252 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunch Box1912]

Xilizhra wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Saren was talking exactly about Synthesis. You can do a line by line comparison. He's talking about the exact. same. thing. And by choosing Synthesis, YOU are submitting.

Saren's means were faulty because of his prior indoctrination. Actual Synthesis is something else again. And submission never lasts; all it means is instant death, whereas in Synthesis, there still is a future for the current cycle, with the Reapers no longer violent.

Saren Arterius: Your species must know its place.

Commander Shepard: Together we can stop Sovreign. We don't have to submit to the Reapers. We can beat them!
Saren Arterius: I no longer belive that Shepard. The visions cannot be denied. The Reapers are too powerful. The only hope of survival is to join with them. Sovreign is a machine. It thinks like a machine. If I can prove my value, I become a resource, worth maintaining. There is no other logical conclusion.
Commander Shepard: You were a Spectre. You swore to protect the galaxy. Then you broke that vow to save yourself.
Saren Arterius: I'm not doing this for myself. Don't you see, Sovreign will succeed. It is inevitable. My way is the only way any of us will survive. I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines, and in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed. But you would undo my work. You would doom our entire civilization to complete annihilation, and for that, you must die.

I just loved Saren, He was one of my favorite characters in the ME series. 

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 11 octobre 2012 - 10:09 .

[Davik Kang]

AlanC9 wrote...
Then, really, this isn't very different from a straight-up literalist interpretation? Control stops the cycle, and Synthesis turns out ....... however you think it turns out?

I didn't post everything that goes into the interpretation because it would have taken up 2 pages of posts that no-one could be bothered to read.  But no, I don't think it mirrors a Literal interpretation because I think the ending is all about indoctrination.  

The Stargazer thing I guess is something to give each ending its own validity, so that Bioware don't say "You chose wrong - sorry!"  You get the achivement for finishing the game with any option except Refuse.  (Incidentally, you also get a different Stargazer scene here).

I'm arguing for Destroy, but I'm not trying to prove the others wrong.  More, I'm just expressing an interpretation that I would have thought lots and lots of players would have had while playing the game.
 Remember, I'm saying the final Decision Chamber is a hallucination and that the choices are not strictly an ABC choice via the Crucible.  So I think it's quite different from literal interpretations.

[Seival]

hukbum wrote...

Seival wrote...

I just reminded you that there is centralized "IT" thread for "IT" discussions. The Story forum as already too overflowed. This is not user-friendly. Some interesting threads might move down too fast because of all unneeded duplicate threads.

If the mods think this is in the wrong place, not fitting or something else, they'll do something. If not, there's nothing you can do. You reported it and if nothing happens, you've been wrong. You are not a mod, and you don't need to remind people. It's not your job. Don't like it, don't read it. It's that simple.

There are too few moderators to observe these FTL forums and react fast enough. It might take days before they do something. And I can't blame them...

...FTL forums are not user-friendly, and this is fact. Something has to be done with it. Maybe more forum sections? Or moving some particular discussions to almost static sections? Like moving "IT" discussions to fan-fic section where it belongs.

...Will you be happy if "IT" would receive its own section on the forums? Let's ask moderators about that?

Modifié par Seival, 11 octobre 2012 - 10:19 .

[CroGamer002]

And the point of Davik Kang here?

[Seival]

Mesina2 wrote...

And the point of Davik Kang here?

This one:

Davik Kang wrote...

> Shepard is still able to activate the Crucible (Destroy), but under the indoctrination attempt, believes that she has three options. The other two, Control and Synthesis, involve the indoctrination attempt succeeding and Shepard relinquishing herself and the Crucible to the Reapers. Refuse has Shepard do nothing, leading to a straightforward Reaper victory.

In other words, one more pro-"IT" ending-hate thread.

Modifié par Seival, 11 octobre 2012 - 10:16 .

[Davik Kang]

Mesina2 wrote...
And the point of Davik Kang here?

Is it not clear from the OP?  I can elaborate by bringing in various discussions from other threads.  Would take forever though.  If there's something in particular, ask away and I'll do my best to answer.

[Bill Casey]

Seival wrote...

