Questa discussione ha avuto 55 risposte

[ExesandOhs]

                                                             ********SPOILER ALERT*********

 

 

 

Okay I just finished ME3 and the ending was a letdown. To me it wasn't about the options available it was more so about the last mission/ game wrap up with no explanation.

 

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

 

If "The Intelligence" aka The Catalyst aka Starchilds job was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics why wasn't the purpose unity vs control?

 

They (the reapers and Starchild) extend their intelligence to each make choices so they are in essence individuals according to the Geth. Why does their free will matter more than the rest of the galaxy?

 

How come the Reapers have no say in what happens to their whole species? Only Starchilds

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

So If I chose Synthesis or Control my eyes change and I look thrall like does that mean I was Indoctrinated? (If not then why does Shepard get to be a hero when Sovereign literally did the same thing in order to save everyone?)

 

So was the illusive man indoctrinated the whole time (due to his eyes)?

 

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

Also, why would Shepard have more control then all the other billions of sentient species contained in the Reapers?

 

If humans were picked out of all the other races due to their genetic diversity, why would they want Shepard vs. the illusive man who specialty is in the genetics/furtherment of humans? He could give them an expansive knowledge Shepard couldn't dream to.

 

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

Why didn't the Leviathan take control of the Starchild? Why didn't Shepard bring an artifact?

 

How did Joker survive the crash with brittle bone disease?

 

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

So are the Collectors free now? Will they be able to live their lives as Protheans again? Of their own race?

 

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO HARBINGER????????????????????????? Why did he just leave? That has to mean I am indoctrinated or I'm about to be.

 

Did EA/Bioware ever address the Indoctrination Theory?

 

 

I know it's a lot I actually cut down my questions LOL, but answers, opinions, etc. are all welcomed.

[niniendowarrior]

Don't think too much about this.

 

Reapers are controlled by the Catalyst and they did the cycle to preserve organics from being totally dominated by synthetics.  The quarian/geth resolution could be seen as a short term fix but not a long term peaceful resolution.  That's just all mind-patching the plot because BioWare didn't really get to address these things.

 

The Reapers likely deemed that organics could not be protected from themselves so destroying the synthetics would only mean organics would create them again.  So, the conclusion of the Catalyst is to just nuke everything.  It doesn't have to make sense to you.  After all, it's just a stupid AI with the power to nuke the galaxy.

 

Illusive Man was indoctrinated in ME3 but it has nothing to do with his eyes which were caused by something in his origin story.

 

Synthesis is like the pill that cures all.    I don't really pick it that much.  Pick the option that makes sense to you.

 

Indoctrination Theory is debunked by Leviathan DLC, or at least that's what I think.

 

All of these are my opinions.

[fraggle]

That's a lot questions, I try to answer some, but for some of them we will never know the answer for sure

 

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

 

They planned it as a trilogy and announced it as a trilogy. But they weren't given enough time for the whole 3rd game, and to tie everything up was tough, but I think they still did a good job with that. If anything my problem is rather that ME2 did nothing to advance the Reaper plot. Instead we fight Collectors, when the focus should be to find a way to actually defeat the Reapers. They could've already searched for a weapon, not only do so because they're desperate enough to do it when the Reapers are on the doorstep in ME3. Also, fighting Cerberus in an alternate third game doesn't make much sense to me. They're important in the Reaper story because of TIMs indoctrination and how he's used to try and stop Shepard from succeeding to unite the galaxy, which is a strategy of the Reapers: divide and conquer.

I do get however that the whole story of a trilogy can never be planned in advance, there are always changes, cuts have to be made, and here are two interesting reads about this if you're interested:

Some interesting facts about ME3's Development

Drew Karpyshyn's blog entry (relevant part is the last third)

 

How come the Reapers have no say in what happens to their whole species? Only Starchilds

 

Because the Catalyst controls them. It built them, it is their master.

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

Yeah, a complaint I've seen quite often on here. Pretty sure they simply didn't have time to implement all your accumulated forces, not to mention that not all players would see the same forces because of how they could or couldn't be recruited to the war effort. Some people never played Leviathan, not everyone collected all the war assets.

