123 réponses à ce sujet

[mcglsr2]

Like above, comments are inline in red:

 

If you believe in narrative cohesion and you believe in the ESTABLISED lore of the series. Then the conversation, and more importantly, WHERE it takes place, with the Catalyst is NOT possible.

And the very FACT that the Catalyst takes form as the child from Shepards dreams means.....


The Catalyst has access to Shepard s subconscious.  Agreed.  But what does this prove?  Liara was able to mind meld with the Shepherd.  Does that mean she is a Reaper?  Was she indoctrinated?  You can't just assume based on observation when different possibilities have already been demonstrated. 

The Catalyst created Harbinger.... Agreed.

Harbinger was created out of the Leviathan species.... Agreed.

The Leviathan have the ability to put organics in a super induced thrall... That can last for years.... Agreed.

Shepard and the Leviathan Communicated via dreamscape and telepathically..... In fact, Shepard was asleep in the mech, then "freed" by the Leviathan and woken up.  Yah- at the bottom of the ocean where the Leviathan was.  And I guess that's how the Leviathans communicate.  So what.  Just because they communicate DOES NOT mean they enthrall.  You can't make that assumption.

The Leviathan thrall can last YEARS.  Sure.  So what?  That does not mean Shepherd is enthralled.  What are you saying, Shepherd was indoctrinated by the Leviathans, who then decided to fight the Reapers with their indoctrinated Shepherd, who was then indoctrinated by the Reapers at the end?  See, I can do it to.  I can make nonsense out of something if I pick and choose what to emphasize.


Fact, fact, fact and.....Fact.  Yes.  All facts.  But that doesn't mean you draw the correct conclusion from it.  For example:  Birds can fly (Fact).  And Ostrich's are birds (Fact).  Thus, I can draw the conclusion that Ostrich's can fly...oops.  Except that they can't.  That is called a syllogistic fallacy.  It's where you are getting it wrong.

All you have to do is think and connect the dots.  Exactly my point.  Except that you take it a step further and "draw unreasonable conclusions based on supposition and circumstantial 'evidence' to support a hypothesis."  And I say evidence with many caveats.



Why is Shepard even alive after the high ems destroy?  Because he sacrificed the lives of his friends for his own.  That's one of the possible choices you, as a player, get to make.  Want to live at the end?  Okay, you can.  You just have to sacrifice some friends.  That is your CHOICE.

Shepard had no breather.... Nor barrier/shield or armor.... How is Shepard alive?  How is there a frickin Citadel that lasted who know how many eons manned by grasshoppers?  How is there a massive species of squid that lives at the bottom (imagine the pressure) of some ocean on some planet?  How can Shepherd, much less a frickin space ship, translate space via Mass Effect to travel the galaxy near instantaneously?  Seriously.  You suspend your disbelief for these items, but can't accept that some mass effect magic happens at the end?  WHY?  Mass Effect Magic happens for 3 WHOLE GAMES!  But now, at the end, NO!  It can't work like that!  Says who?  You didn't write the rules of the Universe.  You just abide by them.  You can't just decide to question at the end when you accepted the whole time before that.

What's with the 1M1?
Why do all the bodies have phoneix armor and Shaved heads on the Citadel?  Why not?  So what?  It's game fodder.  And the answer, unfortunately, has probably more to do with game production and budget.  
Why does Shepard's carnifex have unlimited ammo?  Game mechanic.  Real world again.  The devs have to end the game.  What point would forcing Shepherd to pick up ammo serve?  It would get in the way of story telling.  Besides, how many cut scenes did we see of Shepherd carrying a gun that we didn't even have on our load out?  I never used an assualt riffle, but I can't tell you how many cut scences I saw of him carting one.  WHERE DID IT COME FROM OMMGGG!!!  And for those few times he did (sort of) get it right - WHY DID I HAVE FULL AMMO when he fired????  It's a Game Mechanic.  Seriously.  Those are all okay?  But having infinite ammo at the end game, arguably the culmination of the story TELLING, is all of a sudden unforgivable?
Why is Admiral Anderson, all of a sudden, CAPTAIN Anderson.  When was the cut scene made/scripted?  Was it a rush?  Did a real world human *gasp* make a mistake?  When I chose the CONTROL ending, and my Shepherd died, the narration at the end said "Shepherd: blah blah blah" not "Dead Shepherd: blah" or "Shepherd-Catalyst: blah blah"  Does that mean Shepherd lived?!?!  Of course not.  It's just how the devs did it.  Probably as an oversight.  You can't draw valid conclusions from this stuff.

Does Shepard think this is ME1? Why would he?

Does Shepard think he is on the Citadel during ME1.  Again, why would he?
Is Shepards Carnifex really a HWSGX with level X Frictionless Material mod?  Again, the previous CUT SCENES!  The gun was never right!  And NOW you question it?  NOW it has significance?  SERIOUSLY?  Game.  Mechanic.

Has gameplay mechanics suddenly reverted back to 2183 and NOT 2186?  Maybe they have.  Who knows.  Did you develop the game?  Part of the production schedule?  Attend the status meetings?  No?  Okay, then who knows.  You can't base conclusions on this.

Why does TIM "need" Shepard to "understand"?  Because he's a HUMAN BEING.  Jesus.  Humans NEED people to UNDERSTAND them.  It's not magical.  It happens every day, in a myriad of ways.  What all of a sudden makes this significant??  Imagine, you have been spending your whole life fighting for a cause.  And at the end, some things start to shake your belief in that cause.  You will reach out to people, NEED them to reaffirm your cause because the alternative is you wasted your life, and that would suck.  So you NEED people to understand, *even if you are actually wrong.*  There is nothing magical or sinister here, but rather the good 'ol human condition.  Welcome to life as a human.

