223 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

dorktainian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst isn't Evil, it's just confused by nature and why it wants to create and then destroy everything it creates. It's not out to decieve, not capable of it. Leviathan? Who knows.

   

''so be it...'' yeah no evilness there.  

Shep chose. Sheps evil?

[Obitim]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

It's amazing that people don't get it. You don't need to change the endings for IT to be true. The endings are finished. They are over. I'll try to be quick. Destroy does not only placate to IT and destroy is NOT only symbolic. Destroy is actually an option. When you pick destroy you break the indoctrination attempt AND destroy the reapers. AND Shep lives.

From Hudson- " We won't have an A, B, C ending, We wouldn't do that"

He didn't lie. There's only one choice. and one ending. That's why destroy is the only ending where shep doesn't Die. And the Reapers do. Its. Very. Simple.

But believe what you will. Like jstme said, it's all viable. So just go with the flow.

Almost a year later and I still can't believe lots of people are talking about the endings. Wow.

Wow.

This could be the reason that IT'ers do get it in the neck...what about those of us who picked the other options?  Are we thick because we didn't see through it?  Because if that's your viewpoint then I can see why there are peopel who argue as they do...

[Grubas]

Wayning_Star wrote...


no, they didn't, good try tho..kudos, for confusion.

In your face!


From Mass Effect 3: Final Hours:

On Deciding the End of the Game:
The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still much debate. 'One night Walters scribbled down some thought on various ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the end of 2011. Martin Sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man, originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the writers would have more time to finesse the ending.

And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices). [/i]

So, changes were made to the end of the game at the last minute, and the Devs were originally trying to include a mechanic where the Reapers were actually physically ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL of Shepard's body?

[Smeffects]

The only miss conception of IT is that it makes the story or the ending any less trash. There are still major gaping holes in the story anyway. THE CRUCIBLE, being the biggest.

*They let the relay activated even thought they had the citadel.

*The crucible literally just float up the citadel ass while reaper just sit by.

*The crucible was a stupid plot device that solve everything and is super easy to use.

*Alot of ITer wants to believe the Crucible is part of reapers plan...... they destroyed previous cycle attempts.

*Literal ending the casper wants to use the crucible, the reapers still destroy it.


*Doesent matter IT or Not, its a forced story with a **** device to resolve an unimaginative plot.

[Davik Kang]

Grubas wrote...

In your face!

Yes, in the face!

[CoolioThane]

Some people think the Crucible is a trap placed by the Reapers. Y'know...making its existence make sense and why the Reapers let us position it...

[TurianRebel212]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst isn't Evil, it's just confused by nature and why it wants to create and then destroy everything it creates. It's not out to decieve, not capable of it. Leviathan? Who knows.

That's why when you shoot it or refuse it's 'options' it freaks out and kills everyone. No. The Catalyst is not to be trusted. It makes no since. For example, why doesn't the Catalyst say something if shepard were to say- "look at the Geth and Quarian, they are living togeather and are ready to be peacful and mutual friends not enemies. And they want to have their identity and own form. Or when shep says- "We're at war right now". Space Child is like- "Fires burns. It's just fire. Do you blame it for being Fire" not exact quote but close. It clearly has a Reaper agenda. And we know it created them. But the leviathan created it and then it killed and harvested the leviathan's.  So what does the catalyst want really? Does it want his little reaper buddies to live- control and synthesis. Or be destroyed. And why does it take the image of the child? 

[Smeffects]

CoolioThane wrote...

Some people think the Crucible is a trap placed by the Reapers. Y'know...making its existence make sense and why the Reapers let us position it...

Oh then how you counter my point about the fact that we learn during the game that even the prothean curcible project was destroyed... BY THE REAPERS? They sure worked hard to stop the trap from making them beat the prothean sooner?

Modifié par Smeffects, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:50 .

[Davik Kang]

Smeffects wrote...
...its a forced story with a **** device to resolve an unimaginative plot.

Thanks for your relevant contribution.  Perhaps you could start a "ME3 ENDING IS TRASH" thread?  

Now that's one discussion that sure as hell won't be relegated to being allowable only in a group page!

[Obitim]

dorktainian wrote...

Shaani wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Destroy does not only placate to IT and destroy is NOT only symbolic. Destroy is actually an option.

It's all in Shepard's head.  Except when it isn't.

context. if you see a skoda and think it's a volkswagon does that make it a volkswagon?

I thought Skodas were manufactured by Volkswagon?

[dorktainian]

Obitim wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

It's amazing that people don't get it. You don't need to change the endings for IT to be true. The endings are finished. They are over. I'll try to be quick. Destroy does not only placate to IT and destroy is NOT only symbolic. Destroy is actually an option. When you pick destroy you break the indoctrination attempt AND destroy the reapers. AND Shep lives.

From Hudson- " We won't have an A, B, C ending, We wouldn't do that"

He didn't lie. There's only one choice. and one ending. That's why destroy is the only ending where shep doesn't Die. And the Reapers do. Its. Very. Simple.