 

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

Only the Catalyst's purpose was to preserve knowledge. The Reapers are basically its puppets, so if Shepard controls them, they will do what Shepard wants. The Catalyst has Shepard's conscience now.

 

Also, why would Shepard have more control then all the other billions of sentient species contained in the Reapers?

 

The organics' essence is only put in a Reaper to safely store it away, they do not have any function besides sitting in there. They cannot act on anything.

 

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

First, you have to see that there are fundamental differences in how the Reapers/Catalyst and organics perceive what the Reapers do to organics. For the Catalyst, what it does is good, because from its view point it helps ascend organics and preserve them as it was tasked.

For us, we don't want to be preserved, nor want to be immortal and stuck in a Reaper. But the Catalyst is not wrong, if you see it from its perspective.

 

Then the reason for the harvest... it makes sense, because the Catalyst works with an axiom. Synthetics possess the possibility to further improve themselves in order to meet organics' standards, they evolve constantly to the point where they become much stronger than organics. In case of the geth they already showed their power only being in their infancy, where they wiped out a good portion of the quarians.

 

And while you are right we can achieve a truce in ME3, this doesn't mean it will stay like that. It can go both ways, the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be wrong with its axiom.

I will say here though that I like the Destroy ending best because I would rather have organics and (future) synthetics free from any form of controlling their fate and let things just play out as they will. But I find the Catalyst very interesting, even if I don't like its method.

 

If you're interested further in the topic, here's some nice two links I really agree with and are imo worth a read:

Why Mass Effect 3's Ending Makes Sense And Is Valid

Why the Catalyst's Logic is Right

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

There were some people mentioning this idea. I'm not sure. Maybe it could work, but the main problem here is that in ME1, they already established that the Reapers hibernate until the 50,000 years are over. In a case of always being present should some synthetics attack again, there wouldn't be cycles, and they would have to ensure that they were always ready, which probably means no hibernation.

Since ME1's establishment, there had to be a solution that would ensure a pretty stable cycle. If they left all organics and only destroyed synthetics, organics would be in a too evolved state and likely quickly build new AIs for that cycle to stay intact. I think.

 

Why didn't the Leviathan take control of the Starchild? Why didn't Shepard bring an artifact?

 

Shepard did not know he/she would ever encounter the intelligence. Shepard doesn't even know the Catalyst is the intelligence at that point, and that the Catalyst is on the Citadel until very late in the game. Also I'm not sure if mind-control works on Leviathan's own creation?

 

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

I think that the writers did not perceive Synthesis as indoctrination at all. Rather, the important aspect of Synthesis to them, it seems, was that each race could finally understand each other, there'd be no conflicts. I have to say while I like the idea of peace between everyone, there's a lot more uncertain things in the end. What happens to new species whose DNA hasn't been altered? Will they start fighting? Are all these green-turned individuals really all still themselves? etc.

That's why Synthesis could never be my favourite ending. I will still pick it though based on weather it fits my Shepards.

 

Did EA/Bioware ever address the Indoctrination Theory?

 

Not really directly as far as I know, but there was a tweet that stated Shepard wakes up on the Citadel if surviving (and not in London like IT suggested), and the EC slides show that what had happened had actually happened, no matter which ending choice was picked.

[rossler]

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

He's the antagonist. Of course what he thinks is at odds with what happened earlier. He's just trying to buy time and convince you not to destroy him by concocting this story that had been resolved earlier to save his own ass. Doing everything he can to prevent you from killing him. 

 

That's not really why they are harvesting though. 

 

The Reapers believe themselves to be the pinnacle of evolution. By harvesting all advanced organic life in the galaxy and become like a Reaper (with their DNA through synthesis), their mission would be complete. 

 

Then they go back to dark space and await the next harvest to begin. 

[SofaJockey]

  WHAT HAPPENED ...

 

We know, I think we all went through that to varying degrees. Welcome to our world.

 

(I've become comfortable with the Control ending after some reflection...)

[rossler]

I think the OP should read this. 

