1238 réponses à ce sujet

[gorezeelar]

Wayning_Star wrote...

D24O wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Playing devil's advocate here.

The ending sequence with the Catalyst doesn't have to be a hallucination for it to be an indoctrination attempt.

You can't "break" an indoctrination attempt. You can only resist. Shepard choosing destroy could be his moment of resistance. As a result, the Crucible disabled the Reapers and their control over Shepard.

Now that's a way to look at it, and I'm not an ITer.

but on what do they pose that premise on? Saren shot himself, that broke indoctrination, just by Shep giving him a pep talk. The same happened with the Illusive man, if spoken to correctly,enough "command voice", blew the indoctrination right out of the equation. Shep resisted or became immune or adjusted to indoctrination to be able to communicate with  the catalyst in the end and the headish reapers in the mid game.. that theory essay lacks fortitude.

The case with Saren proves my point on how stupid and single minded the Reapers actually are. In the first ME, Sovereing's barganing chip was on Saren STAY indoctrinated. So much he put his entire conciousness into controlling Saren. Shepard broke that by simply talk Saren to death.

Then when that connection is severed, Sovereign's shield was down, and the fleet blew him to smithereens. Real smart, Sovereign...

[Wayning_Star]

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

If the Catalyst is truly trying to deceive Shepard, then why should we believe that any of the options work? If the Catalyst's ultimate desire is Synthesis and will do everything in its power to achieve it, then why explain the other options?

Secondly, you assume that the Reapers are inherently evil, even though there's no indication that they even operate on the same set of morals. You're trying to apply organic concepts to a hyper-advanced mind.

He is a Reaper. He is a single-minded machine of destruction. He is not smart and cunning as people think he is.

Even basic machines can perform a lie of omission. The Geth, who aren't even true AI's are capable of doing so. The Catalyst is the most advanced intellect in the galaxy. If it chose not to lie, I'd say it had no motive for lying in the first place.

I wouldn't say it lie. But it's a Reaper. Have you seen Sovereign and Harbinger, the tactical minds behind the Reaper invasion?:

"CIVILIZATION. DESTROY. COMPLETE CYCLE. HYBERNATE."

Harbinger can actually be pretty longwinded, sometimes. Sovereign was a moron.

But given that we have very little contact with them, and that they consider organics to be two teirs beneath them in terms of intellectual capacity, I'd say that they speak with such blunt simplicity because they assume we're all imbeciles, incapable of understanding their motives.

I recall the Catalyst said that the "Creators" made themselves into the first Reapers to prevent synthesis from taking over organics. And I'm pretty sure after a couple cycles they would just become obsessed with the whole idea.

this needs serious proof reading, as sythesis isn't the way the catalyst took care of that busines..Yikes!!

For the Reapers, it's just basic, simple non-negotiable galactic annihilation. But they had no idea what to do when they are presented with choices (ending choices), so they do what they do best: Explain things to any random chums who made it up there

nope, the catalyst 'chose' Shepard, as it all started with that first beacon..that zapped Shepard with harsh memories.

They are machines. They don't feel, they don't love, they don't sympathize, they aren't greedy, they don't worry about their future. All they know is kill. They have only one purpose. That's why they don't lie, and they definitely don't plot and scheme.

not 'kill' per se, more around the lines of 'harvest and preserve'.. like written on cop cars, only waaaaaaaaay different.

Is this concept maybe too simple to understand for you all savants?

No argument there..lol at least you gracefully left the "idiot" off there..

[Jadebaby]

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Twilight God wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

1) There is literally no reason for them to indoctrinate Shepard.  He's already dying from bloodloss.

He seemed OK to me. I didn't get the impression he was in any imminent threat from blood loss.

Either indoctrinate him into commiting suicide to further their agenda or take the chance that he figures out that there are some funky devices on the Citadel that look like they were designed in anticipation of the Crucible. Shepard already knows somethings wrong cause Hackett told him as much. All he'd have to do is eventually start shooting stuff in frustration.

Hey TWG, did it ever occur to you that the thing saying it's the Catalyst is not the Catalyst at all? The Catalyst is something or someone who precipitates an action. This thing does nothing except spew propaganda. Why is it labeled "Child" throughout and not "Catalyst"? Think about that. Yet we believed it to be "The Catalyst" just because it said so. It calls itself the Catalyst because it knows we're looking for it. The Illusive Man was looking for it. The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. It is an imposter. Shepard is the real Catalyst.

This is why Shepard never found the Catalyst. The metaphor is found in Zen. If you meet the Buddha on the side of the road kill him.

