I'd probably like Control more than even Destroy, if they had actually continued the series. It's just a not a story worthy of being left hanging in the air like that. The concept though is OK... if it went somewhere.
Synthesis is the only dead end to me. Both narratively and idea wise.
lol.
lets not get into the endings shall we.
this was the best decision they could make considering *how things ended*.
there is alot more they can still do with the franchise which I assume they want to turn into a halo-esque one (by halo i mean the story and depth and etc, not the gameplay).
lol i have more to say but i'll stop there. i dont want SJWs and white knights showing up out of nowhere.
no srs. say one thing that's different and they'll be rite there in the thread waiting to respond.
You're not making any sense. I ascribe to Deception Theory because of the facts. If I ignored the facts, Deception Theory wouldn't work. You have to understand that Deception Theory is based on the game as Bioware released it. It only pertains to the discussion of the default game.
Wait, then why did you argue that I was wrong because of a change the EC made?
The bold part is an interesting interpretation. I do like it, though you give the writers too much credit. They didn't follow the story from ME1-ME3. The idea that they put out some trick ending is silly. The books, comics, and anything not in the game trilogy are irrelevant. Plot integral info must be in the games.
You're right; they did edit that line. He no longer says "you can wipe out all Synthetic life if you want," but he still says "All Synthetics will be targeted." The line about technology is a different one, but in all other dialogue, he speaks of Synthetics as "life" like the Geth. He also says "Soon your children will create Synthetics and then the chaos will come back." This implies that the current chaos or conflict will be gone, which according to the Catalyst requires the current Synthetics to be gone as well.
Also recall that the Geth now all have Reaper code if they still exist. To believe that Destroy doesn't destroy the Geth requires willful blindness.
Don't be silly. Those others don't appear in any ending, so their absence in one particular ending is not significant. The Geth do appear in one ending I mentioned, but not the other. Why?
A coherent, understandable universe is not, in-universe, driven by narrative, so you can't use thematic arguments for in-universe reasons. And if the Catalyst is lying about Control, it has no reason to be telling the truth about Destroy, so it doesn't matter what I pick.
I agree that the others (beside Destroy) need more to work. But that's the problem. There aren't any more answers. That's it. That's why they suck. And it's why this Deception Theory sucks... because it assumes Bioware had more going on. When they didn't.
If they had more to offer, they would have made it. Or at least, Casey Hudson wouldn't have said that was the last game at the time.
It's not an interpretation. I'm taking the raw data as is. It is objectively not narrated in past tense. This is a fact. Not an opinion. A grammatical fact.
Oh, I understand that part fine. I believe your conception of those facts to be just wrong, but KaiserShep handled that upthread. The part I'm confused about is that I always thought that DT made the game acceptable to you. I take it that this theory doesn't actually deliver an enjoyable experience to you? This would be another contrast between DT and the various ITs.
Wait, then why did you argue that I was wrong because of a change the EC made?
I've yet to see MEHEM, but nothing fan made could be better to me... even if well done. These games live or die by their creators, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree that the others (beside Destroy) need more to work. But that's the problem. There aren't any more answers. That's it. That's why they suck. And it's why this Deception Theory sucks... because it assumes Bioware had more going on. When they didn't.
If they had more to offer, they would have made it. Or at least, Casey Hudson wouldn't have said that was the last game at the time.
Well, again, to make this work you have to assume that the two information channels are synchronized, rather than delivering different information streams. I didn't see it that way at the time, and still don't. You haven't given me a reason to.
And I'm still wondering how Hackett is thinking of Falere and Samara. Or why he imagines that the genophage cure was sabotaged when he doesn't know that;, though I suppose you can handwave this part by saying that he's taping this memoir only after the failure of the cure becomes obvious.
A very emotional response. Yes, Deception Theory does suck. But the endings sucking doesn't change the facts. Rather or not Bioware had more going on or not isn't relevant, it still sucks either due to making 1 "win" ending and 3 indoctrinated endings or due to extremely bad writing brought on by brain diarrhea. Deception Theory does not exist to give you warm fuzzies and "fix" the endings. They are still horrible endings in Deception Theory.
I don't think they're necessarily win or lose either. Synthesis is called "ideal"... I guess it's a "win" as far as ultimate goals go.. But it just sucks because it takes all the fun and strife out of the setting. It goes nowhere. There's nothing left to say. Control could have been fun as a further story. And maybe good depending how you concluded it. It reminds me of Dune after Paul (when Leto became the God Emperor). EXCEPT that was the bulk of the Dune stories. Frank Herbert actually told that story, while Paul was only the first book really. You can't just create a godlike being and leave it at that. So I call Bioware's writing crappy for doing it.
Because you were wrong about something?