[Get Magna Carter]

Okay I just finished ME3 and the ending was a letdown. To me it wasn't about the options available it was more so about the last mission/ game wrap up with no explanation.

 

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

 

The game was planned as a trilogy from the start with the third part intended to be the all-out war against the Reapers. Cerberus were minor antagonists intended for the first game only but left in the third to be random mooks to provide a bit more variety to enemies

If "The Intelligence" aka The Catalyst aka Starchilds job was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics why wasn't the purpose unity vs control?

 

They (the reapers and Starchild) extend their intelligence to each make choices so they are in essence individuals according to the Geth. Why does their free will matter more than the rest of the galaxy?

How come the Reapers have no say in what happens to their whole species? Only Starchilds

 

The Catalyst is an insane A.I imposing it's will on the galaxy and refuses to acknowledge anyone else's rights to free will

the Reapers were created to be the Catalysts slaves and the created do not always rebel against the creator

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

Leviathans were not in the original game but added months later by dlc

As for the others, there was a post on a website, allegedly from one of Mass Effect 3's writers expressing his diappointment at them being included - the authenticity of the post has been questioned

So If I chose Synthesis or Control my eyes change and I look thrall like does that mean I was Indoctrinated? (If not then why does Shepard get to be a hero when Sovereign literally did the same thing in order to save everyone?)

 

So was the illusive man indoctrinated the whole time (due to his eyes)?

 

the eyes are not linked to indoctrination - however, my answers are probably and yes

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

Also, why would Shepard have more control then all the other billions of sentient species contained in the Reapers?

 

the reapers purpose is not to look for knowledge but to genocide organic races for reasons you cannot understand (as DSOvereign told you).  If Shepard picks control, Shepard probably gets indoctrinated into serving the Reaper's objectives.

the species contained in the Reapers are already indoctrinated into being the Catalysts's slaves (if any of their sentience truly remains)

 

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

 

strictly speaken it was not disproven - what we had was proof that organics and synthetics could settle their differences peacefully not that they would always do so.  Of course there is no evidence whatsoever that synthetics would ever wipe out organic life.

So all we have is guesswork from a deceitful, genocidal mass murdering A.I. who demands blind faith

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

Now you are asking for the ending to make sense - you are clearly playing the wrong game.

 

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

firstly, the writer thought it was a cool idea and decided to put in at the end without properly establishing it in the game (and probably not thinking it through) - the crucible is basically a magic box (vastly exceding any technology in the game so it must have been invented by a highly advanced race not featured in the series) which can do anything the writers want - if they want it to turn any synthetic present or future to be part organic then it can do so - don't ask me how -space magic defes explanation

Did EA/Bioware ever address the Indoctrination Theory?

 

it was stated in the forums that Mass Effect 3 is a work of art and art is open to multiple interpretations.  Indoctrination Theory is a valid interpretation and is true for a playthrough if and only if the player wishes it to be

[rossler]

Synthesis was what Saren was pushing for in ME1. It was referred to a fusion of organic and synthetic life. A union of flesh and steel. Which is what the Reapers are, organic and synthetic fused together into one, a hybrid. It was established in the first game. 

[WillPF363]

Synthesis was what Saren was pushing for in ME1. It was referred to a fusion of organic and synthetic life. A union of flesh and steel. Which is what the Reapers are, organic and synthetic fused together into one, a hybrid. It was established in the first game.

Established as a lie Sovreign sold to Saren through Indoctrination, or at least as an Obi-wan "from a certain point of view" truth. The Reapers were only ever going to murder most space-faring species or turn them into more Reapers. Synthesis, as presented in ME3's ending was not their goal, the Catalyst says as much.

[UpUpAway95]

Okay I just finished ME3 and the ending was a letdown. To me it wasn't about the options available it was more so about the last mission/ game wrap up with no explanation.

 

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

                                                            

Only a trilogy was planned.  ME3 was supposed to complete the story; and there were no plans for a 4th game and no approval to divide ME3 into two games when the whole thing became rushed.  ME:A is not ME4, but the beginning of a whole different story line.