This other thing is deceiving you. It is indoctrinating you. It wants you DEAD, preferably in the form of Synthesis. It will accept Control because you will just add your imprint to its program, but it still exists and its prime directive still gets carried out. It hacked the Destroy option to destroy synthetics, AI, tech, and whatever to make it so distasteful that you don't go with that one, but if you don't choose the other two either it just continues with what it was doing, so you just die.

Or you refuse the indoctrination and hit destroy anyway.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:46 .

[Wayning_Star]

gorezeelar wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

D24O wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Playing devil's advocate here.

The ending sequence with the Catalyst doesn't have to be a hallucination for it to be an indoctrination attempt.

You can't "break" an indoctrination attempt. You can only resist. Shepard choosing destroy could be his moment of resistance. As a result, the Crucible disabled the Reapers and their control over Shepard.

Now that's a way to look at it, and I'm not an ITer.

but on what do they pose that premise on? Saren shot himself, that broke indoctrination, just by Shep giving him a pep talk. The same happened with the Illusive man, if spoken to correctly,enough "command voice", blew the indoctrination right out of the equation. Shep resisted or became immune or adjusted to indoctrination to be able to communicate with  the catalyst in the end and the headish reapers in the mid game.. that theory essay lacks fortitude.

The case with Saren proves my point on how stupid and single minded the Reapers actually are. In the first ME, Sovereing's barganing chip was on Saren STAY indoctrinated. So much he put his entire conciousness into controlling Saren. Shepard broke that by simply talk Saren to death.

Then when that connection is severed, Sovereign's shield was down, and the fleet blew him to smithereens. Real smart, Sovereign...

 well, it did want Saren to help it 'hook up' with the citadel, so that was in it's best interest/programming to insist Saren stay indoctrinated. When Saren blew out, it took to direct control to try and force the issue..they think in absolutes or  as you say, single mindedness.

[The Twilight God]

gorezeelar wrote...

Leave the endings be. If you are trying THIS hard to make sense something that even the developers themselves were caught off guard, you're obsessed. Besides, the extended cut proved it wrong

The EC proves nothing.

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."

Conclusion:

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.

gorezeelar wrote...

The reapers had no idea that people would successfully defeat them. They are just single minded-machines.

 
The Mass Effect series says otherwise.

The Twilight God wrote...

As a community we've always taken this to mean the Reapers are just mindless machines. However, we have witnessed enough evidence to counter the Catalyst's inferences. We've resented the fact that the Catalyst's introduction has dissolved 2.9 games worth of established lore concerning the Reapers. But all this anger hinges on one assertion: That the Catalyst is being honest. What makes the claims of the "Reaper Ambassador" in the last 10 minutes more valid than the last 120 hours? Do you think the Reapers are stupid enough to think they could ever convince anyone to not Destroy them if they were as brutally honest as they have been when they believed themselves unassailable? Think about it.

gorezeelar wrote...

They were caught off guard by the Crucible, that's why they tried to secure the Citadel in the last minute.

The previous cycles may have thought of three ways of defeating the reapers: Destroy, synthesis, and control. So maybe that is why they're there.

Read all my posts in this thread. Especially THIS one.

The "Catalyst Chamber" design proves they they anticipated the Crucible. And Control and Synthesis are clearly NOT a function of the Crucible. It's all there if you get a chance to read it all.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:45 .

[AresKeith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

1) There is literally no reason for them to indoctrinate Shepard.  He's already dying from bloodloss.

He seemed OK to me. I didn't get the impression he was in any imminent threat from blood loss.

Either indoctrinate him into commiting suicide to further their agenda or take the chance that he figures out that there are some funky devices on the Citadel that look like they were designed in anticipation of the Crucible. Shepard already knows somethings wrong cause Hackett told him as much. All he'd have to do is eventually start shooting stuff in frustration.

Hey TWG, did it ever occur to you that the thing saying it's the Catalyst is not the Catalyst at all? The Catalyst is something or someone who precipitates an action. This thing does nothing except spew propaganda. Why is it labeled "Child" throughout and not "Catalyst"? Think about that. Yet we believed it to be "The Catalyst" just because it said so. It calls itself the Catalyst because it knows we're looking for it. The Illusive Man was looking for it. The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. It is an imposter. Shepard is the real Catalyst.

This is why Shepard never found the Catalyst. The metaphor is found in Zen. If you meet the Buddha on the side of the road kill him.