Why can't TIM activate the Citadel Control panel?  Didn't the Catalyst say he couldn't because he was controlled already?  So what?  What's the relevance?

Why is Shepard bleeding profusely in the same spot as Anderson was Shot in?  Is he?  Does it change?  Is it part of the model?  Is it the same in cut scenes?

What does the Geth Prime at the FOB in London tell you about how the Geth view the upcoming battle and the, "old machines"  Don't know, I'll have to go back and check.  I don't remember.

How does EDI feel about the Reapers?  So what?  What is EDI an authority on?  Flying a ship?  Yes.  Okay.

Who wants control?  TIM.  So what?  What if he's right?  What if he's partly right?  What says that TIM has it all wrong?  Most insane dangerous people are partly right - that's what makes them dangerous.
Who wants a "perfect" union between man and machine?  Saren.  So what?  The final state of life, supposedly, is the merging of organic and synthetic life.  So wasn't Saren actually sort of right?!?  Insane?  Controlled?  Lost touch with reality?  Ayup.  That doesn't mean Indoctrination conclusions can be drawn from that.

Who want's Destroy?  The military.  Shepherd wants to STOP the Reapers.  The Military want to DESTROY the Reapers.  What can we infer anything from this?

Have these people played a prominent role in the games?  Obviously.  The devs aren't going to invest tons of money and development into throw-away characters. 

Wake.Up.Shepard.

Or.... It's just bad writing and a Deus Ex Machina rip off with a Dash of The Matrix 3 ending thrown in.  Bam, I think you are more on track here then you were on your whole previous post.  It's a rushed ending.  Pure and simple.  If it was *really* as awesome as IT, there would be hard facts.  Not tons of supposition.


It's probably the latter.  Agreed.


Probably.  No.  You are right.  It's the latter.

[mcglsr2]

Comments inline, in red:

 

So then is there someone who can explain me why the "reapers shouldn't or "CAN'T" indoctrinate Shepard?  I don't know who is saying he couldn't.  I'm not saying that.  Sure he could.  Is it possible he did?  I guess.  But when?  It's not like "Bam, indoctrination in 30 seconds."  It takes time.  Shepherd has spent his time blowing up Reapers, not hanging out with them.  I mean if it were that easy to indoctrinate, why would the Reapers need to kill anyone?  They could just indoctrinate everyone and make them commit suicide.  No muss no fuss.  The fact that only a few were indoctrinated means it's not easy nor immediate.

 

hmm because Shepard has a strong will nothing can stop him/her? is that the explanation? Since nobody can explain it to me I will say that Shepard got some trouble while he is fighting about indoctrination and since the reapers build the mass relays with conduit and concrete and not with high metal tech stuff I believe in the destroy ending and IT makes sense.

 

Why makes IT sense?

 

Because Shepard killed some reaper (Sovereign, proto human reaper, arrival, Reaper on Tuchanka, Rannoch) s/he stopped the Reapers to came from a backdoor. And also the Reapers see him/her as a real threat, thats why the Reapers try at least to indoctrinate him/her.  Sure, they would be dumb not to try.  But indoctrination isn't magic.  Just because they want to, doesn't mean they are able to.  Why didn't they indoctrinate Anderson?  I mean, he spent all of the 3rd game in London on the ground *with* the Reapers.  Any of Shepherd's squad?  EDI?  Indoctrination is not a silver bullet.  The Reapers still had to physically blow $hit up.  So indoctrination *cannot* be the end-all be-all.  When was he indoctinated?  End the end of ME2?  Nope.  I blew that collector base up yo.  I closed the back door.  I spent every part of every single game thwarting them.  In the 3rd game, I'm flying around killing Cerberus and Geth, and Reaper drones here and there.  WHEN DID I GET INDOCTRINATED?  At the very end?  Lol.  Not likely.

or why the hell only Saren, some Geth, Illusive Man ecetera got indoctrinated by the Reapers explaining?

 

And the breath scene proofs that. It proves nothing - it's ONLY seen if you choose DESTROY.  If you choose differently, you do NOT see the scene.  All it proves is that if you choose DESTROY you will Live.  THAT IS IT.  It has nothing to do with Indoctrination.  One of the selling points of the game is the ability to CHOOSE.  You CHOOSE Kaiden or Ashley.  CHOICES.  Regardless of whether you think there is any significance in the choices, the fact is we are allowed to choose.  Point.  Of.  The.  Game.  So when we get to CHOOSE at the end, we get all pissed because they didn't make it linear??  WTF people seriously.  "The game I bought that lets me make choices all of a sudden doesn't get linear at the end and let's me pick different endings OH NOOOOO!"  o_O  And because I couldn't CHOOSE the very specific ending that I wanted, I will make up some theory that it was all a dream, so I can rest easy that my Shepherd saves the galaxy and lives and poops rainbows?  Then everything after the hit from harbinger is the indoctrination process it's up to you how you pass it.  WHY?  Answer that one question: WHY?  WHAT IS THE POINT?  If it was all Indoctrination - what was the point?  What was Harbinger trying to achieve?  To toy with Shepherd?  To tell him how to beat yourself but then try to trick him into not choosing that option?  SERIOUSLY?  That makes sense to you?  The uber powerful Reapers are like "hey I'm killing everything you love and hold dear, but you can stop by pushing this button right here, but wouldn't you really much rather push this button over here instead?  The Reapers END GAME?  If that's the case, then we have been lied to - it wasn't the Reapers tearing the Galaxy a new one this whole time but rather some other entity that knew what it was doing and was suddenly replaced at the end by idiot Reaper look-a-likes.  Or, if the whole ending was in Shepherd's mind, and he was under the rubble the whole time - what?  Did his subconscious create some End Credits for his delusion?  Who opened the arms of the Citadel?  The Reapers?  Thanks guys!  Who fired the Crucible?  What was really the Catalyst (since it wasn't what Shepherd was dreaming)?  And that makes MORE sense then the ending actually happened?