 

 

If "The Intelligence" aka The Catalyst aka Starchilds job was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics why wasn't the purpose unity vs control? 

 

They (the reapers and Starchild) extend their intelligence to each make choices so they are in essence individuals according to the Geth. Why does their free will matter more than the rest of the galaxy?

 

The Starchild's job was not to "oversee relations," but to solve the issue of AIs perpetually turning on their creators as they became self aware and aware of the weaknesses of their organic creators at the same time.  The Starchild came up with the Reapers as a solution. (and it was not necessarily a good solution).  Starchild then basically turned on his own Creators (the Leviathans) and basically took control by nearly wiping them right out.  He's an "malfunctioning" AI.

 

By completing the Crucible, Shepard (along with humanity and the Council races) allegedly changed things such that the Starchild realized his solution would no longer work (i.e. Starchild sensed that he was losing his power in that the organics now had the ability to destroy his "army" of Reapers - think of bringing down a dictator).  In a last-ditch effort to preserve himself and his creation, he offers up 3 possible alternate solutions to Shepard (again, they were not necessarily "good" solutions).  Indeed, from his point of view - destroy results in the annihilation of his Reapers, control results in his replacement (and perhaps annihilation); so it's natural that he would present Synthesis as the "best" solution since it's the one that allows for the survival of both himself and the Reapers (albeit in a changed form).  Is it also the "best" solution for organics - that depends on your personal beliefs - mostly about what that "synthesis" actually involves.  There is also a 4th option - refusal (but that one is not offered by the Starchild, but rather is a option that can just be taken by Shepard of his/her own free will).  It is also not necessarily a "good" option (for obvious reasons).

 

This is the very essence of a "moral dilemma" for the player since no really "good" solution is available.  (Definition of "moral dilemma" - "a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.")  Within the confines of the game, it is not possible for Shepard to just eliminate the Starchild without destroying the Reapers themselves (Starchild is, afterall, an AI who is only present with Shepard as a hologram).

 

 

How come the Reapers have no say in what happens to their whole species? Only Starchilds

 

Starchild is not a Reaper, but rather the Creator of the Reapers.  The Reapers had no more say in their fate throughout any of the cycles than the organic species did.  In fact, the Reapers are built by sucking the essence (knowledge, etc.) from every society in the past that had been harvested.  They are storehouses for all that past knowledge... and yet they had never learned to understand it any better than the recent organics had learned to understand the Mass Relays and Citadel they had "discovered.".

 

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

 

The game could only be just so large.  As it was, it was long enough for me and takes up enough of the memory space on my Xbox 360.  I expect ME:A will be much larger, but then it doesn't have to run on the older consoles.

 

 

So If I chose Synthesis or Control my eyes change and I look thrall like does that mean I was Indoctrinated? (If not then why does Shepard get to be a hero when Sovereign literally did the same thing in order to save everyone?)

 

 

Firstly, Shepard's eyes don't change if Synthesis is selected - his/her entire being is dissolved into the matrix that changes the essence of both organics and synthetics.  The Prothean VI on Thessia confirms absolutely that Shepard is not indoctrinated at that point in time.  Secondly, Sovereign did not do anything to "save everyone," Sovereign's job was to get the Reaper fleet waiting in dark space access to the Citadel in order to begin the harvest of the advanced organic species in the galaxy.

 

So was the illusive man indoctrinated the whole time (due to his eyes)?

The Illusive Man has himself implanted with Reaper Tech (per the video on Chronos).  He was more than indoctrinated.

 

I have to go, so your remaining questions will just have to wait.

[rossler]

Established as a lie Sovreign sold to Saren through Indoctrination, or at least as an Obi-wan "from a certain point of view" truth. The Reapers were only ever going to murder most space-faring species or turn them into more Reapers. Synthesis, as presented in ME3's ending was not their goal, the Catalyst says as much.

 

Synthesis is not their goal? Well that's news to me. Why does he say it's the ideal solution then? 

[WillPF363]

Synthesis is not their goal? Well that's news to me. Why does he say it's the ideal solution then?

