1238 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

megamacka wrote...

The saga (arguing) continues

Please place unpopped kernels to my reaperized face.

[Fedi.St]

The Twilight God wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

Though there are other clues and hints that the crucible is indeed of reaper origin and that those 3 choices were planted there deliberately .  Something like the architect choice in the matrix. Keep struggling to get somewhere and that somewhere still leading you back to the root of all evil.a control system as the architect said.

The Reaper origin theory is plausible. I was expecting a Matrix twist myself.

It implies the Reapers could have enacted Synthesis at any time, but didn't want to. Which implies it isn't the deus ex machina the synthesis lovers want it to be. It also implies Destroy could be a false ending too. Who knows? Maybe the Reapers got up after playing dead and continued the cycle?

Plausible, yes, but it implies that all endings are "Reapers win". You should run with it

Bold:
Or maybe he needed an organic willingly go through it, to try something different this time! So that's why he couldn't implement it himself. But this  doesn't erase the possiblity that catalyst wants to try somethin different but in his own terms.

Also the "I want to end this war on my terms" speech of shepard is really intriguing.

The more i think about the more I am convinced that with the extended cut bioware opened the speculation storm even more. If they wanted it done with they wouldn't put the refuse ending. It 's a different ending. An ending implying that the reapers while saw the crucible they continued the cycle  and let liara bury the time capsules for the next cycle to find (ralloich maybe?). MORE SPECULATION.
Leviathan DLC WILL give answers. One way or the other.

Modifié par Fedi.St, 16 août 2012 - 11:24 .

[megamacka]

Why the feckerz would it matter if the individual is '' willing '' or not?
Space magic?

Leviathan release date 28th aug yay

Modifié par megamacka, 17 août 2012 - 12:09 .

[Govalon]

Thank you for this thread. Because of this, I like Mass Effect again. After I first saw the ending, I was devastated and became depressed because it was so bad. Now I feel that the ending was awesome. Might be the best in my gaming history. This gave me reason to come back to this game again. I am glad that I won the final battle agains indoctrination I admit, the indoctrination options were really tempting. I almost took Control. I thought my options over and over again for like 5 minutes (it is a long time if don't do anything but think).

I was saved only because I thought about how I played the entire game. In the very first Mass Effect that I started few months ago I romanced Ashley. I made a decission that I will not romance anyone else in my first playtrhough. I will not cheat on her no matter how good looking and awesome girls the game throws at me in the future. I kept my promise. My other goal was to defeat the reapers no matter what. I never made that promise but it was clear from the beginning. After 130 hours of playing for one goal, I was given two other very tempting choices on how to deal with the reapers but I didn't take them. I though about those choices for a long time and then I just said to myself "hell with it, I am going to die but atleast the reapers die too and that is what I came here to do. I can choose the other endings next time"

Now I am glad that I chose to destroy them. I was not indoctrinared. I won.

Modifié par Govalon, 17 août 2012 - 12:15 .

[Jawsomebob]

The Twilight God wrote...

Part I: Destroy Analysis
Part II: Control Analysis 
Part III: Synthesis Analysis

The Catalyst is a Deceiver and a Manipulator

 
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. After all, it is the collective intelligence of the Reapers, in effect, making it the embodiment of the Reapers.  And yet people swallowed its lies whole without even bothering to chew.
 
1. The Catalyst's first lie? "I am the Catalyst".
 
Shepard replies, "I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst?"
The Star Child answers, "No, the Citadel is part of me."
 
The Catalyst is just a designation the Protheans used to hide the fact that it was the Citadel. The Catalyst terminology was obviously taken out of Shepard's head and then used by the Star Child. Just like the image of the little boy was taken out of Shepard's head.  Granted, the Reapers probably put that boy in his head in the first place. How else would it even know to refer to itself as the Catalyst?  
 
Note that the Crucible never needed the "Star Child". The Crucible needed the Citadel. It is the "Star Child" who needs the Crucible to make its own agenda a reality.  The Catalyst is, in fact, the Citadel; Not the supposed AI construct taking the form and voice of a child. We will go into this later in this thesis. The idea that anyone would build a weapon to defeat the Reapers dependent on the Reapers’ consent to work is absurd. This would entail fighting through the Reapers’ forces and praying that they would simply capitulate and suicide themselves if you manage to dock the Crucible. That just makes no sense.  I reiterate; The Star Child is NOT the Catalyst.  For familiarities sake I will continue to refer to the Star Child as "the Catalyst".
 
