1238 réponses à ce sujet

[Baa Baa]

megamacka wrote...



Id pay for this.

Jawsomebob wrote...

This is amazing stuff.

[The Twilight God]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

I might as well throw this into the mix. Why do indoctrinated individuals like Amanda Kenson and Matriarch Benezia not have those "indoctrination eyes?"

They weren't zapped with arca monolith devices. They were indocrinated the old fashion way. TIM's eyes are due to indirect contact with a device strikingly similar in depiction to the control prongs.

Ben touches the reaper device and TIM gets indirectly "shocked" by grabbing Ben and trying to pull him away.

http://desmond.image...png&res=landing
http://desmond.image...png&res=landing

Modifié par The Twilight God, 14 septembre 2012 - 07:20 .

[megamacka]

I see where they are going with this... Seems legit.

They weren't zapped with arca monolith devices. They were indocrinated the old fashion way. TIM's eyes are due to indirect contact with a device strikingly similar in depiction to the control prongs.

Ben touches the reaper device and TIM gets indirectly "shocked" by grabbing Ben and trying to pull him away. 

It would've made sense if the Illusive man tried to use this or the reapers '' guided him '' into placing this at the citadel. Cheat shepard into thinking that these are able to control them, Control > destroy. If it truly works then there are only benefits ( help them rebuild etc ) NOT considering that they may go against sheps control OR that shep WILL change his mind in time. If they could get shepard to believe, through the underlying and ongoing indoctrination and the ala starbrat mr reaper then they could get shep to get in contact with this device and become fully indoctrinated and perhaps they could use him for Synthesis or something else unknown. Hey, 2 out of 3 choices that leads into their hands of Synthesis? But it's highly unlikely.

  I doubt that they would REQUIRE you to have read the comics or books but it would definetly be a nice hint for those whom have. Aka '' Don't be a R-****** and believe in the enemy just because he says so in the last 2 minutes ''.

Modifié par megamacka, 14 septembre 2012 - 11:04 .

[Restrider]

Out of mere curiousity:
Which theory seems to be more plausible/legit to you, IT Dream (ie: everything after Harbinger's Beam is a halucination and the decisions lead either to full indoctrination or breaking free (breath scene) and the reaper war is still not over) or IT Con (ie: indoc attempt as usual, but RGB actually happens, afaik. I am not so sure about the IT Con theory, if I am mistaken, please try to explain to me the differences in the two theories.)?

[Lord Goose]

. Just saying those slides aren't the future as they (as a whole) contradict the state of the galaxy. Rannoch is on the other side of the galaxy. There will be no cities on Rannoch for a Looooooooong time. The main problem is they are showing character on their homeworlds who either should have died before a route is established or be far older than they are shown.

As I have said before, to establish how much time it would be needed to make events depicted possible, we need to know:

1. How much effort and resources are needed to rebuild the Mass Relay network.
2. How much resources the Galaxy has.

Since we do not have any clear answers, any estimate is arbitrary.

Also, which slides do you consider to be impossible? As I remember, human characters in Destroy are shown on Earth, and only long-lived species such as krogan, geth and asari was shown on their homeworlds. Quarians can be anywhere, it might not even be Rannoch.

In that regard, yes, they are being dishonest. Not simply because they make states that aren't 100% aligned with my thesis.

Patrick Weekes: Kasume emotionally and mentally reunited with Keiji in Synthesis, because Synthesis changed relationship between synthetics and organics.
The Twilight God: That was meaningless picture which was needed to placate the fans. It's a lie.

You think that Patrick Weekes was dishonest or mistaken, right?

Yes, what they think is happening. People are free to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make all veiws equally valid .

You are taking this statement out of context (my fault, though).

After EC, is IT still a valid interpretation among other forms of interpretations?

I heard that certain parts of the game are not meant to be taken literal - beside the dreamsequences. Is this true?

IT concentrates on Shepard beeing indoctrinated. But are there friends, allies etc. that shouldn't be trusted anymore by the end of the game (no names, I just wanted to know if there are any)?


Yes, the Extended Cut should not affect the overall IT as I understand it (however, there are multiple iterations of this popular theory and it's possible that some speculations have been proven untrue). I actually have a dedicated saved game in which I play keeping IT in mind and I have another game that I view as a strictly literal interpretation.

The team went to great lengths to put meaning and layers of metaphor into the game. There's a lot of cool symbolism if you take the time to look for it. Definitely intentional and we want players to decide what those meanings are for themselves. These games are all about player agency so we feel that it would be wrong to provide a "canon" path or one "true" narrative. Ultimately, the work has to stand on its own and players decide what they think is happening.

