889 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

I think it comes down a lot to interpretation. I see the end as an indoctrination attempt, where the vision of that final room is symbolic of the different choices available. Because of that, I don't see the Kid as really having any control whatesoever, and don't even see him as representing a single voice.

I agree with this, or at least I agree that the ending represents a semi-indoctrination attempt in the sense that the Catalyst favors Control and Synthesis over Destroy and is definitely trying to convince you to choose them, effectively agreeing with the Reapers and overturning your previous desire to kill them. This was likely intentional, whether Bioware was going the indoctrination route or not - he is definitely trying to convince you to agree with him.

But the beam area where you make the choice is also strongly reminiscent of the Conduit run, the control panel room is nearly identical to TIM's room (complete with circular panel on the floor), the chasm area like the Shadow Broker's ship, and the hallway like the Collector Base. While IT theorists take this as evidence of IT, I just think that Bioware deliberately made the final scenes this way in an attempt to convey a dreamlike, surreal, or eerily familiar feel to it.This has the effect of creating a sense of awe even before the Catalyst encounter. I think they did this well if that was their intent.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The fact what the  curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the  crucible does base less.

No the crucible is just less complete, he can just do less with it then he could otherwise. It's like get a having a computer but not having the video card that allows you to run a desired game. You can still play older games or one with lesser graphical requirements just not the one you wanted.

Actually, your choices being based on your EMS score reflects how well defended the crucible was. Low EMS results in a badly damaged crucible resulting in less options and more unstable side effects included.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The fact what the  curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the  crucible does base less.

No the crucible is just less complete, he can just do less with it then he could otherwise. It's like get a having a computer but not having the video card that allows you to run a desired game. You can still play older games or one with lesser graphical requirements just not the one you wanted.

You need to watxch the low ems ending agein. The catalyst tells you it won't work effectively because of how damaged it is.
You point stays the same but the computer can't make the card do what it can't do.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Lizardviking wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The fact what the  curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the  crucible does base less.

No the crucible is just less complete, he can just do less with it then he could otherwise. It's like get a having a computer but not having the video card that allows you to run a desired game. You can still play older games or one with lesser graphical requirements just not the one you wanted.

Actually, your choices being based on your EMS score reflects how well defended the crucible was. Low EMS results in a badly damaged crucible resulting in less options and more unstable side effects included.

Which is kinda my point, Reapers damaged your new computer now the video card ain't working.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:34 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The fact what the  curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the  crucible does base less.

No the crucible is just less complete, he can just do less with it then he could otherwise. It's like get a having a computer but not having the video card that allows you to run a desired game. You can still play older games or one with lesser graphical requirements just not the one you wanted.

You need to watxch the low ems ending agein. The catalyst tells you it won't work effectively because of how damaged it is.
You point stays the same but the computer can't make the card do what it can't do.

refer to above post.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The fact what the  curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the  crucible does base less.

No the crucible is just less complete, he can just do less with it then he could otherwise. It's like get a having a computer but not having the video card that allows you to run a desired game. You can still play older games or one with lesser graphical requirements just not the one you wanted.

Actually, your choices being based on your EMS score reflects how well defended the crucible was. Low EMS results in a badly damaged crucible resulting in less options and more unstable side effects included.

Which is kinda my point, Reapers damanged your new computer now the video card ain't working.

That still means the catalystis not controling your card.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...
That still means the catalystis not controling your card.

You're missing the analogy, the guy staring at the screen is the Catalyst. The Crucible is the computer, some jerk droped you package on delivery now the video card's not working and you can't play Synthesis so you settle for Control or Destroy.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:37 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

No, you cannot argue against the catalyst's logic, at best you can tell it that killing people is bad. But you cannot argue against the fact that synthethics will always destroy organics or that there will be conflicts between them, even though Shepard can easily have evidence that proves the contary.

You can clear dissagree and not make a choiceor pick destory which he is told ensure the conflict happens agein.

Shepard never argues the point about synthethic vs organics. As mentioned Shepard only says "killing people is wrong" to the catalyst. Shepard does not put up any kind of fight whatsoever beyond the superficial.

And also, why does Shepard not try to persuade the catalyst into not using the crucible? Why can't Shepard try to have the catalyst just cease fire and go away? Just 5 minutes ago Shepard used his power of persuasion to either have a crazed TIM see the error of his way and thereby having him commit suicide, or mocking him into lowering his guard. Yet now with the catalyst, a crazed AI, Shepard is suddenly at a loss?

