you. If you know they will not go with IT, then why do you go to the IT thread, why do any of the things you have done on for IT, and for the people who call ME3 bad writing.

Of course they are not going to say outright it's right or wrong, that would be stupid. That doesn't however mean there's going to be any more ending DLC, not everything is a conspiracy.

[masster blaster]

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

I am not saying it's going to be IT

There's not really a "going to be" about it, BW have said that's it, no more ending DLC. So if you believe in IT, you don't get an ending. Rather simple (I know people so desperately don't want this to happen but the evidence is not in ya favour)

Oh will you just stop. Bioware has said a lot of things, but they plan out f****** lie Subartris. That's what they paid to do. And for the last time I asked, and so many of us asked Bioware please tell us it's right or wrong, but no they say speculate. And that's what the hell we are doing, instead of saying it's not going to happen, and it's bad writing. Lame *** speculations if you ask me why the hell are you still here? I know why, but do you. If you know they will not go with IT, then why do you go to the IT thread, why do any of the things you have done on for IT, and for the people who call ME3 bad writing.

Of course they are not going to say outright it's right or wrong, that would be stupid. That doesn't however mean there's going to be any more ending DLC, not everything is a conspiracy.

But you of all people should not Bioware lies, and one minute they say no canon ending, but the next minute no Comment. Either way Bioware is going to have to take charge and tell everyone what is the truth, and what's not because if they don't nobody in there right mind is going to buy there games. Unless they tell us what the hell happened, yet that is why they want us to speculate.

[masster blaster]

zambot wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Oh so your Shepard just did noting after he/she saw the Reaper blow up that Alliance ship. Went down fighting my ***. Shepard let everyone die, and guess what by refuseing the Catalyst you believe that they Catalyst is right with all of his BS about Control, ans Synthesis. And I like to point ouw why is the Breath scene only for Destroy if you have high EMS, if Shepard was not going to die, then why his Shepard alive at all.

Sorry, what?  That did not make much sense.  By refusing the Catalyst I believe that he is right about Control ans Synthesis?

If you want to talk more go to the new IT thread and we will talk there. i don't want to have the op thread turn into a agrument battle.

No thanks.  I have no desire to be burned at the stake.

You see that's just it. Oh no thanks I don't. oh shut up. If you are that afrid then you should no that the OP is an ITer, and you are lucky that the ITers are not here right now, because if you read the other post on this thread there are. And I have no desire to listen to a person that won't give IT a try, as well as you say this is what we have and deal with it.

[ediskrad327]

are YOU Indoctrinated?

[masster blaster]

ediskrad327 wrote...

are YOU Indoctrinated?

But are you. I am and so is the Op, but are you read his post, or just don't, and if you are here to say IT is bad writing. Please get out. If not then fill free to talk with the Op, and ask what you want to know.

[zambot]

masster blaster wrote...

zambot wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Oh so your Shepard just did noting after he/she saw the Reaper blow up that Alliance ship. Went down fighting my ***. Shepard let everyone die, and guess what by refuseing the Catalyst you believe that they Catalyst is right with all of his BS about Control, ans Synthesis. And I like to point ouw why is the Breath scene only for Destroy if you have high EMS, if Shepard was not going to die, then why his Shepard alive at all.

Sorry, what?  That did not make much sense.  By refusing the Catalyst I believe that he is right about Control ans Synthesis?

If you want to talk more go to the new IT thread and we will talk there. i don't want to have the op thread turn into a agrument battle.

No thanks.  I have no desire to be burned at the stake.

You see that's just it. Oh no thanks I don't. oh shut up. If you are that afrid then you should no that the OP is an ITer, and you are lucky that the ITers are not here right now, because if you read the other post on this thread there are. And I have no desire to listen to a person that won't give IT a try, as well as you say this is what we have and deal with it.

I read IT watched the videos and questioned the fact that it did not provide an adequate ending to the trilogy.  I was called a troll and a bunch of other names, but no one has yet to explain how ME3 can be "over" in the context of IT.  I have therefore decided that it is best to let the ITers talk about IT in their thread and leave them be.  If it helps them make sense of the ending that's fine.

But if an ITer posts outside that thread and claims my choice "lost the game" while theirs "wins", that's an invitation for a "discussion".

So if you do not like my discussion about Twilight God's theory, then just ignore me.

