1238 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 wrote...

Headcannon

Logical Analysis:

1.  In mid and high EMS scenarios, both Control and Destroy options are available.
2.  In low EMS scenarios the core or brain decide which option of the two (Destroy or Control respectively) is available.
3.  Low EMS scenarios results in the Reapers severely damaging the Crucible.
4.  Therefore, the greater damage sustained in low EMS scenarios must account for the lack of choices in low EMS scenarios.
5.  The Core is a power source per the codex.
6.  The Brain is a computational processor per the codex.
7.  The Core allows for only Destroy in low EMS; Therefore, the ability to destroy must be linked to the presence of the power the core provides.
8.  The Brain allows for only Control in low EMS; Therefore, the ability to use the control prongs must be linked to the presence of the computational computer.
9.  Given the fact that the human reaper parts survive the Reaper attacks against the Crucible and the fact that if those parts aren't present its associated capabilies are lost, it is deduced that the Reaper parts are more durable than the standard non-reaper parts that take their place if they are absent.
10.  If you have the core, you do not have the processor. Therefore you have a power source for the Crucible, but no computational capabilies.
11.  If you have the processor you do not have the core. Therefore you have computational capabilities, but no power to run the Crucible.
12.  The lack of computational capabilites and the presence of a power source allows for an energy release that destroys everything indescriminately.
13.  The presence of computational capabilies and a power source (in mid and high EMS) allows for a Crucible that targets reaper technology.
14.  Conclusion #1: The computational capabilies of the Crucible determine the effects of the blast wave.
15. The lack of a power source and presense of computational capabilites allows for the control ending with damage to the Normandy, Big Ben collapsing and critical damage to the relays.
16.  The presence of computational capabilies and a power source (in mid and high EMS) results in the control ending with minimum damage to the relays, Big Ben standing and a relatively undamaged Normandy.
17.  The lack of computational capabilies and the presence of a power source results in the inability to initiate the control ending.
18:  Conclusion #2: Control is not heavily dependent on the Crucible's power, but instead is dependent on its computational capabilities.

These conclusions are not headcanon. These conclusions are factual observations illustrated in the game itself.

I'd love to hear why you think the core allows for Destroy and the brain allows for Control in low EMs scenarios. Obviously, any conclusion you assert that differs from what is shown in-game will be wrong as what is illustrated in-game is irrefutable fact.

Fixers0 wrote...

you can't even shoot tube unless you're standing right in front of it, as you can only hit on specific part, so the kid might just presented him with the other two options and refuse to raise the platform to the tube.

The player cannot shoot the tubes from any location, but Shepard could shoot them from where he's standing at when he finishes talking to the KId. He has a gun. Last time I cheecked they are ranged weapons. And he has a clear shot from where he's standing at during the conversation with the Kid. You're confusing player requirements with Shepard requirements. The only reason the player has to walk up to to the tubes is because the tube shooting cinematic takes place at close range. It's an artificial limitation for the sake of the developers' cinematic vision.

Fixers0 wrote...

Just a few simple questions of logic:
-Why is there even a shootable tube?
-Why is there even a platform leading  to the destroy tube?
-Why does that option exists at all (on the citadel)?
-Why am i shooting this tube X3?

 - The device is receiving power to function. And the power has to enter it from somewhere. That place is as good as any. As far as why it is fragile enough to be taken out with a gun? Ask Bioware. My guess: Because if the Reapers set up a fool proof plan the protagonist couldn't win. No one wants to play a game, much less a trilogy, in which their defeat was set in stone from the very get go.

- That area of the Citadel could apparently morph and reconfigure itself. Anderson claims to see the walls move. That's my in-game explaination. I personally see it as a representation of the dialog wheel. Control is blue (reaper paragon), Destroy is red (reaper renegade) and Synthesis is "rally the crowd".

- Destroy is not an option in the sense that you push a button or flip a switch to select it. Destroying the "tubes" is shutting down whatever is keeping the Crucible from firing. This is all in my first post. Read up before replying because if you ask me anymore question that are already answered in my thesis I'm just going to post a link to it.

- Destroy Anaysis: http://social.biowar...9372/1#13419372

Fixers0 wrote...

Now Let me explain what's happening here:

You've come up with a theory that is soley based on your subjective interpertation of certain scenes with established contradictory content, then when faced with simple questions of logic or reason you can't anwser them without going into more  speculation, which are obivously just convienant make-ups as they aren't backed up any were in the narative, I'm not actually blaming you at this point, but you attempt to anwser logical questions in a narative that doesn't have one, especially given the rather questionable content of previous scenes, have we gotten a ''you're indoctrinated message'' at the end of all endings but destroy? no we haven't, because it's not there

What "established contradictory content"? There is nothing in-game that contradicts my thesis. My theory is based on solid evidence and objective observations. It is logically sound.

And what exactly is a "simple question of logic and reason"? Please stop trying to sound intelligent. None of your questions are "of logic and reason". They are just plain ordinary (and uninspired) questions.

Fixers0 wrote...

These endings are just poorly written and we just have to deal with it.

You subscribe to the Bad Writting Theory. That's cool. Whatever floats your boat. However, that particular theory requires you to ignore the most obvious plot device - indoctrination - in order to erroneously come to that conclusion. 