JM basically says, that while people might be mistaken about details, it's up to player to decide whenever Shepard was indoctrinated, or wasn't, since Bioware felt wrong to provide hypothetical "true" narrative.

Nothing is introduced to explain his newfound absolute blind faith and trust in the Reapers. It is narratively impossibnle

What could be sign of indoctrination. Or sign of bad writing.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:08 .

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

How is ensuring their continued existence wasteful? You expect the Reapers do roll over and die rather than "waste" Shepard? Wouldn't their continued existence outweight the risks of attempting to acquire an intact Shepard?

If their continued existence is more important, then why not just kill Shepard (I have already listed many ways they could do this) And don't answer with "then the game would be impossible to win". That's a weak and desperate arguement. Why leave open the possibility of complete and utter defeat for the reapers? If their existence is of higher importance simply killing Shepard is more preffered instead of risking their 'indoctrination attempt' failing and Shepard choosing Destroy.

Well, yes, the game WOULD be impossible to win, but that isn't my answer. The Reapers being aware of the Crucible before was not a wise choice on Hudson's part without fleshing it out, as I'll admit it does require a certain suspension of disbelief. This can be alleviated with the inclusion of certain in-game events if the Reapers just installed the devices after taking the Citadel, but of course they didn't bother to even show the Battle in the Citadel.

Anyone, on to my answer.

The Twilight God wrote...

Harbinger allowed Shepard to live. Why would he do that if he had no plan in mind to bend his will? Was he going to let Shepard win? The beam he fires in Shepard's path travels to the left of Shepard (changed in the EC) as not to strike him. Yet he blows moving aircraft out of the sky with pinpoint accuracy. There are two soldiers running ahead of Shepard who Harbinger blasts away in two pinpoint shots. If Reapers have eyes and it saw the Normandy dispite the stealth drive it stands to reason it did not blow it up for fear of Shepard being killed by the explosion. And you think it allowed Shepard to live and carry on without any ulterior motive?

The Twilight God wrote...

It is not until the conduit run that the Reaper ploy begins to finally attain Shepard. I believe Harbinger allowed Shepard to live so that TIM could hold him in place while the Reapers pushed their indoctrination efforts into overload. Hence the intense headaches, alien voices, etc. TIM appears to be using dominate to control Shepard. And as I mentioned in my control analysis, TIM's conversation is clearly intended to convince Shepard. However, the Reapers underestimated Shepard and TIM's biotics failed due to his own realization of his indoctrination or heightened emotional state that throws him off balance.

The Reapers did attempt to terminate Shepard after it became clear they could not accomplish their goal with TIM. A direct bludgeoning was too obvious and was failing. Rather than risk another approach the Reapers did temporarily abandon Shepard's indoctrination in favor of killing him. TIM was the weapon they would wield to kill Shepard; However, Shepard shoots TIM first or TIM sacrifices himself. They not only underestimated Shepard, but either overestimated (renegade) or underestimated (paragon) TIM as well. 

Afterwards they had no choice but to try a different approach.

[Lord Goose]

The Reapers being aware of the Crucible before was not a wise choice on Hudson's part without fleshing it out, as I'll admit it does require a certain suspension of disbelief.

The more important question: why even bothering with bringing Shepard up to the decision chamber? The Crucible can't work on its own (Refuses proves this). If they didn't wanted to be destroyed, they could have simply leave Shepard where he or she was, and destroed the device.

Unlike mainstream IT, where choice is symbolic and somehow represents the change in Shepard's consiciousness, in your theory providing Shepard with genuine choice is meaningless, unless the Reapers had specific reasons to risk themselves. In mainstream IT, their failure means nothing, since Shepard lives and can be indoctrinated in the future, which is at very least makes some amounts of sense.

Remember one of our previous discussions? About Renegade Shepard? Basically, according to you Reapers commited suicide in Renegade Destroy, because they were too stupid to judge Shepard, even though they were inside his or her mind all along. They knew that the guy really doesn't care about the geth, but still sticked armed gun to their forehead, and allowed Shepard to shoot it.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:03 .

[Restrider]

Lord Goose wrote...

The Reapers being aware of the Crucible before was not a wise choice on Hudson's part without fleshing it out, as I'll admit it does require a certain suspension of disbelief.

The more important question: why even bothering with bringing Shepard up to the decision chamber? The Crucible can't work on its own (Refuses proves this). If they didn't wanted to be destroyed, they could have simply leave Shepard where he or she was, and destroed the device.

