1238 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

KevShep wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So in this interpretation, what happens after you choose Destroy is all real but Control/Synthesis is only an illusion in Shep's mind (or more appropriately, a twist of what's really happening in real life)?

I think that's pretty much what the OP is trying to say.

Debating is fine and all but the OP is being obnoxiously pushy with his "I'm right, you're wrong" posts.

Like when I said the Catalyst doesn't look forward to control to which the OP replies he is flat out lying to make it more appealing. How can I argue  and debate against this kind of headcanon? 

The OP's other points in the whole statment make it evidence that the catalyst is lying about being replaced.

And I pointed out that the Star Child controls the on and off switch for Control. If it doesn't want control it doesn;t have to activate it. Notice he ignores this and keeps pusing his failed assertion?

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So in this interpretation, what happens after you choose Destroy is all real but Control/Synthesis is only an illusion in Shep's mind (or more appropriately, a twist of what's really happening in real life)?

I think that's pretty much what the OP is trying to say.

Debating is fine and all but the OP is being obnoxiously pushy with his "I'm right, you're wrong" posts.

Like when I said the Catalyst doesn't look forward to control to which the OP replies he is flat out lying to make it more appealing. How can I argue  and debate against this kind of headcanon? 

The OP's other points in the whole statment make it evidence that the catalyst is lying about being replaced.

Not evidence. Interpretation. Learn the difference. Evidence would mean undeniable fact. The only thing that would make it undeniable fact that the catalyst was lying is if Bioware flat out said he was lying. As of yet, they haven't. So currently it's all a mix of interpretation and head canon.

The Catalyst can turn it on and off at will. This is shown in-game. It happens. You saw it. I saw it. Fact.

Deal with it. If you're going to dismiss everything you don't like by stating Bioware didn't make an offical statement on it then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion but more crying. Please go cry elsewhere. If you can;t handle that your perfect ending wasn't perfect this thread isn't going to make you feel any better. You're torturing yourself trying to dismiss facts.

[The Twilight God]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

You. Do. Not. Know. This. This is not in the game. This is not in the books. Thus, you are inventing facts.

Yes. I. Do. know. this.  shepard never directly interacts with the Crucible or any console to get it to armed in destroy. Fact. No on button. Fact.

Explain how I am wrong. Put up or GTFO.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

You're missing the point here, which is that you don't have a clue about how hypothesis testing works.

There are two conflicting hypothesis:
a) "Indoctrination theory" : Ending is just a hallucination
Ending is real, but the writers screwed up with the details

C) Ending is real and the writters knew what they were doing.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Yes, you're trying to patch up a logical non-sequitur (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premise) by handwaving.

Yeah, I'm sure Saren was an expert in reaperized synthesis and created his own version being the synthesis expert that he was. He had his own plans while under the effects of indoctrinated counter to Soveriegn's. Gotcha.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Sorry, I had assumed that you would realise that shooting a tube of unknown function in a space station of unknown design is equally suicidal.

No, shooting a tube is shoot a tube. Especually in a place where a giant reaper leg can crash through a building and not vent the atmosphere.  Jumping into a laser beam or live electrical wires and watching myself disintegrate... ttwo different categories. But nice try though. Get's a 7/10 on my "are you cereal?" meter.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

No. The *Catalyst* is needed for the Crucible to work. You have no basis for the claim that Star Child is not needed. That is not in the game. It's not in the book. You are inventing facts again.Etc,

No, the Crucible was around before being adapted to use the Citadel. The Crucible needs the Citadel to transfer the energy to the whole galaxy. It needs the relay network. It could theoretically work by itself, but it could only affect a relatively small area. Both the Citadel and the Crucible make the full package.

The star child is unnecessary.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 03 août 2012 - 04:54 .

[The Twilight God]

Subguy614 wrote...

No. The *Catalyst* is needed for the Crucible to work. You have no basis for the claim that Star Child is not needed. That is not in the game. It's not in the book. You are inventing facts again.

The basis is that not one of the creatures that worked on the Crucible or adapted it to be used with the Citadel was even AWARE of the star child's existance.---> How can something be made to "need" something that for the designers doesn't exist???

And who makes an anti-reaper device that need the reapers to sign off on it in order to work???

[KevShep]

The Twilight God wrote...

Subguy614 wrote...

No. The *Catalyst* is needed for the Crucible to work. You have no basis for the claim that Star Child is not needed. That is not in the game. It's not in the book. You are inventing facts again.

The basis is that not one of the creatures that worked on the Crucible or adapted it to be used with the Citadel was even AWARE of the star child's existance.---> How can something be made to "need" something that for the designers doesn't exist???

And who makes an anti-reaper device that need the reapers to sign off on it in order to work???

Exactly^!

Ive found it strange that all three choices are on the citadel side and not on the crucible side if it is true that the crucible was made solely by organics.

Modifié par KevShep, 02 août 2012 - 12:43 .

[The Twilight God]

Edited the first post and added some stuff to the bottom in response to certain comments.

[clennon8]

You know, you've almost got me believing again, OP. Everything you say fits, and makes a heck of a lot more sense than accepting Control and Synthesis as "winning" endings.

[Jere85]

Very nice post OP, I never stopped believing IT, but it helps alot to get this sort of boost

[teh DRUMPf!!]

[quote]The Twilight God wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...


Oi! Obviously I meant Shepard is being stupid in that moment, not in general.