It's not that the Catalyst lied about it being a good solution, it's that that option only existed because this cycle had managed to fight and survive long enough to build and activate the Crucible. If they hadn't managed that, or if Sovereign had successfully taken the Citadel in the first game, or if the Protheans never reprogrammed the Keepers- the Reapers would have done what they always do- murder advanced sapients and make new Reapers. Synthesis was incidental, not the goal, just has the Catalyst says. It'd dismissed the idea as unfeasible several cycles back (or before it betrayed the Leviathans, I'm not clear on the timing there)

[UpUpAway95]

(continuing from above)

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

Also, why would Shepard have more control then all the other billions of sentient species contained in the Reapers?

 

This one I'm going to answer with a question - How is it possible that some societies here on earth just wind up replacing one fallen dictator with yet another dictator?  Shepard would merely become that "replacement" dictator.

If humans were picked out of all the other races due to their genetic diversity, why would they want Shepard vs. the illusive man who specialty is in the genetics/furtherment of humans? He could give them an expansive knowledge Shepard couldn't dream to.

 

Shepard, not the Illusive Man, is the one standing there with (figuratively) a gun to the Starchild's head.  Shepard can destroy the Reapers.  The Illusive Man had not intention of destroy the Reapers (so there was no threat to Starchild there) and TIM could not seize control because the Starchild had already "won" that battle by having control over the Illusive Man.  Shepard, on the other hand, had just defeated the Illusive Man and Shepard WAS NOT INDOCTRINATED... so the Starchild would not be able to control him... so he had no choice but to try to cut a deal with Shepard.

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

As I said, the Starchild's reasoning is not necessarily arbitrarily "sound" - He's basically a flawed AI who successfully turned on his creators (the Leviathans) and ran amok - killing organics across the universe unchecked for an unimaginable length of time.

Why didn't the Leviathan take control of the Starchild? Why didn't Shepard bring an artifact?

 

The Leviathan artifacts can take control of organics... not synthetics.

How did Joker survive the crash with brittle bone disease?

 

Joker's brittle bone disease was being "managed" with medication... but I admit, it turned out to be nothing more than a "token" disability and not a real factor in any of the three games of the trilogy.

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

Why do you feel Synthesis is pushed as a great idea?  If anything, I think the ending that is "pushed" as being the "right one" is destroy.  The Destroy Ending where Shepard lives requires the highest point count in the game to obtain (so that tells me it's as close to the "win" ending as one gets).  Also, Hackett clearly tells Shepard - "Dead Reapers are how we win this."

 

So are the Collectors free now? Will they be able to live their lives as Protheans again? Of their own race?

 

 

We don't see a single Collector in ME3... I think regardless of what choice Shepard made in ME2, he/she wiped out the Collectors, period.
 

WHAT HAPPENED TO HARBINGER????????????????????????? Why did he just leave? That has to mean I am indoctrinated or I'm about to be.

 

Did EA/Bioware ever address the Indoctrination Theory?

 

Presumably, Harbinger is still there... just not visible in the post-laser scenes where Shepard is concentrating totally on just staying alive to make it to the beam.  Also, Harbinger can be assumed to suffer the same fate as the rest of the Reapers (which is dependent on which ending the player selects).

 

Bioware officially leaves the interpretation of the game and it's endings up to the individual player (and all the above is just my interpretation).

[rossler]

WHAT HAPPENED TO HARBINGER????????????????????????? Why did he just leave? That has to mean I am indoctrinated or I'm about to be.

 

Harbinger is watching over you...during the ending. 

 

 

Making sure you fall into the trap. 

 

Also:

 

Kid: I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers.

Harbinger: We (the Reapers) are Harbinger. (Mass Effect 2)

[UpUpAway95]

Harbinger is watching over you...during the ending. 

 

 

Making sure you fall into the trap. 

 

Also:

 

Kid: I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers.