Unlike mainstream IT, where choice is symbolic and somehow represents the change in Shepard's consiciousness, in your theory providing Shepard with genuine choice is meaningless, unless the Reapers had specific reasons to risk themselves. In mainstream IT, their failure means nothing, since Shepard lives and can be indoctrinated in the future, which is at very least makes some amounts of sense.

Remember one of our previous discussions? About Renegade Shepard? Basically, according to you Reapers commited suicide in Renegade Destroy, because they were too stupid to judge Shepard, even though they were inside his or her mind all along. They knew that the guy really doesn't care about the geth, but still sticked armed gun to their forehead, and allowed Shepard to shoot it.

Wasn't his thesis all along classic IT? *scratches head and reads again the important parts*
Edit: Yeah, fail at my end.
Anyhow, your question is really important here. This would mean that the reapers, while elevating Shepard to the decision chamber, are still believing he is able to be indoctrinated, BUT at the same time they risk total annihilation.
Or did I catch something wrong...?
I mean, considering your thesis, what would actually happen, when Shepard chooses Control/Synthesis or Destroy?
Indoctrination and breaking free of it? Or actually indoctrination or destruction of reapers?

Modifié par Restrider, 14 septembre 2012 - 09:51 .

[The Twilight God]

Restrider wrote...

Out of mere curiousity:
Which theory seems to be more plausible/legit to you, IT Dream (ie: everything after Harbinger's Beam is a halucination and the decisions lead either to full indoctrination or breaking free (breath scene) and the reaper war is still not over) or IT Con (ie: indoc attempt as usual, but RGB actually happens, afaik. I am not so sure about the IT Con theory, if I am mistaken, please try to explain to me the differences in the two theories.)?

Dream Theory is a second cousin to the Bad Writting Theory. Basically, you claim it's a dream and then claim every graphic glitch, reused texture, weapon switch during cutscenes, audio file, video transition, etc. mean it's all a dream in hopes that Bioware will redo the ending in a future DLC. It isn't really a theory. It's just a hypothesis based on circular reasoning. (it's a dream = everything is proof it's a dream = therefore it's a dream)
http://social.biowar.../index/13414717

Hallucination Theory says that Shepard is walking around but the events are hallucinations. Anderson and TIM are representations of Shepard's free mind and indoctrinated mind. A representation of his inner struggle. The decision chamber is either either in Shepard's head or also a hallucination. (i.e. the synthesis is just Shepard jumping off a cliff to his death, control is just some loose wires and destroy is a generator or something). The endings are just a delusion in Shepard's head, but destroy is real... I've never read the actual thread, but I discussed it with a guy some time ago so what I'm saying may differ from the link.
http://social.biowar.../index/13474338 

IT Con Theory is this very thread you are posting on. Yes, it all happen. However synthesis, control and refuse are indoctrinated outcomes. Destroy has Shepard resist long enough to defeat the Reapers. It is explained why this is the case in a logical deductive manner.
http://social.biowar...9372/1#13419372

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:12 .

[The Twilight God]

megamacka wrote...

It would've made sense if the Illusive man tried to use this or the reapers '' guided him '' into placing this at the citadel. Cheat shepard into thinking that these are able to control them, Control > destroy. If it truly works then there are only benefits ( help them rebuild etc ) NOT considering that they may go against sheps control OR that shep WILL change his mind in time. If they could get shepard to believe, through the underlying and ongoing indoctrination and the ala starbrat mr reaper then they could get shep to get in contact with this device and become fully indoctrinated and perhaps they could use him for Synthesis or something else unknown. Hey, 2 out of 3 choices that leads into their hands of Synthesis? But it's highly unlikely.

  I doubt that they would REQUIRE you to have read the comics or books but it would definetly be a nice hint for those whom have. Aka '' Don't be a R-****** and believe in the enemy just because he says so in the last 2 minutes ''.

The contraption is pretty massive. The cables feeding into the Citadel alone are bigger than a person. It would be too massive of an undertaking for Cerberus to set it up so quickly. It has cables hard wired into the Citadel with no signs of it being a rushed job. It all looks like a "professional" install.  I suspect it has been there for awhile. A reaction to an event in which another cycle got the Crucible too close for comfort. A race with four arms?

