252 réponses à ce sujet

[PistolPete7556]

You get points for the KotOR reference. That's about it.

[Davik Kang]

PistolPete7556 wrote...
You get points for the KotOR reference. That's about it.

Wow thanks!  How do I go about collecting these points?

[Podge 90]

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

It's "hardly represented at the moment" because every variation, every single little aspect of Indoctrination Theory was discussed, argued, debated and speculated over months ago. Put this in one of the IT threads.  It's not a new theory, it's simply talking about when indoctrination kicks in, again, all talked about months ago, so bump one of the old threads.  Nothing new is added here.

[Davik Kang]

Podge 90 wrote...
snip

We are going round in circles.  Thread has been reported.  You want it closed, report it too (presumably you already have).  Posts trying to get threads closed... what are you doing?  Use your time on something more productive.

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
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.  

Back to this point, I agree with this, though when interpreting the ending as indoctrination, it is not so much that the Reapers want to negotiate... more, they are forced into trying to stop Shepard they only way they still can - by indoctrinating her.  The StarKid offers choices in an attempt to appear in control of the situation, but in fact it is Shepard who is in control.  The hallucination brought on by the indoctrination attempt makes it seem otherwise.  But Shepard can still kill the Reapers.  And the Con Syn endings appear as apprently preferable choices to try to convince her to fail.

If you reject the notion of indoctrination in the ending, then your point is exactly right.

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
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.

I kind of think the whole ending is a zero-sum game.  You cannot truly know if you are being indoctrinated - you can only suppose it.  So you have to consider the consequences of being right or wrong.  (This is worded from the point of view of someone who thinks they are being indoctrinated btw).

If you are wrong, and there is no indoctrination present, then Destroy essentially means throwing out the chance to make a new age of peace, and additionally causing the unnecessary deaths of Geth, other synths like EDI, and the Reapers.  It would be a stubborn and arguably foolhardy decision to continue anyway.  Control offers a more straightforward solution (though if you accept the StarKid's logic regarding synthetics and organics, one wonders how long it would be before war began again).  Synthesis is his preferred solution because it avoids the Synth vs Organics problem, but it also requires making the rather objectionable decision to alter galactic life forever.

If you are right, and the Kid is trying to indoctrinate you, then the consequences of Con are devastating.  The Reapers become stronger with Shepard as a new Reaper.  Syn is still complicated, because you risk causing the death of all galactic life (as it had been said that organics cannot progress to this stage 'til they are ready).  And even if it can happen, you are still making the kind of choice only a God should be making.  Destroy still involves terrible consequences, but relatively speaking, it is the least of the evils.  Garrus at one point asks you if it is ok to let 6 trillion die to save 12 trillion (or something), and by picking Destroy, you reluctantly decide "yes", depending on your view of the Chakwas/Adams debate.

[Podge 90]

No I've not reported it, because I'm not a little girl. And please remember telling me to be more productive with my time when you write your next 1000-word post about a computer game.

[AlanC9]

Davik Kang wrote...

If you are right, and the Kid is trying to indoctrinate you, then the consequences of Con are devastating.  The Reapers become stronger with Shepard as a new Reaper.  

Well, one more Reaper isn't that important. It's like picking Refuse by accident.

[Davik Kang]

Podge 90 wrote...
No I've not reported it, because I'm not a little girl. And please remember telling me to be more productive with my time when you write your next 1000-word post about a computer game.

Why are you still here?  What are you doing?  Aren't the forums to discuss the game?  Why are you typing these messages?  I am just trying to discuss the game.  If you think that's a waste of time, well ok, but then what are you doing on these forums?

[Podge 90]

 <_<

[Restrider]

I have a question:
What is your take on the breath scene? Where does it take place? When does it take place and how?

Modifié par Restrider, 12 octobre 2012 - 05:14 .

[Jadebaby]

Sorry, but you're not as original as you thought. I'm pretty sure The Twilight God's "IT con" theory is the same as this.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It looks like someone recently finished the game and came to the conclusion that Shepard was undergoing indoctrination. They've been trying to make sense of the ending. Look at the OP's join date. Sept 24/25 2012. I think everyone should just lighten up and stop the fighting. I came to a similar conclusion.

The reapers use indoctrination. IT is a valid possibility until Bioware says it isn't. End of story.

[Jadebaby]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

The StarKid is NOT a Deus Ex Machina

A DEM is a device used since ancient Greek plays, where an omnipotent god character would be lowered onto the stage to resolve situations in the story that were otherwise unresolvable.  The term came to be used to describe similar plot devices in fiction, where a character or event would arrive completely unannounced and alter the story in a similar way.  

.

Nope that is exactly what he did.
He appeared and solved our situation that was otherwise unresolvable.


Seriously I don't understand how people don't remember that, I only played it twice and I remember the horrors perfectly. 

Yea, seems to me that the description he offered is exactly what the Catalyst did.