[ShepnTali]

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

are YOU Indoctrinated?

But are you. I am and so is the Op, but are you read his post, or just don't, and if you are here to say IT is bad writing. Please get out. If not then fill free to talk with the Op, and ask what you want to know.

Hey, I'm IT friendly whether I agree with any of it or not, but you're getting obnoxiosly pushy.

[masster blaster]

ShepnTali wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

are YOU Indoctrinated?

But are you. I am and so is the Op, but are you read his post, or just don't, and if you are here to say IT is bad writing. Please get out. If not then fill free to talk with the Op, and ask what you want to know.

Hey, I'm IT friendly whether I agree with any of it or not, but you're getting obnoxiosly pushy.

Sorry I didn't mean to be that why but I am sick of always letting them troll with the ITERs, and calling us cults and Zealots, and much more stuff. So yes I should not act pushy, but Somebody ahs to tell them something, or they will think they can do what ever they want. And I am not calling them trolls, but if they are here on an IT thread, then why even come here if they hate IT, or hate the endings/ME3 all together.

[ediskrad327]

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

are YOU Indoctrinated?

But are you. I am and so is the Op, but are you read his post, or just don't, and if you are here to say IT is bad writing. Please get out. If not then fill free to talk with the Op, and ask what you want to know.

not saying it's bad writing, just a fan speculation, nothing more

[masster blaster]

zambot wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

zambot wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Oh so your Shepard just did noting after he/she saw the Reaper blow up that Alliance ship. Went down fighting my ***. Shepard let everyone die, and guess what by refuseing the Catalyst you believe that they Catalyst is right with all of his BS about Control, ans Synthesis. And I like to point ouw why is the Breath scene only for Destroy if you have high EMS, if Shepard was not going to die, then why his Shepard alive at all.

Sorry, what?  That did not make much sense.  By refusing the Catalyst I believe that he is right about Control ans Synthesis?

If you want to talk more go to the new IT thread and we will talk there. i don't want to have the op thread turn into a agrument battle.

No thanks.  I have no desire to be burned at the stake.

You see that's just it. Oh no thanks I don't. oh shut up. If you are that afrid then you should no that the OP is an ITer, and you are lucky that the ITers are not here right now, because if you read the other post on this thread there are. And I have no desire to listen to a person that won't give IT a try, as well as you say this is what we have and deal with it.

I read IT watched the videos and questioned the fact that it did not provide an adequate ending to the trilogy.  I was called a troll and a bunch of other names, but no one has yet to explain how ME3 can be "over" in the context of IT.  I have therefore decided that it is best to let the ITers talk about IT in their thread and leave them be.  If it helps them make sense of the ending that's fine.

But if an ITer posts outside that thread and claims my choice "lost the game" while theirs "wins", that's an invitation for a "discussion".

So if you do not like my discussion about Twilight God's theory, then just ignore me.

I get where you are coming from, but we have been called far worser than trolls. We have been called cults Zealots, nut jobs people who should just burn in hell, and more. So sorry if I ir anyone has ever called you that, but we have been called the same things as you are.

Believe it or not I tried at on point tried to unite the theorys as one, the Iters thought I was crazy, yet some didn't, while the non Iters ( Not including you) were like you are F****** crazy if you think we will do this. But some wanted IT to be intertwind with the endings.

[masster blaster]

ediskrad327 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

are YOU Indoctrinated?

But are you. I am and so is the Op, but are you read his post, or just don't, and if you are here to say IT is bad writing. Please get out. If not then fill free to talk with the Op, and ask what you want to know.

not saying it's bad writing, just a fan speculation, nothing more

But Bioware already said it's not fan speculation. They said IT has a vaild possiblility to the endings, and many of the stuff they had at the end where fact intentinal, and some things were ment to be taken as symbolism.

[ediskrad327]

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

are YOU Indoctrinated?

But are you. I am and so is the Op, but are you read his post, or just don't, and if you are here to say IT is bad writing. Please get out. If not then fill free to talk with the Op, and ask what you want to know.

not saying it's bad writing, just a fan speculation, nothing more

But Bioware already said it's not fan speculation. They said IT has a vaild possiblility to the endings, and many of the stuff they had at the end where fact intentinal, and some things were ment to be taken as symbolism.

of course they did. denying it would only start another storm so bette leave people believe in it if they wish.

