526 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

I always liked the IT theory, still believe certain aspects of it actually, but a lot of it is far-fetched as well. Personally, with the whole destroy ending, my Shepard came out of that rubble, but you can easily (especially from a realistic viewpoint) argue against him surviving and that's cool too.

[MrFob]

StreetMagic wrote...

I think the Catalyst is open about destroy because he knows organics are at a level that they can take care of themselves. Or at least it's possible now. His solution is no longer valid in this case, as well.

But why is that? Our cycle is definitely less advanced than the protheans were (they had built their own relay already, when the reapers came around). Why are we ready? Because we built the crucible? We don't even know what it is or how it works. Shepards even admits that flat out to the catalyst.
Or is it because we are further along in solving our conflicts without violence or some other arbitrary moral issue? We were at each others thoughts all they time for the last 2000 years, right up to the point when the reapers invaded. And the fact that Shepard brought some races of the galaxy together in the face of an overwhelming common enemy hardly counts. If you take one look at this alliance (the galaxy wide one, not the human one), you just know it's going to fall apart instantly. And as far as synthetics are concerned, the geth were a galaxy wide thread just 2 years ago and that were just the heretics. The catalyst even outright says that the peace will not last.
Sorry, I don't see it. The only explanation I can think of is that the catalyst is completely mad and the entire reaper business is just some random freak accident. I would find that a bit anti-climactic after all the suspense, the trilogy built around them.

Modifié par MrFob, 06 février 2014 - 06:07 .

[Br3admax]

spirosz wrote...

I always liked the IT theory, still believe certain aspects of it actually, but a lot of it is far-fetched as well. Personally, with the whole destroy ending, my Shepard came out of that rubble, but you can easily (especially from a realistic viewpoint) argue against him surviving and that's cool too.

False, my theory is the only theory, and if you disagree, you're probably the worst type of person. 

[AlanC9]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
And that's a thing a lot of people don't get about IT. They say: "Oh but if the catalyst is untrustworthy, and control and synthesis are a trap, then surely destroy must be a trap too! Especially because it's exactly what Shepard wanted!" But then they don't understand IT. Because in IT, Shepard decides in his mind if (s)he wants to destroy the Reapers or not. That's all it is. Crucible does nada. It's all in Shepard's head. All the choice does, is check whether Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. You can't be indoctrinated and still wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's literally impossible.

This is just confused. The objection isn't that your whole edifice of lies is internallly inconsistent. It's that you're picking and choosing which information you want to be true, and which you want to be false. The only reason you have for thinking Destroy is true is that you really, really want it to be true.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 février 2014 - 06:07 .

[MrFob]

StreetMagic wrote...
 Probably best to not pull my hair out too much over it. :happy:

Yea, guess I should have taken my own advice from 18 months ago and stayed away. It just pulls me in sometimes.

Modifié par MrFob, 06 février 2014 - 06:09 .

[spirosz]

AlanC9 wrote...
The only reason you have for thinking Destroy is true is that you really, really want it to be true.

And Shepard won't know if it's true or not until he takes those steps forward.  

[Brovikk Rasputin]

It's a video game ending. A video game ending you happened to dislike. 2bad4u, move on with your life.

[Mathias]

Mcfly616 wrote...

haha this entire post is comical. FYI I've purchased every Bioware title on Day 1 since KoTOR in 2003.

So?

Meaning I've played Mass Effect from the very beginning as well. I've had the 6 years to look forward to the end of the trilogy. I'm not sure where you get the idea that fans since the beginning aren't fans of the ending....

Um, because maybe the internet was set ablaze with fans pissed off over the ending when the game released? I also don't recall saying this was the case for every single person who played the game from the beginning, so you misinterpreted me.

Everything you just posted is completely subjective and nothing more than your very own opinion. I rather liked that last paragraph where you come off as some sort off 'end all-be all' expert judge on what is and what isn't "poorly written" and "nonsensical". That was quality stuff.

If you've studied literature and have a keen understanding on narrative structure, then you would know why the ending is experimental, and a failure in that regard. If I had written that ending on paper and gave it to any literary professor, a good goddamn majority of them would've given me a poor grade.

To you it was about your personal journey.

To a lot of people actually.

Everybody likes and hates it for their own reasons. Get over it. You say it isn't done right. He says it isn't a "victory". Meh. Yet it's all subjective.