Example: These aren't the droids you're looking for 

Carl: That scene is bad writing. There is no way that trooper would just let them past. They clearly have the droid types the Empire is looking for.
Bob: Obi Wan obviously used the force. It's a pretty important part of the Star Wars universe.
Carl: No, there is no force powers in the scene. It's just bad writting.
Bob: No, the force is an established plot device. Obi Wan is a Jedi. It only makes sense if the force was used.
Carl: Headcanon. Pure speculation on your part. You just need to accept that the Star Wars writers suck.
Bob: No, the lore supports the fact that the force was used. You're intentionally ignoring the one obvious reason for the scene playing out the way it does.

So let me explain to you what's happening here. You like your sunshine and butterflies endings and you'd rather it be bad writting than there only be one "win ending". So you ignore the fact that indoctrination exists and simply prefer to believe that the Reapers aren't going to try to use it on Shepard. Which is a complete load of crap and you know it. The narrative and plot dictate that an indoctrination attempt is taking place on the Citadel. You just have to deal with it. 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:19 .

[megamacka]

http://www.escapistm...le-Player-Games
http://www.destructo...es-234402.phtml

This explains A LOT..... If they ruin DA3 because they are forced to make multiplayer content cuz otherwise EA will butt rape Bioware I swear to god.... I will call Al qaida on them. I have the number dialed in right now, listen to me Bioware. If you can hear me.... DO NOT!!!!!!!!! DO NOT DO IT!!!!!! DO NOT FORCE MY HAND!

Modifié par megamacka, 06 septembre 2012 - 05:52 .

[megamacka]

You've come up with a theory that is soley based on your subjective interpertation of certain scenes with established contradictory content, then when faced with simple questions of logic or reason you can't anwser them without going into more speculation, which are obivously just convienant make-ups as they aren't backed up any were in the narative, I'm not actually blaming you at this point, but you attempt to anwser logical questions in a narative that doesn't have one, especially given the rather questionable content of previous scenes, have we gotten a ''you're indoctrinated message'' at the end of all endings but destroy? no we haven't, because it's not there ,These endings are just poorly written and we just have to deal with it.

If Bioware actually left out indoctrination in the ending.... The most important plot device in the entire series..
I don't even know what to say, I'll just go grab the rope....

Modifié par megamacka, 06 septembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[Lord Goose]

Just a little question.

Here is a picture from one of the ME3 endings (warning: bad quality). Is it something what did really happened in Mass Effect universe at some point (maybe after the endings, maybe not), or it is Reaper-induced happy dream?

Modifié par Lord Goose, 06 septembre 2012 - 07:01 .

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

Just a little question.

Here is a picture from one of the ME3 endings (warning: bad quality). Is it something what did really happened in Mass Effect universe at some point (maybe after the endings, maybe not), or it is Reaper-induced happy dream?

Short answer: The EC slides are intended to placate angry fans by showing them pretty pictures. If you take the endings literally, they in no way state that anything in the slides ever happens. Bioware counts on players to make emotionally charged assumptions about the pictures.

This is covered in this thread's subject material: http://social.biowar...9372/1#13419372

The Twilight God wrote...


So of course a typical argument against any indoctrination theory 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 their truth and honesty!”

But do things turn out better in Control and Synthesis?

This is never definitively elaborated upon. All of the epilogue slides involve a narrator speaking about what they foresee will happen, want to happen, hope will happen or plan to make happen. The slides do not actually occur in real-time. Nothing in the slides actually occur in-game. The endings don't happen in the future. The endings are in the present. No time travel takes place. The EC slides are intended to placate angry fans by showing them pretty pictures. Ignore the slides and just listen to what the narrator actually says. The narrator does not describe what is on screen. The narrator cannot know if any of that stuff would happen as the narrator is speaking from the perspective of a person in the present. It is merely an individual talking about their hopes for the future in a general manner. No direct mention of krogan babies, geth-quarian peace, Jack becoming the headmaster of Grissom, Miranda becoming president of Earth, or anything else of that sort. Bioware counts on people to see what they want to see. Many players assume everything in the slides is an actual depiction of the future. There is no evidence of this being true. There cannot be as the endings take place in the present.

Even the Stargazer scene, which takes place in an unspecified place and time, involving an unspecified species is ambiguous. The Stargazer says, "Some of the details have been lost in time. It all happened so very long ago", so for all we know whatever ending the player chooses is just his telling of the legend. Even if the player chooses Control or Synthesis, Destroy can still be what actually occurred "so very long ago".

It goes further into how Control and synthesis probably work out, but I'm not going to quote the entire post.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 06 septembre 2012 - 07:17 .

[Lord Goose]

This is never definitively elaborated upon. All of the epilogue slides involve a narrator speaking about what they foresee will happen, want to happen, hope will happen or plan to make happen.

So... you are telling me what Hackett planned this?



Or this?



Or even this?



Ok, seriously.

Did you considered the possibility, that these events are occuring in the future? Given that it is fictional universe and almost anything might occur.

If you take the endings literally, they in no way state that anything in the slides ever happens.

Well. We have that picture.



Chris Priestly and Mike Gamble said it should be take literally (more or less).