Refusal Shepard wants to stop the Reapers as he clearly states, he just doesn't want to do it through the Crucible. For what reasons? That's up for interpretation, but they're not limited to indoctrination.[/quote]

Shepard doesn't have a choice, but to use the Crucible. He knew that before he even went in. That entire operation: Sword, Crucible, Shield, Hammer - everything - was done because he knows for a fact that conventional victory is not possible. There is nothing he has witnessed in the war to counter this fact. Sorry, but what you propose is beyond stupid. Stupid is putting it lightly. The entire game is based around the fact that the Crucible is your only hope. I don't know how else to say this, but what you propose is simply contradictory to the enter game. The refual dialog is basic Shepard saying "I'm gonna get us all killed *derp*, but I'm gonna die free *d-derp-d-durrr*". Thing is, he has the option to LIVE free. There is no way a non-indoctrinated Shepard could make that choice. No way, no how. Period.

You think Shepard is just a ******. Fine. I'm not really interested in discussing the SST. It's like arguing with someone claiming ice is hot.[/quote]

Sheesh, do I really need to repeat myself?

Lucky for you I'm feeling mellow enough to keep at this without being combative.

No, I'm not saying Shepard is just a ******. Kinda hard to be one when you're an RPG PC.

What I am saying is that in Refuse he is being one. The same way he is being stupid when he releases Grunt from the tank in tight quarters whilst taking no precautions, aside from apparently having brought the whimpiest gun in the armory. There are times when the player makes him do things which are intelligent. And others, not so much.

What I'm saying is really not that complex or hard to understand.


[quote]They give 2 options. 1 was always the goal from the get go.

Refusla doesn;t have to be brought up. It is essential the crushing of Shepards will. If isn't deceived via indoctrination. He is utterly crushed by it. He is defeated. In Control and Synthesis he at least thinks he's doing something good. He's not so far gone that he knowingly dooms everyone.[/quote]

H-E-A-D-C-A-N-O-N.


[quote][quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

What proof do we have that Shepard decides not to use the Crucible because he's indoctrinated? [/quote]

The fact that he didn't use it and purposely dooms the galactic community.[/quote]

No, that's not proof at all.

AT ALL.

It's your singular interpretation of why he's choosing it. There is nothing to indicate he's indoctrinated.

Like, you know, when TIM was trying to indoctrinate him and there were audible voices inside his head. What ever happened to that? What about him seeing visions that he were actively receiving through some piece of Reaper tech like in Arrival DLC?

See, that would be evidence.



[quote][quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

What proof do we have that it's the Catalyst's idea? [/quote]

He's indoctrinated. Ergo, it is the Catalyst's desire.[/quote]

Except we haven't prove soundly that he's indoctrinated. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

Going by that logic, the Catalyst desires Destroy. But you're not making that claim.


[quote][quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

What proof do we have that Shepard came up with the idea on his own? [/quote]

None.[/quote]

Well there's the whole part where he comes up with the idea without it being prompted to him by the collective intelligence of the Reapers.


[quote]
[quote]If he's indoctrinated, why are we no longer hearing voices inside his head as we did when TIM was trying to control him?[/quote]The Catalyst is the voice in his head. It took the form of that boy because.... ta-da it's in his head. That is how the reapers were communicating.[/quote]

For the umpteenth time, you're speculating. There is 0 fact behind these claims.

And now you're insinuating something that doesn't even agree with your own argument. Apparently, the Catalyst is the Reapers' voices inside Shepard's head. Great, but what does that mean for Shepard's decision not to use the Crucible? Up to that point, the Catalyst does/says nothing to push him towards it, he never brings it up as a possibility. So how did the Reapers make him think it?


[quote]TIM wasn't mind controlling Shepard. He was physically controlling him. Two different things. Shep and Anderson were both vivid and aware and still held their convictions. I honestly don't get what TIM was doing as that form of control has never been present in ME before that moment.[/quote]

Uh, what?? Now I'm really convinced you don't get how indoctrination works.

It's not instantaneous, it's a slow process. TIM has part of their minds under his control, but not all of it, they can still fight it. My proof? The fact we've seen this phenomenon before: Benezia, Saren, Rila (Samara's daughter).

The fact your interpretation about this part doesn't make sense even to you should give you pause.

[quote][quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Also, if the catalyst is there to deceive, and making you not use the Crucible is one of his goals, why does he not try to... you know... actually deceive you into doing that? Like, "the Crucible is not sufficiently powerful enough to destroy all of us. You need to find another way. Trust me." - ?[/quote]

It's too blatant. That's not deception or maipulation. that would be brazzen stupidity on the part of the Catalyst. If the reapers show up and say "Um, just turn back. The Crucible ain't here." How would the player react? What would you dialog options be? "Derp, OK" and "Out of my way, liar!!" They have to trick the player in order to indoctrinate Shepard.[/quote]

That's pretty much the entire point. For one to reasonably be suspicious, there should be something fishy about the situation at hand. There isn't, not in the current ending. He's flat-out given you an option to Destroy them, when he clearly doesn't like it. He actually does not advocate Control either, he only approves of Synthesis. And yet, you get these options alongside Synthesis.

This while he holds all the power. If you believe refusal is an indoctrinated path, it begs the question why the decision isn't Synthesis-or-die. Literally, he can force him to choose either the change he wants or uphold the status quo where the Reapers reign supreme, and Shepard could do nothing about it.