The events in the game dictate that Synthesis is not the Reaper's preferred course of action. It's just something that is better than destruction. I think Refusal is what they really want. Followed by control and then synthesis. If you look at the "Logical deduction" part for Synthesis it simply doesn't make sense that synthesis is what they wanted. I think the Kid pushes synthesis more in an effrot to make Control seem more rebellious to those who are still alittle weary of trusting the Kid. Hence it claims it wouldn't like it if Shepard picked Control to make it sound like that option is seen as a negative to the Reapers. However, we can clearly see that it can turn the control prongs on and off at will. If it didn't want Shepard to do it it would just leave it turned off. And of course, the Reapers wouldn't destroy the Crucible if they wanted Synthesis. I don't see how they couldn't make their own Crucible if they really wanted Synthesis to happen.

[megamacka]

they were too stupid to judge Shepard

Lord Goose you should take a step back and reread a lot tbh. stuff that you bring up about this thesis is either wrong or have already been discussed.

Modifié par megamacka, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:05 .

[Lord Goose]

Lord Goose you should take a step back and reread a lot tbh. stuff that you bring up about this thesis is either wrong or have already been discussed.

I have been following discussion (more or less). And I didn't heard any good explanation.

One of the major premises of The Twilight God theory, and every other IT theory, is that Reapers have ability to manipulate Shepard on emotianal level, tricking him by making Control and Synthesis to look as "positive" choices, and making Destroy "evil" by lying that the Geth would also be destroyed. Which makes sense for Paragon character...

...but doesn't for Renegade. Renegade is more than willing to sacrifice the geth to geth the quarian fleet, and not that kind of person who is going to give up everything he or she has in favour of sacrificing him/herself.

Basically, if you play as Paragon, the Reapers are clever guys, who have a deep insight into your motives and attachments and can trick you by exploiting them. If you are Renegade, the Reapers are retards. As I remember The Twilight God admitted that Renegade can escape their trap scott-free, just by being organic-supremacist.

And if you have already wiped out the geth, when they are even more retarded, since couldn't came up with better choice to make destroy to look like "negative", while you were busy on Thessia, Sanctuary, Cronos etc.

It is inconsistent.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:56 .

[Humakt83]

Renegade still has to trust what Catalyst is telling him.

And you should consider that the basic option for pure Renegade (if you saved Collector ship) is control.

Renegade characters are much more likely to choose control due to allure of power.

Modifié par Humakt83, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:41 .

[Lord Goose]

Renegade still has to trust what Catalyst is telling him.

Shepard trusts Catalyst even if he/she chooses Refuse. You can't say: "I will not use the Crucible, because I don't trust your explanation".

Renegade characters are much more likely to choose control due to allure of power.

I played as full Renegate through all three games (less than ten paragon solutions at all), and based on my experince, cannot agree with you. Renegade is ruthless and brutal, but isn't power-hungry.

In ME3 Renegade states explicitely what his or her goal is to "rid the Galaxy of the Reapers", "send these machines back to hell" and he or she is not going to "show no mercy", while Paragon lines are more ambigous "stop the Reapers", "bring better future etc''.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[megamacka]

If you haven't already, Archengeia on youtube is pretty awesome .
I find his mass effect 3 videos and review interesting to listen to.

 

I have been following discussion (more or less). And I didn't heard any good explanation. 

I wrote a pretty long post but I think you realize this yourself and I am unsure what you actually think. I just can't get the hang of it, but the ending does not boil down to Paragon / Renegade.

  Infact the ending ( endings if you so wish ) does NOT have ANYTHING to do with Paragon / Renegade. It's about personal belief / preference. As I view Paragon and Renegade. Paragon = Lawful good, military man whom puts other infront of him/herself and does not take kindly to sacrifices or unnecessary deaths. And Renegade = Somebody whom can make the tough calls and yet look him/herself in the mirror every day and not regret a thing, probably pretty cold as a person too.

  I always play like 90% Paragon and a little Renegade. I am not '' stupid '' paragon tho... Letting mass murderes walk freely to kill innocent people because I didn't have the guts to pull the trigger.

  Different Paragon/Renegade players will end up making different choices at the end.
And please... Go back and read again, because I really cba to look it all up for you neither am I in the mood to rewrite everything for the third time.

  If you are talking about how the starbrat aka Mr Reaper transports shepy up to the chamber on the magic platform then it pretty much boils down to ..... Bad writing....Yeah, different teams every game. We pretty much ended up with a ton of bad writing, some amazing. But also some bad. Some people claim that shep did infact manage to touch the panel. But no.... He wasn't even close to the panel with his hand and he didn't even know what to look for. Why would the reaper brat willingly transport shep up there? .................Heck..... Ask Casey hudson whom locked himself up in a room to solo write.

Modifié par megamacka, 15 septembre 2012 - 08:00 .