Great question. I honestly didn't know the answer to this one, so I asked Patrick Weekes, the man who wrote Kasumi in Mass Effect 3 and this is what he said:
"In Synthesis, the improved communication/relationship between synthetics and organics is enough for Keiji's greybox memories to be reconstructed. This would let Kasumi reunite with her lover (at least mentally and emotionally). Whether it really is Keiji, based on his memories, or just a very good AI reconstruction of him, is up to the player to determine -- that type of question is one of the core questions of Synthesis."

You dissmised that in our latest discussion on the grounds, what it wasn't stated in-game, as I remember.

But was it said in game that "The EC slides are intended to placate angry fans by showing them pretty pictures. If you take the endings literally, they in no way state that anything in the slides ever happens. Bioware counts on players to make emotionally charged assumptions about the pictures."? As far I remember, it isn't.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 06 septembre 2012 - 07:37 .

[DecCylonus]

Here is the problem with arguing that Refuse is the anti-indoctrination ending: if Shepard is indoctrinated, s/he is going to do what the Reapers want period. Indoctrination victims don't know they are indoctrinated. Everything they do they are either forced to do or manipulated to do by the Reapers. So if you believe that Shepard is indoctrinated, then any choice the player makes at the end of ME3 must logically be the Reapers' choice, including Refuse.

Arguing that Refuse is the anti-indoctrination choice is metagaming, by definition. You, the player, are making a choice based on knowledge that Shepard does not have: that s/he is indoctrinated. You claim a moral victory in that you did not choose one of the "indoctrinated options," but a person who was really indoctrinated would not know it and could not follow that logic to a moral victory. You have stepped outside of the bounds what your character would do with the knowledge available to him/her. Saren and TIM only realized they were indoctrinated when confronted by a very persuasive Shepard, and there is nobody left on the Citadel to persuade Shepard that s/he has been indoctrinated.

Lastly, if you believe Shepard was indoctrinated instantly on the Citadel, then there is no hope for Shepard to wake up and save the galaxy. All the lore on indoctrination says that if it is done quickly, it reduces the subject to a gibbering animal that will die within days. So even if you metagame and Refuse, the galaxy has lost Shepard.

Modifié par DecCylonus, 06 septembre 2012 - 07:52 .

[megamacka]

Lastly, if you believe Shepard was indoctrinated instantly on the Citadel, then there is no hope for Shepard to wake up and save the galaxy. All the lore on indoctrination says that if it is done quickly, it reduces the subject to a gibbering animal that will die within days. So even if you metagame and Refuse, the galaxy has lost Shepard.

This theory does not involve shepard '' waking up ''.... Shepard has been around indoctrinated people and reaper artifacts from day 1 in ME1. It obviously would not have been a '' fast indoctrination '' but being so close to harbringer obviously '' finalized '' it or enhances the already begun process. This isn't about '' refuse being the anti- indoctrination '' either. I think that you have watched Clevernoobs load of bullcrap on youtube and came here thinking that this is the exact same theory.

  Personally, I think that refuse is the most stupid choice ever. You have the means to do what you've been out to do since ME1. DESTROY the reapers, and then you just go '' no.... I changed my mind, actually i'll let them kill us ''. But people QQed and Bioware decided to add it. People wanted to destroy the reapers without using the crucible.... What was the point with building it then?....

Modifié par megamacka, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:06 .

[megamacka]

You dissmised that in our latest discussion on the grounds, what it wasn't stated in-game, as I remember.

But was it said in game that "The EC slides are intended to placate angry fans by showing them pretty pictures. If you take the endings literally, they in no way state that anything in the slides ever happens. Bioware counts on players to make emotionally charged assumptions about the pictures."? As far I remember, it isn't.

I feel a lil bit rusty on EXACTLY what Twilight thinks when it comes to how the endings play out or not so I will not try to speak for his thesis or anything this is all my opinion/view. ( I don't have time to read through it all again atm ).

The starbrat is obviously not telling the absolute truth when it comes to the different choices, he is obviously biased towards Synthesis and it has already been stated and he himself also states that his tried this '' solution '' before. Indoctrination takes place and whatever or not it is successful or not is up to YOU the player ( I believe twilight agreed on this too ). I believe that Bioware left enough evidence to appeal to every player, if the IT was false they would simply have stated this a long time ago but you see.... I don't think that it is false, I believe that indoctrination IS taking place and that the starbrat is trying to '' turn '' you to choose Synthesis.

The entire series has been about the reapers being these '' space meanies/bullies that you are striving to annihilate from the face of the universe. Shepard has been exposed to indoctrinated people AND artifacts 100 times more than anyone ever before. The indoctrination is also successful should you fail in the arrival DLC ( perhaps the process was already ongoing and was finalized there ? ) or why would he be successfully indoctrinated in 20 minutes when he spends MUCH MUCH longer in close proximity on earth with the reapers and throughout the series? Perhaps the reapers indeed wanted shepard to reach the crucible or perhaps shepard was strong enough to successfully resist but failed due to his weakened state and being so close at the citadel.

Whatever or not they wanted him to reach the citadel which I personally do not believe, but you see... The beauty of NOT having a god damned explanation to everything ( look at star wars for example, the medi chlorians made me facepalm ) is something good imo as it gives room for speculation and you can't necessarily prove anyone wrong. Greater freedom to the player/viewer so to speak. But anyway, so we are now at the citadel and the starbrat aka harbringer or whatever ( imo, and we can't really know 100% for sure ) makes his last attempt to indoctrinate shepard into finalizing what they, the reapers have been trying to do as he see this as his last chance for survival ( harbringer that is ). Shepard has already '' succeeded '' so to speak , his got the option to destroy them infront of him.