But believe what you will. Like jstme said, it's all viable. So just go with the flow.

Almost a year later and I still can't believe lots of people are talking about the endings. Wow.

Wow.

This could be the reason that IT'ers do get it in the neck...what about those of us who picked the other options?  Are we thick because we didn't see through it?  Because if that's your viewpoint then I can see why there are peopel who argue as they do...

they gave you an ending.  it's your ending.  

[Obitim]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

no, it's just the way the advanced creatures talk, of course it can be exploited and is by both levi and catalyst. There's  simple reason that is, as one invented the other and then it invented the reaperships..and the IT crowd confused by the dreamish nature of that communication and rely on the bastardization to prove something that doesn't exist.

Leviathan proves that a reaper can enter sheps mind. It also proves that the reapers perfected the thrall of indoctrination through the many cycles. Also, proves that the Reapers cannot be controled.

How does it prove the reapers cannot be controlled?

[Wayning_Star]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

no, it's just the way the advanced creatures talk, of course it can be exploited and is by both levi and catalyst. There's  simple reason that is, as one invented the other and then it invented the reaperships..and the IT crowd confused by the dreamish nature of that communication and rely on the bastardization to prove something that doesn't exist.

Leviathan proves that a reaper can enter sheps mind. It also proves that the reapers perfected the thrall of indoctrination through the many cycles. Also, proves that the Reapers cannot be controled.

Leviathan proves that it's possible for Leviathan to enter Sheps mind. The entire game proves that reaper tech can communicate with Shep, or really Shep can communciate with/via reaper technology. IT does NOT prove IT nor does the idea the Shep is in dream states or controlled by those. At best Shep can be 'guided' or 'informed' but not indoctrinated. Quite frankly, Shep couldn't survive it physically. Notice the bloody nose in the Leviathan experiences?

Shep MUST be prepared to communicate with the catalsyt DIRECTLY, and that isn't easy my any means. The Catalyst is a very powerful energy based design. That's why the crucible/battery pack was necessary to invoke the choices. It needed a 'jump' to get the extra boost to basically overclock..

Shep is that errant program, the ghost in the machine...with new ideas/programming. Why do you think Shep was resurrected? For his/her health? Not to mention all the reaper addives to that personna?

[dorktainian]

Obitim wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Shaani wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Destroy does not only placate to IT and destroy is NOT only symbolic. Destroy is actually an option.

It's all in Shepard's head.  Except when it isn't.

context. if you see a skoda and think it's a volkswagon does that make it a volkswagon?

I thought Skodas were manufactured by Volkswagon?

Skodas are manufactured by Skoda - which is owned by VAG.

[Smeffects]

Davik Kang wrote...

Smeffects wrote...
...its a forced story with a **** device to resolve an unimaginative plot.

Thanks for your relevant contribution.  Perhaps you could start a "ME3 ENDING IS TRASH" thread?  

Now that's one discussion that sure as hell won't be relegated to being allowable only in a group page!

Tell me how IT or Literal ending solve any of these plot holes then?

[CoolioThane]

Smeffects wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Some people think the Crucible is a trap placed by the Reapers. Y'know...making its existence make sense and why the Reapers let us position it...

Oh then how you counter my point about the fact that we learn during the game that even the prothean curcible project was destroyed... BY THE REAPERS? They sure worked hard to stop the trap from making them beat the prothean sooner?

Who do we learn that from?

Also, it was never implemented because there was infighting between groups who wanted to :

i) Destroy
ii) Control - these seperatists were indoctrinated

To me that's a pretty big POSITIVE for it being a trap/Control being an indoctrinated choice but meh, just me

brb off for a run

[dorktainian]

Wayning_Star wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

no, it's just the way the advanced creatures talk, of course it can be exploited and is by both levi and catalyst. There's  simple reason that is, as one invented the other and then it invented the reaperships..and the IT crowd confused by the dreamish nature of that communication and rely on the bastardization to prove something that doesn't exist.

Leviathan proves that a reaper can enter sheps mind. It also proves that the reapers perfected the thrall of indoctrination through the many cycles. Also, proves that the Reapers cannot be controled.

Why do you think Shep was resurrected?

because cerberus is building a human reaper.

[Wayning_Star]

The canon for ME3

YOU have to decide..and that's it.

[Wayning_Star]

dorktainian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

no, it's just the way the advanced creatures talk, of course it can be exploited and is by both levi and catalyst. There's  simple reason that is, as one invented the other and then it invented the reaperships..and the IT crowd confused by the dreamish nature of that communication and rely on the bastardization to prove something that doesn't exist.

Leviathan proves that a reaper can enter sheps mind. It also proves that the reapers perfected the thrall of indoctrination through the many cycles. Also, proves that the Reapers cannot be controled.