And before you say refuse, it's not the same since Shepard just shuts the conversation down in it.

[Davik Kang]

Kabooooom wrote...
I agree with this, or at least I agree that the ending represents a semi-indoctrination attempt in the sense that the Catalyst favors Control and Synthesis over Destroy and is definitely trying to convince you to choose them, effectively agreeing with the Reapers and overturning your previous desire to kill them. This was likely intentional, whether Bioware was going the indoctrination route or not - he is definitely trying to convince you to agree with him. 

But the beam area where you make the choice is also strongly reminiscent of the Conduit run, the control panel room is nearly identical to TIM's room (complete with circular panel on the floor), the chasm area like the Shadow Broker's ship, and the hallway like the Collector Base. While IT theorists take this as evidence of IT, I just think that Bioware deliberately made the final scenes this way in an attempt to convey a dreamlike, surreal, or eerily familiar feel to it.This has the effect of creating a sense of awe even before the Catalyst encounter. I think they did this well if that was their intent.

Yeah, I think you've summed it all up.  I basically think exactly this, except that I consider the final scene to be out and out hallucination (we're basically in space at the connecting point of the Crucible, there's a hologram that looks like the kid from your dreams, layout resembles a dialogue wheel etc.)  

But more importantly, I think that Bioware did intend to create that sense you described, and that this is the case no matter whether IT or Literal or any other interpretation is taken to be the 'true' meaning of the ending (or at least, whichever one Bioware intended - if they did intend only one).

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That still means the catalystis not controling your card.

You're missing the analogy, the guy staring at the screen is the Catalyst. The Crucible is the computer, some jerk droped you package on delivery now the video card's not working and you can't play Synthesis so you settle for Control or Destroy.

No. The crucible is the video card. The citadel is the computer.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That still means the catalystis not controling your card.

You're missing the analogy, the guy staring at the screen is the Catalyst. The Crucible is the computer, some jerk droped you package on delivery now the video card's not working and you can't play Synthesis so you settle for Control or Destroy.

No. The crucible is the video card. The citadel is the computer.

Are you trying to tell my how my own analogy is structured?

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:51 .

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

No, you cannot argue against the catalyst's logic, at best you can tell it that killing people is bad. But you cannot argue against the fact that synthethics will always destroy organics or that there will be conflicts between them, even though Shepard can easily have evidence that proves the contary.

You can clear dissagree and not make a choiceor pick destory which he is told ensure the conflict happens agein.

Shepard never argues the point about synthethic vs organics. As mentioned Shepard only says "killing people is wrong" to the catalyst. Shepard does not put up any kind of fight whatsoever beyond the superficial.

And also, why does Shepard not try to persuade the catalyst into not using the crucible? Why can't Shepard try to have the catalyst just cease fire and go away? Just 5 minutes ago Shepard used his power of persuasion to either have a crazed TIM see the error of his way and thereby having him commit suicide, or mocking him into lowering his guard. Yet now with the catalyst, a crazed AI, Shepard is suddenly at a loss?

And before you say refuse, it's not the same since Shepard just shuts the conversation down in it.

1.You entire issue here isthat you want to change the catalyst min which you can't.

2. It's a shackled AI. Shepard has as much as a change to change the catalyst mind as amuch as a person verbally convincing an out ofcontrol car to stop.
3.But refuseis that same.He is going ageinst everything the catalyst sayno matter what.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That still means the catalystis not controling your card.

You're missing the analogy, the guy staring at the screen is the Catalyst. The Crucible is the computer, some jerk droped you package on delivery now the video card's not working and you can't play Synthesis so you settle for Control or Destroy.

No. The crucible is the video card. The citadel is the computer.

Are you trying to tell my how my own analogy is structured?

I'm saying you analogy is incorrect now.The crucible is a hardware upgrade to the citadel,which is what a video cardis, a hardware up grade to a computer.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying you analogy is incorrect now.The crucible is a hardware upgrade to the citadel,which is what a video cardis, a hardware up grade to a computer.

And the Catalyst can still be the guy at the keyboard in that scenario. The Citadel is his home(or computer in this case) not him specifically.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 novembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

No, you cannot argue against the catalyst's logic, at best you can tell it that killing people is bad. But you cannot argue against the fact that synthethics will always destroy organics or that there will be conflicts between them, even though Shepard can easily have evidence that proves the contary.

You can clear dissagree and not make a choiceor pick destory which he is told ensure the conflict happens agein.

Shepard never argues the point about synthethic vs organics. As mentioned Shepard only says "killing people is wrong" to the catalyst. Shepard does not put up any kind of fight whatsoever beyond the superficial.