If you do decide to pick Synthesis which I do believe to be an immoral choice ( I do, not everyone ) I believe that the reapers do in fact SHOULD IT REALLY HAPPEN and shep just don't ..... get burnt... get to rule '' with an iron fist '' so to speak. I believe that we all become slaves to them in a way and lose our '' humanity ''. Perhaps the Leviathans will get to '' ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL '' of us all. You see, I don't believe that we all get to live all happily ever after and dance in the sunlight and marry husks or whatever. It's just stupid imo. And NO ONE really knows, and I think it's best like this we all get to make our own interpretation and neither is necessarily wrong or right.

So in short, I believe that the starbrat is leaving out '' details '' for each choice. He over exaggerate the outcome of destroy for example to make it less appealing. And why would I let a random reaper starbrat AI change my mind in the last 2 minutes? Do I really have the right or enough evidence to make that choice? Just because he claims something doesn't necessarily make it so. And just because the epilogue shows us a few pictures ( which was NOT there in the first place, they were added after a fan outrage to soothe them ) doesn't mean that it is necessarily true that this is how the galaxy looks after a year, two years, twelve years? Perhaps it is what they WANT you to believe, what the reapers want YOU to believe.

By the way, the pic with Samara and her daughter. Isn't that from the Destroy ending, they don't look '' reaperizied '' :-) or perhaps I just can't see it cuz of the size.
But the epilogue pics was nontheless added after a fan outrage to calm people down and I believe that Bioware has more in store for us ( Leviathan kinda confirmed this to me ). If you just got a '' Critical mission failure '' after picking Control or synthesis it would ruin the entire scheme. Same if you only get an epilogue after the destroy ending.

   Sorry for a huge wall of text, I hope that you bothered to read and didn't get all butt hurt offended that I know some people can get. You see, the beauty of having freedom of speech and to be able to have different interpretations and opinions . It should be honored. And I respect your choice to view the ending. As I respect anyones, at the very least you came with some things that you view as '' evidence against this theory '' just as twilight has his '' evidence for the theory ''. Critique is good, bashing and ranting ala OMG YOU SO STUPIDO THIS SUCKS OMF SUCK SOMETHING, is bad.

Modifié par megamacka, 06 septembre 2012 - 11:41 .

[Zagardal]

The Twilight God wrote...
My guess: Because if the Reapers set up a fool proof plan the protagonist couldn't win. No one wants to play
a game, much less a trilogy, in which their defeat was set in stone from the very get go.

If it serves as a setting for a future game, and things are explained properly, I wouldn't mind. I don't mind that on books or movies either. The sens of hopelessness at the end of a story can be quite powerful.

Lastly, if you believe Shepard was indoctrinated instantly on the Citadel, then there is no hope for Shepard to wake up and save the galaxy. All the lore on indoctrination says that if it is done quickly, it reduces the subject to a gibbering animal that will die within days. So even if you metagame and Refuse, the galaxy has lost Shepard.

That's why most people that believe IT is possible think that Shepard is fighting the final stages of a long indoctrination process, but he/she is not fully indoctrinaded.

Modifié par Zagardal, 07 septembre 2012 - 01:14 .

[Ithurael]

LOL TTG, How many times have you changed the title of this thread

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

So... you are telling me what Hackett planned this?
Or this?
Or even this?

Ok, seriously.

You're not paying attention. In addition, your reply reads like an appeal to ridicule instead of a logical rebuttal to my assertion.

The Twilight God wrote...

The EC slides are intended to placate angry fans by showing them pretty pictures. Ignore the slides and just listen to what the narrator actually says. The narrator does not describe what is on screen.

The slides are meaningless and are just for your benefit. They have no connection to the narrators or what they are saying. Bioware counted on the fact that people would make unsubstantiated assumptions about the slides.

Lord Goose wrote...

Did you considered the possibility, that these events are occuring in the future? Given that it is fictional universe and almost anything might occur.

A lot of things have been considered. However, at the end of the day those slides contradict the reality of the post ending universe.

The Control ending leads to the continuation of the cycle. Synthesis would seem to results in total Leviathan domination or a less volatile Harvest. So the scenes depicted in the slides for those endings are highly unlikely to have occurred.

Destroy involves the destruction of the relays without the benfit of an army of giant robots positioned across the galaxy to repair them. This means the various star clusters are cut off from one another. There is also the issue of no one knowing how to build or fix relays. So resources are going to have to be dedicated to discovering the secrets of the mass relays. When you also factor in a toppled infrastructure, disease, famine and other immediate post-apocalyptic concerns that need addressing and limited resources, I find it difficult to believe the keys to unlocking relay technology is going to occur overnight.

Let's be generous and say they figure out how to repair mass relays within the first decade. Now they still have to travel to Arcturus via FTL. Charon is a secondary relay and is relatively short range to Arcturus. These distances may only take a few days or weeks; a month at most. However, the distance between primary relays can take years, decades or even centuries per the codex. An entirely new subculture will be required to mimic the Quarian Flotilla. Liveships will need to be constructed to feed the crews of the repair fleets traversing the great distances between star clusters. In some cases the children of a crew may be the ones who actually perform the repairs. This is no simple undertaking. So is it possible that the Krogan experience a cultural renaissance at some point in the future? Yes. Do I see Grunt returning the Tuchanka before his plates have developed? No. Do I see Samara returning to Thessia within her lifetime? No.