Why do you think Shep was resurrected?

because cerberus is building a human reaper.

cerberus is a joke, just like TIM.. on themselves. not the first clue..put them on ignore is your best bet.

[chidingewe8036]

The starboy is in the image of the child because the reapers are attempting to use shepard's guilt and remorse against him. They are playing upon his emotions to guide him to a decision that ultimately benefits them. This should be easy to understand folks why else would he be in the image of the child and part of Shepard's dream sequences?

He is NOT just some random kid that shows up in all of Shepard's dreams he was placed there for a reason folks. I mean come on he is the only child we see in the Shepard's story that should raise some flags right there that he is of some type of importance.

[Obitim]

dorktainian wrote...

Obitim wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

It's amazing that people don't get it. You don't need to change the endings for IT to be true. The endings are finished. They are over. I'll try to be quick. Destroy does not only placate to IT and destroy is NOT only symbolic. Destroy is actually an option. When you pick destroy you break the indoctrination attempt AND destroy the reapers. AND Shep lives.

From Hudson- " We won't have an A, B, C ending, We wouldn't do that"

He didn't lie. There's only one choice. and one ending. That's why destroy is the only ending where shep doesn't Die. And the Reapers do. Its. Very. Simple.

But believe what you will. Like jstme said, it's all viable. So just go with the flow.

Almost a year later and I still can't believe lots of people are talking about the endings. Wow.

Wow.

This could be the reason that IT'ers do get it in the neck...what about those of us who picked the other options?  Are we thick because we didn't see through it?  Because if that's your viewpoint then I can see why there are peopel who argue as they do...

they gave you an ending.  it's your ending.  

What point are you trying to make there?  

I was commenting on the dogmatic attitude of the post

[TurianRebel212]

dorktainian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

no, it's just the way the advanced creatures talk, of course it can be exploited and is by both levi and catalyst. There's  simple reason that is, as one invented the other and then it invented the reaperships..and the IT crowd confused by the dreamish nature of that communication and rely on the bastardization to prove something that doesn't exist.

Leviathan proves that a reaper can enter sheps mind. It also proves that the reapers perfected the thrall of indoctrination through the many cycles. Also, proves that the Reapers cannot be controled.

Why do you think Shep was resurrected?

because cerberus is building a human reaper.

Ding. Ding. Ding. Okay lets go a little further. 

Why would Cerberus be building a Human Reaper? Who would tell them to do such a thing? Oh wait. One more. What is the end goal for the reapers at the end of Each Cycle? 

[Obitim]

dorktainian wrote...

Obitim wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Shaani wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Destroy does not only placate to IT and destroy is NOT only symbolic. Destroy is actually an option.

It's all in Shepard's head.  Except when it isn't.

context. if you see a skoda and think it's a volkswagon does that make it a volkswagon?

I thought Skodas were manufactured by Volkswagon?

Skodas are manufactured by Skoda - which is owned by VAG.

Fair do's, I couldn't be bothered to look it up...

[Smeffects]

CoolioThane wrote...

Smeffects wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Some people think the Crucible is a trap placed by the Reapers. Y'know...making its existence make sense and why the Reapers let us position it...

Oh then how you counter my point about the fact that we learn during the game that even the prothean curcible project was destroyed... BY THE REAPERS? They sure worked hard to stop the trap from making them beat the prothean sooner?

Who do we learn that from?

Also, it was never implemented because there was infighting between groups who wanted to :

i) Destroy
ii) Control - these seperatists were indoctrinated

To me that's a pretty big POSITIVE for it being a trap/Control being an indoctrinated choice but meh, just me

brb off for a run

If its a trap, the indoctrinated wouldnt have destroy the prothean crucible... they would try to do exactly what the illusive man did. Tried to get it to dock as well and use it for himself. Thats exactly the problem of this part of the crucible is a trap or something the reaper wants. This cycle is the total opposite of the previous one?

Literal story solve this problem, both cycle the reapers dont want the crucible. But instead in literal, its really just reaper being pretty damn stupid evil guys. I mean i guess its forgivable, most story resolves in such a way.

[Wayning_Star]

chidingewe8036 wrote...

The starboy is in the image of the child because the reapers are attempting to use shepard's guilt and remorse against him. They are playing upon his emotions to guide him to a decision that ultimately benefits them. This should be easy to understand folks why else would he be in the image of the child and part of Shepard's dream sequences?

He is NOT just some random kid that shows up in all of Shepard's dreams he was placed there for a reason folks. I mean come on he is the only child we see in the Shepard's story that should raise some flags right there that he is of some type of importance.

no, the 'starboy' is the catalyst and it's not out to 'get' anyone, it just does what it does because that is what it does..until the crucible is attatched. Then Shep gets a chance to alter it's perogatives. There is no real big mystery surrounding the images of children and Shep subconscious mind. No different that a phone call, just looks spooky.

Sure we can explore intent, but cannot assign it from the interface, unless we wish to be incorrect in our judgement.