Harbinger: We (the Reapers) are Harbinger. (Mass Effect 2)

 

"Embodying the collective intelligence" though does not make the kid "a Reaper" anymore than the Reapers embodying the collective intelligence of all those past civilizations makes them those past civilizations.  The kid is clearly the creator of the Reapers; and the kid is clearly an AI created by the Leviathans (who are an organic species with mind control capabilities over other organic species through their artifacts).  Reaper indoctrination mimics the Leviathan mind control, but it is an "artificial" version of it created by the AI kid.

 

Harbinger, on the other hand, is clearly a Reaper and the "we are" statement clearly indicates that they are a "networked" intelligence (probably similar to the Borg)... but likely still controlled by the kid at the end of ME3 since the kid does indicate as much and continues to refer to itself in the first person singular ("I control the Reapers, they are my solution.")

[rossler]

The kid is clearly the creator of the Reapers; and the kid is clearly an AI created by the Leviathans (who are an organic species with mind control capabilities over other organic species through their artifacts).  Reaper indoctrination mimics the Leviathan mind control, but it is an "artificial" version of it created by the AI kid.

 

You know the kid who claims to be the Reaper's creator, is the same kid who you saw get killed in the beginning of the game, right? The same kid who you saw in your dreams. 

 

Not to mention, he has the voice of FemShep (left channel), MaleShep (right channel), and the kid (center channel). 

[kal_reegar]

Hi ExesandOhs... ME3 is a real mess

 

here is my personal interpretation of the ending

 

 

Spoiler

 

. THE CATALYST

 

1a. The Catalyst is an advanced AI, and it was created by the Leviathans in order to solve the “chaos problem” (synthetcs-organics conflict, technological singularity etc).

 

The Reapers are its current solution.

 

1b. The Catalyst built the Reapers and embodies their collective intelligence , but the Reapers are not it's "puppets": collective intelligence doesn't imply a direct control over each individual. So, even if the Catalyst can somehow influence the Reapers fleet, every single reaper mantain specific individuality and authonomy, as Sovereing said in ME.

 

1c. The Catalyst doens't direclty and fully control the Citadel. Not the arms and the mass-relay, at least. Maybe it used to control it/them through the keepers, but in this case the prothean scientist from Ilos somehow broke this connction. We never see the Catalyst directly controlling anything, except for the elevator, even when it would have been useful for its purposes. The Catalyst need Saren, the Sovereign, Cerberus, Tim and finally Shepard to perform “material” operations.

 

1.d. The Catalyst is unable to control the Crucible, too. Referring to the possibile choices that the Crucible provides, it says "I can't make it happen". So we can be almost certain that it needs Shepard to use the Crucible.

 

So we can summarize the previous point in one general statement: the Catalyst is incapable of complex, direct, material actions.

 

 

2. THE CRUCIBLE

The Crucible is, according to the Catalyst, little more than a rude power source (from the Catalyst point of view, at least), but in combination with the citadel it is capable of realising a huge amount of energy. So, it's not an hacking device or something similar, just a powerful weapon of mass destruction.

We don't know who designed it (very likely not the Leviathans, because the Catalyst says, reffering to the Crucible designers, "you wouldn't know them" -> and Shepard knows the Leviathans).

We only know that its design evolved many times.

 

 

3. THE CRUCIBLE DOCKING

 

This is the crucial moment. Once the Crucible docked, Shepard is brought in front of the Catalyst. The Crucible is not working.

The 1 million dollars question is: why the Catalyst doesn't shut of the Crucible or, if it can't “personally” do that (after all, we have said that he is probably incapable of direct, material action), why doesn't it simply wait and than continue the cycle?

The Reapers are trying to destroy the Crucible, and if Shepard wait too long, tha game over screen is "the Crucible has been destroyed".  So, why does the Catalyst seem to strongly desire that the crubile is not only preserved, but also quickly activated ?

 

 

The answer to this question is resumable in one sentece: the variables have been altered.

 

More specifically:

 

a. Its solution (the Reapers) won't work anymore.

The Crucible has been proven possible and a real threat, that its mere existence as a tangible object - and not a dreamy idea - changes things completely because one day the Reapers will be defeated by it (and refusal ending proves it -> Liara's warning beacon will work and the stargazer will confirm that "the Reapers are no longer a threat").