[quote][quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's laden with Collector tech you can use against them, or uncover valuable information as to how to exploit them. (TIM in ME2: "Information is my weapon, Shepard.")[/quote]

Collector tech, huh? Like the cruiser class collector ship the Normandy frigate butt raped?[/quote][/quote]

It's only butt-raped it if you install the Thanix Cannon. Which was created from remnants of Sovereign. Let me reiterate: pieces of broken Reaper allowed you to innovate a weapon used to fight them.

Given that, there is no logical reason to believe the Collector Base can't give you anything of value. It has the same thing as the remains of Sovereign, and more.


[quote]Collector = prothean.[/quote]

They are not Prothean. They are Reaper-upgraded Protheans. That alone makes them entirely different.

Studying Collectors = studying Reapers/Reaper tech. Unless you believe Harbinger could just assume direct control of any ordinary Prothean and give him untold power attacks and fortification.

[quote]Prothean tech is not going to beat the reapers. Didn't then, isn't now.[/quote]

It seems you missed the parts where the Protheans made everything possible.

Like, rewriting the keepers. Like, the VI on Thessia that gives information. Like, the Crucible itself (that was worked on by many civilization that didn't beat the Reapers, but doesn't lessen it's value).

Javik on Thessia: "No species has enough time to 'earn *it.' The Reapers always destroy them. Without our knowledge, you would have no hope of winning this war."

*it = technological advancement and knowledge.


[quote]Cerberus had an actual reaper and what good did it do them in finding a Reaper weakness? What great knowledge did they acquire?[/quote]

They figured out how to make indoctrination work for them, in their favor. They used that to create an army, and used the other tech to make them more lethal than trained Alliance soldiers.

They just used it for the wrong reasons because TIM was indoctrinated, but that doesn't take away from what they learned being invaluable to be used against the Reapers. If you think otherwise, the Reapers don't agree with you. They attacked Sanctuary facility because it posed a threat to them. Hackett doesn't agree with you either, he says it's useful intel, even if the cost was too high (nobody is questioning the ethics, it was wrong).


[quote][quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

And this isn't even an argument. The remnants of the Collector Base or the intact Reaper brain was used in the construction of the Crucible to defeat the Reapers. It is a canon weapon.[/quote]

It''s a processor or a addtional power core. The player has no input as to rather or not it goes into the Crucible. But seeing that either or would go in, and both being different types of hardware, neither one can be that crucial. The only situation in which they matter is a lose-lose situation.[/quote]

You can downplay it all you want, doesn't change the fact it played a part in the construction of the weapon that beat the Reapers. It's canon.

And that's what many people don't get here. The themes of the game have changed. This isn't ME1 or 2. You can't be idealistic and reject things like Reaper tech because: it's the enemy's methods, we didn't earn it, it's a little bit risky. You do what you have to do.

That's why people can't make sense of the ending. Accepting the ending at face value as the reality of the situation is too hard to handle, because it's a hard decision. Fans are only used to ever making decisions on their terms and getting to have their cake and eat it. Not anymore. And that's created confused responses, such as IT.


You may be fooling these other people saying "Nice post, OP!" but you ain't fooling me.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 août 2012 - 03:37 .

[Factor P]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the ending of Mass Effect 3. After beating Mass Effect 3, I thought the conclusion to the Mass Effect series was either downright awful, or brilliantly disturbing in a way not unlike Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, only without the final reveal. With all the fuss about the endings, I would like to think "brilliantly disturbing" is the correct choice, but who knows. What I actually found most unsettling about the ending was the Stargazer scene and his talk about "The Shepard."

Thought I’d share some of my own views:

Thoughts on the Device: My thinking was that subtle interference by indoctrinated sleeper agents altered the construction of the Crucible’s functionality over millions of years, tacking on Control and Synthesis as Reaper fail-safes. This suggests that the levitating platform takes Shepard into the Crucible and that Shepard is the acting Catalyst. I agree that destruction of the Reapers was the original intended function of the Crucible, and that both Synthesis and Control are of Reaper design (as certainly both benefit their goals).

Thoughts on CONTROL: I’m not convinced that Shepard is indoctrinated in Control. Control appears to be the Paragon choice stemmed from a strong desire to not sacrifice the innocent. But this choice may be morally and logically unsound because an organic mind imprinted as AI with no biological body to influence feelings and moral judgment is ultimately corruptible. I do wonder if Shepard really becomes master controller of all Reapers as the Reaper-Child promises him in Control, or if he becomes just a Reaper avatar of the human species. Shepard as THE symbol of humanity has been a strong theme in the Mass Effect series and it makes sense that the Reapers might “preserve” a species by constructing a synthetic-organic “Reaper” body from the people (possibly retaining some form of memory or genetic memory) with a strong avatar of the people (like Shepard) set up as the Reaper’s mind (thus the human Reaper). This might also explain why the Prothean cycle was a failure; the Protheans were defeated and enslaved by the Reapers but they had no avatar mind of the people. In any case, Shepard’s dying belief in Control is that he makes the ultimate sacrifice: loss of his own humanity and corporeal form to save everyone.

Thoughts on SYNTHESIS: I agree Shepard has been indoctrinated in Synthesis. What I find most disturbing is his obvious suicide leap into the beam of light. The Synthesis ending is too idealistic and too perfect. The “perfection” of Synthesis could have been foreshadowed by TIM’s final words about Earth: "I wish you could see it like I do, Shepard... It’s so... Perfect." Earth is as perfect to TIM as Synthesis is perfect to the indoctrinated player. I also think Synthesis is the neutral choice. Throughout the series, choices made by neutral Shepard generally have the least desirable outcomes. There are several points throughout the Mass Effect series where this is made apparent, such as on Virmire where only neutral choices will result in the death of Wrex. Neutral Shepard will also lose the loyalty of either Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack in ME2 and is also easy prey for Morinth, whose strong will dominates a neutral Shepard but can easily be resisted by a very strong Paragon or Renegade Shepard.