That's why I said artistically it's subjective. Art as well all know is completely subjective to the viewer. But from an academic perspective it's a whole nother story. Just because I think 5+5=11 doesn't make it so. You don't switch tones during the last 10 minutes of your story. You don't add new characters or lecture your viewers either. These are very basic guidelines when writing a story. It doesn't mean it's impossible to make something like this work, but unless you've a very talented writer, this isn't something you should stray towards.

And you'll say "oh but it's still subjective", well then why did so many people including professional writers criticize Bioware for doing this? Why did Bioware a year and a half later regret not giving the player a more personally satisfying end to the game? The flat out said they "Learned some lessons". And that is not an opinion, that is a fact.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 06 février 2014 - 01:57 .

[angol fear]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...
 why did so many people including professional writers criticize Bioware for doing this? 

Everytime I asked, people could only give me two professional writers who criticized Bioware's job. I don't like to criticize other writers but I think that their writing isn't good enough to criticize what Bioware did.

[Mathias]

angol fear wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...
 why did so many people including professional writers criticize Bioware for doing this? 

Everytime I asked, people could only give me two professional writers who criticized Bioware's job. I don't like to criticize other writers but I think that their writing isn't good enough to criticize what Bioware did.

I would say the Original Ending was fairplay to anyone who's ever read a single book in their entire life.

[Mcfly616]

Ever read The Giver?

[Mcfly616]

There's no concrete format from an academic standard as to what constitutes a poorly written story or not. You act as if the artistic side is the only one that is subjective. False.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is just confused. The objection isn't that your whole edifice of lies is internallly inconsistent. It's that you're picking and choosing which information you want to be true, and which you want to be false. The only reason you have for thinking Destroy is true is that you really, really want it to be true.

I believe Doom is talking about the original IT, where picking Destroy is just the trigger for Shepard waking up at the beam rubble where he got blasted...? In other words the choice chamber never existed to begin with. I don't know, it's hard keeping track of all the IT offshoots.

[DoomsdayDevice]

AlanC9 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
And that's a thing a lot of people don't get about IT. They say: "Oh but if the catalyst is untrustworthy, and control and synthesis are a trap, then surely destroy must be a trap too! Especially because it's exactly what Shepard wanted!" But then they don't understand IT. Because in IT, Shepard decides in his mind if (s)he wants to destroy the Reapers or not. That's all it is. Crucible does nada. It's all in Shepard's head. All the choice does, is check whether Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. You can't be indoctrinated and still wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's literally impossible.

This is just confused. The objection isn't that your whole edifice of lies is internallly inconsistent. It's that you're picking and choosing which information you want to be true, and which you want to be false. The only reason you have for thinking Destroy is true is that you really, really want it to be true.

No, destroy isn't "true". See, this is exactly what I mean...

IT doesn't claim that destroy is true and the other options are false.

IT claims that the choice is nothing more than a mental check if Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. Shepard is being presented with two other options in which the Reapers don't need to be destroyed. If you pick any of these, you no longer want to destroy the Reapers. It's that simple.

IT doesn't claim that if you pick destroy, the crucible actually destroys the Reapers. In IT, the entire sequence after you make your choice is just an illusion, because in the final moment, after everything we see, Shepard wakes up.

Sure, there are some who believe that indoctrination is happening, and also believe the ending sequence is really happening, but in 'classic IT', we don't believe it's possible because Shepard wouldn't logically be able to survive that explosion we see. Shepard is either still in London, or Shepard is passed out by the control panel that opens the Citadel, and only the entire decision chamber sequence was an illusion. In that case, the rubble we see in the breath scene could be the result of the Reapers attacking the Citadel/Shepard after (s)he sticks to the plan to destroy the Reapers.

The only thing that matters in IT is Shepard's resolve to destroy the Reapers. Is it still intact? Or did Shepard realign his/her goals with the Reapers?

And it's not based on what we want to be true, it's based on what's consistent with the themes of the trilogy.

1. Throughout the games, every concept of control was consistently shown to horribly backfire. (Project Overlord is one of the best examples) On top of that, every faction or individual that wanted to control / thought they could control the Reapers, turned out to be indoctrinated, or even directly controlled by the Reapers.
2. Throughout the games, every concept of synthesis was shown to be a gruesome mockery of life; David Archer, the Collectors ("No soul... replaced by tech."), Husks, Cannibals, Marauders, even the Reapers themselves are perfect examples of synthesis. On top of that, one of the most vocal proponents of synthesis, Saren, was indoctrinated as well.
3. In two endings, Shepard decides to die and let the Reapers live.
(Shepard literally drops the gun in both control and synthesis.)
4. In one ending, Shepard lives, and decides the Reapers should be destroyed.