Even if the Crucible is not used, or destroyed, the Reapers days are done, because they will be defeated by the next cycle. They can complete this cycle, but not the next one.

Individyally, the Reapers probably don't realize that, and so they keep on fighting and attacking the Crucible; but the Catalyst knows that it is pointless (one characteristic of the swarm/collective intelligence is that "the agents follow very simple rules, and although there is no centralized control structure dictating how individual agents should behave, local, and to a certain degree random, interactions between such agents lead to the emergence of "intelligent" global behavior, unknown to the individual agents).

The Reapers have been created with a simple task, and they follow very simple rules (harvest everybody, than go back in the dark space, wait 50.000 years, than harvest everybody again, for ever and ever) The collective intelligence (the Catalyst) realizes that this course of action is no longer possible, but it cannot stop them. It cannot alter the Reapers core rules. The Reapers have've been created for a purpose, and they cannot individually divert from that purpose, even if this will lead them to the ultimate failure. Unless the Crucible is used.

 

 

b. The Crucible changed the Catalyst, created new possibilities.

Its original solution won't work anymore, but new solutions are now available. All of them are better than the Reapers.

- Synthesis: do I really need to explain why this is the perfect solution from the Catalyst point of view? (N.B. for the Catalyst this is the only true solution; the other options are both a makeshif at best, the lesser evil)

- Control: the Catalayst can be "upgraded" with a new Catalyst 2.0 (the Sheparlyst) and, thanks to Shepard's memories, consciousness, readiness etc, they can become somehow more effective, adapter to their new task of “peace-keeping”. He can probably achieve full control over the all Reapers, and patronize/guard the galaxy with them.

- Destroy: this cycle has proven itself worthy/ready, somehow special, and since Crucible is a weapon that can destroy every single syntetic organism in the galaxy in few minutes, the organics of this “exceptional” cycle have proven that they can virtually deal with the synthetics threat (or, at least, a little better and/or alittle longer than the Reapers and/or other less special cycles).

 

This is why the Catalyst helps shepard, gives him information, doesn't shut off the Crucible and/or simply wait the Crucible being blasted by the Reapers.

The variables have been altered, and both Shepard and the Catalyst need the Crucible to be activated, if they want to achive their goals.

The Crucible docking, from the Catalyst point of view, can be seen as the famous "last straw" (the Catalyst finally acknowldge that the process, started with the prothean scientist of Ilos, is no longer reversible). Something very close to what Legion say about the heretics ""An equation with a result of 1.33382 returns as 1.33381. This changes the result of all higher processes. We will reach different conclusions". A little difference with huge consequences.

So the Catalyst want the Crucible to be used before it is destroyed, and he needs Shepard to do so.

 

 

 

 

as for the other questions you rised... well, the game doesn't provide clear answers. Lot of speculation for everyone. Synthesis in particular is really a wtf choiche.

[StarcloudSWG]

                                                             ********SPOILER ALERT*********

 

 

 

Okay I just finished ME3 and the ending was a letdown. To me it wasn't about the options available it was more so about the last mission/ game wrap up with no explanation.

 

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

 

If "The Intelligence" aka The Catalyst aka Starchilds job was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics why wasn't the purpose unity vs control?

 

They (the reapers and Starchild) extend their intelligence to each make choices so they are in essence individuals according to the Geth. Why does their free will matter more than the rest of the galaxy?

 

How come the Reapers have no say in what happens to their whole species? Only Starchilds

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

So If I chose Synthesis or Control my eyes change and I look thrall like does that mean I was Indoctrinated? (If not then why does Shepard get to be a hero when Sovereign literally did the same thing in order to save everyone?)

 

So was the illusive man indoctrinated the whole time (due to his eyes)?

 

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

Also, why would Shepard have more control then all the other billions of sentient species contained in the Reapers?

 

If humans were picked out of all the other races due to their genetic diversity, why would they want Shepard vs. the illusive man who specialty is in the genetics/furtherment of humans? He could give them an expansive knowledge Shepard couldn't dream to.

 

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

Why didn't the Leviathan take control of the Starchild? Why didn't Shepard bring an artifact?