As Admiral Hackett says, "It will take time..."

Lord Goose wrote...

Well. We have that picture.

Chris Priestly and Mike Gamble said it should be take literally (more or less).

Then Christ Preistly and Mike Gamble shouldn't have written a story that dictates that events depicted in those slides could not occur. Oh, wait, neither of those men wrote Mass Effect 3's ending.

Lord Goose wrote...

*comments attributed to Patrick Weekes*

You dissmised that in our latest discussion on the grounds, what it wasn't stated in-game, as I remember.

But was it said in game that "The EC slides are intended to placate angry fans by showing them pretty pictures.

It doesn't have to. I am simply taking what is presented at face value, not infusing personal interpretation into the equation. So rather or not it's to placate players isn't relevent. You can dismiss that statement if you like. The only thing of importance in this regard is the fact that no narrator makes any direct reference to anything depicted in those slides. The narrations are all from a perspective of what is hoped for, not what has occured.

If you are asserting that the slides depict the future, the burden of proof is on you. It is not my responsibility to prove a negative.

[The Twilight God]

DecCylonus wrote...

Here is the problem with arguing that Refuse is the anti-indoctrination ending: if Shepard is indoctrinated, s/he is going to do what the Reapers want period. Indoctrination victims don't know they are indoctrinated. Everything they do they are either forced to do or manipulated to do by the Reapers. So if you believe that Shepard is indoctrinated, then any choice the player makes at the end of ME3 must logically be the Reapers' choice, including Refuse.

Arguing that Refuse is the anti-indoctrination choice is metagaming, by definition. You, the player, are making a choice based on knowledge that Shepard does not have: that s/he is indoctrinated. You claim a moral victory in that you did not choose one of the "indoctrinated options," but a person who was really indoctrinated would not know it and could not follow that logic to a moral victory. You have stepped outside of the bounds what your character would do with the knowledge available to him/her. Saren and TIM only realized they were indoctrinated when confronted by a very persuasive Shepard, and there is nobody left on the Citadel to persuade Shepard that s/he has been indoctrinated.

Lastly, if you believe Shepard was indoctrinated instantly on the Citadel, then there is no hope for Shepard to wake up and save the galaxy. All the lore on indoctrination says that if it is done quickly, it reduces the subject to a gibbering animal that will die within days. So even if you metagame and Refuse, the galaxy has lost Shepard.

You either did not read the theory being discussed or you have posted in this thread in error.

Please read the subject matter before posting again:

Part I: Destroy Analysis
Part II: Control Analysis
Part III: Synthesis Analysis
Part IV: Refuse Analysis
Part V: The Catalyst's Deceptions

[Fixers0]

The Twilight God wrote...

1.  In mid and high EMS scenarios, both Control and Destroy options are available.
2.  In low EMS scenarios the core or brain decide which option of the two (Destroy or Control respectively) is available.
3.  Low EMS scenarios results in the Reapers severely damaging the Crucible.
4.  Therefore, the greater damage sustained in low EMS scenarios must account for the lack of choices in low EMS scenarios.
5.  The Core is a power source per the codex.
6.  The Brain is a computational processor per the codex.
7.  The Core allows for only Destroy in low EMS; Therefore, the ability to destroy must be linked to the presence of the power the core provides.
8.  The Brain allows for only Control in low EMS; Therefore, the ability to use the control prongs must be linked to the presence of the computational computer.
9.  Given the fact that the human reaper parts survive the Reaper attacks against the Crucible and the fact that if those parts aren't present its associated capabilies are lost, it is deduced that the Reaper parts are more durable than the standard non-reaper parts that take their place if they are absent.
10.  If you have the core, you do not have the processor. Therefore you have a power source for the Crucible, but no computational capabilies.
11.  If you have the processor you do not have the core. Therefore you have computational capabilities, but no power to run the Crucible.
12.  The lack of computational capabilites and the presence of a power source allows for an energy release that destroys everything indescriminately.
13.  The presence of computational capabilies and a power source (in mid and high EMS) allows for a Crucible that targets reaper technology.
14.  Conclusion #1: The computational capabilies of the Crucible determine the effects of the blast wave.
15. The lack of a power source and presense of computational capabilites allows for the control ending with damage to the Normandy, Big Ben collapsing and critical damage to the relays.
16.  The presence of computational capabilies and a power source (in mid and high EMS) results in the control ending with minimum damage to the relays, Big Ben standing and a relatively undamaged Normandy.
17.  The lack of computational capabilies and the presence of a power source results in the inability to initiate the control ending.
18:  Conclusion #2: Control is not heavily dependent on the Crucible's power, but instead is dependent on its computational capabilities.

Facts from the game please , not you're fanboy fantatsies or subjective interpertation. Also note the crucible was finished before cronos station.

The Twilight God wrote...
I'd love to hear why you think the core allows for Destroy and the brain allows for Control in low EMs scenarios. Obviously, any conclusion you assert that differs from what is shown in-game will be wrong as what is illustrated in-game is irrefutable fact.

There is no logical explanation, that's bad writing.