[Jadebaby]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It looks like someone recently finished the game and came to the conclusion that Shepard was undergoing indoctrination. They've been trying to make sense of the ending. Look at the OP's join date. Sept 24/25 2012. I think everyone should just lighten up and stop the fighting. I came to a similar conclusion.

The reapers use indoctrination. IT is a valid possibility until Bioware says it isn't. End of story.

Not as Valid as ET.

[Seival]

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.

Yes, without imagining that "endings were a lie", all "IT" ers are just one more bunch of Retakers...

...Haters will hate, no matter what did they imagine. Hate is conterproductive, just like "IT". "IT"ers remind me the annoying Hanar "priest" from ME1. And moderators remind me the Turian C-Sec, who afraid that the Hanar will become even more vocal if thrown out from the presidium

...No offence.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Bill's right though, Catalyst is racist as all hell.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 12 octobre 2012 - 10:13 .

[Quikraptor]

... Please respond to this, OP.

I ****ing LOVE your interpretation. It truly makes the most sense out of every theory out there. It's like the indoctrination theory, but this one isn't "SHEPARD WAS INDOCTRINATED THE WHOLE TIME!!! NONE OF WHAT HAPPENED REALLY HAPPENED!!!", but actually fits the character of Shepard. She knows her mission (I speak for FemShep, as that was mine, too. Male Shep is far too cliche. At least with a gal it's slightly more interesting.), and intends to carry it out. "We destroy them, or they destroy us."

But it's even more interesting to think about is that no matter what route you take, you're going back on something you deemed wrong.
-Control. You're going against TIM. If you're a Paragon, you go back on that and control the reapers after saying "We don't deserve it."
-Synthesis. We stopped Saren. Super simple stuff.
-Destroy. Also as a Paragon, we deemed the genophage wrong and cured it.

So your interpretation... It really makes the most sense. I will admit this.

[Rixatrix]

Davik Kang wrote...
I kind of think the whole ending is a zero-sum game.  You cannot truly know if you are being indoctrinated - you can only suppose it.  So you have to consider the consequences of being right or wrong.  (This is worded from the point of view of someone who thinks they are being indoctrinated btw).

If you are wrong, and there is no indoctrination present, then Destroy essentially means throwing out the chance to make a new age of peace, and additionally causing the unnecessary deaths of Geth, other synths like EDI, and the Reapers.  It would be a stubborn and arguably foolhardy decision to continue anyway.  Control offers a more straightforward solution (though if you accept the StarKid's logic regarding synthetics and organics, one wonders how long it would be before war began again).  Synthesis is his preferred solution because it avoids the Synth vs Organics problem, but it also requires making the rather objectionable decision to alter galactic life forever.

If you are right, and the Kid is trying to indoctrinate you, then the consequences of Con are devastating.  The Reapers become stronger with Shepard as a new Reaper.  Syn is still complicated, because you risk causing the death of all galactic life (as it had been said that organics cannot progress to this stage 'til they are ready).  And even if it can happen, you are still making the kind of choice only a God should be making.  Destroy still involves terrible consequences, but relatively speaking, it is the least of the evils.  Garrus at one point asks you if it is ok to let 6 trillion die to save 12 trillion (or something), and by picking Destroy, you reluctantly decide "yes", depending on your view of the Chakwas/Adams debate.

If there is no indoctrination attempt, the morals of each option are definitely arguable.  For my stubborn "Destroy" choosing Shepard, "Control" represented corruptible absolute power that was too dangerous to keep and Synthesis represented raping all of organic life of its biological identity.  Certainly, "Destroy" was repugnant to her, but few choices in such dire circumstances are black and white.  Much of Mass Effect involves the shades of grey.  As you point out, Garrus asks you a hypothetical at one point about whether Shep would sacrifice a number of lives to save a much greater number of lives.  This is the "Destroy"-choosing-Shep summarized.  Of course, a different Shepard can have faith in herself to adequately control the Reapers and make them useful, or to judge that all roads eventually lead to some form of "Synthesis" and that there is no sense in putting off the inevitable (and in fact, she may believe it is safer and preferable to do it on these terms than risk the myriad worse forms of synthesis in the future, even if she has to take the blame upon herself).

If there is an indoctrination attempt, I mostly agree with your assessment.  Shepard has been an intriguing leader, and in "Control," certainly her leadership would make the Reapers stronger than ever.  Then, the ending interaction with TIM becomes especially relevant if you convinced him that he was being controlled by the Reapers when he thought he was controlling them.  Synthesis is especially troubling because in my mind, under an indoctrination attempt view, it feels apocalyptic.  It is the end of life as we know it.  Destroy, however, is not without its own problems.  Under an indoctrination attempt view, in my mind, it makes Shepard keenly sympatheic to the Reapers' logic.  She is being forced to make a cold, calculating, by-the-numbers decision in which one variable is destroyed to save another.  It is, strictly speaking, the very same methodology of the Reapers, applied to different variables.  That is why I hesitate to say that "Destroy" is breaking free of indoctrination and the "right" ending.  In fact, in that ending more than any other, Shepard steps into the role of the Reapers and sees through their lens in perfect alignment very clearly -- destroy A to save B, C, D, E, etc., or reaping synthetic life so that organic life may continue existing.