This other thing is deceiving you. It is indoctrinating you. It wants you DEAD, preferably in the form of Synthesis. It will accept Control because you will just add your imprint to its program, but it still exists and its prime directive still gets carried out. It hacked the Destroy option to destroy synthetics, AI, tech, and whatever to make it so distasteful that you don't go with that one, but if you don't choose the other two either it just continues with what it was doing, so you just die.

aka Shreaper

[gorezeelar]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

1) There is literally no reason for them to indoctrinate Shepard.  He's already dying from bloodloss.

He seemed OK to me. I didn't get the impression he was in any imminent threat from blood loss.

Either indoctrinate him into commiting suicide to further their agenda or take the chance that he figures out that there are some funky devices on the Citadel that look like they were designed in anticipation of the Crucible. Shepard already knows somethings wrong cause Hackett told him as much. All he'd have to do is eventually start shooting stuff in frustration.

Hey TWG, did it ever occur to you that the thing saying it's the Catalyst is not the Catalyst at all? The Catalyst is something or someone who precipitates an action. This thing does nothing except spew propaganda. Why is it labeled "Child" throughout and not "Catalyst"? Think about that. Yet we believed it to be "The Catalyst" just because it said so. It calls itself the Catalyst because it knows we're looking for it. The Illusive Man was looking for it. The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. It is an imposter. Shepard is the real Catalyst.

This is why Shepard never found the Catalyst. The metaphor is found in Zen. If you meet the Buddha on the side of the road kill him.

This other thing is deceiving you. It is indoctrinating you. It wants you DEAD, preferably in the form of Synthesis. It will accept Control because you will just add your imprint to its program, but it still exists and its prime directive still gets carried out. It hacked the Destroy option to destroy synthetics, AI, tech, and whatever to make it so distasteful that you don't go with that one, but if you don't choose the other two either it just continues with what it was doing, so you just die.

Whatever you said? DESTROY FOR THE WIN!!! *cue victory LOTR music*

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

If the Catalyst is truly trying to deceive Shepard, then why should we believe that any of the options work? If the Catalyst's ultimate desire is Synthesis and will do everything in its power to achieve it, then why explain the other options?

Secondly, you assume that the Reapers are inherently evil, even though there's no indication that they even operate on the same set of morals. You're trying to apply organic concepts to a hyper-advanced mind.

He is a Reaper. He is a single-minded machine of destruction. He is not smart and cunning as people think he is.

Even basic machines can perform a lie of omission. The Geth, who aren't even true AI's are capable of doing so. The Catalyst is the most advanced intellect in the galaxy. If it chose not to lie, I'd say it had no motive for lying in the first place.

I wouldn't say it lie. But it's a Reaper. Have you seen Sovereign and Harbinger, the tactical minds behind the Reaper invasion?:

"CIVILIZATION. DESTROY. COMPLETE CYCLE. HYBERNATE."

Harbinger can actually be pretty longwinded, sometimes. Sovereign was a moron.

But given that we have very little contact with them, and that they consider organics to be two teirs beneath them in terms of intellectual capacity, I'd say that they speak with such blunt simplicity because they assume we're all imbeciles, incapable of understanding their motives.

I recall the Catalyst said that the "Creators" made themselves into the first Reapers to prevent synthesis from taking over organics. And I'm pretty sure after a couple cycles they would just become obsessed with the whole idea.

For the Reapers, it's just basic, simple non-negotiable galactic annihilation. But they had no idea what to do when they are presented with choices (ending choices), so they do what they do best: Explain things to any random chums who made it up there

They are machines. They don't feel, they don't love, they don't sympathize, they aren't greedy, they don't worry about their future. All they know is kill. They have only one purpose. That's why they don't lie, and they definitely don't plot and scheme.

Is this concept maybe too simple to understand for you all savants?

Actually, the original concept for the Reapers came from tools that the Creators designed for the Catalyst to help resolve the Synth-Organic schism. The Catalyst then repurposed these synthetic tools and forced the Creators to merge with them, thus creating the first Reaper.

I believe that the percieved simple-mindedness of the Reapers comes from their unwavering devotion to their task. It is their only purpose, the sole reason they exist. As long as it continues to work, they will continue to devote themselves to it, employing the utmost efficiency.

However, upon the completion of the Crucible and its subsequent joining with the Citadel, their task is no longer the best course of action. Since Organic civilization has forged this superior alternative, "altering the variables," the Catalyst decides to allow Organic civilization to choose how it will be used, with Shepard acting as the envoy.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't believe the Reapers are cunning, clever, or anything of the sort. I just believe that the Reapers are willing to do whatever it takes (such as indoctrination) to further their solution so long as it is the optimum one. I do not think they themselves lie, although it is in their capacity to do so.