Thats why I always goes for destroy ending it is the most ending that makes sense to me.  How does the CONTROL ending not make sense?  What about it doesn't make sense?  Shepherd dies, becomes a AI / Catalyst, and controls the Reapers for Good.  We know people can die (Kaiden/Ashley, Thane, Mordin, etc.).  We know there are AI's (EDI, Legion, etc.), we know the Reapers can be controlled (Catalyst does it, plus the Reapers can control other beings), and we know Shepherd is Good (if you played Paragon).  Lol, what is so unbelievable about this?  Honestly?  Or is it that we get butt hurt because Shepherd dies...thus we refuse to accept it.

 

 

More and more I see the arguments, I come to the realization that "we" have concocted an ending that supposedly says all other choices are wrong.  WHY?!?  Why do they have to be wrong?  Why must you tell me that my choice to CONTROL was a lie because of some flimsy indoctrination BS?  And I think the answer to that, more and more, is because in that story, Shepherd DIES.  And that hurts our feelings.  Thus, you must "PROVE" that the story in which he lives MUST be the real one BECAUSE MY SHEPHERD JUST CAN'T DIE  Ugh.  Do you people re-write the endings to books too when you don't like them?  TV Shows?  Movies?  Honestly people.

[mcglsr2]

ugh double post.  Sorry

[Coyotebay]

More and more I see the arguments, I come to the realization that "we" have concocted an ending that supposedly says all other choices are wrong.  WHY?!?  Why do they have to be wrong?  Why must you tell me that my choice to CONTROL was a lie because of some flimsy indoctrination BS?  And I think the answer to that, more and more, is because in that story, Shepherd DIES.  And that hurts our feelings.  Thus, you must "PROVE" that the story in which he lives MUST be the real one BECAUSE MY SHEPHERD JUST CAN'T DIE  Ugh.  Do you people re-write the endings to books too when you don't like them?  TV Shows?  Movies?  Honestly people.

 

Eh, I'm okay with Shepard dying.  What I don't like is watching him stand there with a stupid look on his face while he's getting lectured by a hologram of a ten year old kid who is in fact the greatest homicidal monster the galaxy has ever known.  It literally would be like having Hitler lecture you in his bunker at the end of WWII about how killing the Jews seemed like a great idea at the time, but now it's time to come up with a better solution.  And you just dumbly nodding your head to it all.  So sure, let him die if that's what it takes, so long as he stops the Reapers and their little punk general.

[Ahglock]

Why when Shep is indoctrinated it's hallucinations trying to control him. When other people are indoctrinated it's more like pure mind control?

Saren isn't shooting at you because he sees a rampaging monster. He shoots at you because the reapers are mind controlling him. He knows exactly what he is doing and he thinks it's the right call. He is a reaper puppet. None of this he sees a illusion and we hope he reacts how we want crap.

Side note. Destroy is not killing friends to save your self. It's killing AIs which will always be a threat so the rest of the galactic community can survive. It's why you don't cure the genophage, why you focus on sovereign and why you kill the rachni. You are making a tough call for the greater good. Sure you may believe the Rachni today but is it worth the risk for tomorrow. Same with control etc. looks great today but when do the AIs hack the reapers, when do the AI parts get control and get rid of the organics. Well the dead don't have a tomorrow to threaten everyone in.

Not saying other choices are wrong, just that people can make any of the choices because they are trying to achieve the greatest good. All 3 of the choices have logical reasons that they might be the best choice for the most people.

[dorktainian]

The thing witht IT is that it was created by fanboys who were so shocked by the ending and just couldn't accept that bioware could write such rubbish.

 

If IT isn't legit, (and CW are wrong) then the ending has to be one of the worst endings in the history of storytelling.

[mcglsr2]

Eh, I'm okay with Shepard dying.  What I don't like is watching him stand there with a stupid look on his face while he's getting lectured by a hologram of a ten year old kid who is in fact the greatest homicidal monster the galaxy has ever known.  It literally would be like having Hitler lecture you in his bunker at the end of WWII about how killing the Jews seemed like a great idea at the time, but now it's time to come up with a better solution.  And you just dumbly nodding your head to it all.  So sure, let him die if that's what it takes, so long as he stops the Reapers and their little punk general.

 

As am I.  In fact, I think he "supposed" to die.  For me, personally, I don't seem to mind the ending as much as most other people - meaning it didn't bother me.  But I can totally see where you are coming from.

 

Why when Shep is indoctrinated it's hallucinations trying to control him. When other people are indoctrinated it's more like pure mind control?

Saren isn't shooting at you because he sees a rampaging monster. He shoots at you because the reapers are mind controlling him. He knows exactly what he is doing and he thinks it's the right call. He is a reaper puppet. None of this he sees a illusion and we hope he reacts how we want crap.

Side note. Destroy is not killing friends to save your self. It's killing AIs which will always be a threat so the rest of the galactic community can survive. It's why you don't cure the genophage, why you focus on sovereign and why you kill the rachni. You are making a tough call for the greater good. Sure you may believe the Rachni today but is it worth the risk for tomorrow. Same with control etc. looks great today but when do the AIs hack the reapers, when do the AI parts get control and get rid of the organics. Well the dead don't have a tomorrow to threaten everyone in.

Not saying other choices are wrong, just that people can make any of the choices because they are trying to achieve the greatest good. All 3 of the choices have logical reasons that they might be the best choice for the most people.