"IT"ers are just anti-enders.

Thank you for telling me I actually hate the ending to Mass Effect 3...
Because before you came along, I thought it was the single most brilliant ending to a video game in history...

It's up with John Carpenter's "The Thing" for my favorite endings of all time, any medium...
BTW, Childs is The Thing...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 11 octobre 2012 - 10:33 .

[clennon8]

Seival wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

And the point of Davik Kang here?

This one:

Davik Kang wrote...

> Shepard is still able to activate the Crucible (Destroy), but under the indoctrination attempt, believes that she has three options. The other two, Control and Synthesis, involve the indoctrination attempt succeeding and Shepard relinquishing herself and the Crucible to the Reapers. Refuse has Shepard do nothing, leading to a straightforward Reaper victory.

In other words, one more pro-"IT" ending-hate thread.

Yep.  All this indoctrination stuff is just cooked up as a way to hate on non-Destroy endings.  There's no history of indoctrination in the games, nor are there any examples of indoctrinated villains espousing Control and Synthesis as solutions.  It's just random that IT came together the way it did.  It was created out of pure malice for the sole purpose of making people who chose Synthesis and Control feel bad.

[estebanus]

clennon8 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

And the point of Davik Kang here?

This one:

Davik Kang wrote...

> Shepard is still able to activate the Crucible (Destroy), but under the indoctrination attempt, believes that she has three options. The other two, Control and Synthesis, involve the indoctrination attempt succeeding and Shepard relinquishing herself and the Crucible to the Reapers. Refuse has Shepard do nothing, leading to a straightforward Reaper victory.

In other words, one more pro-"IT" ending-hate thread.

Yep.  All this indoctrination stuff is just cooked up as a way to hate on non-Destroy endings.  There's no history of indoctrination in the games, nor are there any examples of indoctrinated villains espousing Control and Synthesis as solutions.  It's just random that IT came together the way it did.  It was created out of pure malice for the sole purpose of making people who chose Synthesis and Control feel bad.

I just fell out of my chair laughing while I read that comment. Well done sir, well done.

[ahnariprellik]

Davik Kang wrote...



 Hi, I'm Davik Kang. You may remember me for my notorious leadership of the Exchange crime syndicate presence on Taris.  I used to be a crime boss a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

I also had custom-built armour:



It was purple.  Frickin' PURPLE!!  That is how gangsta I am.

Many people thought I perished on the Upper City in my own headquarters, but in fact I survived an attempt on my life, and the subsequent bombardment of the entire planet.  Severely injured, my assortment of collected goons, henchmen and evil scientists carried out my wishes that I be crygenically frozen in time, and it is by this virtue that I am able to appear today, to address you dandy folks on the Bioware Social Network forums.

Now, I had a mighty different impression to the ending of Mass Effect 3 than many folks on here.  I can't agree with the IT theorists because I don't see the ending as a dream.  In fact I think the final 3 (or 4) choices did happen (depending of course on which one you chose) and their consequences were real.  But I also don't agree with the Literal theorists either, because for me the ending was a pretty clear indoctrination attempt, and the Star Chamber section was a hallucination on Shepard's part.  Now there doesn't seem to be a thread dedicated to this view at the moment, and I can't believe I am the only one who saw it this way, so I'm gonna post this here.

The nice things about this interpretation are that:

- it doesn't require headcanon, because the endings really happened
- it doesn't spoil the narrative, because the kid and the organic v synthetic issue make sense and are resolved in the story
- it is quite straighforward, is based on what we actually see in the game, and doesn't require much speculation, outside of figuring out how much of the final scene is a hallucination

There must be more people on here who see it like this?  Speak up, we need your support!

Final events of ME3 in brief:

> Shepard survives the Reaper blast.  She is serverly physically and mentally drained, as shown by her posture and the dream-like visual effects, which mirrir those in earlier dream sequences.

> Shepard meets Anderson and TIM on the Citadel.  Both die eventually.

> Shepard falls unconscious, and on re-awaking, is subject to a massive hallucination.  The Reaper AI within the Citadel is able to communicate with her, and she sees it as the child from her dreams, as it attempts to appeal to her desire to save the innocent, and her guilt for not always being able to do so.