Thoughts on DESTROY: Obvious Renegade choice and I agree this was the Crucible’s original intended function and design. Not much else to say about this.

Modifié par Factor P, 02 août 2012 - 04:09 .

[clennon8]

The thing I like about OP's theory is that it actually offers concrete explanations for things like why the apparatus is built into the Citadel (instead of the Crucible) and why it works the way it does. It actually makes sense of a lot of things that literalists are forced to hand-wave away as "bad writing."

It's all just headcanon, you say? Not any more so than "literal" interpretations are, as ironic as that may seem.

It also separates itself from the whole "It was just a dream" stigma that taints most IT conversation. It wasn't a dream. It was a straight-up con. The Reapers knew about the Crucible and set up a sting operation just in case. Did you fall for the con? Did you let the Reapers trick you into not destroying them? Is the Cycle going to continue because you lost sight of the goal? Because you couldn't pierce the veil of deception and pass the final test?

I'm still not sure I completely buy the theory, but I sure do love the idea of it. I *adore* the idea that Bioware may have succeeded in indoctrinating a significant portion of the player base. It would be a hell of a thing. And absolutely fitting. A much more fitting ending than Synthesis or Control, both of which are completely anti-thematic if not outright stupid. Really, making the ending all about indoctrination is the *perfect* way to end the Mass Effect franchise. You picked Synthesis? YOU LOST. YOU SHOULD HAVE PAID CLOSER ATTENTION DUMMY. You picked Control? YOU LOST. YOU SHOULD HAVE PAID CLOSER ATTENTION DUMMY.  Of course, if they want to maintain the illusion, they can't come right out and say those things.

Modifié par clennon8, 17 août 2012 - 12:30 .

[Genetic Destiny]

The OP brought up a lot of great points. It does seem strange that the Catalyst doesn't look forward to being replaced when TIM was trying his hardest to sell Control about 10 minutes back. TIM's obviously under reaper influence, and the Catalyst confirms it himself.

[The Twilight God]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Sheesh, do I really need to repeat myself?[/quote]
 
I know I do. Most of the stuff you keep repeatedly bringing up is covered in my original posts. You just choose to ignore it.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

No, I'm not saying Shepard is just a ******. Kinda hard to be one when you're an RPG PC.

What I am saying is that in Refuse he is being one. [/quote]
 
Right, he's just dumb as a bag of bricks there. Nice theory. Again. Not interested is discussing the Stupid Shepard Theory. "Hehe, he just had a brain fart and mistakenly forgot to hit the Destroy button" Well, that explains it. Case closed. *facepalm*
 
[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...


The same way he is being stupid when he releases Grunt from the tank in tight quarters whilst taking no precautions, aside from apparently having brought the whimpiest gun in the armory. There are times when the player makes him do things which are intelligent. And others, not so much.[/quote]
 
Shepard's a terminator by that point. That Krogan shotgun and that widow aren't ripping his arms off. I'm pretty sure you can arm wrestle grunt and give him a run for his money. He lifts steel beams by himself like they are made of foam. That krogan on Korlus didn't have to move that metal sheet. Shepard could have done it himself. Risky? Maybe, but everything Shepard does is risky. Tthe idea that he was helpless against Grunt is a gross exaggeration. He could have broke that hold at any time.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
 
What I'm saying is really not that complex or hard to understand.[/quote]
 
No, it's definitely not hard or complex in any way, shape or form.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...


Like, you know, when TIM was trying to indoctrinate him and there were audible voices inside his head. What ever happened to that? What about him seeing visions that he were actively receiving through some piece of Reaper tech like in Arrival DLC?

See, that would be evidence.[/quote]
 
TIMs "control" was not in and of itself indoctrination. He was physically controlling their bodies by a means that even the reapers have never demonstrated. What he does seems more like the biotic ability Dominate and there is even a biotic effect over his hand when he makes Shepard shoot Anderson. Assuming it's something other than dominate, what TIM does is a completely new phenomenon in the ME universe. The indoctrination, the reaper's trying to get in his head, is something different. Both can be happening simultaneously. At least at the beginning. After the first part you stop hearing the whispers (same whispers as his dreams) and then it is this electonic vibratory sounds triggered whenever TIM exerts his power.
 
As I just mentioned, and you purposely ignored, the Star Child is a voice in his head. Also, when he speaks there is an overlay of shepard's voice. At least two voices are speaking. The "voice echoes" are louder and more numerous when you have low EMS. There is no other voice speaking when TIM is doing whatever it is he is doing beyond the first moments.
 
[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Uh, what?? Now I'm really convinced you don't get how indoctrination works.

It's not instantaneous, it's a slow process. TIM has part of their minds under his control, but not all of it, they can still fight it. My proof? The fact we've seen this phenomenon before: Benezia, Saren, Rila (Samara's daughter).

The fact your interpretation about this part doesn't make sense even to you should give you pause.[/quote]


I never said it was instantaneous and you know this. If it was instantaneous he would have been indoctrinated on the Citadel when fighting Sovereign or when he came near reaper artifacts in side quests or by Object Rho, etc. Don't try another strawman again.


The Illusive Man INSTANTLY controls Shepard's body.  INSTANTLY. He didn't have to go through a "slow process" so you just put your own foot in your own mouth there. That physical control was NOT indoctrination. The indoctrination is something subtle; in the background. Not some blunt instrument like TIMs control power (dominate?).
 

