937 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

In answer to the OP's question, I don't so much "believe" in IT as think it is an excellent way forward for the franchise. It would solve so many of the problems I had with the whole plot of the third game, and not just with the ending.

And seriously, who writes a story where the villains have terrifying mind control powers, and then have them sportingly refrain from using them on the hero?! (Unless you count that brief and superficial bit when TIM forces Shepard to shoot Anderson... I don't, personally).

[Farangbaa]

Saw a Choose Wisely vid yesterday.

 

Oh man.

[ElSuperGecko]

Fine, as long as you stop implying that it's science by calling it a theory. 

 

Someone needs to educate themselves on the various dictionary definitions of "theory".  Here - let me help: 

 

the·o·ry  (thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē)

1.  A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2.  The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3.  A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4.  Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5.  A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6.  An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

You're welcome, glad to help.

 

 

Ah yes, lets have a long ass talk about the slides, and not everything else that's wrong with IT.

 

How about you start with the low-EMS endstates?

 

Also, at the bolded: Shepard.

 

I didn't bring up the subject of the slides; someone who clearly opposes it did.

 

Shockingly (    ), the low-EMS end states don't make one jot of difference when it comes to IT.  In fact, they support it.  Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.  Don't do your hardest to stop the Reaper war, then you ain't going to stop it.  Hand Cerberus the Collector base, Control is the first option.  Destroy the Collector base, Destroy is the first option.  Simple.

 

Also (at the bolded) - Shepard can potentially end up wiping all life off the face of Earth or (if he/she decides to pursue the Reaper's agenda) force involuntarily and dramatic changes at the genetic level upon every form of life in the entire galaxy.

 

So, yeah.  great example.

 

 

As long as we allow interpretations with less evidence than the Occam's Razor interpretation (in this case, that IT isn't true), what makes IT more believable than a theory that the ME1 beacon turns Shepard into a vegetable, and the rest of the series is simply in his head? After all, it's never explained why Shepard survived the beacon whereas others would not.

 

The point being that the ability to speculate and not be proven wrong merely because of the vagueness which the theory is predicated on does not - to me - indicate at all the value of a theory except as a thought experiment.

 

 

It might surprise you to hear this, but Mass Effect 3 is a work of fiction.  Occam's Razor is not designed to be applied to works of fiction, which by their nature are complex artificial creations and contain elements such as allegories, metaphors, so forth, so on.

 

Apply Occam's Razor to, say, the works of Aesop, and you'll see just how foolish you sound.

 

 

This thread has been good to me.

 

 

What, speaking as a grade-A troll, you mean?

[Farangbaa]

I didn't bring up the subject of the slides; someone who clearly opposes it did.

 

Shockingly (    ), the low-EMS end states don't make one jot of difference when it comes to IT.  In fact, they support it.  Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.  Don't do your hardest to stop the Reaper war, then you ain't going to stop it.  Hand Cerberus the Collector base, Control is the first option.  Destroy the Collector base, Destroy is the first option.  Simple.

 

Ah, so failure to prepare properly results in a 'win' if you destroy the collector base.

 

Apparantly, the Catalyst is so fed up with you for not trying hard enough, that it just goes '@#&*^%@!*&#% this, here, destroy me'.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Ah, so failure to prepare properly results in a 'win' if you destroy the collector base.

 

Apparantly, the Catalyst is so fed up with you for not trying hard enough, that it just goes '@#&*^%@!*&#% this, here, destroy me'.

IT only has you win when you get the Breath Scene.

[ElSuperGecko]

Ah, so failure to prepare properly results in a 'win' if you destroy the collector base.

 

Apparantly, the Catalyst is so fed up with you for not trying hard enough, that it just goes '@#&*^%@!*&#% this, here, destroy me'.

 

Whoever said low-EMS Destroy is a "win"?  Certainly doesn't seem that way from what I gather.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

It's an ending to the game, yes.  A "win"?  No.  More like a slightly more elaborate "Critical Mission Failure" screen.  The same could probably be said for the Control and Synthesis endings at any EMS level, of course.

[Farangbaa]

Whoever said low-EMS Destroy is a "win"?  Certainly doesn't seem that way from what I gather.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

It's an ending to the game, yes.  A "win"?  No.  More like a slightly more elaborate "Critical Mission Failure" screen.  The same could probably be said for the Control and Synthesis endings at any EMS level, of course.

 

It has always been explained to me as Destroy being the win situation, the others the losses.

 

Oh well.

[ElSuperGecko]

It has always been explained to me as Destroy being the win situation, the others the losses.