2. The Catalyst claims the Crucible is little more than a battery. This is only true in relation to its own suggestions: Control and Synthesis. Two options that is cannot perform and was never intended to perform.
 
The idea that it is just a battery is contradicted by Vendetta who states. "At some point --it is difficult to pinpoint when--the Crucible plans were adapted to incorporate the use of the [Citadel]. Presumably, the Crucible was not sufficiently powerful enough to defeat the Reapers."
 
Of course it couldn't defeat the Reapers. It does not have the power to engulf the entire galaxy. By itself it could only eliminate the Reapers in a relatively small chuck of the galaxy. It requires the Citadel and the relay network to deliver the payload across the entire galaxy.
 
3. Shepard’s arrival demonstrates that the current solution will not work anymore; unless, of course, you were to refuse. At that point its solution is just fine and dandy. In regards to not using the Crucible Shepard can say, "I've made it is far. We'll destroy you without setting it off."  The Catalyst replies, "Impossible, you are vastly outnumbered. You have sacrificed many of your resources just to reach this point. If you do not use the Crucible the Reapers will not be stopped and the cycle will continue." The Catalyst is therefore lying when it says Shepard’s presence invalidates its current solution.
 
4. Synthesis is inevitable, but the Reapers continue reaping if you refuse. They won’t allow it to occur naturally at our own pace. If the Catalyst is sincere about the inevitability of Synthesis, the Refusal Ending cannot play out. Continued Reaper harvesting eliminates the inevitability of Synthesis and catches the Catalyst in another lie. If you refuse to Destroy the Reapers, attempt to Control them or enact Synthesis it is confirmed that the Catalyst was lying. “So be it”, says the Reapers forgoing all pretenses and returning to the menacing machines of doom voice. 
 
5. Can it possibly be lying about anything else?
 
Shepard asks the Catalyst, regarding the Crucible, "Why didn't you stop it?"
The Catalyst's replies, "We believed the concept had been eradicated."
 
And yet, there is a Crucible Suppression Device (CSD) installed within the Citadel with the sole intent of preventing the Crucible from firing. To enact the Destroy option you have to destroy this device to allow the Crucible to continue with its intended purpose. Without that device the Crucible would have fired as soon as it docked with the Citadel (the true Catalyst) without any input from the Star Child. Note that there is no actual console to initiate the Destroy option. It was intended to activate automatically as Destroy is the only function the Crucible itself can perform.
 
6. The lies continue...
 
The Catalyst follows up with, "You have altered the variables.
Shepard asks, "What do you mean?
The Catalyst answers, "The Crucible changed me. Created new possibilities."
 
If these are new possibilities that have just now become a reality why is there an interface constructed on the Citadel for the sole purpose of transmuting an organic mind into a synthetic mind? And why is there a walkway leading up to it? Obviously this possibility is not new to the Catalyst, but instead premeditated. The Catalyst was therefore anticipating the possibility of the Crucible docking and prepared accordingly.
 
7. The Catalyst claims that it is not looking forward to be controlled by Shepard. This leads to another claim that is shown false. If Shepard's comments on Control are negatively slanted the Catalyst makes on last gesture to convey the impression that attempting to replace the Catalyst is something it finds distasteful. But we know this is not the case.
 
Shepard says, "I didn't fight this war to give up everything I have."
The Catalyst replies, "And I do not look forward to being replaced by you, but I would be forced to accept it"
 
No, it would not be forced to accept.  It is the Catalyst who powers on the Control console. When you first lay eyes upon it, it is deactivated. It is not until you approach it that the Catalyst powers it on right before your eyes. If the Catalyst can turn it on and off at will how is he "forced to accept it"?
 
8. If these are new possibilities that have just now become a reality why is there a walkway leading up to the synthesis energy beam? And why is this organic-synthetic transmogrifying beam technology already prepared and ready to go considering the very possibility just came into existence moments earlier? Many people presume that the beam is generated by the Crucible. This is not true. In fact, if you choose Refusal the Catalyst shuts it down which signifies that the synthesis beam is not a function of the Crucible (If the Catalyst can shut down the Crucible itself the CSD would not be necessary). Choose Destroy and that synthesis beam shuts off when the Crucible arms itself and then the Crucible charges up its own separate energy release. But when you choose Synthesis the current beam gets an additional energetic envelope and the Crucibles energy amplifies it. Choose Control and the synthesis beam also does not shut down before or after the Crucible’s energy extraction initiates. 
 