[masster blaster]

ediskrad327 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

are YOU Indoctrinated?

But are you. I am and so is the Op, but are you read his post, or just don't, and if you are here to say IT is bad writing. Please get out. If not then fill free to talk with the Op, and ask what you want to know.

not saying it's bad writing, just a fan speculation, nothing more

But Bioware already said it's not fan speculation. They said IT has a vaild possiblility to the endings, and many of the stuff they had at the end where fact intentinal, and some things were ment to be taken as symbolism.

of course they did. denying it would only start another storm so bette leave people believe in it if they wish.

Well we asked Bioware if we are wrong, but they said speculate and IT is valid. We have been actually takeing apon our selfs and going back, and finding everything we can from ME1-ME3, to the comics, to Biowares talks about ME, and everything else that can help IT. If Bioware wanted us to be gone then we should have been gone 4 months ago. We are still here even though there was a thread on this forum that wanted to move IT to fan made theory forum, but they said no.

[alienatedflea]

The Twilight God wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

destroy was the only option we had in the beginning...crucible changed that...and No, I am not indoctrinated...you damn ITers...that $h!t isnt real...

Yeah, it was real. You really were indoctrinated at that last moment. It's a perfectly understandable ending and believable given the ME lore. There is nothing inconsistent with an indoctrinated endings. It's actually pretty clever as the indoctrinated endings are satisfying regardless of the circumstances.

lol Yet EC disproves your assertion...the powerpoints that show Mass Effect Galaxy post reapers nullifies IT...in whatever ending you choose the galaxy is in a better place for the decision you make...no indoctrination required to see that we all get a happier ending...

[LaZy i IS]

Whilst I'm getting sick of "this is why I am right" threads, at least this was an interesting read. If you're right, it would make sense that the destroy option requires you to destroy the power conduit on the "CSD", to disable it.
One thing, the Crucible doesn't seem "little more than a power source", since it has it's own processing capabilities. Using the Human Reaper's brain increases it, making control easier.

Edit:

alienatedflea wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

destroy was the only option we had in the beginning...crucible changed that...and No, I am not indoctrinated...you damn ITers...that $h!t isnt real...

Yeah, it was real. You really were indoctrinated at that last moment. It's a perfectly understandable ending and believable given the ME lore. There is nothing inconsistent with an indoctrinated endings. It's actually pretty clever as the indoctrinated endings are satisfying regardless of the circumstances.

lol Yet EC disproves your assertion...the powerpoints that show Mass Effect Galaxy post reapers nullifies IT...in whatever ending you choose the galaxy is in a better place for the decision you make...no indoctrination required to see that we all get a happier ending...

 

In fairness, it doesn't even necessarily have to be indoctrination at all, the Starchild could just be outright lying to you.
Either way, speculations. It's what BioWare wanted. 

Modifié par LaZy i IS, 01 août 2012 - 12:19 .

[masster blaster]

alienatedflea wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

destroy was the only option we had in the beginning...crucible changed that...and No, I am not indoctrinated...you damn ITers...that $h!t isnt real...

Yeah, it was real. You really were indoctrinated at that last moment. It's a perfectly understandable ending and believable given the ME lore. There is nothing inconsistent with an indoctrinated endings. It's actually pretty clever as the indoctrinated endings are satisfying regardless of the circumstances.

lol Yet EC disproves your assertion...the powerpoints that show Mass Effect Galaxy post reapers nullifies IT...in whatever ending you choose the galaxy is in a better place for the decision you make...no indoctrination required to see that we all get a happier ending...

So does the stargazer not telling the boy that there is another story about Shepard. So more on the way and it can't be the endings as they are because they are done, but he is not saying dlc wises, but how it all ended,

[SMichelle]

Arian Dynas wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

destroy was the only option we had in the beginning...crucible changed that...and No, I am not indoctrinated...you damn ITers...that $h!t isnt real...

Shh....shh...it will be okay.  The ITers can't hurt you here.  This is a safe place. 

We don't like or want to hurt people.

Really, this just kills me.

We're not a cult, we're not a religion, we aren't some bunch of crazy conspiracy fanatics who think the government is putting mind control drugs into the water.

We're a bunch of people who looked at some weird **** going on in a videogame and thought "Hey, something ain't right here. I wonder why. Maybe it's like Inception?"