I was only wrong if we were looking at the Extended Cut. You said I was stuck in the original endings and then said your whole theory was about the original endings.
It's not an interpretation. I'm taking the raw data as is. It is objectively not narrated in past tense. This is a fact. Not an opinion. A grammatical fact.
It's also irrelevant, as I explained.
What you're presenting is the Bad Writing Theory, which is a valid conclusion. However, if that's how you feel there is nothing further to discuss as attributing it to bad writing effectively negates any discussion about the in-game events. It's just a hot sloppy messs that doesn't need to held to any scrutiny. It's the equivalent of saying the devil buried the bones of the dinosaurs in a debate about the age of the earth between a Christian literalist and a Christian scientist. Essentially saying carbon dating and the like isn't reliable because supernatural forces made or altered the world in a inconsistent fashion. It's a supernatural act that can't be intellectually debated on the merits of science. Even your stance of knowing the writers' intent is tantamount to person knowing that some god hates it when gays get a legal document of marriage. Such "inside knowledge" is just a belief. There is no factual data. Again, there is no debate to be had.
The in-game events are the evidence of bad writing. This isn't a theory, but is in demonstrable fact. Holding it to scrutiny is how we get to that conclusion. It looks at everything literally rather than making things up, even reasonable things, to patch the broken narrative. It can be intellectually debated on the merits of writer's craft. I take a stance on writer intent on what is clearly presented. You are taking a stance on writer intent based on supposedly hidden meanings.
Between your wild imaginings, animosity towards disagreement, and hate of Christianity, I'd think you were Gothpunkboy but you've made more sense.
No, go on YouTube and watch it. Or play it yourself if you have the save. The technology part is a direct response to Shepard seeking clarity on what the Kid says about synthetics being affected. He even includes Shepard's synthetics as being included in the synthetics in question in that very opening statement. Then Shepard asks, in response, "What exactly will happen. The Kid then clarifies it. It says tech to rely on will be damaged, but it'll be nothing that you can't fix. I am the Official Lore Master of Mass Effect™. I know my stuff. If Synthetics, like Shepard's, are affected how is it Kasumi does not die? Her grey box would be wrecked and she's end up in a coma at best. Oh, right, you're a Bad Writing Theorist so nothing has to make sense.
Did it and it says what I said it says. He says "all Synthetics will be targeted." When Shepard asks for clarification, he says technology will be "affected" and "there will still be losses." We don't know what that means or how broad ranging it is just from these lines. We have to look at other things, and I mentioned them in the earlier post. The clear message is that the Geth are dead in Destroy. You can stick your fingers in your years and yell "La la la" all you want, but that's what the game is telling you.
How do you make that statement about Kasumi? Do you know how the Graybox works? I just remember it being a memory storage device, not something required for brain functions.
Yet neither you nor any other person on this entire forum could refute me. All you do is deny the objective facts and insert you beliefs in as if they were facts. The cold hard fact is it's never said the Geth would be destroyed, they are never seen destroyed, they are never said to be destroyed afterwards and the end game cutscene only shows synthesized material affected. These are the objective facts. Not my opinion or belief. Facts. Show me where I'm wrong.
I don't need to refute every wild claim somebody invents. You have to support your claim. All I need to do is call it into question or present more reasonable alternatives.
To your credit, here you prove you're not Gothpunkboy. You need it shown or told to you explicitly rather than just implied, which is what he usually uses to criticize those who disagree with him. Eww, I feel dirty now...
Anyway, all you've said there is that you're taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which doesn't work here. You're right that you're not explicitly shown or told "the Geth are dead" but there are several things that point to that being the case.
Why? I does not matter, but I'll give you my educated guess on the subject. Because the entire point is to make Blue and Green look better. Who would ever bother with them if they didn't leave a bad taste in your mouth in Red? I fully believe they want people to have the impression that the Geth somehow died via magic. They already put the seed in your mind during the vanilla cut. See, that is a belief on my part. I can't prove their intent here. However, I can prove that there are no instances in the game depicting or even saying the Geth are destroyed. For that reason I don't have to answer why there is no destroy Geth slide. There are no facts to back up your assumption. The why is ultimately irrelevant. The facts are the facts with or without a why.
And it's not silly. If the lack of inclusion in a slide equates to the extinction of a species then all those other races are extinct in every ending no matter what. However, the belief that a lack of slide equates to extinction is a belief. It's not a fact. If Bioware decided in the next trilogy to go back to the Milky Way and they picked Destroy as the canon ending they could use the exact argument I make for the Geth being around and there would be nothing you or anyone could come up with to invalidate it. your entire argument is based on the belief that you know the writers intent. The fact that the writers can prove there intent at any time by keeping the Geth around demonstrates how your argument is weak.
