937 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

My point was that shooting a hologram is stupid. Which it is.

 

As opposed to "organic energy"?

 

The Reaper off-switch being a tube of volatile chemicals you shoot?

 

...which btw can frak up synthetic AIs built by multiple different unconnected species using completely different technologies from each other?

 

That control rods were installed into the Crucible without anyone noticing?

 

That TIM could control Shepard's actions because...reason?

 

Geez, this ending is so frakked up no wonder IT is so popular.

 

Anyway, but shooting the Catalyst was stupid enough for "SO BE IT!", rather than doing something that makes sense like letting Shepard talk to the Catalyst again?

[KaiserShep]

I really don't see much point to taking offense to being able to trigger refuse by shooting the Catalyst. It's nice to be able to get some reactivity in the mix somewhere, even if the results are not something you'd like. Besides, it's totally worth it to trick people into doing it and making them rage quit.

[ZerebusPrime]

First time I shot the Catalyst, I sat there in my chair in utter disbelief as that version of the ending rolled by.  Then ten minutes of silence followed.  Then I reloaded.  

And then I shot him again.

[von uber]

How does Shep get shot in her left hand side anyway.

[AlanC9]

Imagine if it only took one shot to finish off the power conduit, but you waste it on the hologram instead.

 

C: "Your thermal clip is now spent. You may still select another path."

 

S: "This is some bullsh*t."

C: "I know, right?"

 

Now that would have been high-quality trolling.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

On-topic, this is yet another out-of-world issue where I've found no good IT explanation: Refuse. They insist that Destroy is a rejection of the Catalyst, but to choose Destroy, you have to -- at bare minimum -- believe that the Catalyst indeed willfully points you to his and the Reapers' end, for whatever reason. That's still influence, from him to you. Refuse, on the other hand, is 100% rejection of Catalyst's influence. If there's any truth to the notion that indoctrination is taking place onto Shepard through the Catalyst, then Shepard should not accept anything from him, not even the promise of destroying the Reapers. And, also as of EC, Shepard cannot choose anything but Refuse if he/she remains hostile towards the Catalyst throughout the conversation. In the end, there's no way to choose Destroy without being at least slightly influenced by and cooperative with the Catalyst, no matter what one's motivations are. It's literally impossible.

 

And the IT explanation is "Well, you can't give up," but that again already assumes that any action by Shepard in that moment will change anything, an idea only planted in your head by the Catalyst (again, influence). It also assumes Refuse leads to failure, but what if BioWare decided to let it *somehow* result in victory, feasibly following the lore or not? Let's not kid ourselves: IT would be singing a VERY different tune.

 

So yeah, that's another out-of-game hole in IT, I haven't even dug my nose into all the in-game material that works against it...

 

And let us not forget the low-EMS destroy version. Where the only option the Catalyst gives you is to destroy them. I have never seen a satisfying answer from the IT-crowd on that one either.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well if you uninstall the EC you can shoot the kid as much as you like. It's a lot of fun!

[Hadeedak]

First time I shot the Catalyst, I sat there in my chair in utter disbelief as that version of the ending rolled by.  Then ten minutes of silence followed.  Then I reloaded.  

And then I shot him again.

 

I'm not going to lie.

 

I laughed my *** off when I heard about getting Refuse by shooting him. I find it hilarious.

[dorktainian]

and yet refusal (if done right - dont shoot starjar) has the best dialogue in the entire trilogy.  bizarre.

[FellishBeast]

The IT has many variations, but if you want to break it down into the simplest terms, the idea that there is indoctrination present in the endings is no theory. In at least two of the endings, are you not accepting Reaper ideology? That is the definition of indoctrination. You may believe that control or synthesis are the best solutions, but then you are indoctrinated. I'm not saying you are wrong if you think that, but you are agreeing with the Reapers, as well as other known indoctrinated characters.

 

Add that to the blatant surrealism and symbolism of the last minutes of the game and you have a recipe for something you shouldn't take at face value. I can't explain all the ending scenes (like the Normandy landing on a random planet) or the epilogues, but those by themselves do not convince me that the ending is literal. To me, the strongest evidence that the ending actually takes place in reality is BioWare's response to the outrage/speculation. But if the purpose of the ending was to test/indoctrinate players, then explaining it would defeat the purpose.

 

I'm holding onto the hope that ME4 will be a continuation, but I'm expecting to be disappointed.

[dorktainian]

Gotta love IT.  It's the gift that keeps on giving.  increases the replay value of ME3 immensely.  Role play as being a victim of indoctrination and the scales will fall from your eyes and you will be introduced to a universe of majesty and terror that you cannot imagine (thanks sebastian....err i mean jack)

[teh DRUMPf!!]