[megamacka]

Lol. The admin of '' Demand a better ending for Mass effect 3 '' on Facebook is back after like 3 months.... And his got a '' big announcement.... '' It better be a pretty massive one. People are pissed.. No word from him for 3 months. Hopefully it's something nice tho ^^.

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

As I have said before, to establish how much time it would be needed to make events depicted possible, we need to know:

1. How much effort and resources are needed to rebuild the Mass Relay network.
2. How much resources the Galaxy has.

Since we do not have any clear answers, any estimate is arbitrary.

You are ignoring my points and if you continue this cheap tactic I will end this discussion. Resources are irrelevent. The repair time of a relay is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is FTL travel speeds. Either address my actual arguments are don't bother at all.

Lord Goose wrote...

Also, which slides do you consider to be impossible? As I remember, human characters in Destroy are shown on Earth, and only long-lived species such as krogan, geth and asari was shown on their homeworlds. Quarians can be anywhere, it might not even be Rannoch.

I'll admit impossible is a wrong word. Given what we know, what information we know from the game world, we can say such and such is impossible, but that isn't inherently all inclusive. However, I can't claim something is plausible based on theorhetical possibilities that currently don't exist in the game world.

The implausible:
Samara is 750ish years old. She is pushing the upper limits of an asari lifespan. Not only is a route to Thessia established, but a route to some backwater world in the middle of nowhere (Felere is on Lesuss) which has a population of 1? It's the only habitable planet in the cluster and you suppose they are going to waste time, manpower and resources to get there just to pick up 1 ardat-yakshi?

Grunt should have developed full plates by the time he returns to Tuchanka. When he and Wrex arrives it's still a dusty wasteland. I can't see a quick maturing species remain in the adolescent stage a century or so after puberty. He still has undeveloped plates and a small hump in the EC slide. Wrex might die of old age first. He's around 1486 years old at the end of ME3. Granted, we are never told how long they live so that is moot. 
 

Lord Goose wrote...

Patrick Weekes: Kasume emotionally and mentally reunited with Keiji in Synthesis, because Synthesis changed relationship between synthetics and organics.
The Twilight God: That was meaningless picture which was needed to placate the fans. It's a lie.

You think that Patrick Weekes was dishonest or mistaken, right?

About that particular statement? No, your assertion borders on a strawman.

What I am saying would be deceptive is if Mr. Weekes claims that Synthesis allows everyone free will, is the deus ex machina the Kid claims it is and leads to an ideal utopia envisioned by the galaxy's populace prior to their synthefication that allows for everlasting peace and prosperity. Rather or not synthesis can somehow link Kasumi to Keiji's graybox and create a Keiji fascimile is another story altogether. It's conceievable and could plausibly occur. However, rather or not Keiji's memories can be given form via Kasumi's subconscious has no bearing on rather or not Synthesis is a truly happy ending.

I said the pictures are just pictures. Nothing more. Nothing less. If a fan asks about the picture and Weekes describes the picture, that isn't necessarily a lie. It's just a description of the artistic intent behind the picture. Say there was a picture showing a naked Grunt laying an egg on Earth's moon. If Mr. Weekes describes this picture to a fan, elaborating on the artistic intent, it doesn't dictate that the event depicted actually occurs.  Just like I would describe another picture as Grunt and Wrex arriving on Tuchanka in an alliance Kodiak shuttle to the cheers and applause of the Krogan people. Me stating what the picture portrays isn't synonymous with me saying the events in the picture actually take place.

Lord Goose wrote...

JM basically says, that while people might be mistaken about details, it's up to player to decide whenever Shepard was indoctrinated, or wasn't, since Bioware felt wrong to provide hypothetical "true" narrative.

You can believe whatever you want. However, it is a verifiable fact that Shepard was indoctrinated. Handwaving away the proof doesn't make it go away. If Bioware wanted to present it as truly open ended they failed. Period. The ending dictates indisputably that Shepard is indoctrinated when he chooses Control, Synthesis or Refuse. The only other option is the Bad Writting Theory. However, the problem with this theory is that it requires a person to intentionally ignore the game lore to come to this conclusion (i.e the adherent WANTS it to be bad writting vs. the available evidence concluding it's bad writting). As I brought up with the Star Wars example of ignoring that the fact that force users use the force to then conclude that nothing happening on screen makes any sense for a human to be able to do. This is the same mentality of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. They ignore the evidence found on the very planet they live on in order to maintain their desired belief.

Lord Goose wrote...