Out of curiosity, what makes that guess educated? That's an argument after the fact, as you don't see the scenes at the time of the choice. This is the same issue with people arguing about the explosion of the Relays. Even if we accept the argument about a different kind of explosion, that's only seen after the choice is made and that by the player, not the character. When the Catalyst says "it will also destroy the Mass Relays," all we have to go off of is Arrival, which makes using the Crucible unacceptable to both character and player. It's a known event even if Shepard didn't do it. But oops, Shepard apparently forgot about that.
I do have evidence, but you choose to ignore it because it implies my claim rather than explicitly state it.
So are you saying EDI is alive too? They don't show her dying or say she died. She is just absent from other scenes.
The Geth being in a later game would only prove the intent of the creators of that game, not that of the creators of ME3.
Hackett would know everything. I'm not sure why you think he's in the dark about so much.
How did he know? Where is the scene of him being told?
Hey, they never show anybody use the bathroom. Do people not poop in this universe?
I don't think they're necessarily win or lose either. Synthesis is called "ideal"... I guess it's a "win" as far as ultimate goals go.. But it just sucks because it takes all the fun and strife out of the setting. It goes nowhere. There's nothing left to say. Control could have been fun as a further story. And maybe good depending how you concluded it. It reminds me of Dune after Paul (when Leto became the God Emperor). EXCEPT that was the bulk of the Dune stories. Frank Herbert actually told that story, while Paul was only the first book really. You can't just create a godlike being and leave it at that. So I call Bioware's writing crappy for doing it.
Synthesis sucks because it is thematically the worst ending but is painted as the best ending. Despite arcs about Synthetics being valuable in their own right, the benefits of diversity, and the importance of choice, lets homogenize everyone whether they want it or not. Oh and lets do what the murder machines wanted all along!
I don't think they're necessarily win or lose either. Synthesis is called "ideal"... I guess it's a "win" as far as ultimate goals go.. But it just sucks because it takes all the fun and strife out of the setting. It goes nowhere. There's nothing left to say. Control could have been fun as a further story. And maybe good depending how you concluded it. It reminds me of Dune after Paul (when Leto became the God Emperor). EXCEPT that was the bulk of the Dune stories. Frank Herbert actually told that story, while Paul was only the first book really. You can't just create a godlike being and leave it at that. So I call Bioware's writing crappy for doing it.
None of them are win endings. It's a "win" in that the Reapers die and all the spacefaring species aren't made into Reapers. That's it. At the end of the latest Independence day movie the entire Earth is in ruins. It's a "win", but everybody are still losers. You know what I mean?
There were plenty of ways to incorporate a viable Synthesis and Control concept. This would have needed to be a thing prior to the last 10 minutes though. Bioware did not and chose instead to make them indoctrinated endings. What if synthesis was a function of the Crucible and made our flesh impossible to Reaperize or indoctrinate. Or if Control send nanites into the Reaper ships to operate the mechanical parts and the terminators inside were trapped in their own bodies unable to do anything as we controlled their ships. Or we developed indoctrination tech and in Control we indoctrinate their punk asses and make them fight with each other. I just thought this **** up on the fly. I'm sure a third grader could have come up with better stuff that Bioware. Sigh@Bioware.
Destroy is definitely a win for me. I said why: I live...despite the Catalyst claiming I wouldn't. Philosophically this is satisfying... I defied a god and still breathe. And people are in a place I want them to be: Struggling, but reliant on their own resourcefulness. Nothing more, nothing less. That gives me hope. Not dreadfulness. This series in general takes a dump on ingenuity and resourcefulness (all the races are scavengers in one way or another). So to end up like this is a good thing to me.
I'm sure it's been side already, but they pretty much had no alternative. This is a New Galaxy in which nothing story wise from the previous trilogy would make a lick of sense affecting anything in this new story. Not only are you in a completely new Galaxy but you're also a unknown amount of years into the future, at the least more than 1000 years. Everyone from the previous games would or should be dead by now and of course back in the Milky Way assuming it was culled as someone put it on another thread.
So not BS just a logical starting point for a intentionally planned to continue franchise that originally wasn't suppose to last beyond its original 3 games.
I'm sure it's been side already, but they pretty much had no alternative. This is a New Galaxy in which nothing story wise from the previous trilogy would make a lick of sense affecting anything in this new story. Not only are you in a completely new Galaxy but you're also a unknown amount of years into the future, at the least more than 1000 years. Everyone from the previous games would or should be dead by now and of course back in the Milky Way assuming it was culled as someone put it on another thread.
So not BS just a logical starting point for a intentionally planned to continue franchise that originally wasn't suppose to last beyond its original 3 games.