And let us not forget the low-EMS destroy version. Where the only option the Catalyst gives you is to destroy them. I have never seen a satisfying answer from the IT-crowd on that one either.

 

I think the response is: "They're not interested in FailShep," (... never mind the fact that the Reapers express interest in taking him alive in ME2 no matter how "fail" he might have been, they now suddenly don't want the guy that leads the cycle with the most success against them).

 

Hehe, yet another thing I thought of: Mark Meer says he likes the Control ending best, because Shepard becomes "a Reaper god" (unlike a Reaper slave or husk as IT would have you believe, because "ooh, his eyes went blue in the cinematics!") Those are the words of someone who read the script of ME3, and also voiced "echoes" of the Catalyst's dialogue (another IT talking-point). If anyone would be in on some "hidden meaning" of the story, short of the writers themselves, it would be him, and the ones directing him to accurately convey the meaning of the script he's reading.

 

And he tells us -- unprompted -- that it's exactly what it looks like (Jennifer Hale also stood by nodding in agreement saying "Yeah").

 

 

I'm not going to lie.

 

I laughed my *** off when I heard about getting Refuse by shooting him. I find it hilarious.

 

I laughed my arse off when I heard EC even made it an option the player could choose.

 

I came to BSN after playing it and was like, "Refuse? That's an ending now??"

 

Then I watched it on Youtube and laughed even harder. Shepard blows hot air and then everyone dies -- LOL!

[ImaginaryMatter]

The IT has many variations, but if you want to break it down into the simplest terms, the idea that there is indoctrination present in the endings is no theory. In at least two of the endings, are you not accepting Reaper ideology? That is the definition of indoctrination. You may believe that control or synthesis are the best solutions, but then you are indoctrinated. I'm not saying you are wrong if you think that, but you are agreeing with the Reapers, as well as other known indoctrinated characters.

 

Add that to the blatant surrealism and symbolism of the last minutes of the game and you have a recipe for something you shouldn't take at face value. I can't explain all the ending scenes (like the Normandy landing on a random planet) or the epilogues, but those by themselves do not convince me that the ending is literal. To me, the strongest evidence that the ending actually takes place in reality is BioWare's response to the outrage/speculation. But if the purpose of the ending was to test/indoctrinate players, then explaining it would defeat the purpose.

 

I'm holding onto the hope that ME4 will be a continuation, but I'm expecting to be disappointed.

 

Indoctrination is having your limbic system compromised. After all, Indoctrination isn't some mystical power the Reapers have, granted it is advanced, but it is a method of psychological and physical manipulation, more a kin to Stockholm syndrome than symbolic hullicinations. It isn't a meta battle of wills or choice; instead, Indoctrination is about subverting choice. With Indoctrination the final choice would be choosing to have Shepard shoot himself in the head or not (no symbolism involved). That's the ending with Indoctrination: rocks fall, everyone dies; unless the fleet pulls off a conventional victory somehow which Shepard watches as he dies (which actually might be a better ending, who knows?).

 

Yes, the ending has surreal qualities to it, that doesn't necessarily make it false. I think the best evidence for what BioWare intended is the message at the end of the game that says you beat the Reapers!

[Farangbaa]

Yes, the ending has surreal qualities to it, that doesn't necessarily make it false. I think the best evidence for what BioWare intended is the message at the end of the game that says you beat the Reapers!

All part of the lie. 

 

The Reapers made the game, ya know?

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

Never bought it to be honest. It was an interesting and creative idea but that's about it. Art is open to interpretation to a certain extent but with Mass Effect what was presented in the game is what happened. IT was just thought up to deal with the rejection of the endings of ME3. Had the endings not been so disliked, IT would never have been created.

[AlanC9]

 Hehe, yet another thing I thought of: Mark Meer says he likes the Control ending best, because Shepard becomes "a Reaper god" (unlike a Reaper slave or husk as IT would have you believe, because "ooh, his eyes went blue in the cinematics!") Those are the words of someone who read the script of ME3, and also voiced "echoes" of the Catalyst's dialogue (another IT talking-point). If anyone would be in on some "hidden meaning" of the story, short of the writers themselves, it would be him, and the ones directing him to accurately convey the meaning of the script he's reading.

I suppose the response is that Meer's yet another version of indoctrination.

[CronoDragoon]

I suppose the response is that Meer's yet another version of indoctrination.

 

Prove that he's not in on it!