 

Oh well.

 

Not from my experience.  The existence of the breath scene has always been a key factor in the argument.

 

The Catalyst's condescending tone ("why are you here?  More than you deserve") in low EMS anything is kind of important as well.  It acts as though you're not worthy of it's attention...

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

10/10 thread would read again

To answer the OP's question, I personally don't, but more power to you if you do. However, in the interest of continuing this discussion, feel free to quote me as saying the one that best suits your argument:

Yes.
No.
Maybe.
I don't know.
I don't care.
Remind me why we're talking about this?

[ZerebusPrime]

It has always been explained to me as Destroy being the win situation, the others the losses.

 

Oh well.

Think of the breath scene not as "Shepard's alive!" so much as Shepard waking up from another nightmare.  S/He does that little gasp after every dream sequence in the game.  The only way to get that breath scene is with high EMS Destroy, and so this is the only way Shepard can wake up from the nightmare.   All other conditions are a loss.

[ElSuperGecko]

Think of the breath scene not as "Shepard's alive!" so much as Shepard waking up from another nightmare.  S/He does that little gasp after every dream sequence in the game.  The only way to get that breath scene is with high EMS Destroy, and so this is the only way Shepard can wake up from the nightmare.   All other conditions are a loss.

 

For reference:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ihmmc1B4x5g

[CronoDragoon]

It has always been explained to me as Destroy being the win situation, the others the losses.

 

Oh well.

 

It is, but not directly. The best argument that IT can make to explain the choices is that Destroy represents the psychological will to break out of the indoctrination sequence, whereas Control (TIM) and Synthesis (Saren) represent the paths to succumbing to indoctrination. In low-EMS Destroy, Shepard tries to break free and fails (as evidenced by no breath scene) and he just gets completely taken over by the Reapers, like Grayson, as opposed to still thinking he's in Control with subtle indoctrination undermining his free will (like TIM and Saren).

 

So in high-EMS Destroy, the breath scene is just Shepard waking up at the beam after getting pot-shotted by Harbinger. He enters the beam, Crucible docks, and he activates it at the Citadel as planned (presumably).

 

Of course, there's so many variations of IT these days that you can never really be sure what the argument is until the individual poster outlines it.

[ElSuperGecko]

Of course, there's so many variations of IT these days that you can never really be sure what the argument is until the individual poster outlines it.

 

Indeed.  That's the kind of thing that happens when you're given an ending that's open to interpretation, when you're given more questions than answers.

 

It's also interesting to note that people who've never even heard of the Indoctrination Theory still find themselves thinking along somewhat similar lines.  Some even go so far as to make videos about it:  http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1ZxwL5DO9Rk

[CronoDragoon]

Indeed.  That's the kind of thing that happens when you're given an ending that's open to interpretation, when you're given more questions than answers.

 

I can make any ending have more questions than answers if I want it enough.

[ElSuperGecko]

I can make any ending have more questions than answers if I want it enough.

 

That's the spirit.  Mankind wouldn't be where we are today without questioning things.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Not from my experience.  The existence of the breath scene has always been a key factor in the argument.

 

The Catalyst's condescending tone ("why are you here?  More than you deserve") in low EMS anything is kind of important as well.  It acts as though you're not worthy of it's attention...

 

So why is Destroy the only choice of weak-willed and incompetent Shepard rather than, say, only Control (low) and Synthesis (lower)? If the chamber is real and the Catalyst is trying to prevent Destroy, then Fail!Shep should not be able to resist choosing any "wrong" decision at all. If the chamber some fake dream-state, then Fail!Shep should mentally be making the "wrong" choice rather than the "right" one.

 

As is, however, it doesn't add up.

[ElSuperGecko]

So why is Destroy the only choice of weak-willed and incompetent Shepard rather than, say, only Control (low) and Synthesis (lower)? If the chamber is real and the Catalyst is trying to prevent Destroy, then Fail!Shep should not be able to resist choosing any "wrong" decision at all. If the chamber some fake dream-state, then Fail!Shep should mentally be making the "wrong" choice rather than the "right" one.

 

As is, however, it doesn't add up.

 

It's not the only choice though, is it?  Destroy is the only option for the weak-willed FailShep that (uncannily) destroyed the Collector base, Control is the only choice for a weak-willed FailShep that saved it.  Shepard's prior actions have consequences (although the blanks do get filled in for the players who didn't experience Mass Effect 2).