 

Very, *very* good point.  Though I think the Official Description for Indoctrination might say something to the effect of the controller being able manipulate what the controlled sees (I really don't remember), you are absolutely correct.  Saren is fully aware of what he is doing.  He has just been tricked into thinking that what he is doing is *justified* and *right.*  Excellent point.

 

As to the friends dying, at that point in the game, EDI is my friend (and Joker's [whom I happen to like very, very much] significant other), the Geth are my friend (or at least at that point Legion that totally sacrificed himself to make the Geth better).  By picking DESTROY, I am consciously acknowledging and acting upon the fact that *I* will be killing them.  If the point is to stop the Reapers, what additional benefit to get for killing them that I don't get in the other endings (where I don't kill them): I get to Live.  To me, that makes the choice pretty clear: Choose DESTROY and you can Live - but you will have to kill some friends.  If you don't care about EDI or the Geth, then you really aren't losing any friends I guess, so the choice to DESTROY might sit better with you than it was for me (and that's totally okay, point of the game, we play how we want).  And your comments about DESTROY are very apt.  Keeping the Rachni could be a risk.  Curing the Genophage - risk.  But that's where I kind of like the ending.  You get to pick how your Shepherd affects the Galaxy.  You want to DESTROY?  Go for it.  It's a legitimate ending.  You want to CONTROL and take the risk?  All yours.  Legitimate ending.  What I don't agree with is the ITers saying "Nope, there is only 1 ending, it's this, and if you picked something else you got suckered."

 

If IT isn't legit, (and CW are wrong) then the ending has to be one of the worst endings in the history of storytelling.

 

It kind of can't be, right?  I mean, there is just no proof for it.  And yes, most people were really pissed with the ending (again, for me, I really didn't mind it so much).  But then again, it's documented that the devs rushed it.  So I think the ITers just created an alternate ending they would have preferred and then tried to make the game events fit that ending.  Are the possible endings any good?  Meh.  It's a discussion point.  Generally, most people agree that the ending is just not up to par.  Which, to me, means the devs dropped the ball.  Not that there was some insidious sub-plot with circles within circles and the whole thing is fueled a la Inception.

[Ithurael]

If IT isn't legit, (and CW are wrong) then the ending has to be one of the worst endings in the history of storytelling.

 

How is that so hard to accept?

 

People are flawed creatures, they will make mistakes. Contrivances will always exist, this is what separates good writers from bad ones (mainly in how they deal with contrivance and how often it occurs). When you add a rushed timeline to something, the number of mistakes will increase dramatically - even with very good writers.

 

Creating an argument by showing a heavily favorable option (your preference) as opposed to a heavily unfavorable one through choice does not give weight to the argument. It just shows a bias. If you say, "It is IT or bust" then well it seems a bit fallacious.

 

Now I do know that you at least have said that you see IT as a way out of the current situation, this is fine. You can present solutions while understanding the current status of something. You just have to remember that the current status of that thing IS real and NOT the solution you are providing. I have made many solutions to a difficult problem at work but understood that the problem was real - not the solution (as it was not in effect yet).

[Monica21]

Can we move away from the Destroy = Shepard Lives argument? It's not valid. For starters, there is a scenario that includes Shepard dying when choosing Destroy, and players may make valid in-game decisions that bring about this scenario. Second, Shepard has no way of knowing that there's a possibility of survival. When he chooses Destroy he has every reason to believe that EDI, Legion, the rest of the Geth, and himself will all be collateral to end the war. At the very least, he believes that whatever he chooses, his physical form will cease to exist.

 

An argument based on metagame knowledge is not a valid argument.

[dorktainian]

How is that so hard to accept?

 

People are flawed creatures, they will make mistakes. Contrivances will always exist, this is what separates good writers from bad ones (mainly in how they deal with contrivance and how often it occurs). When you add a rushed timeline to something, the number of mistakes will increase dramatically - even with very good writers.

 

Creating an argument by showing a heavily favorable option (your preference) as opposed to a heavily unfavorable one through choice does not give weight to the argument. It just shows a bias. If you say, "It is IT or bust" then well it seems a bit fallacious.

 

Now I do know that you at least have said that you see IT as a way out of the current situation, this is fine. You can present solutions while understanding the current status of something. You just have to remember that the current status of that thing IS real and NOT the solution you are providing. I have made many solutions to a difficult problem at work but understood that the problem was real - not the solution (as it was not in effect yet).

woah hang on a mo.

 

I see IT+ being the answer to what went on, but i'm also fine with it being utter tripe.  Anyone who likes the endings as they are, well..... good luck to em. I have no problem with that.  The only problem I've ever had is with the staggeringly small amount of information the ending actually gives.  Yes it's just as likely that Shepard never really existed, we can speculate all day because at the end of Mass Effect 3 that's all we had left.

 

Speculations.

[Ithurael]

To be fair this

 

I see IT+ being the answer to what went on, but i'm also fine with it being utter tripe.

 

kind of contradicts this

 

If IT isn't legit, (and CW are wrong) then the ending has to be one of the worst endings in the history of storytelling.

 

 

Your second statement is phrased as an absolute - one could dare say it is stated as a fact. An "If then Else" statement is boolean with consequences for each result (true/false). If IT/CW = False, then Ending == One of Worst in storytelling. If IT/CW = True, then Ending <> One of Worst in storytelling. This is, in essence, an absolute or blanket statement. Now you could be saying that your are fine with IT being tripe, but the ending is and still would be one of the worst in story telling. In which case, eh. It would be a letdown of an ending, but there are worse by far. ME3's ending fails so hard though because (from what I have observed) of a mix of narrative and mechanical failings.