What could be sign of indoctrination. Or sign of bad writing.

Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

1. Picking Synthesis or Control demonstrates this. Synthesis is a validation of all the Reapers actions. By choosing it you are sayiing that the idea they present is right and synthesis is a necessity. You, the player, have been indoctrinated into their way of thinking.
2. Believing in Control puts Shepard in the same boat as TIM and all those indoctrinated people from previous cycles. You, the player, have been indoctrinated into believing the Reapers can be controlled.

Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

1. The ethereal image of a supposedly dead kid fits the bill.
2. We heard this during the scene with The Illusive Man and the Kid's voice is overlayed with an outsdie fascimile of Shepard's voice.
3. The Dreams result in headaches.
4. The scene with TIM has buzzing, headaches. Ringing the ears occurs at some points in the game, but it's circumstantial in those cases.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.

1. Refusal is the ultimate betrayal as you hang the entire galaxy out to dry knwoing full well that they will all die because of your choice.
2.Once again, synthesis and control require blind absolute trust in the Reapers.
3. It could even be argued that Shepard's control narration "Immortal. Infinite. Eternal" is an example of "superstitious awe" applied to himself.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 septembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[Fixers0]

The Twilight God wrote...

You can believe whatever you want. However, it is a verifiable fact that Shepard was indoctrinated. Handwaving away the proof doesn't make it go away. If Bioware wanted to present it as truly open ended they failed. Period. The ending dictates indisputably that Shepard is indoctrinated when he chooses Control, Synthesis or Refuse. The only other option is the Bad Writting Theory. However, the problem with this theory is that it requires a person to intentionally ignore the game lore to come to this conclusion (i.e the adherent WANTS it to be bad writting vs. the available evidence concluding it's bad writting). As I brought up with the Star Wars example of ignoring that the fact that force users use the force to then conclude that nothing happening on screen makes any sense for a human to be able to do. This is the same mentality of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. They ignore the evidence found on the very planet they live on in order to maintain their desired belief.

Except the bad writing theory actually provides the audiance with a logical explanation of all the all the nonsensical random stuff that happens throughout the ending (and not only that).

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

The more important question: why even bothering with bringing Shepard up to the decision chamber? The Crucible can't work on its own (Refuses proves this). If they didn't wanted to be destroyed, they could have simply leave Shepard where he or she was, and destroed the device.

It didn't bring him to the chamber. In low EMS scenarios the Kid asks him, " Why are you here?"

The only rational explainations are:

1. His finger passed through the correct segment of the holographic display before he collapsed.
2. The platform automatically rises when the ward arms are open and someone is on the platform.

Lord Goose wrote...

Remember one of our previous discussions? About Renegade Shepard? Basically, according to you Reapers commited suicide in Renegade Destroy, because they were too stupid to judge Shepard, even though they were inside his or her mind all along. They knew that the guy really doesn't care about the geth, but still sticked armed gun to their forehead, and allowed Shepard to shoot it.

Well, a I mentioned above, the Kid does not bring Shepard up there. Recall that the Reapers had TIM working for them. TIM was preventing Shepard from progressing and was going to kill him and Anderson. So obviously they didn't ant him up there.

Renegade has nothing to do with a set of values. I played as a Renegade and I made peace between the Quarians and Geth. Legion was considered a friend and I sided with Adams when he and Chakwas were debating synthetics life. In the end it didn't matter. I wasn't going to pick destroy just because Starbinger says I can and I wasn't going to let the Reapers put tech in everyone. If the Geth were going to die it was simply the only way. Turns out the Kid lied and it only targeted reaper tech so the Geth are alright.

Also, the implications of the Crucible is that it will target all synthetics (i.e. ships, implants, omni-tools, geth, etc.). That could result in the death of millions of people who depend on synthetics and the people on ships in the fleets, etc. (which turned out to be a big fat lie) At no point does the Kid ever point out the Geth in particular. That is a deterent players extrapolated themselves. The Kid paints Destroy as a technological apocalypse. "Space Y2K", if you will. You don't have to care about the Geth to find that prospect unsettling. And even if you could care less about a technological apocalaypse it doesn't automatically mean you won't be duped into Control or Synthesis.

[Lord Goose]

You are ignoring my points and if you continue this cheap tactic I will end this discussion. Resources are irrelevent. The repair time of a relay is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is FTL travel speeds. Either address my actual arguments are don't bother at all.

We don't know if Relays are still usable or not after Destroy. Note, that Hackett said what they are badly damaged, not "completely destroyed".

However, I can't claim something is plausible based on theorhetical possibilities that currently don't exist in the game world.