 

There's clues as to why this might be the case in the dialogue.  Don't forget, the Catalyst is working towards it's own agenda - whether you subscribe to the Indoctrination Theory or not, the Catalyst still has it's own motives and goals, and these are reflected in the choices it presents to Shepard.  While it presents multiple opportunities to a completionist Shepard (and expresses clear preferences) it is almost dismissive of FailShep.  Maybe because it doesn't perceive FailShep as a threat, maybe because it doesn't see anything of interest, maybe because it is disappointed... who knows?

[SwobyJ]

In answer to the OP's question, I don't so much "believe" in IT as think it is an excellent way forward for the franchise. It would solve so many of the problems I had with the whole plot of the third game, and not just with the ending.

And seriously, who writes a story where the villains have terrifying mind control powers, and then have them sportingly refrain from using them on the hero?! (Unless you count that brief and superficial bit when TIM forces Shepard to shoot Anderson... I don't, personally).

 

Why do people believe that Reapers are 100% villains and evil evil complete monsters? That they can't have, at least, motivations? The Lovecraft element really got to us, I guess.

 

I've seen ITers and otherwise, utterly disregard any lore information about the Reapers - especially Leviathan. Even if half truths are being told, that's still half truth. If the Reapers are looking for something in particular, it stands to reason that they'll allow a chance at that something to survive. At least as long as it passes their tests. The galaxy is an experiment, evolution its tool.

 

It has tried a similar solution in the past, but it cannot be... forced.

 

They may be an overwhelming enemy. They may outright require being stopped. But that doesn't preclude them having a story behind them, and a motivation to keep Shepard alive - at least if possible. There are even lines that may lead towards that happening, in both ME2 and ME3. Even in ME1, Saren speaks of Shepard 'impressing' Sovereign. And that's before Harbinger utters "Impressive, Shepard" and "You do not understand your place in things", etc.

[SwobyJ]

IT only has you win when you get the Breath Scene.

 

Yeah that's where I've come to disagree with IT. My take goes pretty much:

(note that some things here are related to my other beliefs about the series)

 

Refuse - Lose, but highest moral win because you never turned to a Reaper path

Vaporize Destroy - Win, but barely

Low Destroy - Big Win, but also victory

High Destroy - Big Win, but also victory

Breath Destroy - Huge Win, true victory

Low Control - Big Win, not truly victorious

High Control - Big Win, not truly victorious

Synthesis - Huge Win, but also lose

('Huge Wins' being of different sorts, so yeah, yet again, it comes down to a moral decision for the player)

 

Also note that victory and winning are not always synonyms. Victory is achieving something over someone else. Winning can be.. well, gaining anything good for you and/or your goals or motivations.

I can get into a fight with someone over a new $100, and if I am the victor of that fight, I get the money.

Alternatively, I can still win if I charm or intimidate him into giving me $75 of the pile. He gets upset at that though, and we rarely speak again.

Alternatively, I can still win if I negotiate us to go $50/50. He's cool with that, and we move on to become very good friends for years to come.

 

But with each more peaceful option, a lot of people will disagree with the approach more. Especially if the $100 IS rightfully yours, and that the other guy doesn't understand this, because he has his few legit points that have convinced him of his own logic. Did you truly win then? At that point, it depends more on point of view. It's a new $50, and no one got hurt, but... you could have been the victor of that conflict. Could have. The physical fight would have been a gamble though, since he was bigger and stronger than you. He also has a history of bullying others for $ (so he can give that money to his grandma or something though), so you know you'd be serving him just deserts for that. But...

 

How I interpret the ending, is that we're forced into peacefully communicating with 'the Reapers' to some extent.

ME1 was fight-starting language, and entirely hostile

ME2 was challenging and adversarial language, but at this point just mostly hostile

ME3 is more neutral but still defying language (Regardless of Paragon or Renegade choices in dialogue), only somewhat hostile

 

I don't think what's going on with Shepard is the exact same as what went on with Saren. That's definitely something I disagree with IT on. I think there's lessons to gain from his experience though (one being the total submission is not preferable to total extinction, and that you often have to actively fight to get what you eventually want).

 

I think Destroy is the most appropriate course of action to take against the Reapers, in this trilogy story, overall. By far.

But I do think that if you've been paying attention to the Paragon lessons (yes, even as you destroy the Collector Base) throughout the trilogy, you may find it appropriate to go Control. I also think that if you took certain actions (like FemShep full romance of Thane, Genophage Peace Cure, Rannoch Peace, etc), Synthesis will be more appropriate than otherwise.

I don't think the last two are what the core Shepard in the script is about. I think it's more of a customized experience, where you've sacrificed true victory, over the idea of winning more for yourself or at least the galaxy. And I think you will win, but I DO think there will be a 'rude awakening' to what exactly you did and won... in the next game. So I guess we'll see.