 

 

The only problem I've ever had is with the staggeringly small amount of information the ending actually gives.  Yes it's just as likely that Shepard never really existed, we can speculate all day because at the end of Mass Effect 3 that's all we had left.

 

 

And yes, the ending (especially vanilla) leaves a lot to be desired and a lot unexplained. But even then, it still happened. And yes, those happenings are and can be listed as contrivances, and yes they are inconsistent with the lore. But what do you expect? They were rushed? Using a contrivance to justify an interpretation and present it as authorial intent is a bit much...even for me.

 

And I should note that there is a fundamental difference between what we speculate (or rather what a speculation is) vs what is in the core product. And yes, the ending leaves a significant number of questions open (kind of like how the Dark Knight Rises did, or Interstellar did). This is, in essence, called "Fridge Logic" You may or may not notice it at the time as you are emotionally invested but will notice it the more you think about it. Now there are major breaks that snap the viewer out of a sequence (possible the normandy evac, teleporting squdmates/crew, etc) but still these are in the core product and are not speculated on.

[Franky Figgs]

A lively debate. Which will never cease until people learn how to disassociate the hallucination fan theory from the series theme of indoctrination. I apologize if that reads arrogant bit I perceive this to be an unrepresented truth. So just as a caveat:

The game foreshadows indoctrination through Saren and TIM. It shows them aligning their goals with an entrallers goals unsuspectingly as the evidence for thier indoctrination. In this regard when the Leviathan AI tells us that it controls the Reapers it is saying implicitly that it is an enthraller. When it tells us that it's been seeking a more perfect synthesis it is telling you its goals. As this set up is an option for us to follow through on it begs the question of our indoctrination attempt as foreshadowed in the series.

So if one does not believe there was a false dream ending. Congrats. They have critically examined a fan thoery and found it lacking. But why throw the baby out with the bath water? Critically examine the series stated version of indoctrination as, in real life, would be essential in overcoming it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

If you believe in narrative cohesion and you believe in the ESTABLISED lore of the series. Then the conversation, and more importantly, WHERE it takes place, with the Catalyst is NOT possible.

And the very FACT that the Catalyst takes form as the child from Shepards dreams means.....


The Catalyst has access to Shepard s subconscious.

The Catalyst created Harbinger....

Harbinger was created out of the Leviathan species....

The Leviathan have the ability to put organics in a super induced thrall... That can last for years....

Shepard and the Leviathan Communicated via dreamscape and telepathically..... In fact, Shepard was asleep in the mech, then "freed" by the Leviathan and woken up.

The Leviathan thrall can last YEARS.


Fact, fact, fact and.....Fact.

All you have to do is think and connect the dots.



Why is Shepard even alive after the high ems destroy?

Shepard had no breather.... Nor barrier/shield or armor.... How is Shepard alive?

What's with the 1M1?
Why do all the bodies have phoneix armor and Shaved heads on the Citadel?
Why does Shepard's carnifex have unlimited ammo?
Why is Admiral Anderson, all of a sudden, CAPTAIN Anderson.

Does Shepard think this is ME1?

Does Shepard think he is on the Citadel during ME1.
Is Shepards Carnifex really a HWSGX with level X Frictionless Material mod?

Has gameplay mechanics suddenly reverted back to 2183 and NOT 2186?

Why does TIM "need" Shepard to "understand"?

Why can't TIM activate the Citadel Control panel?

Why is Shepard bleeding profusely in the same spot as Anderson was Shot in?

What does the Geth Prime at the FOB in London tell you about how the Geth view the upcoming battle and the, "old machines"

How does EDI feel about the Reapers?

Who wants control?
Who wants a "perfect" union between man and machine?

Have these people played a prominent role in the games?

Wake.Up.Shepard.

Or.... It's just bad writing and a Deus Ex Machina rip off with a Dash of The Matrix 3 ending thrown in.


It's probably the latter.


Probably.

 

 

Your posts parody the average Mass Effect fanboy so well, and without even trying!!

[dorktainian]

To be fair this

 

kind of contradicts this

 

 

Your second statement is phrased as an absolute - one could dare say it is stated as a fact. An "If then Else" statement is boolean with consequences for each result (true/false). If IT/CW = False, then Ending == One of Worst in storytelling. If IT/CW = True, then Ending <> One of Worst in storytelling. This is, in essence, an absolute or blanket statement. Now you could be saying that your are fine with IT being tripe, but the ending is and still would be one of the worst in story telling. In which case, eh. It would be a letdown of an ending, but there are worse by far. ME3's ending fails so hard though because (from what I have observed) of a mix of narrative and mechanical failings.

 

 

 

And yes, the ending (especially vanilla) leaves a lot to be desired and a lot unexplained. But even then, it still happened. And yes, those happenings are and can be listed as contrivances, and yes they are inconsistent with the lore. But what do you expect? They were rushed? Using a contrivance to justify an interpretation and present it as authorial intent is a bit much...even for me.

 

And I should note that there is a fundamental difference between what we speculate (or rather what a speculation is) vs what is in the core product. And yes, the ending leaves a significant number of questions open (kind of like how the Dark Knight Rises did, or Interstellar did). This is, in essence, called "Fridge Logic" You may or may not notice it at the time as you are emotionally invested but will notice it the more you think about it. Now there are major breaks that snap the viewer out of a sequence (possible the normandy evac, teleporting squdmates/crew, etc) but still these are in the core product and are not speculated on.

 

Ah Interstellar..  Awesome movie.  Relativity being very interesting.

 

 

As for my love or hate of mass effect 3's endings.....?    Rinse and repeat.