> The Crucible is a high-energy power source that, if actiavted, would send a surge via the Citadel to all Mass Relays that would severely damage synthetic machinery in the vicinity of every active Mass Relay, killing any sentient life connected to, or a part of, those synthetics.

> Shepard is still able to activate the Crucible (Destroy), but under the indoctrination attempt, believes that she has three options.  The other two, Control and Synthesis, involve the indoctrination attempt succeeding and Shepard relinquishing herself and the Crucible to the Reapers.  Refuse has Shepard do nothing, leading to a straightforward Reaper victory.

I agree with everything except the Geth vs. Quarian conflict because that particular war was started by the Quarians, as we see on the mission in the Geth server. Legion and the other geth started asking questions that were far too advanced for what they were designed for and the Quarians freaked and tried to wipe them all out. So the synthetics didn't start that conflict, the Quarians did. Therefore, Starchild is flat out lying about the Geth/Quarian conflict. By his logic, it seems that he is saying that the synthetics will always ascend beyond the level of their creators and try to enslave them leading to the conflict. But in this case the Geth were just asking questions and wanting to know if they had a soul.

[AlanC9]

Davik Kang wrote...

The Stargazer thing I guess is something to give each ending its own validity, so that Bioware don't say "You chose wrong - sorry!"  You get the achivement for finishing the game with any option except Refuse.  (Incidentally, you also get a different Stargazer scene here).

This means that in Control the Stargazer is a blatant lie to the player. Indoctrination on Shep is one thing, and in Synthesis you can argue that something awful has happened but nobody actually knows it, but this is something else entirely. 

The Refuse Stargazer doesn't pretend that Shepard's cycle wasn't defeated and exterminated, so that's no issue.

 Remember, I'm saying the final Decision Chamber is a hallucination and that the choices are not strictly an ABC choice via the Crucible.  So I think it's quite different from literal interpretations.

Right. So, what happens in Control? Do the Reapers exterminate the Citadel races, or not? And what happens in Synthesis? How is what happens there different from a literalist interpretation?

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:31 .

[Davik Kang]

AlanC9 wrote...
This means that in Control the Stargazer is a blatant lie to the player. Indoctrination on Shep is one thing, and in Synthesis you can argue that something awful has happened but nobody actually knows it, but this is something else entirely. 
...
Right. So, what happens in Control? Do the Reapers exterminate the Citadel races, or not? And what happens in Synthesis? How is what happens there different from a literalist interpretation?

The Stargazer is a generic end to the game though.  I don't think Bioware wanted to give you a Game Over screen and just make you do the whole decision chamber again.  You stick with your decision, and the stargazer and EC scenes give you the appropriate closure (relatively speaking, I don't want this to turn into an argument about insufficient closure).

But as for this interpretation, Control would mean merging with the new Citadel Reaper, so there's no reason why the extermination wouldn't proceed.  The Synthesis ending is probably not so different to how a Literalist would see it.  But the point of this whole interpretation is that the Decision Chamber is an indoctrination attempt.  If you decide that the final scene was not a halluciantion and/or indoctrination attempt, them there is no difference between this and Literal.  But I am saying that it was an indoctrination attempt, or at least that it can be interpreted that way.

ahnariprellik wrote...
I agree with everything except the Geth vs. Quarian conflict because that particular war was started by the Quarians, as we see on the mission in the Geth server. Legion and the other geth started asking questions that were far too advanced for what they were designed for and the Quarians freaked and tried to wipe them all out. So the synthetics didn't start that conflict, the Quarians did. Therefore, Starchild is flat out lying about the Geth/Quarian conflict. By his logic, it seems that he is saying that the synthetics will always ascend beyond the level of their creators and try to enslave them leading to the conflict. But in this case the Geth were just asking questions and wanting to know if they had a soul. 