[AlanC9]

It has always been explained to me as Destroy being the win situation, the others the losses.
 
Oh well.

There once was an IT variant where Refuse was the win state, but its existence was premised on "The Truth" DLC being real.

[ImaginaryMatter]

It's not the only choice though, is it?  Destroy is the only option for the weak-willed FailShep that (uncannily) destroyed the Collector base, Control is the only choice for a weak-willed FailShep that saved it.  Shepard's prior actions have consequences (although the blanks do get filled in for the players who didn't experience Mass Effect 2).

 

There's clues as to why this might be the case in the dialogue.  Don't forget, the Catalyst is working towards it's own agenda - whether you subscribe to the Indoctrination Theory or not, the Catalyst still has it's own motives and goals, and these are reflected in the choices it presents to Shepard.  While it presents multiple opportunities to a completionist Shepard (and expresses clear preferences) it is almost dismissive of FailShep.  Maybe because it doesn't perceive FailShep as a threat, maybe because it doesn't see anything of interest, maybe because it is disappointed... who knows?

 

EMS has nothing to do with will power. FailShep can have a bunch of N7s do the work and still get everything done.

[ElSuperGecko]

 

EMS has nothing to do with will power. FailShep can have a bunch of N7s do the work and still get everything done.

 

True enough.  Which is why multiplayer affecting the outcome of the single player is downright odd.

 

Dare I mention the "Effective Mental Strength" concept...? 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

It's not the only choice though, is it?  Destroy is the only option for the weak-willed FailShep that (uncannily) destroyed the Collector base,

 
Why, because they're both destroying actions? That's not sound rationale at all. If anything, I'd argue someone destroying the Collector base is not really doing whatever it takes, and would be more unwilling to sacrifice lives to meet their goals.
 
Sacrifice is not always so cut-and-dried as it's presented in Destroy, where it's like: 'okay, you can kill off all your enemies, provided you sacrifice these allies over here.' Zaeed's mission was really a good example, the death isn't so clean as a wave by some magic red wand, and you are not guaranteed the price you paid will have even been worth it (if you believe any dead innocents is worth Vido to begin with).

 

Staunch destroyers claim that no cost is too high to end the Reapers for good. So, why pass on a potential weapon to be used against them -- the Collector Base -- over concerns of potential dangers involved? We already established that some prices need be paid, including death. It's not like Shepard has some good plan in place to stop the Reapers anyway, so any backfire that comes of it, it makes no difference; you were already screwed.
 
 

While it presents multiple opportunities to a completionist Shepard (and expresses clear preferences) it is almost dismissive of FailShep.

 
The Catalyst being hostile towards Low/Mid-EMS Shepard doesn't need IT to make sense.

 

It's going to meet one of two ends it doesn't want to: Destroy and Control.
 

Maybe because it doesn't perceive FailShep as a threat, maybe because it doesn't see anything of interest, maybe because it is disappointed...

 
Wat... when have the Reapers ever passed on indoctrination victims?
 
Oh, I see where this is going. There are different "tiers" of indoctrination, represented by EMS. So Low-EMS = husk; Mid-EMS = ... ??? Husk again?; and High-EMS = elite indoctrinated agent, basically like TIM. If so, clever, but it still doesn't address the problem I've raised.
 
That problem being, you have this game state where choosing Destroy ultimately makes no difference towards success/failure. So now it's not enough to resist the influence of the Catalyst, you have to resist it, and not "suck" ... except indoctrination doesn't work like that.
 
 

who knows?

 
The Catalyst is simply the final piece of the puzzle, one that others insist doesn't fit in, but I am pretty sure I put it all together right.

[Seboist]

You mean the things they admit are crazy but do it mostly for fun?

 

That's some nice spin of theirs but I can assure you what I saw was written with 100% serious intent.

 

Besides, the IT itself is pure lunacy. Seriously, coming up with some nutjob conspiracy theory over a space pulp third person shooter that has so many gaping holes in logic and plot and has the subtlety of two trains crashing into each other? These people need to get a life.

[Iakus]

 

 
The Catalyst is simply the final piece of the puzzle, one that others insist doesn't fit in, but I am pretty sure I put it all together right.

It doesn't fit.  Going back to the first game:

 

"We are each a nation- independent, free of all weakness"

 

This, as well as many other things interpreted as IT, just shows the writers suffered multiple Canon Discontinuities if not complete Critical Research Failures in making ME3