The Twilight God wrote...

The player cannot shoot the tubes from any location, but Shepard could shoot them from where he's standing at when he finishes talking to the KId. He has a gun. Last time I cheecked they are ranged weapons. And he has a clear shot from where he's standing at during the conversation with the Kid. You're confusing player requirements with Shepard requirements. The only reason the player has to walk up to to the tubes is because the tube shooting cinematic takes place at close range. It's an artificial limitation for the sake of the developers' cinematic vision.

More speculation, Shepard has no evidence that shooting this tube is going to accomplish anything, and don't come up with another of your imaginary scenarios

The Twilight God wrote...
 - The device is receiving power to function. And the power has to enter it from somewhere. That place is as good as any. As far as why it is fragile enough to be taken out with a gun? Ask Bioware. My guess: Because if the Reapers set up a fool proof plan the protagonist couldn't win. No one wants to play a game, much less a trilogy, in which their defeat was set in stone from the very get go.

so you admit that this was poorly designed, No logical anwser.

The Twilight God wrote...
- That area of the Citadel could apparently morph and reconfigure itself. Anderson claims to see the walls move. That's my in-game explaination. I personally see it as a representation of the dialog wheel. Control is blue (reaper paragon), Destroy is red (reaper renegade) and Synthesis is "rally the crowd".

Metaphysical properties of structures don't suddenly change, No Logical anwser.

The Twilight God wrote...
- Destroy is not an option in the sense that you push a button or flip a switch to select it. Destroying the "tubes" is shutting down whatever is keeping the Crucible from firing. This is all in my first post. Read up before replying because if you ask me anymore question that are already answered in my thesis I'm just going to post a link to it.

Speculation, Destroy is just as well a choice presented by the God kid, No logican anwser.

The Twilight God wrote...
What "established contradictory content"? There is nothing in-game that contradicts my thesis. My theory is based on solid evidence and objective observations. It is logically sound.

Hey genius, I was talking about the ending sequences in general and how they contradict with lore, the universe and setting, don't try to make logic of sequences that don't contain logic.

The Twilight God wrote...
And what exactly is a "simple question of logic and reason"? Please stop trying to sound intelligent. None of your questions are "of logic and reason". They are just plain ordinary (and uninspired) questions.

No, there simply logical question i ask myself when i see you're bizzare theory that is not supported by any facts given and how you are inventing anwsers based upon your subjective interpertation of the narrative not knowing that they aren't there.

Modifié par Fixers0, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 paraphrased

*hand wave* It's bad writting. I will not accept it as good writting no matter what. I want my rainbows and butterflies ending. Nothing in the plot makes sense therefore every time you show that it does make sense you must be wrong. *hand waves the lore, narrative, theme and plot away*

Lalalalalalal - Can't hear you! - Lalalalalalalalala - Can't see you - Lalalalalalalalalalalala - <insert ad hominem> - LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA, etc. etc.

Yeah, that's nice

My thesis is based on solid evidence and facts. Facts that you could not, can not and will not refute because they are indesputable facts. 

At this point you have offered no rebuttal for my thesis. You just handwave the lore away and shout "bad writting" over and over because you'd rather the writting suck than not be able to have your sunshine and butterflies ending. So between you and me, the narrative dictates indoctrination and we both agree on that. If you don't agree, feel free to rebute my thesis, paragrahp by paragrpah. I'd suggest you take it one analysis at a start. Might I suggest you start at Destroy to keep it in order. 

However, if you cannot, your inability to rebute my thesis dictates your de facto agreement. Now you may not like the implications of indoctrination because it strips you of your rainbows and butterflies ending, but it's just something you have to deal with. You're emotional rejection of IT-con is irrelevent as you intellectually accept it.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:22 .

[Book of Mazarbul]

They blew the ending to a potentially great trilogy. There's no brilliant conclusion, no secret twist. It's a half-decent sci-fi saga with a half-baked wrapup, worth picking up for a few bucks, nothing more. It's sad that so many fans can't just accept that and move on. It's a shame OP went to so much trouble to write all this without realizing a rookie-level flaw typical of freshman English majors - assuming the infinite ability omniscience of the writers. Nobody pored over instilling hidden meaning into every line the Catalyst spouts, and certainly not the schlock shunted in the EC. It's a slapdash abortion of an ending, and no "thesis" or "facts" can change that. It's a tragedy that it ended so poorly, get over it already!

Sadly, trying to impress reality on IT zealots is no different from trying to open the eyes of the religious brainwashed, it's simply too painful to consider that all that time defending a conspiracy theory was wasted on a head trip.

Modifié par Book of Mazarbul, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[Lord Goose]

You're not paying attention. In addition, your reply reads like an appeal to ridicule instead of a logical rebuttal to my assertion.

I just have serious douts that Hackett will care about Zaeed, Samara and Reela, or Jack specifically.

Destroy involves the destruction of the relays without the benfit of an army of giant robots positioned across the galaxy to repair them. This means the various star clusters are cut off from one another. There is also the issue of no one knowing how to build or fix relays.

I assume what you are no expert of Mass Relay technology. I am neither. Therefore the debate about them is fruitless, since you don't have capacity to know how exactly Mass Relays works and how hard it will be to rebuild them after Destroy. And even if you do, I do not have capacity to verify it, since it requires knowledge that I am lacking.