Ok though I did say that certain Quarians were to blame for the initiation of the Geth war, so I'm not sure where we disagree.  The Starchild claim is a separate issue, but I don't think it's entirely related to the Geth conflict.  The Starchild claim is more that synthetics will eventually advance beyond organics to a point where conflict is inevitable (we needn't suppose the Geth have already advanced this far).  He isn't aiming blame at either group.  He's simply claiming that synthetics will win because they will eventually be too advanced for organics to compete with.  I think it's kind of like the way, irl, humans have evolved to a point where animal species can't really compete with them (here the analogy is that synthetics = humans and organics = animals).  But this is a separate issue that could probably do with its own thread.

[AlanC9]

And then the Control Stargazer scene is a lie. This isn't part of Shep's indoctrination, since he's long gone. Bio's putting something on the screen that's a lie to me. Lied twice, counting the EC since they could have told the truth and did not.

That's what your theory requires. Own it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 octobre 2012 - 04:33 .

[clennon8]

AlanC9 wrote...


And then the Control Stargazer scene is a lie. This isn't part of Shep's indoctrination, since he's long gone. Bio's putting something on the screen that's a lie to me. Lied twice, counting the EC since they could have told the truth and did not.

That's what your theory requires. Own it.

I own it.  It's not just about the indoctrination of Shepard.  It's about indoctrinating the player.  That's the grand experiment.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Bill Casey wrote...

Thank you for telling me I actually hate the ending to Mass Effect 3...
Because before you came along, I thought it was the single most brilliant ending to a video game in history...

It's up with John Carpenter's "The Thing" for my favorite endings of all time, any medium...
BTW, Childs is The Thing...

Lies.

When IT'ers break from their headcanon, they all hate the ending.

[hukbum]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

When IT'ers break from their headcanon, they all hate the ending.

Of course they do. It's their way to like the ending. Without it they say "I don't like the ending". Something wrong about that?

[UrgentArchengel]

You could say I agree. The general problem I have with the ending was the execution. Still, I believe that there was a form of Indoctrination there, but yet it all did happen.

[His Name was HYR!!]

hukbum wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

When IT'ers break from their headcanon, they all hate the ending.

Of course they do. It's their way to like the ending. Without it they say "I don't like the ending". Something wrong about that?

Nothing wrong with it, but I also don't see why some have to react viciously to people who say they're anti-enders, when they are very plainly rejecting the ending by believing IT.

[jds1bio]

Dang it, Davik. I thought you were here to announce the release date of the next single-player KOTOR game. Oh well, glad you escaped Taris anyways.

[Rixatrix]

Seival wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

And the point of Davik Kang here?

This one:

Davik Kang wrote...

> Shepard is still able to activate the Crucible (Destroy), but under the indoctrination attempt, believes that she has three options. The other two, Control and Synthesis, involve the indoctrination attempt succeeding and Shepard relinquishing herself and the Crucible to the Reapers. Refuse has Shepard do nothing, leading to a straightforward Reaper victory.

In other words, one more pro-"IT" ending-hate thread.

Instructive: Straw Man.  Stop it already.  You are causing quarreling in what was a perfectly civil thread.  

On topic:

I don't personally think the "Synthesis" or "Control" endings are wrong.  What BW gave us is a game series that can be interpreted several ways.  Each of us has taken Commander Shepard and made him/her our own.  

If you are familiar with basic game theory and strategy, some of the most common strategies are being consistent vs. being reactionary - that is, sticking to the same strategy no matter what or changing your strategy based on changes in your environment (opponents, competitors, circumstances).  Neither is "right" nor "wrong," they are just different. (Though the merits of each are debatable, of course.)  

If you've been trying to stay stubbornly consistent to the character you started with, then you live by the System Alliance's maxim, "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing."  We have seen this in action many times throughout the games, where you are forced to choose between sacrificing the few to save the many or saving the few but risking the many (Ex: Arrival).  Of course, this strategy ignores that circumstances change and can also change your views.  Make of that what you will.  If you come to this choice as a consistent character, you have tried to live by the Alliance's book and would probably choose Destroy.  The geth and EDI might perish, but you are saving countless lives.  The other choices, in your view, would be foolishly trying to defend everything (and if the maxim holds true, you'd end up defending nothing).  It is what Anderson and Hackett, the two people you look up to, wanted.  And who knows?  This "Catalyst" may be a liar, and nothing might even happen to the geth or EDI - it may just be a way to dissuade you from choosing this option (heck, the Catalyst even suggests Shep might be in danger).  At first contact, you "assume hostility" according to the Alliance, and you've never met or heard of a Catalyst being before.