[mcglsr2]

Can we move away from the Destroy = Shepard Lives argument? It's not valid. For starters, there is a scenario that includes Shepard dying when choosing Destroy, and players may make valid in-game decisions that bring about this scenario. Second, Shepard has no way of knowing that there's a possibility of survival. When he chooses Destroy he has every reason to believe that EDI, Legion, the rest of the Geth, and himself will all be collateral to end the war. At the very least, he believes that whatever he chooses, his physical form will cease to exist.

 

An argument based on metagame knowledge is not a valid argument.

 

I don't think we can get away from Destroy = Shepherd lives; the reason for this is because of your total strength is high enough (you actually play the game rather than speed run it), and you choose Destroy, you get to live.  Everyone knows that.  The ITers use the fact that he lives as a justification as to why Indoctrination is correct.

 

Yes, Shepherd doesn't really know that, but Shepherd isn't playing the game - YOU are.  That's what people seem to be missing - a game is interactive.  The human playing the game is PART of the story.  It's not like a book, or movie where we are spectators and spectators only.  In those situations, then yes, we could view the world solely from the perspetive of the characters and claim what they would or would not do or see.

 

But with a game, this is not the case.  If it were a book, Shepherd would have ALWAYS destroyed the collector base.  The book you read and the book I read, we don't get to choose that.  Because it's a game, *I* decide to destroy it, maybe *you* decide to save it.  Immediately, the story has changed.  What Shepherd sees from that point on is completely different for you and for me.  Because of this, Shepherd's Universe cannot be viewed without taking the players into account.  Because the players directly affect that Universe.

 

Thus, arguments base on metagame knowledge *is* valid, because the game is made for you, the player.  Thus you, and *your* decisions are very relevant.

 

Think of it this way: the player knows there is a way for Shepherd to live.  They do what they need to do, make Shepherd follow the rules to reach that goal.  In-game Shepherd knows nothing about this, but because the PLAYER does, he/she makes Shepherd jump through the hoops.  Does that mean Shepherd chose anything?  Nope.  The player did.  The player, and the decisions they make, are very relevant to the game.  If they weren't, the game would have been completely scripted, linear and ended the exact same way for everyone.  It didn't.  Why?  Because the Player.

 

So, sure, Destroy could equal Shepherd dies, if you don't actually play the game.  But, if I want Shepherd to Live, what do I have to do?  Get high enough strength and Destroy.  So, maybe I should have said Live = Destroy, Given High Enough Strength.

[CrystalXPredator]

Yes you (I) play the the story from Mass Effect but also Shepard, why? Because you control him "ups kind of weird, we control Shepard if you know what I mean :ph34r:"

Anyway you play Shepard you identify with him some use the default Shepard but some people try to recognize with him and create their self and play him how they would like in acting.

So why we get different ending is because of the possibility how the game ends differently and aren't the same, because we make different choices and

try to end the game how we think it could end and bla bla bla.

BUT if one ending has more outcome than other "Breath Scene" as example. hmm Why Shouldn't I think "wait only at the destroy ending we get a bonus scene? Does it mean there will be more come to (about) Shepard story so BioWare didn't close teh story at all?

 

And now IT is born people try to work through the past (ME1 and ME2) and the actual story from ME3 what happen nightmares, how Anderson and Illsuive Man made it up to the citadel. Codex entries telling us how indoctrination works and "find" a connection of it and associate it with the whole ME3 story.

 

Now people say "bullshit pfff shepard lives you are drunk bla bla bla" but it makes sense anyway how Anderson came up to the Citadel and Illusive Man and so on.

 

People who decided for control or synthesis are just mad, because there is no breath scene in their ending they went for.

It could be possible on synthesis too. The breath scene ofc. It would makes also sense in synthesis, but it isn't. Now you just deny IT, because everyone talks about "it could be that shepard had survive the beam or the citadel fight never happen".

 

IT isn't just a random thing that came from someones head and troll the forums! It's what the game gives the player who went for destroy.

Synthesis and control maker won't ever understand this unless they go for destroy one time and let it work through your mind and think what happen

from ME1 to ME3 to undertsand the opposite. You don't need to accept IT thinker! Just to understand why they believe in IT.

 

I just don't understand why there is such an offensive, while people think differently. I understand synthesis and accept it as normal canon ending as well same for control. But for MY personal I choose destroy because it is for me, how I would acting, if I were Shepard.

So yes IT can be correct.

[Kynare]

Meh. Depends on how you played the game. I personally think more Renegade Shepards are dissatisfied with the ending and overall game than those who went Paragon (well, I wasn't as satisfied with it because I didn't have the choice to stay loyal to Cerberus.) That, or people who didn't choose one or the other. I only chose one or the other in my first playthroughs because I felt like it was a "truer" experience. Only experimented with Renegon/Paragade and such after I finished each game.

Everything sort of fell into place for my Paragon Shepard. Control seemed like the most natural ending for me, too. It was consistent with her character and there was plenty of foreshadowing in her choices suggesting she was willing to make that sacrifice. I was happy with it. I don't even really consider it a total death—I can't remember the exact words, but the Catalyst explains something like her belief system and morals will be imprinted into the AI, and we can also see she still has memories of her human life during the ending cutscene, so her legacy can still technically "live" and even interact with the characters we know and love, just not in the same way we usually perceive as living.

Semantics though. People should just accept it's all up to personal interpretation. I actually think IT is a cool concept and I approve of creative thinking, but there's no reason to go nuts trying to prove it when the developers have already dismissed it.

(And no, I didn't read everything in this thread.)