Modifié par Leonardo the Magnificent, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:52 .

[gorezeelar]

OK, so what was YOUR ending, OP? Did everyone in the galaxy die in a fire? How can you explain the refuse ending? Did Shepard just say "I give up"?

[gorezeelar]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

If the Catalyst is truly trying to deceive Shepard, then why should we believe that any of the options work? If the Catalyst's ultimate desire is Synthesis and will do everything in its power to achieve it, then why explain the other options?

Secondly, you assume that the Reapers are inherently evil, even though there's no indication that they even operate on the same set of morals. You're trying to apply organic concepts to a hyper-advanced mind.

He is a Reaper. He is a single-minded machine of destruction. He is not smart and cunning as people think he is.

Even basic machines can perform a lie of omission. The Geth, who aren't even true AI's are capable of doing so. The Catalyst is the most advanced intellect in the galaxy. If it chose not to lie, I'd say it had no motive for lying in the first place.

I wouldn't say it lie. But it's a Reaper. Have you seen Sovereign and Harbinger, the tactical minds behind the Reaper invasion?:

"CIVILIZATION. DESTROY. COMPLETE CYCLE. HYBERNATE."

Harbinger can actually be pretty longwinded, sometimes. Sovereign was a moron.

But given that we have very little contact with them, and that they consider organics to be two teirs beneath them in terms of intellectual capacity, I'd say that they speak with such blunt simplicity because they assume we're all imbeciles, incapable of understanding their motives.

I recall the Catalyst said that the "Creators" made themselves into the first Reapers to prevent synthesis from taking over organics. And I'm pretty sure after a couple cycles they would just become obsessed with the whole idea.

For the Reapers, it's just basic, simple non-negotiable galactic annihilation. But they had no idea what to do when they are presented with choices (ending choices), so they do what they do best: Explain things to any random chums who made it up there

They are machines. They don't feel, they don't love, they don't sympathize, they aren't greedy, they don't worry about their future. All they know is kill. They have only one purpose. That's why they don't lie, and they definitely don't plot and scheme.

Is this concept maybe too simple to understand for you all savants?

Actually, the original concept for the Reapers came from tools that the Creators designed for the Catalyst to help resolve the Synth-Organic schism. The Catalyst then repurposed these synthetic tools and forced the Creators to merge with them, thus creating the first Reaper.

I believe that the percieved simple-mindedness of the Reapers comes from their unwavering devotion to their task. It is their only purpose, the sole reason they exist. As long as it continues to work, they will continue to devote themselves to it, employing the utmost efficiency.

However, upon the completion of the Crucible and its subsequent joining with the Citadel, their task is no longer the best course of action. Since Organic civilization has forged this superior alternative, "altering the variables," the Catalyst decides to allow Organic civilization to choose how it will be used, with Shepard acting as the envoy.

Yes, there we go. Hell, if verner made it up there the Catalyst would still treat him as though he is shepard

[Wayning_Star]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

1) There is literally no reason for them to indoctrinate Shepard.  He's already dying from bloodloss.

He seemed OK to me. I didn't get the impression he was in any imminent threat from blood loss.

Either indoctrinate him into commiting suicide to further their agenda or take the chance that he figures out that there are some funky devices on the Citadel that look like they were designed in anticipation of the Crucible. Shepard already knows somethings wrong cause Hackett told him as much. All he'd have to do is eventually start shooting stuff in frustration.

Hey TWG, did it ever occur to you that the thing saying it's the Catalyst is not the Catalyst at all? The Catalyst is something or someone who precipitates an action. This thing does nothing except spew propaganda. Why is it labeled "Child" throughout and not "Catalyst"? Think about that. Yet we believed it to be "The Catalyst" just because it said so. It calls itself the Catalyst because it knows we're looking for it. The Illusive Man was looking for it. The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. It is an imposter. Shepard is the real Catalyst.

This is why Shepard never found the Catalyst. The metaphor is found in Zen. If you meet the Buddha on the side of the road kill him.