 

How did Joker survive the crash with brittle bone disease?

 

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

So are the Collectors free now? Will they be able to live their lives as Protheans again? Of their own race?

 

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO HARBINGER????????????????????????? Why did he just leave? That has to mean I am indoctrinated or I'm about to be.

 

Did EA/Bioware ever address the Indoctrination Theory?

 

 

I know it's a lot I actually cut down my questions LOL, but answers, opinions, etc. are all welcomed.

 

In "The Final Hours" app that Bioware put out regarding the making of Mass Effect 3, there is a picture of a free-association brainstorm that was written down while Mac Walters and Casey Hudson were finalizing the endings. In that picture, circled prominently or underlined, are the words, "Speculation for everyone!"

 

That's the real answer; there ARE no answers.

[UpUpAway95]

You know the kid who claims to be the Reaper's creator, is the same kid who you saw get killed in the beginning of the game, right? The same kid who you saw in your dreams. 

 

Not to mention, he has the voice of FemShep (left channel), MaleShep (right channel), and the kid (center channel). 

 

... and your point being... Of course I know this.  Still doesn't make the kid physically "a Reaper" and it doesn't make Shepard indoctrinated.  The AI merely projects itself in a form that it believes Shepard will have some sympathy for... in much the same way Leviathan choose to represent itself as Anne Bryson.  It probably reads an image from Shepard's subconscious.  It could also be the reverse... confronted by an AI that really has no form, the human mind "sees" it in a familiar way... much like humans have been viewing their Gods in human-like forms for millennia.

[rossler]

It is a Reaper in sheep's clothing. 

[UpUpAway95]

It is a Reaper in sheep's clothing. 

 

No... it's one step above a Reaper... the Creator of the Reapers... their actual "God."  In gaming terms, he is your "boss fight" - only you don't get to actually fight him because he's also not actually in front of you to fight (That is, he is a hologram and his AI Core is someplace else).  As I said, "embodying the collective intelligence" of all the past civilizations the Reapers harvested does not make them physically those past civilizations... so, "embodying the collective intelligence" of the Reapers does not make Starchild physically a Reaper.  The IT is just a completely unnecessary machination of the situation.  Shepard does not have to be indoctrinated for the endings to work... and the choices about how to possibly "win" a boss fight when enemy is not actually there in front of you to fight remain the same.

 

People feel that BioWare pushed Synthesis, but I say they pushed Destroy.  As in every other ME game, we are given a clear "hint" at how to beat the game.  In ME3, Hackett says it quite clearly - "Dead Reapers are how we win this."  All Shepard has to do is be a good little soldier and follow Hackett's orders.

[rossler]

No... it's one step above a Reaper... the Creator of the Reapers... their actual "God."

 

That's what it wants you to think. 

 

The Reapers do have the power to suggest things to you, and make you believe what they're telling you as the truth. 

[UpUpAway95]

That's what it wants you to think. 

 

The Reapers do have the power to suggest things to you, and make you believe what they're telling you as the truth. 

 

The Reapers nor Starchild have no power at all, really... their pixels written and rendered by Bioware authors... and Bioware's official stance is that they allow people "room" to interpret their games as they want (which I clearly stated in my initial post).  So, interpret it however you like... and I'll do the same (meaing - I'll interpret it my way).  However, I will suggest that if your interpretation is causing you ongoing angst, discomfort, anger, confusion, disappointment, etc. - it's probably best if you change you're interpretation since Bioware is very unlikely to ever change the endings now.

[kal_reegar]

People feel that BioWare pushed Synthesis, but I say they pushed Destroy.  As in every other ME game, we are given a clear "hint" at how to beat the game.  In ME3, Hackett says it quite clearly - "Dead Reapers are how we win this."  All Shepard has to do is be a good little soldier and follow Hackett's orders.

 

I agree. They also say that synthesis in the best ending bacause is the one that requires the highest EMS. But this is false.

Destroy ending with shepard alive requires the highest EMS.

[AlanC9]

Who says they pushed anything, or even agreed on what the best outcome was?