[Uncle Jo]

[Coyotebay]

My problem with IT is that if it's all happening in Shepard's head and is just the Reapers trying to stop him from destroying them, then not choosing destroy just means that in reality the Reapers continue to merrily destroy Earth and every place else in the galaxy.  So  effectively you lose.  So control and synthesis are either very real outcomes, or just outcomes in Shepard's mind (IT).

 

Since the various endings are not a product of how you played the game but on which door you picked at the end, there's really no reason to replay the game to get a different outcome.  Just go back to your save game before talking to Bratalyst and try them all, then pick which one you like the best.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

People who decided for control or synthesis are just mad, because there is no breath scene in their ending they went for.

It could be possible on synthesis too. The breath scene ofc. It would makes also sense in synthesis, but it isn't. Now you just deny IT, because everyone talks about "it could be that shepard had survive the beam or the citadel fight never happen".

 

lol yes, I am so mad I did not get the breath scene. I really wanted my Shepard to lose both arms and legs!

[Coyotebay]

lol yes, I am so mad I did not get the breath scene. I really wanted my Shepard to lose both arms and legs!

 

[dorktainian]

My problem with IT is that if it's all happening in Shepard's head and is just the Reapers trying to stop him from destroying them, then not choosing destroy just means that in reality the Reapers continue to merrily destroy Earth and every place else in the galaxy.  So  effectively you lose.  So control and synthesis are either very real outcomes, or just outcomes in Shepard's mind (IT).

 

Since the various endings are not a product of how you played the game but on which door you picked at the end, there's really no reason to replay the game to get a different outcome.  Just go back to your save game before talking to Bratalyst and try them all, then pick which one you like the best.

 

 

I tend to think as all choices being very dangerous.  Don't forget the thing that is giving you these choices..  Starjar.

 

Destroy could be very dangerous if it's twisted and applied to us instead.

Control could be very dangerous if it's twisted and applied to us instead.

Synthesis could be very dangerous if it's twisted and applied to us instead.

 

Look at IT as being theory that the Reapers want to indoctrinate Shepard to make a choice FOR THEM because it benefits THEM.

 

So which choice benefits us?  Think about that for a moment.

[mcglsr2]

Comments inline, in red:

Yes you (I) play the the story from Mass Effect but also Shepard, why? Because you control him "ups kind of weird, we control Shepard if you know what I mean :ph34r:"

Anyway you play Shepard you identify with him some use the default Shepard but some people try to recognize with him and create their self and play him how they would like in acting.

So why we get different ending is because of the possibility how the game ends differently and aren't the same, because we make different choices and

try to end the game how we think it could end and bla bla bla.

BUT if one ending has more outcome than other "Breath Scene" as example. hmm Why Shouldn't I think "wait only at the destroy ending we get a bonus scene? Does it mean there will be more come to (about) Shepard story so BioWare didn't close teh story at all? - the only way DESTROY can be said to have "more outcome" is only because if you don't even play the game, it's the ending you get.  Which speaks volumes - but not what you think you are reading.  Meaning, if I speed run the game, don't play, don't do anything, my default ending is DESTROY - so in other words, my "reward" for not even playing the game is what you refer to as the "correct" ending?  Then why even bother playing at all?  No, to me this means the default ending is DESTROY, and if you actually invest time into the game you are *rewarded* with the ability to choose a different ending (of course, rewarded being a relative term ).  So, actually, the fact that DESTROY is gotten even if you shaft the game sheds more negative light on it then it does positive.

 

And now IT is born people try to work through the past (ME1 and ME2) and the actual story from ME3 what happen nightmares, how Anderson and Illsuive Man made it up to the citadel. Codex entries telling us how indoctrination works and "find" a connection of it and associate it with the whole ME3 story.

 

Now people say "bullshit pfff shepard lives you are drunk bla bla bla" but it makes sense anyway how Anderson came up to the Citadel and Illusive Man and so on.

 

People who decided for control or synthesis are just mad, because there is no breath scene in their ending they went for.  - because in that story arc HE DIES.  You have to get it out of your head that the Breath Scene = Success.  THIS.  IS.  NOT.  TRUE.  The end of the game does NOT culminate in Shepherd living no matter.  That is an optional ending the player gets to choose.  You are making an (incorrect) assumption that the whole point of the game is for Shepherd to live.  Now, *you* may want him to live, thus DESTROY is the ending you prefer.  But it is not the only legitimate ending.  No where is ever proven that Shepherd lives at the end of ME3.  Now, if the devs come out with ME4 and Shepherd lives, then that will change everything and they will have to explain away the other endings.  And they may very well chose IT because it's a cool idea.  But nothing in the current games PROVES that there is only one ending.  If there was only the one ending, why are the devs keeping quiet about it? 

It could be possible on synthesis too. The breath scene ofc. It would makes also sense in synthesis, but it isn't. Now you just deny IT, because everyone talks about "it could be that shepard had survive the beam or the citadel fight never happen".

 

IT isn't just a random thing that came from someones head and troll the forums! It's what the game gives the player who went for destroy.  - no, actually, it's not.  What the game gives players who went for DESTROY is that the player traveled up to the Citadel, made the choice, and then ended up in some rubble somehow - probably because the Citadel blows up in DESTROY.  In fact, I'd made the argument that the rubble we see *is* the Citadel.  Who says that rubble is on Earth?  What we can identify Earth rubble from a 5 second cut scene?  Hell, who even says that's Shepherd?  It could be Conrad Verner.  You don't know.  And that's the point .  The game does not give anything there that screams "Indoctrination!"