The more logical starting point would have been just to move on and make a new series. It didn't have to be Mass Effect.
edit: Err... but I agree in general.
None of them are win endings. It's a "win" in that the Reapers die and all the spacefaring species aren't made into Reapers. That's it. At the end of the latest Independence day movie the entire Earth is in ruins. It's a "win", but everybody are still losers. You know what I mean?
There were plenty of ways to incorporate a viable Synthesis and Control concept. This would have needed to be a thing prior to the last 10 minutes though. Bioware did not and chose instead to make them indoctrinated endings. What if synthesis was a function of the Crucible and made our flesh impossible to Reaperize or indoctrinate. Or if Control send nanites into the Reaper ships to operate the mechanical parts and the terminators inside were trapped in their own bodies unable to do anything as we controlled their ships. Or we developed indoctrination tech and in Control we indoctrinate their punk asses and make them fight with each other. I just thought this **** up on the fly. I'm sure a third grader could have come up with better stuff that Bioware. Sigh@Bioware.
Everything in this was right except for the "Indoctrination endings" nonsense.
The more logical starting point would have been just to move on and make a new series. It didn't have to be Mass Effect.
edit: Err... but I agree in general.
I've questioned from the first announcement if without Mass Relays and all the major species this would be Mass Effect in anything but name only.
Well, sure, if we assume your conclusion then we have to assume the necessary premises too. I'm not assuming your conclusion, though, so I don't have to assume that he must know. I don't think that those images have anything to do with Hackett, so I don't have to assume that Shepard handed him a Polaroid of Falere.Hackett would know everything. I'm not sure why you think he's in the dark about so much. If we are to say the slideshow is a representation of his hopes them he must know.
Or it's all simply true, and you've been wasting your time on bad fanfiction. "Bad" because it doesn't actually work for you; what's the point of plugging an elaborate interpretation if it doesn't make the game better for you?Although I am more inclined to think the slideshow is geared toward the player themselves. All I can say for sure is that Hackett, the Shreaperd nor EDI actually sees any of that stuff come to pass and none of it does prior to the end credits. The fact that some of it cannot have possibly come to pass further leads me to think it's just happy thoughts for the sake of the viewer.
Well, sure, if we assume your conclusion then we have to assume the necessary premises too. I'm not assuming your conclusion, though, so I don't have to assume that he must know. I don't think that those images have anything to do with Hackett, so I don't have to assume that Shepard handed him a Polaroid of Falere.
Or it's all simply true, and you've been wasting your time on bad fanfiction. "Bad" because it doesn't actually work for you; what's the point of plugging an elaborate interpretation if it doesn't make the game better for you?
Yeah, I know; the point is just that you believe it.
If nothing else, it's an interesting case study in how conspiracy theories are formed.
If nothing else, it's an interesting case study in how conspiracy theories are formed.
Part of what drives conspiracy theories(and IT is especially no different in this regard) is the narcissistic desire to feel like you're one of the "enlightened few" that gets it unlike the masses of (alleged) dullards out there. Back in the heyday of the IT, you could see the seething contempt they had for people that didn't buy their "theory" by the way they would label them as "literalists"(and they would use it in a way that was akin to a racial/ethnic slur).
Then they'd wonder why the rest of the fanbase either held them in contempt or considered them a laughing stock.
Well, sure, if we assume your conclusion then we have to assume the necessary premises too. I'm not assuming your conclusion, though, so I don't have to assume that he must know. I don't think that those images have anything to do with Hackett, so I don't have to assume that Shepard handed him a Polaroid of Falere.
Or it's all simply true, and you've been wasting your time on bad fanfiction. "Bad" because it doesn't actually work for you; what's the point of plugging an elaborate interpretation if it doesn't make the game better for you?
Yeah, I know; the point is just that you believe it.
Personally, I think it's because:
Part of what drives conspiracy theories(and IT is especially no different in this regard) is the narcissistic desire to feel like you're one of the "enlightened few" that gets it unlike the masses of (alleged) dullards out there. Back in the heyday of the IT, you could see the seething contempt they had for people that didn't buy their "theory" by the way they would label them as "literalists"(and they would use it in a way that was akin to a racial/ethnic slur).
Then they'd wonder why the rest of the fanbase either held them in contempt or considered them a laughing stock.
Basically, all you had to do to disprove the IT was ask yourself this, "Would the IT even exist in the first place if the so called "literal" endings were good?",and the answer was, of course not. The whole thing was sunk cost fallacy driven fanboy desperation for a "get out of bad ending free card" from the get-go.
I honestly thought this fanbase couldn't get more embarrassing after witnessing all the romance creepdom on here, but boy did the ITers prove me wrong.
Retour en haut