However, since it is fictional universe, where many unrealistic events did occur, I don't see any reason why another unrealistic from our stand point event will.

Then Christ Preistly and Mike Gamble shouldn't have written a story that dictates that events depicted in those slides could not occur. Oh, wait, neither of those men wrote Mass Effect 3's ending.

It was what Patrick Weekes said. My bad.

So, you admit that your take on the endings is different from that Bioware staff (including writers) said about it?

If you are asserting that the slides depict the future, the burden of proof is on you. It is not my responsibility to prove a negative.

It could be depiction of the future, or that narrator thinks is going to happen, or Reaper-induced happy dream. Or regular dream. Or part of the fictional story told by Stargazer.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

@TTG Stop editing other people's post. Onlyy makes you look like a raving lunatic who sees what he wants to see and ignores the rest.

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[Book of Mazarbul]

megamacka wrote...

If Bioware actually left out indoctrination in the ending.... The most important plot device in the entire series..
I don't even know what to say, I'll just go grab the rope....

Sorry, they did. It's a big downer, and many years of fandom end in a big raspberry. Thankfully, as rational humans we have to power to move on to better things. Breaking Bad. Game of Thrones. The Witcher. Whatever floats your boat, there are many things far superior to what ME has become, across all genres. Sometimes you gamble big and lose, and we all lost a lot when we bet on Bioware coming up with a good ending. Them's the breaks. 

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Stop editing other people's post. Onlyy makes you look like a raving lunatic who sees what he wants to see and ignores the rest.

 

I really don't think there's hope for this fellow. Best to let the thread die as all the sane people realize there's more out there than a disappointing sci-fi video game trilogy. 

Modifié par Book of Mazarbul, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I think TTG is incapablle of understanding that sometimes, writers just screw up. That not everything is an elaborate idea that uses both lore and meta.

[megamacka]

Sorry, they did. It's a big downer, and many years of fandom end in a big raspberry. Thankfully, as rational humans we have to power to move on to better things. Breaking Bad. Game of Thrones. The Witcher. Whatever floats your boat, there are many things far superior to what ME has become, across all genres. Sometimes you gamble big and lose, and we all lost a lot when we bet on Bioware coming up with a good ending. Them's the breaks.

You see, this is how I interpreted the ending post EC DLC and it actually helped me sleep better at night and not cry in the shower and yell WHY. Unless Bioware comes forth and confirms anything, Both you and I are just as much wrong/right as the other. They even said ( can't remember who ) in an interview ( that is on youtube, If you really really want leave a comment and I'll find it for you ) that they don't want to change or affect how people interpret the ending, basically. We are both right. The difference is, that some come here trying to RUIN the ending for me and a lot of people. I think that this is wrong, if you don't want to believe in this then fine. Goodbye, but don't come here and bash it trying to destroy what little hope remains for this series to me. That's just called being a douche.

  But in the end of the day, the entire game was a disappointment with RPG elements stripped away. '' Fixing '' the ending wouldn't change that.

And yes! I can't wait for Season 3 of Game of thrones :-). Too bad that they take so god damned long to make the series ( and to write the books ! ) lol.

But yeah, some people choose to believe in this I suppose:

Modifié par megamacka, 07 septembre 2012 - 12:26 .

[Fixers0]

The Twilight God wrote...

(Personal insults and fanboy fantasies)

Do you get a "you're indoctrinated" message, after choosing Control, Synthesis and refusal: No, therefore you're entire initial statment is false, that and that visuals are an untrustworhty source.   

And the Endings are badly written, and if you have any arguments to refute the various contrivances, confusions and inconsistancies i brought up earliers or are in any of videous i linked you to you should post them, or else you're statment that the endings are flawless aren't supported by any objective facts.

The fact that you're unwilling to respond to any of the videos i posted also confirms that you are unable to argue their against their content and explicitly agree with any content they might hold.

And i really like how you start around throwing personal insults instead of actually brining up reasonable arguments.

But i'm a good person and i'll grant you a opertunity to redeeem yourself, in addition to watching the videos i reffered to earlier, you could also anwser the simple question of why there is a destroy option at all using strictly material provided within the narative.

EDIT:  ''You just handwave the lore away'' i really hope you were talking about the game.

Modifié par Fixers0, 07 septembre 2012 - 12:42 .

[The Twilight God]

Book of Mazarbul wrote...

They blew the ending to a potentially great trilogy. There's no brilliant conclusion, no secret twist. It's a half-decent sci-fi saga with a half-baked wrapup, worth picking up for a few bucks, nothing more. It's sad that so many fans can't just accept that and move on. It's a shame OP went to so much trouble to write all this without realizing a rookie-level flaw typical of freshman English majors - assuming the infinite ability omniscience of the writers. Nobody pored over instilling hidden meaning into every line the Catalyst spouts, and certainly not the schlock shunted in the EC. It's a slapdash abortion of an ending, and no "thesis" or "facts" can change that. It's a tragedy that it ended so poorly, get over it already!

Sadly, trying to impress reality on IT zealots is no different from trying to open the eyes of the religious brainwashed, it's simply too painful to consider that all that time defending a conspiracy theory was wasted on a head trip.