If you are reactionary, you have taken in the experiences with AI (Legion, EDI, rebuilding Rannoch, etc.) to decide that AI is helpful and can enhance life for everyone.  You might choose Synthesis.  Your character is open-minded and has developed/grown since being the marine you were given to start with in ME1.  You're a Spectre now, after all.  Or, you may have evaluated TIM's logic and found it sound, so you choose Control.  You don't necessarily have to support all of his actions, but you can see his rationale.  You've perhaps seized opportunities to use resources that were unsavory for valid purposes in the other games (Maelon's data, Archlord, etc.).  Your Shepard makes the bold choices that others are afraid to admit the merits of.  

In any case, none of these three options are bad, they are just the results of different Shepards.

The problems tend to arise when we make value judgments about the ending.  What was the point of it all?  Why would the Catalyst offer these choices?  Are they really choices?  Is there a "true" choice?  IMHO, without necessarily speculating on the morality of the endings, the Reapers have realized that change is in the wind when the Crucible is built and Shep is about to activate it.  This cycle has reached the point where it all could end for the Reapers and their mission, so they are ready to negotiate.  Obviously, Destroy is distasteful to them, but there is no sense in hiding it.  

The persuasive aspects of the ending suggest that the Catalyst leans toward Control or Synthesis because only Shepard is sacrificed, whereas Destroy allegedly requires genocide (if the Catalyst is credible).  Control represents presumably a more complex mind taking the helm of the Reapers (which is acceptable given that Shepard has unqiuely made it so far vs. the Reapers, a first), and Synthesis represents the risky future the Reapers are afraid to let organics attempt gradually on their own.  However, it is the unique development of each Shepard's psyche that ultimately influences this choice the most.  Each option has different support, and I really hesitate to say one particular ending is "the right one."

Simply, the Destroy option represents a zero-sum game for Shep and organic life.  The success of organics means the failure of synthetics and that is this particular Shepard's view: win-lose.  This Shepard is stubborn to a fault and holds to the values s/he started off with.  Control and Synthesis are non-zero-sum; they do not result in a loss for organics, but are more win-win, with different details.  They both represent a sort of coexistence that does not end in defeat.  The Shepards that choose these are open-minded or unabashedly pragmatic, respectively, depending on your style of play.

That has been my take.  I apologize if it is OT, but I have read many ending interpretation threads over the months since March, and yours actually pulled the words out of me.   Regardless of whether people post about IT, literal, or literal IT interpretations, I always enjoy reading them because of all the different takes.  I've enjoyed this one, too, and I'm disappointed to see people coming in here and trying to stomp all over someone's opinion just as I would be by someone's cramdown reading of the ending (e.g., "I am right, everyone else is wrong, I will not entertain arguments, kthxbai").  We all just need to learn to appreciate the differences, people, and find novelty where we can.  And, for the love of the Maker, why not save the "Report" button for people who are being jerks and not for people trying to express their appreciation for the game in their own way (which is what BSN is for)?  A little less trigger-happiness and a little more tolerance will actually bring BSN's atmosphere closer to what was intended. 

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 12 octobre 2012 - 06:17 .

[Bill Casey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Thank you for telling me I actually hate the ending to Mass Effect 3...
Because before you came along, I thought it was the single most brilliant ending to a video game in history...

It's up with John Carpenter's "The Thing" for my favorite endings of all time, any medium...
BTW, Childs is The Thing...

Lies.

When IT'ers break from their headcanon, they all hate the ending.

The ending IS racist as hell...
The Reapers are racist as hell...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 octobre 2012 - 06:53 .

[Bill Casey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

hukbum wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

When IT'ers break from their headcanon, they all hate the ending.

Of course they do. It's their way to like the ending. Without it they say "I don't like the ending". Something wrong about that?

Nothing wrong with it, but I also don't see why some have to react viciously to people who say they're anti-enders, when they are very plainly rejecting the ending by believing IT.