[Iakus]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

And you'll say "oh but it's still subjective", well then why did so many people including professional writers criticize Bioware for doing this? Why did Bioware a year and a half later regret not giving the player a more personally satisfying end to the game? The flat out said they "Learned some lessons". And that is not an opinion, that is a fact.

Nonono, you're not remembering it right.

Clearly, you are the only person who disliked the ending. 

You and your wierd subjective opinions

[AlexMBrennan]

How the hell is that an ending? With the Reapers still murdering everyone horribly we haven't moved one inch closer to our goal since the start of ME3.

Sure, there are some who believe that indoctrination is happening,

We need to burn those heretics!

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 06 février 2014 - 03:56 .

[Ithurael]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
And that's a thing a lot of people don't get about IT. They say: "Oh but if the catalyst is untrustworthy, and control and synthesis are a trap, then surely destroy must be a trap too! Especially because it's exactly what Shepard wanted!" But then they don't understand IT. Because in IT, Shepard decides in his mind if (s)he wants to destroy the Reapers or not. That's all it is. Crucible does nada. It's all in Shepard's head. All the choice does, is check whether Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. You can't be indoctrinated and still wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's literally impossible.

This is just confused. The objection isn't that your whole edifice of lies is internallly inconsistent. It's that you're picking and choosing which information you want to be true, and which you want to be false. The only reason you have for thinking Destroy is true is that you really, really want it to be true.

No, destroy isn't "true". See, this is exactly what I mean...

IT doesn't claim that destroy is true and the other options are false.

IT claims that the choice is nothing more than a mental check if Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. Shepard is being presented with two other options in which the Reapers don't need to be destroyed. If you pick any of these, you no longer want to destroy the Reapers. It's that simple.

IT doesn't claim that if you pick destroy, the crucible actually destroys the Reapers. In IT, the entire sequence after you make your choice is just an illusion, because in the final moment, after everything we see, Shepard wakes up.

Sure, there are some who believe that indoctrination is happening, and also believe the ending sequence is really happening, but in 'classic IT', we don't believe it's possible because Shepard wouldn't logically be able to survive that explosion we see. Shepard is either still in London, or Shepard is passed out by the control panel that opens the Citadel, and only the entire decision chamber sequence was an illusion. In that case, the rubble we see in the breath scene could be the result of the Reapers attacking the Citadel/Shepard after (s)he sticks to the plan to destroy the Reapers.

The only thing that matters in IT is Shepard's resolve to destroy the Reapers. Is it still intact? Or did Shepard realign his/her goals with the Reapers?

And it's not based on what we want to be true, it's based on what's consistent with the themes of the trilogy.

1. Throughout the games, every concept of control was consistently shown to horribly backfire. (Project Overlord is one of the best examples) On top of that, every faction or individual that wanted to control / thought they could control the Reapers, turned out to be indoctrinated, or even directly controlled by the Reapers.
2. Throughout the games, every concept of synthesis was shown to be a gruesome mockery of life; David Archer, the Collectors ("No soul... replaced by tech."), Husks, Cannibals, Marauders, even the Reapers themselves are perfect examples of synthesis. On top of that, one of the most vocal proponents of synthesis, Saren, was indoctrinated as well.
3. In two endings, Shepard decides to die and let the Reapers live.
(Shepard literally drops the gun in both control and synthesis.)
4. In one ending, Shepard lives, and decides the Reapers should be destroyed.

Yeah, but in refuse you still want to destroy the reapers. No matter what, shep still wants to destroy them - just not use the false options to do so. He refuses the illusion of the starbinger and then he - and the rest of the galaxy - dies and the next cycle wins thanks to your choices. Refusing the illusion causes the catalyst to know that the false choices won't work and that causes him to reveal his true nature. In destroy (low ems) you die or get indoctrinated. In High EMS you wake up indoctrinated. (Indoctrination doesn't kill you).

The Ending is brilliant!

[DoomsdayDevice]

Ithurael wrote...