Synthesis and control maker won't ever understand this unless they go for destroy one time and let it work through your mind and think what happen

from ME1 to ME3 to undertsand the opposite. You don't need to accept IT thinker! Just to understand why they believe in IT. - I do understand: they believe in IT based on supposition and assumption.  If an ITer says "hey, wouldn't this ending have been cooler?"  Yup, right there with you, totally agree.  But when they say "this is how the game ended, you are wrong in choosing the other endings" then I say "BS, you are making $hit up in your head, the game doesn't support what you are saying."  Then they go and try to justify why they say what they do, but the facts just aren't there.

 

I just don't understand why there is such an offensive, while people think differently. I understand synthesis and accept it as normal canon ending as well same for control. But for MY personal I choose destroy because it is for me, how I would acting, if I were Shepard.

So yes IT can be correct.

 

 

 

 

Meh. Depends on how you played the game. I personally think more Renegade Shepards are dissatisfied with the ending and overall game than those who went Paragon (well, I wasn't as satisfied with it because I didn't have the choice to stay loyal to Cerberus.) That, or people who didn't choose one or the other. I only chose one or the other in my first playthroughs because I felt like it was a "truer" experience. Only experimented with Renegon/Paragade and such after I finished each game.

Everything sort of fell into place for my Paragon Shepard. Control seemed like the most natural ending for me, too. It was consistent with her character and there was plenty of foreshadowing in her choices suggesting she was willing to make that sacrifice. I was happy with it. I don't even really consider it a total death—I can't remember the exact words, but the Catalyst explains something like her belief system and morals will be imprinted into the AI, and we can also see she still has memories of her human life during the ending cutscene, so her legacy can still technically "live" and even interact with the characters we know and love, just not in the same way we usually perceive as living.

Semantics though. People should just accept it's all up to personal interpretation. I actually think IT is a cool concept and I approve of creative thinking, but there's no reason to go nuts trying to prove it when the developers have already dismissed it. - That's exactly what I'm saying.

(And no, I didn't read everything in this thread.)

 

Very valid points here - I think the game at the end tends to reward the Paragon players and shaft the Renegade players by not really giving them an evil choice.  Calls back to the idea that I think they rushed the ending.

 

 

First, awesome pic, incredibly funny.  Saved it to my computer.  Second, just because there's nothing new here for you and you've already talked about this over and over doesn't mean new people don't play the game, generate ideas and bring up the discussion.  So if there is indeed nothing new here for you, then kudos to you for having talked about this before, and please kindly move on.

 

Comments inline, in red:

I tend to think as all choices being very dangerous.  Don't forget the thing that is giving you these choices..  Starjar.

 

Destroy could be very dangerous if it's twisted and applied to us instead. - totally agree

Control could be very dangerous if it's twisted and applied to us instead. - totally agree

Synthesis could be very dangerous if it's twisted and applied to us instead. - totally agree

 

Look at IT as being theory that the Reapers want to indoctrinate Shepard to make a choice FOR THEM because it benefits THEM. - okay sure, totally with you up to this point.  But this idea totally falls apart.  Very easily in fact.  Because, if the Reapers want Shepherd to make the choice for them, why present him with any other option besides the one the Reapers want?  Why three choices?  Why not one choice?  "Shepherd, all you have to do is pretty this one and only one button and the Galaxy will be saved."  <Shepherd presses button because what else is he going to do> "Haha Shepherd, we totally tricked you, that button insta-kills everyone!  We got you so good!!"  But no...the Reapers present him a choice that ends in their destruction?  Fine: so then either the Reapers are the stupidest effing thing in the Galaxy (really??) OR they had nothing to do with the ending (no indoctrination).  Which seems more likely to you?  And if you say the former, then fine.  I accept you want to believe it.  Okay with me.

 

So which choice benefits us?  Think about that for a moment. - yah, I did.   CONTROL.  $hit gets rebuilt faster, Earth doesn't get overpopulated with Aliens, Citadel doesn't blow up, people get to go home, people get to live...yes, you are right, CONTROL totally benefits us.  But then so does SYNERGY.  And so does DESTROY.  Choices with different ramifications.  Choices.  Point.  Of.  The.  Game.  It may have been implemented poorly, but the point is legitimate Choices.  If they aren't legitimate, they aren't choices.  ITers say there was only one legitimate choice.  I strongly disagree.

[Rhaenyss]

I played through all three games in couple of months, and also I had all the DLCs. The way I see it -- perfect paragon choice is "Control", perfect renegade is "Destroy". Renegade "Control" is creepy to be honest. Paragon "Destroy" is contradictory to the very essence of paragon and a easy way out. "Refuse" is a bratty choice for angry fans and "Synthesis" is for people who want to remove themselves from a strict morality choice and is basically a compromise (albeit a terrifying one).

 

I was lucky I've played this without knowing all the drama and with all DLCs and the extra content. I was quite happy with my choice and the end scenes (Paragon control). It was chilling, bittersweet, with horrible implications, but ultimately done the same way as all my paragon choices. I often see the argument "you should pick destroy bc that's what you've been told to do throughout the game". Yeah, but if anything, Shepard has proven that they are flexible & adaptable, and only because of that did they ultimately even reach the end.

 

And on a selfish note, Control is worth it just for the voice of my Shepard. Yeah, it's technically AI now, but it still turns to Hale's voice when speaking about protecting the ones she loved, it's chilling and touching at the same time, and it's the most SF ending of them all (Synthesis is not as believable). Honestly, I wouldn't want EDI or Hackett's voiceovers to babble on during my ending, at least with Control I get to hear her one more time and get some closure.

 

EDIT: And honestly, do you really believe Bioware would just make one ending that is "the correct one"? After all this time playing the game differently, with dozens of different Shepards? 

[Han Shot First]

The IT was debunked when there was no DLC ever confirming it as the correct interpretation. The Extended Cut and Leviathan DLCs were the final nails in its coffin.