THE. ENDING. IS. I.T.
THE ENDING IS ****ING BRILLIANT.


What don't you understand?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 octobre 2012 - 06:52 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

There is no Indoctrination Theory, it's just a big house of cards built on supposition on top of supposition on top of ****.

[Podge 90]

You really aren't saying anything new. In fact, you're actually a good handful of months behind a lot of people.

[Davik Kang]

AlanC9 wrote...
And then the Control Stargazer scene is a lie. This isn't part of Shep's indoctrination, since he's long gone. Bio's putting something on the screen that's a lie to me. Lied twice, counting the EC since they could have told the truth and did not.

That's what your theory requires. Own it.

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
snip

Wanted to answer these two together.  @BlueMoon, thanks for your comments, and I pretty much agree with everything you said.  I have tried numerous times to espouse similar arguments, but the problem is, these arguments tend to get ignored because they don't 'pick a side' which makes them hard to argue with.  But I absolutely agree that lots of the game and especially the ending are open to various interpretations, and I don't have a problem with that at all.  But for the sake of simplicity, this thread was about my interpretation: one which I am sure many others must have as well, but there doesn't appear to be a thread for it.

To the point about 'lies' and the validity of Control and other endings - I am not saying that your interpretation is wrong.  If you played the game and decided that the ending did not involve an indoctrination attempt, then fine, the Syn and Con and other endings happen exactly as you see it.  But the way I saw it when I was playing, the ending was an indoctrination attempt, and the other choices amounted to being indoctrinated.  To go with Control or Synthesis here would mean joinging the Reapers without even knowing it.

BlueMoon talked about different ways of playing the game.  The Shepard I imagined definitely had a distinct set of values, but she would still take each moment as a reaction, rather than just picking whatever supposedly fit in with her personality.  She was trying to save the galaxy, but in doing so, she had to learn about what it takes to save the galaxy.  [Train of thought: I may fail at explaining my point but I'll try...]  The thing is, everyone's story through Mass Effect is a deeply personal story.  If you look at it as a simple video game, then you know your choices won't really matter.  You will win the game whether you kill Wrex or save the Rachni or whatever.  But in your own personal story, that's not the case.  Shepard never knows whether her choices were the right ones.  But in the end she is rewarded for her actions and does succeed in bringing galactic forces to defend Earth.  So, if you chose to save the Geth, maybe that was a crucial choice, and that if you'd let them die, maybe you would never have made it this far.  The fact that someone else played the game, didn't save the Geth, and still got to the end isn't the point.  The story is your story and couldn't have happened any other way.

Now, as far as interpretations go, everyone will have a different one.  Everyone in the IT thread, in the Control Support thread, and so on, will differ from each other's as well as everyone else's.  But they can still group their interpretations under certain key ideas that they all agree on.  But there doesn't seem to be a thread based around the fact that the final room was a hallucination and indoctrination attempt, but the rest was basically real (or near enough real).  So here I'm trying to make a thread for that kind of interpretation.  It's no good spamming other threads because they have quite different interpretations, and their own ideas to discuss therein.


So in short, AlanC9, no, in your game Control is not a lie, but in my game, and for the purposes of this thread, yes, it's a lie.

jds1bio wrote...
Dang it, Davik. I thought you were here to announce the release date of the next single-player KOTOR game. Oh well, glad you escaped Taris anyways.

My apologies friend.  Rest assured I will be releasing my memoirs soon, available from all good book stores.  There you'll get to read about all my adventures as a merciless overlord of crime in the most dangerous syndicate in the galaxy.  You'll learn about all the crazy characters I met and all the people I tortured and/or extorted.  Apparently I even bumped into Darth Revan once... didn't seem all that great to me.

Podge 90 wrote...
You really aren't saying anything new. In fact, you're actually a good handful of months behind a lot of people.

Do I really have to write the whole OP out again?  This isn't supposed to be a new theory.  It's a thread dedicated to a fairly straightforward interpretation of the ending that seems hardly represented on BSN at the moment.  The idea is to have a place to discuss ideas within this interpretation without having to spam the IT/Ending Support threads.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:51 .