I think you missed my . I was joking as alienatedflea seemed so upset over ITers. I really don't care what other people believe or their ending choice. If you believe in IT or not, if you chose destroy or not - it doesn't affect me or my choices.

Furthermore, who cares if other people disagree with you? How does that affect your ME experience?

Seriously, you may need to lighten up a little.

[The Twilight God]

zambot wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

zambot wrote...

This is exactly why it is a good thing to finish the game with a low EMS and destroy the reaper base in ME2. If you actually accomplish very little, the StarKid only gives you the option to win the game.

Wait, what?

This ^

Win the game??? LOL

"Your Crucible device is severely damaged. The energy it releases will destroy the relays, creating a chain reaction that will be unpredictable and devastating. Al technology and those that depend on synthetic technology for their survival, will be lost. Yourself included. Your ships weapons... even the relays will be destroyed. Your worlds will be in ruin. Few organics will survive the blast. Fewer still wil survive the days to come."

This isn't just space faring species. This is everything within range of a relay's crucible blastwave. This is a possible total galactic extinction event. Worst than what the reapers are doing now. This isn't winning anything. This is them trying to talk your dumb ass out of it.

It's a plea for Refusal. Which is now the better ending of the two.


What you are saying is why not make an entire new ending completely seperate where shepard walks in, looks around, calls up Hackett, has EDI do scans and after a certain amount of time final decide to blow the thing suppressing the Crucible from arming. Then have the Star Child come out to plea for you to not do it with completely unique dialog. To basically make a completely new scene. All for some ending that less than 1% of the population would ever see because the only peole doing this are doing it on purpose to post of Youtube or for lawlz. Umm, no. I'd sure as well wouldn't waste extra time devising a whole new screenplay for this. 

Then why does the Catalyst even drag you up there? If there's only one option that goes directly against his goals, as you say, then why give Shepard the chance to choose it?

It doesn't drag him up there. Seems he hit the right button before he collapsed. It angrily asks him, "what are you doing here?"

This is one of the bigger weaknesses in your interpretation, and indeed with most ITs.  They seem pretty well thought out when you look at all the choices together, but tend to break down when presented with the lesser EMS options.  As I see it above, the defense you have presented for low EMS destroy in the context of indoctrination are:

a. Refusal is better
b. Reapers suddenly become good guys and try to talk you out of it
c. Bioware (despite intricately placing IT clues throughout the story decided it wasn't worth spending time on this option.

If that works for you, great.  That's not terribly convincing to me.

A. Total galactic extinct vs space-faring extinction only. Yeah, I personally think the latter isn't as bad.
B. Not good guys. Just the better of two evils.
C. When have I ever said anything aboutplacing clues all throughout the story. The only thing I've ever brought up is a suspicion that the boy never existed and the dreams with oily shadows are reapers in Shepard's head. I don't know what other clues you are referring to. But if 3 dream sequences. constitute "intricately placing IT clues throughout the story" then we'll have to disagree.

Which is why I don't like the IT label being thrown on anything that involves the word "indoctrination". "IT" means different things to different people. People come to this thread arguing about rather it was a dream. I never said any such thing. That's somebody else's idea from some other thread.

[The Twilight God]

zambot wrote...

While I think synthesis is silly space magic, I do believe I've grasped the writers' intent, and I don't think you do. 

I don't care about intent. I only care about what was written.

zambot wrote...

Synthesis does end with a sacrifice: the life of Shepard.  Shepard (the great unifier of the galaxy if you're a paragon) finally has the chance to complete the ultimate act of unification, by brokering peace between the reapers and everyone else.  In order to do that (s)he has to sacrifice him/herself completely. 

 

Yeah, and he sacrifices himself in Destroy as well. So that cancels out. And it's just one guy vs an entire species. Sorry, but control and synthesis Shepard don't make the hard choice. They take the easy way. The indoctrinated way.

I picked destroy expecting to die. And for all intents and purposes I did. Shepard's story ends in the Catalyst Chamber for ALL endings. So I got no "reward" for destroy. I had to kill a friend and wipe out an entire race. You didn't have to make any hard decision.

zambot wrote...

Silly in execution?  Yes.  But it is thematically consistent with what Shepard has been doing all along.  

Agreed. The possibility of falling victim to indoctrination is consistent with what shepard has been through.