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

This while he holds all the power. If you believe refusal is an indoctrinated path, it begs the question why the decision isn't Synthesis-or-die. Literally, he can force him to choose either the change he wants or uphold the status quo where the Reapers reign supreme, and Shepard could do nothing about it.[/quote]
 
Of course he can. He can shoot the tubes. He has a gun. There isn't a damn thing the Catalyst can do to stop Shepard from doing that. The only possibility where the Reapers are 100% safe is low ems and you keep the base. In that scenario it doesn't matter what you do. Control or Refusal: the reapers live either way. The Crucible is fubar'd in a way where the Reapers live no matter what. If Bioware has it act complete different in this scenario it would be the same as announcing "Hey, look!! See, the Catalyst isn't what he seems". They can't do that without overtly stating that Control and Synthesis are indoctrinated endings.  
 
Obviously the Catalyst convinced YOU that he has all the power. But then again, you're indoctrinated so.....


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's only butt-raped it if you install the Thanix Cannon. Which was created from remnants of Sovereign. Let me reiterate: pieces of broken Reaper allowed you to innovate a weapon used to fight them.[/quote]

You rape it with or without thanix cannons.

And thanix are based on reaper weapons tech. Not collector weapons tech.


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

They are not Prothean. They are Reaper-upgraded Protheans. That alone makes them entirely different.

Studying Collectors = studying Reapers/Reaper tech.

Unless you believe Harbinger could just assume direct control of any ordinary Prothean and give him untold power attacks and fortification.[/quote]

No, it doesn't. Now who is speculating. If that ship was reaper tech the Normandy wouldn't have stood a chance. It's shields would have been too strong for traditional or thanix weapons to rape it so easily. The only thing "reaper tech" is the fetus itself. And it doesn't seem to offer much cutting edge tech. It's most powerful attack can't even instant kill a guy in armor. It wasn't anywhere near completed. Collectors don't have tech, per say. They have no culture. They simply have what the protheans had and "painted it insect". The collector tech is prothean tech. It's the same beam stuff as Javik's weapon.


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

It seems you missed the parts where the Protheans made everything possible.[/quote]

And did not beat the Reapers.

You're confusing apples with oranges. Whoever came up with the Crucible... their tech helped stop the reapers. Tech passed down by several races (not just the Protheans); tech that has nothing to do with the collector base or derelict reaper.  The reaper's original species' Citadel helped stop the reapers in a sense by making the relay technology. Prothean tech, not so much. Prothean ingenuity assisted in our victory. Not their tech. And as far as that ingenuity is concerned I don't see a way to weaponize Keeper modifications to bring down a reaper ship.


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Like, rewriting the keepers. Like, the VI on Thessia that gives information. Like, the Crucible itself (that was worked on by many civilization that didn't beat the Reapers, but doesn't lessen it's value).

Javik on Thessia: "No species has enough time to 'earn *it.' The Reapers always destroy them. Without our knowledge, you would have no hope of winning this war."

*it = technological advancement and knowledge.[/quote]

More Apples and oranges. You confuse the idea of prothean tech defeating the enemy vs protheans giving warning of an enemy or passing down non-prothean tech. There is a difference. Because the Inansuson left it for the Protheans, as those before left it for them, and the Protheans lost. Prothean tech could not defeat the reapers.

It's like saying the future species in the Refusal ending defeat the Reapers because of the awesome thermal clips and conventional mass accelerator cannons. That simply is not the case. Council technology didn't win them anything. Our warnings helped prepare them, yes, but not our technology.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

They figured out how to make indoctrination work for them, in their favor. They used that to create an army, and used the other tech to make them more lethal than trained Alliance soldiers.[/quote]

Not from the Derelict Reaper. They lost contact because the team was indoctrinated and TIM abandoned the project. If you read the books or even watched the recording on Cronos station you'd know TIM had been researching that tech from recovered husk and Dragon's teeth. It's based on the Paul Grayson experiment. The Collector base's survival or destruction changed nothing.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

They just used it for the wrong reasons because TIM was indoctrinated, but that doesn't take away from what they learned being invaluable to be used against the Reapers. If you think otherwise, the Reapers don't agree with you. They attacked Sanctuary facility because it posed a threat to them. Hackett doesn't agree with you either, he says it's useful intel, even if the cost was too high (nobody is questioning the ethics, it was wrong).[/quote]

Sanctuary was more Paul Grayson experiments. Based on husk body nanites. It had nothing to do with the Collector base or the Derelict Reaper. Furthermore, if Sanctuary was such a success, why didn't they just control the reaper forces that attacked? The Reapers, in the end, simply took back control and indoctrinated TIM who hooked himself in. Foolish pride. Who would have guessed that putting reaper tech in people's bodies wouldn't work out... *facepalm*

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

You can downplay it all you want, doesn't change the fact it played a part in the construction of the weapon that beat the Reapers. It's canon.[/quote]

Yeah and so did a titanium steel beam. So did fuel tanks. So did paint. So what?

Nice try there rookie, but it's a miss.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...


That's why people can't make sense of the ending. Accepting the ending at face value as the reality of the situation is too hard to handle, because it's a hard decision. Fans are only used to ever making decisions on their terms and getting to have their cake and eat it. Not anymore. And that's created confused responses, such as IT.[/quote]

Control and Synthesis, taken literally are getting your cake and eating it. Compared to Destroy you lose nothing and peace is assured forever. Hooray!!!