And also, why does Shepard not try to persuade the catalyst into not using the crucible? Why can't Shepard try to have the catalyst just cease fire and go away? Just 5 minutes ago Shepard used his power of persuasion to either have a crazed TIM see the error of his way and thereby having him commit suicide, or mocking him into lowering his guard. Yet now with the catalyst, a crazed AI, Shepard is suddenly at a loss?

And before you say refuse, it's not the same since Shepard just shuts the conversation down in it.

1.You entire issue here isthat you want to change the catalyst min which you can't.

2. It's a shackled AI. Shepard has as much as a change to change the catalyst mind as amuch as a person verbally convincing an out ofcontrol car to stop.
3.But refuseis that same.He is going ageinst everything the catalyst sayno matter what.

1: Shepard is the hero of the story, heroes often challenge the villain's viewpoint and not just go along with them.

2: The catalyst is shackled and has a mandate to preserve organic life, the catalyst is also seeking a new solution. Why can't Shepard negotiate with it in order to find a new solution? Why is the catalyst dead-set on using the crucible? Why would the catalyst care what brings forth the new solution?

3: No it is not the same. In refuse Shepard just goes "Screw you, I won't listen to you or use the crucible.". I am okay with Shepard using the crucible, but only if all other avenues have been tried.

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

No, you cannot argue against the catalyst's logic, at best you can tell it that killing people is bad. But you cannot argue against the fact that synthethics will always destroy organics or that there will be conflicts between them, even though Shepard can easily have evidence that proves the contary.

You can clear dissagree and not make a choiceor pick destory which he is told ensure the conflict happens agein.

Shepard never argues the point about synthethic vs organics. As mentioned Shepard only says "killing people is wrong" to the catalyst. Shepard does not put up any kind of fight whatsoever beyond the superficial.

And also, why does Shepard not try to persuade the catalyst into not using the crucible? Why can't Shepard try to have the catalyst just cease fire and go away? Just 5 minutes ago Shepard used his power of persuasion to either have a crazed TIM see the error of his way and thereby having him commit suicide, or mocking him into lowering his guard. Yet now with the catalyst, a crazed AI, Shepard is suddenly at a loss?

And before you say refuse, it's not the same since Shepard just shuts the conversation down in it.

1.You entire issue here isthat you want to change the catalyst min which you can't.

2. It's a shackled AI. Shepard has as much as a change to change the catalyst mind as amuch as a person verbally convincing an out ofcontrol car to stop.
3.But refuseis that same.He is going ageinst everything the catalyst sayno matter what.

1: Shepard is the hero of the story, heroes often challenge the villain's viewpoint and not just go along with them.

2: The catalyst is shackled and has a mandate to preserve organic life, the catalyst is also seeking a new solution. Why can't Shepard negotiate with it in order to find a new solution? Why is the catalyst dead-set on using the crucible? Why would the catalyst care what brings forth the new solution?

3: No it is not the same. In refuse Shepard just goes "Screw you, I won't listen to you or use the crucible.". I am okay with Shepard using the crucible, but only if all other avenues have been tried.

1.But he does. Only synthesis is a permanent solution to the catalsyst problem. Pick anything but synthesis puts Shepard to apoint to dissagree.
2.That is what it's doing int he end.He also just can't stop the reapers.
3.It still him disagreeing with the catalyst.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying you analogy is incorrect now.The crucible is a hardware upgrade to the citadel,which is what a video cardis, a hardware up grade to a computer.

And the Catalyst can still be the guy at the keyboard in that scenario. The Citadel is his home(or computer in this case) not him specifically.

How is the catalyst at the computer when he asks Shepard to make the choice?

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying you analogy is incorrect now.The crucible is a hardware upgrade to the citadel,which is what a video cardis, a hardware up grade to a computer.

And the Catalyst can still be the guy at the keyboard in that scenario. The Citadel is his home(or computer in this case) not him specifically.

How is the catalyst at the computer when he asks Shepard to make the choice?

He asks Shep to help him make a new solution happen, Shepard is tech support or game reviewer I guess would be more apt.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 novembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying you analogy is incorrect now.The crucible is a hardware upgrade to the citadel,which is what a video cardis, a hardware up grade to a computer.

And the Catalyst can still be the guy at the keyboard in that scenario. The Citadel is his home(or computer in this case) not him specifically.

How is the catalyst at the computer when he asks Shepard to make the choice?

He asks Shep to help him make a new solution happen, Shepard is tech support.