This other thing is deceiving you. It is indoctrinating you. It wants you DEAD, preferably in the form of Synthesis. It will accept Control because you will just add your imprint to its program, but it still exists and its prime directive still gets carried out. It hacked the Destroy option to destroy synthetics, AI, tech, and whatever to make it so distasteful that you don't go with that one, but if you don't choose the other two either it just continues with what it was doing, so you just die.

sorry, existentialism isn't part of the programming perimiters..does not compute. We don't even have a first clue that any of the reapers wants Shepard dead, harvested maybe, dead..no. Collectors killed shepard, indoctrinated TIM resuscitated him? I suppose they went to all that trouble just to indoctrinate him so he could come back so they could kill him again in the citadel after beaming him up to talk with an imaginary faux friend catalyst..who wants to personally take over his mind..and..

 Oh the flight of ideas are mind numbing..lol

[ediskrad327]

IT IS NOT REAL

[Cheviot]

The Twilight God wrote...

The "Catalyst Chamber" design proves they they anticipated the Crucible.

Or the designers of the Crucible designed it to interact with the Catalyst.

And Control and Synthesis are clearly NOT a function of the Crucible.

Control and Destroy are both functions of the Catalyst (their method of activation is on the Catalyst side), but the Synthesis function is less clear-cut: it's a beam cascading from the Crucible, but going through the top of the Citadel. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'll tell you how it ended in mine. The indoctrination failed on Renegade Irina Shepard and she hit destroy just to watch those ****ers burn, because she wanted her children and her children's children to grow up free and not under the heel of the reaper "gods" and their master, no matter the cost.

[gorezeelar]

Cheviot wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

The "Catalyst Chamber" design proves they they anticipated the Crucible.

Or the designers of the Crucible designed it to interact with the Catalyst.

And Control and Synthesis are clearly NOT a function of the Crucible.

Control and Destroy are both functions of the Catalyst (their method of activation is on the Catalyst side), but the Synthesis function is less clear-cut: it's a beam cascading from the Crucible, but going through the top of the Citadel. 

I would say that the Crucible was designed merely as a tuner and an amplifier, while the Citadel (Catalyst) is the gateway leading to that dark space where the Reaper exist.

"Using their own might against them" I think Liara said that when she was doing research on the Crucible

[Ithurael]

IT depends on the saving grace of a post ending content patch that has shepard waking up and fighting the Reapers to victory.

A few things with that...
-Tully Ackland stated there is no more Post-DLC for Mass Effect 3
-Bioware stated ME3 is the end of Shepards story arc - IT Needs shepard to wake up and fight the reapers (No shepard in ME4)
-If IT is true why doesn't refuse show shepard waking up? Technically that is the most logical way to resist the indoctrination as anything starkid says cannot be trusted so you just reject him completely - thus rejecting the logic
- Why doesn't Shepard wake up in low ems
- Why have elaborate cutscenes and development & slides for endings that actually never happened?

IT would NEED something to come after, even CleverNoob (the IT director guy) stated that there needs to be more content coming if IT is true.

Do you think that EA - as greedy as they are - would really send a game with a fake ending just to make a new game (ME4) that concludes the series? You could reference Halo 2 but that was never billed as the end of the series.

In the end, I must say a great and in depth post OP. You put a lot of thought into this and I greatly respect and admire the passion you have for the franchise. I must, however, disagree on the priciple that IT (as great and clever as it was) simply cannot happen and would be implausible given the EC and the amount of work and effort that went into the EC. RGB is the direction that Bioware wants to go it seems. We will see though. I would love to shoot Harbinger in the face, but I cannot see it happening. Great work though OP

NOTES:
clevernoob on the EC: youtu.be/RwSKdB1wWZA
(at around 7:15 he starts to loose faith)

Edit: I choose destroy - It just felt thematically correct even though I hated killing my allies

Modifié par Ithurael, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:02 .

[The Twilight God]

Cheviot wrote...

Oh, yeah,  "they didn't want people to just reload and pick destroy".  That makes literally no sense.  So they spent months writing, designing, storyboarding, animating and coding an ending that they wanted people to never pick?  What? 

No, they wanted you to pick Control, Synthesis or Destroy. That's why they made Synthesis and Control look so much better than Destroy. All 3 are valid endings. No one is more valid than the others.

Cheviot wrote...

As for the Stargazer scene, the Refuse ending makes clear that if the Reapers destroyed the current Cycle, the next cycle would use the info in Liara's beacons to defeat the Reapers.  Plus, they know about the defeat of the Reapers, which they wouldn't if the Reapers weren't defeated.

You're repeating an argument that has already been countered. If you disagree - fine. Your belief is not required.