Edit:

The Twilight God wrote...

For those who don't comprehend that the contraptions at eye level are NOT part of the Crucible

Look at the Crucible docking tip (up it to 720p and full screen it). Notice that the Crucible tip is above you. The Presidium is around you. The Crucible docking clamps are claimped to the Presidium. Check out the flycam.  Everything at eye level is built into the Citadel. It amazes me that people don't notice this right off the bat.

As far as the CSD keeping the Crucible from arming, how else do you explain a contraption that is not part of the Crucible that, when destroyed, allows the Crucible to fire. That "tube" is not some on/off swtich or interface console. The only logical conclusion this that the device is preventing the Crucible from arming seeing the the Synthesis beam shuts down after it is destroyed and the Crucible automatically arms. If you chose Synthesis or Control the beam stays activate. There is no direct interface with the Crucible to initiate Destroy because Destroy is the only thing the Crucible itself can perfrom. Control and Synthesis are located on the Citadel and use the Crucible as a battery. My guess would that the CSD redirects the Crucible energy to power Control and Synthesis.

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 its 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 plan B scenarios. The Star Child informs you they were aware of its 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 is a product of 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 effects 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.

9. The overall deception. The Twist.
 
In regards to both the Control and Synthesis endings, the Crucible is simply a battery; a power source to make a different use of its destructive power.  This means that the capability to enact Synthesis and Control, although not on a large scale, already existed prior to the addition of the Crucible. With the Crucible the Reapers can now advance their agenda using our technology against us as we planned to use their technology against them.  Quite the reversal.

 
Brilliant work. Bioware has affectively indoctrinated the player. The Bioware writers pulled a fast one on you. After 100s of hours of game play with the sole focus of stopping the Reapers, in the last ten minute they changed the protagonist's motives from "destroy the reapers" to "assist the Reapers with their galactic social studies assignment." The auto dialog removes Shepard's previous convictions from the equation, he loses sight of who his enemy is and the writers have successfully indoctrinated the player into aiding the Reapers.  Many players felt something was off with the situation.
 
Brilliant. By design or accident, brilliant nonetheless.
 
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.
 
Destroy
The narrator, Admiral Hackett, is still speaking in terms of possibilities and the epilogue photos still contain images of an envisioned future, not one set in stone. But there are no reapers remaining to harvest our material or enslave our minds. There are no longer any Reaper manipulation factors possible. No reason not to take it at face value.
 
 
Conclusion:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Note that the Reapers chose to present themselves in the form of the child Shepard encounters for a few brief moments on Earth. A child that no other person sees or interacts with. A child that, for some unknown reason, haunts Shepard's dreams instead of others he has lost who were actually close to him. Dreams full of whispers and oily shadows.  The very fact that this Catalyst is appearing in this form demonstrates that it is in Shepard's head. I doubt there was even an AI on the Citadel. It was just Harbinger or a collective of reapers speaking to Shepard via hallucination like Harbinger does at the end of the Arrival DLC.  The final battle is against indoctrination. It is a battle of will and conviction.  Some of us won. Some of you lost.

I agree.

[megamacka]

ajb314 wrote...

As always, with respect and an effort at being polite...Something that I feel has been lost in the shuffle among those that dislike this idea is the fact that many of us (including myself, and from what I gather based on my discussions with him, the OP) do not necessarily "like" the ending. If Bioware were to release an ending that was less complex in its narrative and more straightforward in its imagery, we might welcome it (assuming it was well written and made sense). And if it contradicted the ideas in this thread, so be it. We would reevaluate the endings based on the new information they provide in-game. I'm sure there are more than a few fan fictions that would have satisfied the fan base far better than the endings we currently have. In this, I feel like Bioware definitely dropped the ball. They failed to deliver a satisfying end to the narrative and a satisfying end to the game. This thesis helps one of those problems (explaining the narrative) but not the other (the ending is still annoying, even if it makes sense now).