Just because we are lacking the information what may explain something, it doesn't mean that something cannot happen at all.

What I am saying would be deceptive is if Mr. Weekes claims that Synthesis allows everyone free will, is the deus ex machina the Kid claims it is and leads to an ideal utopia envisioned by the galaxy's populace prior to their synthefication that allows for everlasting peace and prosperity.

I don't remember that the Catalyst promised eternal peace and prosperity for everybody. Maybe I'm simplifying it, but as far as I understand it, Synthesis will just ensure that synthetics will not wipe out organics, because synthetics will have full understanding of organics, and organics won't have to create new synthetics, since they are integrated with technology. Potential Krogan-Salarian conflict, for example, is beyound Catalyst's concern, since it is "inner" conflict.

I said the pictures are just pictures. Nothing more. Nothing less. If a fan asks about the picture and Weekes describes the picture, that isn't necessarily a lie.

"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."

At very least, that answer holds that in Synthesis communication between organic and synthetic life was improved.

However, the problem with this theory is that it requires a person to intentionally ignore the game lore to come to this conclusion

Well, these theories are not mutually exclusive. It could be literal interpretation AND bad writing, and indoctrination theory (any of it) and Bad Writing.

For example, Shepard walking into explosion is clearly bad writing. Or Shepard SUDDENLY knowing that shooting the tube will activate the Crucible, without any explanation. whatsoever.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 16 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[TheAshenPhoenix]

I'm sorry I hevent read the whole thing yet, but as soon as you said the geth arent necessarily destroyed by the destroy ending my eyes lit up.
First off let me say so far this is very intresting, I used to think that this new theory was for the stupid conspiritors. But now I see that the game is simply as complicated and awesome once you figure it out as anime!
NOw that I know (or at least think) that the Geth will not be destoryed I'm choosing destroy ending FTW especially because now I think synthesis might have just been shepard jumping into a laser beam and then the starchild sitting there practicing his evil laugh (I'm about halfway through control btw) I love this thread and no I'm gonna destroy those giant insect robots SOB's and then go talk to my new geth prime freinds on rannoch while it helps me build tali's house!

[Lord Goose]

However, it is a verifiable fact that Shepard was indoctrinated.

It is not verifiable. We have no acces to Shepard, and we cannot study him or her directly. We can make conclusions based on what we see, but that's different.

Also, from Low-EMS Destroy.

Shepard: But the Reapers would be destroyed?
Catalyst: Yes, but the peace won't last.
Shepard: We take our chances.
Catalyst: And you have no choice. You must release the energy of the Crucible to end the cycle. The path is open, and where is only one way ahead.

If Shepard is indoctrinated and highly susceptible to everything that Catalyst says, the Reapers are practically trying to commit suicide.

Synthesis is a validation of all the Reapers actions. By choosing it you are sayiing that the idea they present is right and synthesis is a necessity. You, the player, have been indoctrinated into their way of thinking.

I haven't choosen Synthesis, but everyone who had choosen it is a living proof that "insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods" are not required to make someone choose it. The Reapers are not real and indoctrination is a plot device, therefore they couldn't influence the player itself. But many people still have choosen Synthesis.

Maybe some Shepards were convinced that it would be better that way. Reapers goal maybe fine (assuming it is "protect organics from synthetics") on its own. It is their MEANS (harvest, indoctrination etc.) are the problem. We had no idea about their ultimate goal for all three games, but their means made them enemies.

Believing in Control puts Shepard in the same boat as TIM and all those indoctrinated people from previous cycles. You, the player, have been indoctrinated into believing the Reapers can be controlled.

Same reasoning can be applied here.

Also, after the recent DLC, Shepard knows that Reapers are being controlled by Leviathan's creation. And by definition "indoctrination" is a way to corrupt organic mind. If Shepard is no longer organic, he or she cannot be indoctrinated.

Also, Destroy stems from the same source as control and synthesis. Why would Catalyst speak truth about Destroy, if he lies about Control and Synthesis? Why even tells Shepard about Destroy? "If where was no destroy, Shepard would be upset and refuse to cooperate" is not the reason, since Destroy maybe absent (low EMS, saved the Collector's base). We still have to take his word for it.

1. The ethereal image of a supposedly dead kid fits the bill.

Prothean VI is ethereal images, and Prothean VI is based on Prothean who died a long time ago. I don't mean anything, but the Catalyst doesn't try to pretend to be this child, nor he is trying to pretend what he is ghost. He looks like a hologram.