Here is another counter argument:

"The Shepard" is mentioned in Refusal and Destroy. And in both Stargazer scenes it is presumably far into the distant future. There is no proof that the male Stargazer is a member of any known species in Destroy, Control or Synthesis. None of the male dialog explicitly states "The Shepard" was victorious. The male stargazer could just as easily be used in the Refusal ending. It would confuse people, but would not outright contradict anything. Who knows what transpired in the width of all those years. All we'd know is that organics in the disstant future are doing alrgith and know about the Reapers.

[Wayning_Star]

The Twilight God wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

Leave the endings be. If you are trying THIS hard to make sense something that even the developers themselves were caught off guard, you're obsessed. Besides, the extended cut proved it wrong

The EC proves nothing.

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.

no that is user interpretation of what someone elses interpretation meant, making is jibberish

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.

this is based on a straw man arguement that sythesis is utopia, utopia doesn't exist, so sythesis cannot work or exist. Synthesis is in no form or fasion utopian. Even if EDI lives longer than without it. Its all easier said than done.(hashed out for about the billionth time, seems like some ITer's wish they had indoctrination powers, win any arguement that way...

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."

sfunny, considering that this choice doesn't provide any prevention, and isn't 'everything' Shep could do to stop them. Basic writers cramp there. Looks good on paper, but in exicution, the numbers don't jive with results...

Conclusion:

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.

I am now asleep..zzzZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZzz..sorry, did you say something inconclusive?!?

gorezeelar wrote...

The reapers had no idea that people would successfully defeat them. They are just single minded-machines.

 
The Mass Effect series says otherwise.

The Twilight God wrote...

As a community we've always taken this to mean the Reapers are just mindless machines. However, we have witnessed enough evidence to counter the Catalyst's inferences. We've resented the fact that the Catalyst's introduction has dissolved 2.9 games worth of established lore concerning the Reapers. But all this anger hinges on one assertion: That the Catalyst is being honest. What makes the claims of the "Reaper Ambassador" in the last 10 minutes more valid than the last 120 hours? Do you think the Reapers are stupid enough to think they could ever convince anyone to not Destroy them if they were as brutally honest as they have been when they believed themselves unassailable? Think about it.

gorezeelar wrote...

They were caught off guard by the Crucible, that's why they tried to secure the Citadel in the last minute.

The previous cycles may have thought of three ways of defeating the reapers: Destroy, synthesis, and control. So maybe that is why they're there.

Read all my posts in this thread. Especially THIS one.

The "Catalyst Chamber" design proves they they anticipated the Crucible. And Control and Synthesis are clearly NOT a function of the Crucible. It's all there if you get a chance to read it all.

[Cheviot]

gorezeelar wrote...

I would say that the Crucible was designed merely as a tuner and an amplifier, while the Citadel (Catalyst) is the gateway leading to that dark space where the Reaper exist.

I think that the Crucible is basically a dark energy reactor, and the Catalyst is the means to focus it, like using a magnifying glass allows you to focus the sun's energy into an ant death ray.

[Wayning_Star]

the more IT theorist type the easier it is to debunk. The game is just as it is, what it is and IT isn't it..sorry guys, nice try tho..

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Cheviot wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

I would say that the Crucible was designed merely as a tuner and an amplifier, while the Citadel (Catalyst) is the gateway leading to that dark space where the Reaper exist.

I think that the Crucible is basically a dark energy reactor, and the Catalyst is the means to focus it, like using a magnifying glass allows you to focus the sun's energy into an ant death ray.

I've always thought that the Crucible was a crude but powerful device that's energy couldn't be properly dispersed without the help of the Citadel. All of the options were there to begin with, they just couldn't be implemented while relying solely on the Crucible.

[MegaSovereign]

That video by Clevernoob screams denial.

On one hand he says that the endings still suck because it's just an extra cutscene, on the other he's says "the EC CONFIRMS IT."

[The Twilight God]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

If the Catalyst is truly trying to deceive Shepard, then why should we believe that any of the options work? If the Catalyst's ultimate desire is Synthesis and will do everything in its power to achieve it, then why explain the other options?

Read my posts again. I've covered all of this. The Destroy thesis adresses this best, I believe.

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Secondly, you assume that the Reapers are inherently evil, even though there's no indication that they even operate on the same set of morals. You're trying to apply organic concepts to a hyper-advanced mind.

There morals are irrelevent to me just as I am irrelevent to them. I don't have to assume anything. They have shown, through their actions, what they are throughout the entire series. A ten minute chat isn't going to change that.

Even from a moral relativistic perspective they are in opposition to my likes and dislikes. That is enough for me to personally consider them "evil".