What the OP has done is offered an explanation on the narrative, which takes into account the things that occur within the game. He organized these ideas and deduced a logical explanation for the events in question. His analysis of what actually happens in those final moments is only based on what he sees in-game. He does not change the end of the game. He does not suggest that you need to like the end of the game. He does not even suggest that HE likes the end of the game. All he does is explain what happened at the end of the game. And actually, if we want to be more precise, he explains the end of the NARRATIVE (and it took five months for someone to come close to figuring it out). By all means Bioware, change the ending. Make it less complicated. Make it less abstract. MAKE THE MAJORITY OF GAMERS HAPPY. Until that happens this thesis explains what happened, whether you loved the ending or hated it.

And for those that have argued that this is not what happened. or that the thesis is flawed, or whatever...I must ask the same questions that the OP has asked many times now: Why do you trust the star-brat? Why do you trust the Reapers? If someone spent three years trying to murder you, burning your home, killing your friends, brainwashing your allies, destroying everything in sight, refusing to compromise or negotiate, and generally kicking the crap out of you, what could make you turn around and say to their representative "I forgive you...let's work together and be friends."?

I would love to hear an answer to this question. Don't talk about the OP's thesis, don't worry about what other posters have said, don't tell us what you like or don't like about this thesis, don't give us examples of what you think should have happened, and don't even tell us that it's a stupid question. Just for posterity's sake, in your own words and from your own perspective answer these questions:

Why do you trust the star-brat? Why do you trust the Reapers?

OMG I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND IGNORE YOUR QUESTION YOU DOUCHE BIOWARE ALREADY CONFIRMED THAT IT'S REAL BUT I CAN'T LINK ANY SOURCES BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE DUDE I CARE SO MUCH ABOUT HOW YOU INTERPRET THE ENDING THAT I HAVE TO TRY SO HARD TO RUIN IT FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HOW I SEE THINGS AND IN YOUR INTERPRETATION THERE IS INDOCTRINATION INVOLVED

- End of caps 

Modifié par megamacka, 17 août 2012 - 04:58 .

[clennon8]

Megamacka was being satirical.

[megamacka]

Sir, are you for real? 

Modifié par megamacka, 17 août 2012 - 07:25 .

[clennon8]

Rubios wrote...

I stopped reading at:

"The Destruction of the Reapers. This is the purpose for which the Crucible is constructed."

Probably for the best.  It's over your head.

[megamacka]

Wait what? I thought they mentioned that the crucible was presumed to be a weapon and that they needed the catalyst to channel the power to only hit the reapers and not everyone else?

Wasn't that the purpose of constructing the crucible? To destroy the reapers? Weapons usually kill right? Or was that cheese? Was it cheese or weapons hmm... Or was the crucible an ice cream machine ?
The crucible was presumed to be THE weapon but this was later proven false and it was infact only a power source. This power source combined with the catalyst ( citadel! F CK U GOOBY STAR CHILD ) would then allow the crucibles power to go get all erect and go pew pew on the reapers. Then all of the sudden...... Yeah.

  All of the sudden the random reaper star brat AI / VI appears and obviously talked you over into choosing synthesis or control and now all of the sudden you wont read the OP thesis because you seem to believe that the whole purpose of building the crucible was infact not to destroy the reapers?

   No no.... Don't worry, I completely understand. The alliance just wanted ice cream, it all makes sense now!
Perhaps YOU should play the entire ME series, indoctrination is a pretty huge part of the entire series and oh what a great theme it is! Seriously, if Bioware did infact NOT intend to involve indoctrination in the ending after everything that commander shep has been through. Then I seriously don't know what to say. Bioware congratz on creating the most stupid ending in the entire history of gaming. OR you can keep your mouths shut like you have been so kind to do already and let people interpret things however they want.

  Interpretation, it's a wonderful thing. And yay, it makes everyone happy ( if you can believe in your own interpretation and don't get all butthurt by others ). Some people obviously wanted the disney ending and some of us..... Well, we are not so satisfied by that. Disney ending as in ( yay everyone lives, no strings attached ).

Here boy, now sit down and shut it and have some cheese! 



Space cheese! :alien::alien:

Wait a minute.... Does this entire post make me a douchebag? Oh dear. 

Modifié par megamacka, 17 août 2012 - 08:07 .

[The Twilight God]

clennon8 wrote...