That's why people don't want to acknowledge the endings imply indoctrination. Accepting the endings as the indoctrinated reality of the situation is too hard to handle, because it's turns out so nice if you ignore all evidence to the contrary. Fans are only used to ever making decisions on their terms and getting to have their cake and eat it. Not anymore. And that's created anger and confused responses, such as indoctrination denialist.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 02 août 2012 - 05:45 .

[Wayning_Star]

If IT were an actuality, why then is the refuse ending the only ending best suited for reaper harvesting the current MEU?

Indoctrination is merey a fancy way of explaining the inability to conceptualize communication beteween the catalyst/reapers and Shepard/the ONLY organic with choices to end the cycle. IT relies on the interpretation of scene and exposure to reaper tech, a simple device for supposed 'brain washing' of 'all' players via Shepard. The distraction from basic game play to altered states of play through manipulation of the game engine,via the point,scratch and smell options(ITheadcanon). In the end, there is NO massive indoctrination to spoil the end game, there is NO completion of the game via the fail safe supposed by the IT, it's merely another rendition of the original guessing game that is IT. The IT is fabricated from the whole cloth. The IT is the indoctrination theory.. doesn't prove it though..


edit: crickets. http://www.worldwide.../qa/qa-who1.htm

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 02 août 2012 - 06:42 .

[The Twilight God]

Factor P wrote...

Thought I’d share some of my own views:

Thoughts on the Device: My thinking was that subtle interference by indoctrinated sleeper agents altered the construction of the Crucible’s functionality over millions of years, tacking on Control and Synthesis as Reaper fail-safes. This suggests that the levitating platform takes Shepard into the Crucible and that Shepard is the acting Catalyst. I agree that destruction of the Reapers was the original intended function of the Crucible, and that both Synthesis and Control are of Reaper design (as certainly both benefit their goals).

The Reapers, I would presume, would have to have had some technical knowledge of the Crucible to know how to build a device to prevent it from arming, interface with the Control console or harness it's power for Synthesis. If they have the technical knowledge, the most logical conclusion is that they have indeed had eyes on it in the past. The fact that it's default action is Destroy hints that it was not their design (i.e. organics started it). Also, the fact that they resisted its docking implies Control and Synthesis are plana B and C. The StarChild informs you they were aware of it's existence, claiming the Reapers thought it was eradicated.

I still don't believe the Crucible itself can perform Synthesis or Control. The events that occur during the enactment of the endings (and refusal) clearly show that Sysnthesis beam originates with the Citadel (not the Crucible) and there is so little difference between low and high EMS Control as to wonder if the Crucible was even necessary as a power source for it. Destroy is the only one whose energy originates solely from the Crucible and has no actual user interface. Destroy simply arms and fires automatically once the reaper device on the Citadel is blown apart.

[The Twilight God]

clennon8 wrote...

The thing I like about OP's theory is that it actually offers concrete explanations for things like why the apparatus is built into the Citadel (instead of the Crucible) and why it works the way it does. It actually makes sense of a lot of things that literalists are forced to hand-wave away as "bad writing."

It's all just headcanon, you say? Not any more so than "literal" interpretations are, as ironic as that may seem.

It also separates itself from the whole "It was just a dream" stigma that taints most IT conversation. It wasn't a dream. It was a straight-up con job. The Reapers knew about the Crucible and set up a sting just in case. Did you fall for the con? Did you let the Reapers trick you into not destroying them? Is the Cycle going to continue because you lost sight of the goal? Because you couldn't pierce the veil of deception and pass the final test?

I'm still not sure I completely buy the theory, but I sure do love the idea of it. I *adore* the idea that Bioware may have succeeded in indoctrinating a significant portion of the player base. It would be a hell of a thing. And absolutely fitting. A much more fitting ending than Synthesis or Control, both of which are completely anti-thematic if not outright stupid. Really, making the ending all about indoctrination is the *perfect* way to end the Mass Effect franchise. You picked Synthesis? YOU LOST. SHOULD HAVE PAID CLOSER ATTENTION DUMMY. You picked Control? YOU LOST. SHOULD HAVE PAID CLOSER ATTENTION DUMMY.  Of course, if they want to maintain the illusion, they can't come right out and say those things.

You have two rainbows and butterflies endings offered by the Reapers were peace reigns for eternity. Hooray!!! All praise the Reapers!!!
 
And one where you have to kill a friend and an entire race and don't have reapers playing bob the builder and quick fixing the relays.

Something doesn't add up here. There is a reason 2 of those endings are presented as objectively better than 1.

[PoisonMushroom]

Good post. The Catalyst-persuading-the-player interpretation is much more interesting than the it-was-all-a-dream interpretation of indoctrination theory.

Indoctrination has always had a big draw for me, because it turns the final terribly written moments into an ingenious test. It changes your thought process from 'Bioware wants me to trust this monster? What were they thinking?' to 'Whaaaat? I almost trusted this monster! What was I thinking?', which is really, really interesting.

I have a major problem with the whole concept though and that's that I don't believe there was any intention from Bioware there, and although it shouldn't matter, because it's still a much more logical end to the game than the literal one, I can't see past this. They seem to geniunely believe that synthesis and control are good endings taken at face value. Many of them have said that they've picked them.

They've run away from the forum boards, because they're afraid of being berated by angry fans. If this is a well written metagaming ploy, then they should be happy that people are getting worked up about the endings when taken at face value, simply because they SHOULDN'T be taken at face value at all. The people who hate the endings for ruining what mass effect is about are the ones who would be understanding how flawed the Catalyst's way of thinking is.