All of these options are multi-faceted, and that is why it is so difficult for me to ascribe "correct" and "incorrect" labels to them.  My different Shepards have made different choices based on who they were and what they believed in, and those choices simply became the harsh reality in the game and nothing more.  I think that is the point.  In the end, we are given a choice between many repugnant options.  There is no "unicorns, bunnies, and rainbows" ending where the hero makes the choice he was destined to and is vindicated.  

I won't presume to know what BW was thinking, but for me, it certainly carried through the series' theme that you can't save everything, and when you try to, you risk losing it all (i.e., "Refuse" option: "These are all terrible choices, and I won't pick one that isn't perfect!").  ME3's ending was supposed to leave a bad taste in your mouth because the galaxy doesn't pull through unscathed.  Regardless of what decision you make, there is an indelible mark carved into the galaxy now immortalizing when a horrible tragedy occurred, and I never expected to be given an option that made up for all that has happened, because nothing simply could have.  

Of course, everyone's game is different.  I probably associate the most with my Shep who has been put through the wringer too many times and sees the writing on the wall; she knows there is no game-changer, only a game-ender.  She has stubbornly pursued the same goal all this time and does not look away.  For that Shep, putting an end to the atrocities with an atrocity that causes the fewest effects on the galaxy as a whole was the least terrible of the terrible options.  She isn't "right" or even "good," just happened to be in the position to make the choice and expects to pay for it and live plagued by it.

As far as this thread itself, live and let live.  People discussing Davik's interpretation aren't harming anyone, just expressing their enjoyment of the game by talking about it.  It is a real head-scratcher why dissembling trolls don't get suspended or banned and instead thought-provoking threads get closed because of their mischief.  It has sadly become a dependable, predictable, and unfair tactic. 

[zambot]

This theory has the same problem as the other non-dream IT theories I've seen:

1. It requires the game/developers to lie to you. Regardless of which choice you pick, the reaper threat is over. Saying that an indoctrination attempt was successful at the very end if you pick 2 of the choices means the game must lie to pull it off.
2. It does not hold up when you have low EMS. In such cases, only one option is offered to you: control or destroy. In other words: if you have low EMS and the reapers are more successful, they don't try to indoctrinate you and go meekly to their deaths. This is not logical.
3. If the reapers are successfully in your head poking your thoughts, why would they let you see the destroy terminal at all?

[OdanUrr]

Davik Kang wrote...

 Some additional comments:


The StarKid is NOT a Deus Ex Machina

A DEM is a device used since ancient Greek plays, where an omnipotent god character would be lowered onto the stage to resolve situations in the story that were otherwise unresolvable.  The term came to be used to describe similar plot devices in fiction, where a character or event would arrive completely unannounced and alter the story in a similar way.  

But the StarKid is not a DEM.  It is presented as one, if you take what he says as true.  But he is the product of an indoctrination attempt, and the control of the situation at the end is solely down to two factors: Shepard, and the Crucible.  We knew the Crucible did something amazing, but we didn't know what.  Shepard is the one who has the choice to use it.  The StarKid is a bystander.  It is essentially just a voice for the Reapers, trying at the last minute to save themselves, or even turn defeat into a dramatic improved victory.

By your own definition, he seems like a DEM to me and I don't even have to believe anything he says. The fact remains that the Crucible doesn't fire automatically and nobody knows how to make it fire either. Without the Catalyst, Shepard would've bled to death then and there and that would be the end of ME3. Instead, the Catalyst "lifts" Shepard and tells him how to activate the Crucible. Whether we like that or not it's another matter.

[DanHarbinger]

This post made me feel nostalgic ...

[DanHarbinger]

Where's my original Xbox?!

[His Name was HYR!!]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Bill's right though, Catalyst is racist as all hell.

Right, because that's totally what he's talking about in a topic titled "ending = slavery" and responding in disagreement to someone calling said topic ridiculous.

Not, backtracking to save-face on acting all smart, saying "I thought it was brilliant! Always have!" or anything.

Can't slip one past Gravycantalope.

[GreyLycanTrope]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Bill's right though, Catalyst is racist as all hell.

Right, because that's totally what he's talking about in a topic titled "ending = slavery" and responding in disagreement to someone calling said topic ridiculous.

Not, backtracking to save-face on acting all smart, saying "I thought it was brilliant! Always have!" or anything.

Can't slip one past Gravycantalope.

He thinks an IT ending is brilliant, and literal interpretation sucks. If IT is valid, which he believes, the ending is brillaint, if it isn't it's crap. Saying that the Catalyst is racist, which is true, doesn't contradict either of these trains of thought. You don't have to like or agree with the catalyst to like the endings if you believe you are opposing him, I'm not sure why you brough it up it doesn't discredit him in the least.

[Bill Casey]

HYR just hates the ending...