Rubios wrote...

I stopped reading at:

"The Destruction of the Reapers. This is the purpose for which the Crucible is constructed."

Probably for the best.  It's over your head.

He read it and suddenly realized he'd been had by the Kid. So now he desperately tries to unread what he has read. 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 17 août 2012 - 10:01 .

[megamacka]

ajb314 wrote...

Ah satire....My fault. Please continue...

No.



Because you hurt my feelings

[The Twilight God]

Opinions on the new "A Practical Look at..." sections I added to the first three parts?

[The Twilight God]

ajb314 wrote...

Well written and even easier to follow than your original posts. I think that giving the numbered points in the "deductive process" was a good touch. It literally shows how you reached your conclusion (and makes it harder to argue with those conclusions). My question is, how do we get more people commenting on this thread? This thesis would appeal to both ITers and "literalists". It combines the best elements of both ideas. And with the new sections, it would be even easier for people who are skeptical to follow your point.

And just out of curiosity have you read the IT thread recently? Lots of interesting things being talked about in terms of audio clues within the game. As an example, the noise you hear during Shepard's conversation with TIM and Anderson is actually a Reaper horn played in slow motion. Some of these audio easter eggs are pretty cool and were clearly done intentionally. From everything I read, some of these things support this thesis very well (such as TIM being a tool for indoctrination).

The synthesis one was really important for me as alot of synthesis lovers seem to be under the impression that I am definitely stating the inodctrinated cycle continue and that it is a bad ending. It is a matter of opinion on rather it's a good or bad ending. Still believe Vendetta should be uploaded to the Crucible as he was suggesting before Kai Leng shows up on Thessia. He could explain this and legitimaize  at least Synthesis endings. They'd have to go about Control in a whole new way.  

I'll poke my head in the other threads and ask for feedback.

[stanogaor1]

Alright i haven't looked up all the different post on here so sorry in advance if this has been covered before. 
 
I view the IT in a different way than most, first I do not think that the IT requires extra content for it to work. if you look at the series as a whole on of the major conflicts throughout the three games is the struggle and maintaining of free will. Both Saren and TIM (the two major non reaper villains) lost their free will, The geth are seeking free will, TIM wants to ensure that Shepherd matins his will through the Lazarus project and one of the reapers most powerful assets is the ability to break free will. From a gameplay perspective we use our on (albeit limited) free will in choosing dialogued.  
 
So in that light I like to think that the finale of the game is a battle for Shepherd's free will. One where is Shep gives in to the reaper's ala synthesis or control his free will is lost as is our story. Now in regards to why I don't think that IT needs dlc is because if that is what you want to believe, than the crucible's propose is unknown. See I view crucible as simply a high tech device to kill or deactivate the reapers. Harby knows this so his last ditch effort is to control shepherd and use his influence to persuade alliance troops away from the device.  
 
In my version (yes its headcannon but Bioware did say they want us to come up with our own conclusion) I think just the fact that Shepherd as been able to unite the races to defend the galaxy (something that it seems no other cycle as been able to do) wins the battle with the reapers. Even with a cribbled Shepherd, someone will reach the beam and stop the reapers. If Shepherd is indoctrinated I think that someone (like garrus) would have to confront him and either kill or talk him into death like he has done to saren before. If he broke the indoc then he still knocked out on earth and weather or not he is alive depends on the amount of troops (EMS) that forces reapers attention away from killing their failed subject for indoctrination.  
 
No matter what choice is made in the end, the reapers were not able to defeat the coalition of species, no need for more content. I like the idea that the finale is a struggle for free will and the idea that once that struggle is over our journey as shep concludes. As long as there isn't any post end  dlc I think that this version is just a valid as any other one. Not saying that I am right or that I made the best explanation, I probably made a terrible one but they did say they wanted us to make our own conclusions, so this is mine and I happy with it.  
 
I had a full explanation about this and overall how I felt about the ending here http://disingenuousa...of-headcannon/ 
Not saying you have to click on it or read it but their it is 
anyways to all those you enjoyed the first 99% if the series but could stomach the end I say use a bit of headcannon and move on, there are other games to enjoy ( currently in persona 4, it's awesome check it out) 
PS sorry for not proof reading well my brain had trouble proofreading

[Fat Head]

The Twilight God wrote...