 

 - IT logic

[Farangbaa]

I think all the IT'ers should think about the consequences of IT being true:

 

The writers of ME would be f'ing genius.

[AlanC9]

Note that the VA doesn't necessarily have to follow the narrative too well, though. There's an interesting bit in the New Yorker's profile of Jennifer Hale. I think non-subscribers can see the images of the print version of article on the website, though you need to log in for plain text; see the first half of page 51.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I suppose the response is that Meer's yet another version of indoctrination.

 

Or Mark Meer was Indoctrinated!

[fhs33721]

Clearly the Reapers were programmed so good that t their presence in the game indoctrinates you in real life. And only ITers were able to withstand. It all makes sense now! Even half of the actual Biware staff is indoctrinated by now and thats the only reason why there was no IT-proving DLC or something.

/sarcasm.

[SwobyJ]

Could you elaborate some more on the other ones, and how they tell something about a bigger story?

 

Grtz

 

-Color coded networking

-Missions being coded CAT1, CAT2, CAT3, CAT4. Wondering about Catalyst being CAT5, and Citadel DLC being CAT6 (aka technically 'after' ME3, from a certain POV...)

-Silversun Strip being the most colored content in the series. Red. Blue. Green. Yellow. Cyan. Magenta. All fitting various themes. Art. Painting. Creativity.

-CAT6 mooks and the first outfit of CloneShep have CYAN coloring. They also have the same near-exact logo as the 'crashed ship' in Leviathan DLC. So...why? No reason? Leviathan also have CYAN eyes and overall coloring in their scenes.

-Leviathan's enthrallment scene is incredibly similar to the meeting with the Catalyst.

-The Convergence video accurately portrays what I think is happening. We start off opposing Sovereign and trading smacktalk. We may, optionally, end up allying with him and coming to an accord.. of sorts. Yes, I think that Sovereign is the Intelligence (just using a FULLY synthetic "Reaper?" to travel the galaxy with), experimenting with organics to eventually find a better solution to its programmed directive.

 

This Cycle may be much more similar to past ones in ways that most may not realize, but it's also different, and carries a true hope for the future. The Cycle has ended. It may be broken. And the Reaper threat has been defeated. And Shepard is a legend.

[SwobyJ]

The thing is, why should IT be a coherent whole, while the literal ending is just as illogical and strange? How do you activate the crucible by shooting on its wires? How does throwing yourself in the beam activate anything? How do you explain the shotwound on the left side of his stomach? How can TIM control your body? Why is the ultimate reaper the glowing child? etc. It is just as incoherent and needs a hugh suspension of disbelief.

 

Some say it is 'bad writing'. I say: Why couldn't they write a bad story and include IT? That is just as possible and supports the weird ending much better.

 

(to remind, I'm an ITer at core, but also think manyyy other things)

 

"How do you activate the crucible by shooting on its wires?" - Dream realm

"How does throwing yourself in the beam activate anything?" - Dream realm

"How do you explain the shotwound on the left side of his stomach?" - Got shot! But by who...

"How can TIM control your body?" - To illustrate something..

"Why is the ultimate reaper the glowing child?" - I'll just say.. Shepard.

[SwobyJ]

And let us not forget the low-EMS destroy version. Where the only option the Catalyst gives you is to destroy them. I have never seen a satisfying answer from the IT-crowd on that one either.

 

Agreed with this one. I mean, what's the point?

 

"Oh they just want to screw with you some more before you die." Okay.

[SwobyJ]

The IT has many variations, but if you want to break it down into the simplest terms, the idea that there is indoctrination present in the endings is no theory. In at least two of the endings, are you not accepting Reaper ideology? That is the definition of indoctrination. You may believe that control or synthesis are the best solutions, but then you are indoctrinated. I'm not saying you are wrong if you think that, but you are agreeing with the Reapers, as well as other known indoctrinated characters.

 

Add that to the blatant surrealism and symbolism of the last minutes of the game and you have a recipe for something you shouldn't take at face value. I can't explain all the ending scenes (like the Normandy landing on a random planet) or the epilogues, but those by themselves do not convince me that the ending is literal. To me, the strongest evidence that the ending actually takes place in reality is BioWare's response to the outrage/speculation. But if the purpose of the ending was to test/indoctrinate players, then explaining it would defeat the purpose.

 

I'm holding onto the hope that ME4 will be a continuation, but I'm expecting to be disappointed.

 

Completely agree with ALL of this.

 

I think all of us, including myself, will be surprised by what we see though. I don't think it'll be as predictable as "Run around the galaxy shooting pirates" ever again.