:lol:.... I don't agree. But I'll stop it right here.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.But he does. Only synthesis is a permanent solution to the catalsyst problem. Pick anything but synthesis puts Shepard to apoint to dissagree.
2.That is what it's doing int he end.He also just can't stop the reapers.
3.It still him disagreeing with the catalyst.

1: No he does not, there is no dialog where Shepard argues against him.

2: A new solution that does not involve the crucible. And that the catalyst can't stop Reapers does not matter, what matters is Shepard trying his darnets in order to make the catalyst see reason. Something Shepard does not do and is a major failure in the writing.

Allow me quote Nightwriter from this thread.

Nightwriter wrote...
I think people who use the "debating with it would have been useless" argument are kind of missing the point.

Whether or not the Catalyst would have stroked its chin philosophically and said "hmm, your words have merit" is irrelevant.

What
is relevant is that the most important points get some kind of
representation -- that we don't lose our voice in the final moment of
truth. So far the only ending where they get representation is the one
where the entire galaxy dies.

The Catalyst's response to this
doesn't really matter. If we end up pulling some kind of Kirk-esque mind
whammy on the robot, and out-argue it, fine. If it refuses to hear us,
and we end up needing to blow it up and go home, fine.

3: Shepard acts more like an idiot than anything else in refusal. And what was it that I argued against?

dreman9999 wrote...
Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

Thats right. Our options in the final conversation is either to put up a pityfull resistance to the catalyst, or just shut off completely and not bother to negotiate with it.

[Archonsg]

Part of why the ending is so bad, is that it only represent one view, one psychological outlook on how the war should end. And that view is a defeatist one.

Lets face it, all options including the Refusal option all have the common theme that Shepard has no way to win the war without acceping the devil's deal. In this case, the Catalyst aka Starbrat.

For the rest of us who wanted Shepard to be able to say no, to fight on and find a way to win, alas, the writers decided that such a choice is not to be available, this theme that Shepard has to sell his soul and commit suicide to win, obviously didn't sit well.

It is too bad that I see so many young persons so willing to celebrate defeat, death, loss of one's individuality and rape of the human spirit.
That says something about our society and it isn't something I can be proud of.

Modifié par Archonsg, 05 novembre 2012 - 07:42 .

[Zan51]

Seival wrote...

...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

Ooh I have just seen this! How wrong you are! I am an SF writer, 8 books professionally publuished, member of SFWA, Science Fiction and Fatasy Writers of America, had numerous short stories published, many of them SF war stories, and I KNOW the endings of ME3 are written badly!  And I grew up reading all the good classic SF and STILL love it!

But writers change and evolve over time, you only have to look at Arthur C Clark' s City and the Stars and then hiis later stuff. Early writing was plot driven, people mattered, later they became cardboard cut outs moved around his "amazing" tech worlds with very little plot at all because that didn't matter, it was a showcase, no more, for his ideas.

Get off your high horse of generalities, they are cliches and never work!  We are indiiduals, or as the Brit cult TV show said , "I am a person not #6!"  We change and grow and few here fit your ideas of what you think we are.

FYI for maybe the last 8 or so years, the SF Community, the professional writers of SF fiction that is, wrote only about the near future and much of it was a tad dark and deptressing. However, we are now looking back out to space with hope agfain and the literature is lighter in mood, more stories about colonies that work pretty well, and exploring.

That is where you find the true pulse of the SF world, not in the games and movies, they are Hollywood driven. The novels and stories are people driven by individual writers. We left this dark gritty wasteland of a future vision behind several years ago. Pity Bioware wasn't up to speed!

You can keep a finger on the SF writing community by reading magazines such as Analog every month. It's a good indicator of where the collective consciousness of writers of SF is at.

Modifié par Zan51, 05 novembre 2012 - 07:44 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Destroy is a permanent solution to the Starbrat's problem; it eliminates the Starbrat, thereby eliminating the problem and freeing the galactic civilizations to pursue their own paths.

In a small-minded bit of passive-aggressive behavior from the writers, they also had the Starbrat destroy Edi and the Geth, who were the most likely candidates to pursue a peaceful coexistence.
This is Mac Walters and Casey Hudson saying, "If you don't do it OUR way, you can't do it at all!"

[Archonsg]

@zan51

+1 for quoting Dr Who. ;-)

[Zan51]

Archonsg wrote...

@zan51

+1 for quoting Dr Who. ;-)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061287/  Um, the Prisoner actually.   Paatrick McGoohan. Actually been to The Village! Rather nice little place.