Yeah, but in refuse you still want to destroy the reapers. No matter what, shep still wants to destroy them - just not use the false options to do so. He refuses the illusion of the starbinger and then he - and the rest of the galaxy - dies and the next cycle wins thanks to your choices. Refusing the illusion causes the catalyst to know that the false choices won't work and that causes him to reveal his true nature. In destroy (low ems) you die or get indoctrinated. In High EMS you wake up indoctrinated. (Indoctrination doesn't kill you)

No offense, but in all honesty this doesn't really make sense to me, for several reasons.

1. Shepard does not know, nor can (s)he know that it's an illusion.
2. The next cycle wins how? By using the crucible! By doing what Shepard refused to do.
3. How can you become indoctrinated by wanting to destroy the Reapers? It's impossible. Reaper indoctrination has never been shown to make someone wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's opposed to their goals. Indoctrinated individuals have consistently been shown to work against those who would destroy the Reapers.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 février 2014 - 04:09 .

[Mathias]

Mcfly616 wrote...

There's no concrete format from an academic standard as to what constitutes a poorly written story or not. You act as if the artistic side is the only one that is subjective. False.

Keep using that word as a weapon. Maybe someday it'll magically make ME3 a generally accepted good ending.

[Mathias]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

How the hell is that an ending? With the Reapers still murdering everyone horribly we haven't moved one inch closer to our goal since the start of ME3.

Sure, there are some who believe that indoctrination is happening,

We need to burn those heretics!

No the basic idea of the IT theory is that we'd get the real ending through DLC or another game. That Shepard wake up with the war still going on. It wasn't "Oh you're Indoctrinated. You lose in the worst way possible. You lose."

[AlanC9]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

IT doesn't claim that if you pick destroy, the crucible actually destroys the Reapers. In IT, the entire sequence after you make your choice is just an illusion, because in the final moment, after everything we see, Shepard wakes up.

Oh... we're only talking about Original Recipe IT, then. OK, sure. I didn't know people actually made this argument about that version. I agree it's not relevant; usually I see it when someone brings up something like Deception Theory (aka IT-Con), where it would be relevant.

And it's not based on what we want to be true, it's based on what's consistent with the themes of the trilogy.

This is an argument about what you want to be true. You want an ending where the facts of the MEU are consistent with what you perceive the themes to be, so you edit the facts to fit the themes.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 février 2014 - 04:41 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is an argument about what you want to be true. You want an ending where the facts of the MEU are consistent with what you perceive the themes to be, so you edit the facts to fit the themes.

No... I have always interpreted the ending this way ever since I first played it. I literally couldn't interpret it any other way because I automatically assumed it was consistent with the themes. So when the Reaper overlord confronted me with information that seemed to contradict what we've learned before, I automatically distrusted it. Not in the last place because the Reapers are mind-controlling, brainwashing superbeings who let people believe in fantastic things. I literally had to laugh out loud when it told me I could control the Reapers. after every backfiring control attempt that happened in the games, that idea was just laughable to me.

I didn't choose to interpret it this way because I didn't like the inconsistencies and wanted it to be consistent, no. To me, the inconsistencies lead me to the logical conclusion that the narrator simply couldn't be reliable, especially because, you know, it's a Reaper intelligence.

If three games consistently beat me over the head with every attempt at controlling things/people horribly backfiring, and if we're consistently confronted with concepts of synthesis that are a gruesome mockery of life, then what's the more logical conclusion?

That the writers simply had no idea what they were doing and came up with something that contradicts everything we learned?

Or that the Reapers might simply be fooling us?

I see no fact changing at all. I'm not even sure what facts you are referring to. It's simply a matter of interpretation. IT is more consistent with the themes, and IMO therefore more logical.

And if you want to discuss plot twists, what's the more logical plot twist?

That the villains were right all along, despite the fact that we've been shown that concepts of control and synthesis consistently lead to horrible outcomes?

Or that the Reapers, despite everything Shepard has learned and all the things we've been warned about, finally succeed in letting Shepard believe that Shepard should die and the Reapers should live, that the Reapers are a solution? Or if you will, that Bioware succeeded in indoctrinating the players, letting them choose to willingly kill off their Shepard and let the Reapers live (if they pick control or synthesis)?

Harbinger: "Struggle if you wish... your mind will be mine."

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 février 2014 - 05:27 .