Opinions on the new "A Practical Look at..." sections I added to the first three parts?

So.....many.........big words.  Now they'll never get it.  

[The Twilight God]

stanogaor1 wrote...

Alright i haven't looked up all the different post on here so sorry in advance if this has been covered before. 
 
I view the IT in a different way than most, first I do not think that the IT requires extra content for it to work. if you look at the series as a whole on of the major conflicts throughout the three games is the struggle and maintaining of free will. Both Saren and TIM (the two major non reaper villains) lost their free will, The geth are seeking free will, TIM wants to ensure that Shepherd matins his will through the Lazarus project and one of the reapers most powerful assets is the ability to break free will. From a gameplay perspective we use our on (albeit limited) free will in choosing dialogued.  
 
So in that light I like to think that the finale of the game is a battle for Shepherd's free will. One where is Shep gives in to the reaper's ala synthesis or control his free will is lost as is our story. Now in regards to why I don't think that IT needs dlc is because if that is what you want to believe, than the crucible's propose is unknown. See I view crucible as simply a high tech device to kill or deactivate the reapers. Harby knows this so his last ditch effort is to control shepherd and use his influence to persuade alliance troops away from the device.  
 
In my version (yes its headcannon but Bioware did say they want us to come up with our own conclusion) I think just the fact that Shepherd as been able to unite the races to defend the galaxy (something that it seems no other cycle as been able to do) wins the battle with the reapers. Even with a cribbled Shepherd, someone will reach the beam and stop the reapers. If Shepherd is indoctrinated I think that someone (like garrus) would have to confront him and either kill or talk him into death like he has done to saren before. If he broke the indoc then he still knocked out on earth and weather or not he is alive depends on the amount of troops (EMS) that forces reapers attention away from killing their failed subject for indoctrination.  
 
No matter what choice is made in the end, the reapers were not able to defeat the coalition of species, no need for more content. I like the idea that the finale is a struggle for free will and the idea that once that struggle is over our journey as shep concludes. As long as there isn't any post end  dlc I think that this version is just a valid as any other one. Not saying that I am right or that I made the best explanation, I probably made a terrible one but they did say they wanted us to make our own conclusions, so this is mine and I happy with it.  
 
I had a full explanation about this and overall how I felt about the ending here http://disingenuousa...of-headcannon/ 
Not saying you have to click on it or read it but their it is 
anyways to all those you enjoyed the first 99% if the series but could stomach the end I say use a bit of headcannon and move on, there are other games to enjoy ( currently in persona 4, it's awesome check it out) 
PS sorry for not proof reading well my brain had trouble proofreading

Post ending DLC? I don't see where you got the idea that anyone feels DLC is needed for IT. The entire point of my thesis is that an indoctrination attempt occurs and it is evident that the attempt occured in the game as is. Rather or not the indoctrination attempt was successful is up to the players. 

The only post ending DLC I would want is an expanded ending that shows what happens to squadmates. This would also require making Control more viable as a win ending (i.e. changing it altogether). I think one of the issues with the indoctrinated endings, control in particular, is that to keep the indoctrination secret the endings as a whole suffer from mediocrity as they can't really flesh out an ending in which the reapers win without revealing it. Control would an ending showing the Shepard Reapers continuing the cycle (no one wants to see their Shepard become what they were fighting) and Synthesis would have to confirm that everyone is drunk on reaper juice.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Well, I'll just say this.

I don't think the OP is inherently wrong. However, I also don't agree with it due to a difference of opinions. What I'm simply asking from the OP is to not treat his interpretation as intellectually superior to all other interpretations; it is just as valid as some other interpretations. Your theory may work for you, but not for other people. You should not consider other people as intellectually inferior just because they don't agree with you.

Your interpretation requires a headcanon plot device that is the "Crucible Suppression Device." Nothing inherently wrong with that, since all endings require a headcanon plot device, especially Synthesis. I even made a thread about it. All I'm asking is for the OP to stop trying to invalidate different interpretations by using evidence that isn't absolute, i.e. Catalyst's capabilities, motivations, and so forth. Even with the EC, the Catalyst performs so many contradictory actions that at this point, without further DLC, it isn't possible to identify the Catalyst's goals and motivations.

Lets hope this won't initiate another round of mudslinging.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 18 août 2012 - 08:21 .