I also think that they would have been more responsive to theories like this one. Bioware's reputation has taken a massive hit and to completely ignore anyone who 'got it' would do them no favours. Nope, all they've done is sidestep around indoctrination so as not to ruin it for the few people who see it as their canon ending.

I really do believe that this shouldn't detract too much from the indoctrination as an ending option, but since they completely ignored it when it came to the EC, I feel like it's more likely just poor writing. And I refuse to validate their terrible writing by rejigging the ending in my head into something good like this theory of yours.

[nocbl2]

An interesting read...

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

If IT were an actuality, why then is the refuse ending the only ending best suited for reaper harvesting the current MEU?

Indoctrination is merey a fancy way of explaining the inability to conceptualize communication beteween the catalyst/reapers and Shepard/the ONLY organic with choices to end the cycle. IT relies on the interpretation of scene and exposure to reaper tech, a simple device for supposed 'brain washing' of 'all' players via Shepard. The distraction from basic game play to altered states of play through manipulation of the game engine,via the point,scratch and smell options(ITheadcanon). In the end, there is NO massive indoctrination to spoil the end game, there is NO completion of the game via the fail safe supposed by the IT, it's merely another rendition of the original guessing game that is IT. The IT is fabricated from the whole cloth. The IT is the indoctrination theory.. doesn't prove it though..


edit: crickets. http://www.worldwide.../qa/qa-who1.htm

Enjoy your rainbows and butterflies. All praise the Reapers!!!

This guy, Wayning_Star? Definitely NOT indoctrinated.

[Dorje Sylas]

While a nice interp, it butts heads with Bioware's post edits in EC. EC shows where Bioware wanted each ending to lead.

Now it would have been an interesting twist if Control ended with the "Shepard" Catalyst coming to the realization that in order to actually protect "the many" they'd be better off preserved as Reaper Goo. However that doesn't happen and "Shepard" overwrites Star Child. Huh, guess the little SOB (okay don't know if the original creators of the Reapers were actually canids) wasn't lying after all.

Bioware's endings sucked, still sucks, and it's up to them not the fan base to fix that.

So as the "demi-god" puppet master behind "my" Shepard(s), I'll just say... Bioware go write better endings. Maybe this guy, The Twilight God, can show you a thing or two in your own canon. Oh, and where is my furking "Rainbow and Butterflies" ending where the Reapers die and my Quarian Geth tag team get to live. That or the ending where Shepard gets to argue the Star Child to his/her point of view and stop harvesting (Paragon) or self-terminate (Renegade).

At this point when I even bother booting Mass Effect for anything other then a Weekend Op in MP, I just terminate the game prior to those last 10 minutes when Shepard gets all indecisive and whiney. To quote from a movie, "the only winning move is not to play."

If the game cut right from the final talkie with TIM right to the "what happened to everyone, we won + Geth & EDI," I'd have way less mad in me.

Modifié par Dorje Sylas, 03 août 2012 - 02:34 .

[The Twilight God]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

Good post. The Catalyst-persuading-the-player interpretation is much more interesting than the it-was-all-a-dream interpretation of indoctrination theory.

Indoctrination has always had a big draw for me, because it turns the final terribly written moments into an ingenious test. It changes your thought process from 'Bioware wants me to trust this monster? What were they thinking?' to 'Whaaaat? I almost trusted this monster! What was I thinking?', which is really, really interesting.

I have a major problem with the whole concept though and that's that I don't believe there was any intention from Bioware there, and although it shouldn't matter, because it's still a much more logical end to the game than the literal one, I can't see past this. They seem to geniunely believe that synthesis and control are good endings taken at face value. Many of them have said that they've picked them.

They've run away from the forum boards, because they're afraid of being berated by angry fans. If this is a well written metagaming ploy, then they should be happy that people are getting worked up about the endings when taken at face value, simply because they SHOULDN'T be taken at face value at all. The people who hate the endings for ruining what mass effect is about are the ones who would be understanding how flawed the Catalyst's way of thinking is.

I also think that they would have been more responsive to theories like this one. Bioware's reputation has taken a massive hit and to completely ignore anyone who 'got it' would do them no favours. Nope, all they've done is sidestep around indoctrination so as not to ruin it for the few people who see it as their canon ending.

I really do believe that this shouldn't detract too much from the indoctrination as an ending option, but since they completely ignored it when it came to the EC, I feel like it's more likely just poor writing. And I refuse to validate their terrible writing by rejigging the ending in my head into something good like this theory of yours.

Good? It would be brilliant in a way, but not good.

The endings still have nothing whatsoever to do with your choices, It's all based solely on EMS. No matter what you do or who you kill you get BGR. And Destroy is the only win ending. Because of this and the fact that they need to keep the players indoctrinated post credits they all suffer from a lack of actual closure. They can't really show you anything becuase if it was presented in a way that shows this or that happened vs a slideshow show what the narrative THINKS will or WANTS to happen it wouldn't seem so... unfullfilling.

My take on the endings doesn't make them better for me. It just makes the most sense given the evidence. Regardless of Biowares intent, what they actually wrote were 3 indoctrinated endings and 1 non-indoctrinated ending. Looking at everything I don't see it as being unintentional. I just see the EC slides as a means to shut whiners up. None of them confirm anything. They are all just what the narators intend to do or imagine will happen. Nothing is set in stone for the near or distant future. Only that in the distant distant distant future, that is so far away they call Shepard "The Shepard", everything is alright. Since refusal and other endings' stargazer scene is the same can I assume they are both 50K years in the future???