It didn't bring him to the chamber. In low EMS scenarios the Kid asks him, " Why are you here?"

The only rational explainations are:

Or he could be trying to wake him up by reminding Shepard of the goal. Although, yes, my bad. It's just ambigous how the platform was activated. Still, trying to wake Shepard up and being cooperative with him or her about Destroy is not very smart move, if all they wanted was continuantion of their existence. Why not let him be unconsicious for some time, while blasting the Crucible?

Renegade has nothing to do with a set of values. I played as a Renegade and I made peace between the Quarians and Geth. Legion was considered a friend and I sided with Adams when he and Chakwas were debating synthetics life.

Yes, you are right. Maybe I'm just too stick with that Paragon-Renegade dynamic. But, anyway, it is possible to have your Shepard to be organic supremacist who considers synthetic life to be inferior form of life... or not a life at all. I did that.

Also, the implications of the Crucible is that it will target all synthetics (i.e. ships, implants, omni-tools, geth, etc.). That could result in the death of millions of people who depend on synthetics and the people on ships in the fleets, etc. (which turned out to be a big fat lie) At no point does the Kid ever point out the Geth in particular. That is a deterent players extrapolated themselves. The Kid paints Destroy as a technological apocalypse.

Well, we never had a clear defition of what "synthetic" according to Catalyst is.

In ME1 it was politically correct therm for an artificial intelligence. It might be that he means, since he was designed to prevent organics being killed by their AI revolting and speaks about synthetics seeking perfection through understanding (ships, omni-tools etc obviously can't do that). But he also calls Shepard partly synthetic, it is ambigous what it means. However, we can be positive that "technological" is not synonimous for synthetic.Judging from the dialogues with the Catalyst, he clearly means that not all technology is synthetic.

Compare his speech in High EMS-Destroy.

"Technology you rely will be affected, but those who survive shall have a little difficulty repairing the damage. Where still be losses, but no more that already been lost".

And low-EMS destroy.

"The energy it releases will destroy the relays, creating the chain reaction that will be unpredictable and devastating. All technology, and all who rely on synthetic technology for their survival will be lost, yourself included. Your ships, weapons... even the Relays would be destroyed. Your world will be in ruins".

Note that he makes clear distinction between "sythetic technology" and "technology". Also, if he is trying to convince Shepard what Destroy is a bad solution, when why not paint it in dark tones all the time?

And, for the sake of discussion, I'll pretend what I have accepted your argument. However, it doesn't change much.

Destroy for Paragon: Geth dies, EDI dies, those who rely on synthetic technology may be in danger.
Destroy for Renegade: Machines are broken, and those people who rely on synthetic technology may be in danger.
Destroy for Shepard, who haven't managed to save the geth: EDI dies, people who rely on synthetic technology may be in danger.

Admit it, the choice is easier, and it is the Reapers haven't devised ANY different reason to make Destroy heavier, if your Shepard killed the geth, even though they had fine amounts of time.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[Humakt83]

Lord Goose wrote...

Renegade characters are much more likely to choose control due to allure of power.

I played as full Renegate through all three games (less than ten paragon solutions at all), and based on my experince, cannot agree with you. Renegade is ruthless and brutal, but isn't power-hungry.

In ME3 Renegade states explicitely what his or her goal is to "rid the Galaxy of the Reapers", "send these machines back to hell" and he or she is not going to "show no mercy", while Paragon lines are more ambigous "stop the Reapers", "bring better future etc''.

Renegade Shepard is a control freak just like Illusive Man, of course he is being allured by promise of power to control every Reaper.

Maybe you need to refresh your memory:

Modifié par Humakt83, 16 septembre 2012 - 08:11 .

[Lord Goose]

Being brutal and harsh doen't make anyone power-hungry. Not to the degree of essentially commiting suicide to obtain more power.

[megamacka]

Lord Goose wrote...

Being brutal and harsh doen't make anyone power-hungry. Not to the degree of essentially commiting suicide to obtain more power.

It usually goes hand in hand however. 
I still don't see what the point is, talking about Renegade/ Paragon and the ending.

 my eyes lit up. 

Welcome aboard. Some of us do prefer to view the ending logicly and along the theme that the series has been going along without abandoning the biggest plot device ( indoctrination ) throughout the series. We choose against space magic beams that drasticly change the DNA of every being in the galaxy or magicly control the most advanced synthetic life ever created.

   That we choose this does not make the ending good however. Still badly executed and a horrible way to end this fantastic series....

Modifié par megamacka, 16 septembre 2012 - 02:04 .