The conclusion isn't brilliant. A lot of players are just deliberately dim-witted,  choosing to intentionally ignore the existence of indoctrination because they refuse to acknowledge they have been duped.  There is no secret twist.  It's patently obvious.  Indoctrination isn't a mystery.  It is a fact of life when it comes to the Reapers.
 
It appears that many would rather have a poorly written, inconsistent and thematically discombobulated ending rather than acknowledge that indoctrination exists and is a tool of the antagonist.  If you make a conscious decision to view Mass Effect 3 as bad writing that is fine.  Whatever floats your boat.  But explain to me why I should simply accept the Bad Writing Theory when the facts dictate otherwise?
 
You're entire argument is unsubstantiated circular logic.
 
1.  Conclusion #1: It's bad writing.
2.  Because it's bad writing there can be nothing to show it isn't bad writing.
3. Therefore, there is nothing to show it isn't bad writing
4. Conclusion#2: It's bad writing.
 
Like those who subscribe to Dream Theory, your conclusion comes first. Then you ignore everything contrary to your preconceived notions and view everything from the goggles of your preconceived notions.  Finally, you take your uninspired stance of habitual denial and reaffirm the original conclusion.
 
So again I ask, why I should simply accept the Bad Writing Theory when the facts dictate otherwise?  Other than because you say so.

[Pitznik]

The Twilight God wrote...

Book of Mazarbul wrote...

They blew the ending to a potentially great trilogy. There's no brilliant conclusion, no secret twist. It's a half-decent sci-fi saga with a half-baked wrapup, worth picking up for a few bucks, nothing more. It's sad that so many fans can't just accept that and move on. It's a shame OP went to so much trouble to write all this without realizing a rookie-level flaw typical of freshman English majors - assuming the infinite ability omniscience of the writers. Nobody pored over instilling hidden meaning into every line the Catalyst spouts, and certainly not the schlock shunted in the EC. It's a slapdash abortion of an ending, and no "thesis" or "facts" can change that. It's a tragedy that it ended so poorly, get over it already!

Sadly, trying to impress reality on IT zealots is no different from trying to open the eyes of the religious brainwashed, it's simply too painful to consider that all that time defending a conspiracy theory was wasted on a head trip.

The conclusion isn't brilliant. A lot of players are just deliberately dim-witted,  choosing to intentionally ignore the existence of indoctrination because they refuse to acknowledge they have been duped.  There is no secret twist.  It's patently obvious.  Indoctrination isn't a mystery.  It is a fact of life when it comes to the Reapers.
 
It appears that many would rather have a poorly written, inconsistent and thematically discombobulated ending rather than acknowledge that indoctrination exists and is a tool of the antagonist.  If you make a conscious decision to view Mass Effect 3 as bad writing that is fine.  Whatever floats your boat.  But explain to me why I should simply accept the Bad Writing Theory when the facts dictate otherwise?
 
You're entire argument is unsubstantiated circular logic.
 
1.  Conclusion #1: It's bad writing.
2.  Because it's bad writing there can be nothing to show it isn't bad writing.
3. Therefore, there is nothing to show it isn't bad writing
4. Conclusion#2: It's bad writing.
 
Like those who subscribe to Dream Theory, your conclusion comes first. Then you ignore everything contrary to your preconceived notions and view everything from the goggles of your preconceived notions.  Finally, you take your uninspired stance of habitual denial and reaffirm the original conclusion.
 
So again I ask, why I should simply accept the Bad Writing Theory when the facts dictate otherwise?  Other than because you say so.

Introducing indoctrination and not revealing it would be what then, good writing? Kick the indoctrination out of your theory and it is probably the most logical interpretation of the ending that ever happened on those forums.

[Book of Mazarbul]

The Twilight God wrote...

Book of Mazarbul wrote...

They blew the ending to a potentially great trilogy. There's no brilliant conclusion, no secret twist. It's a half-decent sci-fi saga with a half-baked wrapup, worth picking up for a few bucks, nothing more. It's sad that so many fans can't just accept that and move on. It's a shame OP went to so much trouble to write all this without realizing a rookie-level flaw typical of freshman English majors - assuming the infinite ability omniscience of the writers. Nobody pored over instilling hidden meaning into every line the Catalyst spouts, and certainly not the schlock shunted in the EC. It's a slapdash abortion of an ending, and no "thesis" or "facts" can change that. It's a tragedy that it ended so poorly, get over it already!

Sadly, trying to impress reality on IT zealots is no different from trying to open the eyes of the religious brainwashed, it's simply too painful to consider that all that time defending a conspiracy theory was wasted on a head trip.

The conclusion isn't brilliant. A lot of players are just deliberately dim-witted,  choosing to intentionally ignore the existence of indoctrination because they refuse to acknowledge they have been duped.  There is no secret twist.  It's patently obvious.  Indoctrination isn't a mystery.  It is a fact of life when it comes to the Reapers.
 
It appears that many would rather have a poorly written, inconsistent and thematically discombobulated ending rather than acknowledge that indoctrination exists and is a tool of the antagonist.  If you make a conscious decision to view Mass Effect 3 as bad writing that is fine.  Whatever floats your boat.  But explain to me why I should simply accept the Bad Writing Theory when the facts dictate otherwise?
 

The bomb went off, and everyone was blinded by the cloud of grit and rubble. The difference between you and everyone else is that we've opened our eyes and are patching our wounds, and you're still trying to put the pin back in the grenade.