Modifié par The Twilight God, 03 août 2012 - 04:13 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Stargazer is supposed to be 10,000 yrs in the future.

I think they should have gone more "Soviet" on the slide show.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 03 août 2012 - 04:20 .

[The Twilight God]

Dorje Sylas wrote...

While a nice interp, it butts heads with Bioware's post edits in EC. EC shows where Bioware wanted each ending to lead. Now it would have been an interesting twist if Control ended with the "Shepard" Catalyst coming to the realization that in order to actually protect "the many" they'd be better off preserved as Reaper Goo. However that doesn't happen and "Shepard" overwrites Star Child. Huh, guess the little SOB (okay don't know if the original creators of the Reapers were actually canids) wasn't lying after all.

If they openly admitted that Control and Synthesis did not turn out the way the player expects, player would simply choose Destroy all the time. Destroy would become the canon ending defeating the purpose of even making Control and Synthesis an option. Then how would they have their "multiple" endings? The clearly aren't concerned with actually rendring scenes based on past choices.

The Twilight God wrote...

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. The player must believe in them or else everyone would simply reload and pick Destroy. Shepard falling prey to indoctrination, although not the ideal conclusion, is still a narratively sound outcome. And in this way the writers keep those endings valid by having the epilogue continue from the indoctrinated perspective. Who would pick an indoctrinated ending otherwise? Not many.

There is nothing in any ending that confirms that sunshine and puppy dogs happen. They are all hypothetical, even Destroy. Destroy simply has no chance of Reaper manipulation, but a violent Rachni or Krogan resurgence is possible. The EC is tacked on to appease a large group of angry and vocal players and in no way contradicts the evidence that control and synthesis are indoctrinated endings.

The Twilight God wrote...

A typical counter to this is, "But the Extended Cut disproves anything and everything involving indoctrination. Everything turns out great. In fact, things turn out better in the Control and Synthesis endings than they do in Destroy. All Praise the Reapers for his truth and honesty!”

But do things turn out better in Control and Synthesis?

Control
The EC narrator is speaking about what it plans to do. What it wants to do. The epilogue photos present an envisioned future. Not a future set in stone. If, in fact, the mind of one individual human could not contend with the trillions of minds making up the reaper super consciousness or even the collective inteligence of the reapers (as embodied by the Catalyst) the possibility that the epilogue narration being a delusion is not off the table. The reapers leaving to repair the relays may have been a temporary setback and "Shepard's legacy" ultimately lost out to the Reapers. The harvest may very well continue with Shepard's mind, broken within the greater Reaper super consciousness, hallucinating that it is in control. Where the Shepard AI sees "help" and "defense of organics and synthetics" the reality is ascension to reaper form and the continuation of the cycles. Just as TIM saw humanities salvation in informing the Reapers of the Crucible and its need of the Citadel. Broken minds see what they will. In this ending the writers continue from the perception of a broken and delusional perversion of Shepard's thoughts and memories. Maintaining the indoctrination effect on the player beyond the credits.

Synthesis
The EC narrator, EDI, is speaking in terms of how she perceives the changes. What she envisions the result of these changes to bring from her perspective; a perspective that is the result of direct Reaper influence. Dr. Kenson also envisioned this Reaper ushered utopia while she was indoctrinated. Saren also envisioned a grand destiny for organics while under the influence of indoctrination. The epilogue photos present an envisioned future. Not a future set in stone. Once again the writers continue from the perspective of a newly reaper influenced personality; maintaining the indoctrination effect on the player themselves unto the credits and beyond.

Refusal
Shepard says, "No, I'm going to end this war on my terms."
The Catalyst replies, "Then you will die knowing you have failed to save everything you have fought for."
Shepard retorts, "I fight for freedom. Mine and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I die knowing I did everything I could to stop you."

Everything except actually stopping the Reapers, when the means to do so is right in front of you. The means to choose your own fate was right there. Instead, Shepard let the Reapers choose his and every organics' fate. Shepard is definitely indoctrinated here. No questions about it.

Dorje Sylas wrote...

Bioware's endings sucked, still sucks, and it's up to them not the fan base to fix that.

How does this fix the ending? It changes nothing. In fact, to successfully defeat the Reapers, it llimits all choices throughout the trilogy down to one possible outcome: The Color Red. The only choice that makes any meaningful difference in the slide show is rather or not you cured or sabotaged the Genophage. The rest is just pictures of minor characters. Nothing in any ending represents a culmination of all the choices throughout the entire series.

Dorje Sylas wrote...

At this point when I even bother booting Mass Effect for anything other then a Weekend Op in MP, I just terminate the game prior to those last 10 minutes when Shepard gets all indecisive and whiney. To quote from a movie, "the only winning move is not to play."

Hehe. I'm actually considering making my own edited ending and simply exiting the game watching that once I get inside the Citadel. Or modding the game so plays my custom ending. I find the endings depressing and the EC kinda made it worse with the evac scene. Too much heartstring plucking and it ended on that same sad depressing note. I don't like being tear jerked in games with no payoff. Time to take my xanax.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 03 août 2012 - 11:11 .

[The Twilight God]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Stargazer is supposed to be 10,000 yrs in the future.

I think they should have gone more "Soviet" on the slide show.

Out of curiosity, where did you get the 10K number?

I said 50K because of the cycle timetable.

[dorktainian]

Nice to see IT is still alive and kicking.