inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Mar 17, 2019 23:19:05 GMT
I see no reason why they wouldn't. At the very least the Catalyst probably does and his connection to the Reapers is a whole Independence Day thing. So your saying that a billion years ago the exact same tech was created that was recreated within the past 50,000 years? Considering that developing similar technology is pointed out to be a major part of the Reaper’s trap, yes.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,940 Likes: 17,667
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
17,667
dmc1001
9,940
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 18, 2019 0:15:45 GMT
So your saying that a billion years ago the exact same tech was created that was recreated within the past 50,000 years? Considering that developing similar technology is pointed out to be a major part of the Reaper’s trap, yes. Point
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 0:58:45 GMT
There is no "real" ending. People can believe whatever they want to believe.
The ending was meant to be open to interpretation.
mmm nope. The real ending is what is shown and told in-game, by the game. Any modification, interpretation or addition (like IT or "Shepard is in the afterlife") is a personal, non-existent, head-canon ending. People can believe whatever they want to believe? Yes, but it is not a rigorous attitude, and no serious discussion can be established. Nope, they said the ending is intentionally left vague as to stir up controversy. Speculations from everyone, remember?
Instead of having to create an individual, personalized ending, for every single person who played the game, people were left to wonder what would happen next.
Even after the EC slides, you have to fill in the blanks a bit, because Bioware isn't going to do it for you (no sequel). Those are just slides, and the player can interpret them however they wish.
What kind of a player driven choice game would lead people down this singular path where you just believe whatever the writers tell you, and not come to your own conclusions about what may have happened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 3:18:02 GMT
There is no "real" ending. People can believe whatever they want to believe.
The ending was meant to be open to interpretation.
mmm nope. The real ending is what is shown and told in-game, by the game. Any modification, interpretation or addition (like IT or "Shepard is in the afterlife") is a personal, non-existent, head-canon ending. People can believe whatever they want to believe? Yes, but it is not a rigorous attitude, and no serious discussion can be established. So... you're literally shown and told in game that everyone is completely happy about being synthesized... yet, people head-canon that it's something forced upon the masses against their will and so becomes the worst possible choice in their minds. For control, you're literally told that Shepard becomes an eternal leader of the Reapers working for the benefit of the organics and making the Reapers do the same... but people head-canon that sort of "benevolent dictatorship" can't be maintained even by Shepard (the hero they created).
So, how is being literally shown a person who is obviously bleeding profusely collapsing totally not able to be interpreted as that person dying? How is being shown a platform that magically rises upwards (like the Ascension of Jesus Christ) and interpreting that as a use of religious symbolism to portray an after-death experience somehow different than the various head-canoned arguments people here use to discount the other two endings and, in the same breath, defend the destroy one as not necessarily eliminating the geth? How come it's such a great "sin" to say the game is not completely agnostic when, in ME1, Shepard can respond to Ashley's declaration of her belief in God that he/she too believes in God?... and when you can have a whole discussion about the separation of body and soul with Thane in ME2? We ARE shown and told repeatedly in game about ideas that are decidedly NOT agnostic in nature.
ALL the endings are meant to be open to interpretation. We don't often agree, but I totally agree with @magnetite on that point.
|
|
inherit
1853
0
May 27, 2023 15:25:28 GMT
440
kalreegar
395
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 18, 2019 10:14:13 GMT
mmm nope. The real ending is what is shown and told in-game, by the game. Any modification, interpretation or addition (like IT or "Shepard is in the afterlife") is a personal, non-existent, head-canon ending. People can believe whatever they want to believe? Yes, but it is not a rigorous attitude, and no serious discussion can be established. Nope, they said the ending is intentionally left vague as to stir up controversy. Speculations from everyone, remember?
Instead of having to create an individual, personalized ending, for every single person who played the game, people were left to wonder what would happen next.
Even after the EC slides, you have to fill in the blanks a bit, because Bioware isn't going to do it for you (no sequel). Those are just slides, and the player can interpret them however they wish.
What kind of a player driven choice game would lead people down this singular path where you just believe whatever the writers tell you, and not come to your own conclusions about what may have happened?
No, you cannot interpret them however you wish. What the slides are showing, that's canon, that's real (for example, reapers helping organics to rebuild their cities), as long as it is not denied by in-game information. If you want to fill the blanks, you can fill it with whatever is not denied by in-game information. Not with whatever you wish. Nad if you fill it with nonsense, explicitly refuted by in-game information (is the catalyst god? Shepard subconscious? NO: it is an ancient artificial intelligence that resides within the Citadel, that embodies the collective consciousness of the Reapers, created by the Leviathans, which they referred to as "The Intelligence"), you are just inventing things that are not real. If the rule is "anything goes", let's say that Saren is Shepard from the synhtesis-future, trying to stop his old himself to trust the catalyst. How can you seriously discuss with me if I start to made up things like that? People head-canoning that synthesis is not what it is shown and told, or that control will necessarly fail, are doing it wrong. If you see someone collapsing and than standing up again, you have cannot interpret it as a person dying. You have to interpret it as a people collapsing and than standing up again (and being sudden and inexplicable resurrection not part of the ME3 lore, we have to pick "faint" -> occam razor). For the same reasons, the platform is just a platform, as long as someone doesn't told you that it is the very light of ascension to heaven. Mass Effect 3 ending is factually about Shepard meeting with the reapers boss and deciding how to shape the future of the galaxy. It's not about Shepard in the afterlife talking with god. This is what factually/really happen in the ending, and it must be the starting point for any factual and rigorous debate. If we want to talk about the philosophical meaning of the game, ok, of course we can do it, but we must not confuse the two aspects. Can we interpret the meaning of Mass Effect 3 ending as a metaphor about life and death, about the meaning of choices and their consequences? Yes, of course, it's a good and interesting interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 12:36:34 GMT
Nope, they said the ending is intentionally left vague as to stir up controversy. Speculations from everyone, remember?
Instead of having to create an individual, personalized ending, for every single person who played the game, people were left to wonder what would happen next.
Even after the EC slides, you have to fill in the blanks a bit, because Bioware isn't going to do it for you (no sequel). Those are just slides, and the player can interpret them however they wish.
What kind of a player driven choice game would lead people down this singular path where you just believe whatever the writers tell you, and not come to your own conclusions about what may have happened?
No, you cannot interpret them however you wish. What the slides are showing, that's canon, that's real (for example, reapers helping organics to rebuild their cities), as long as it is not denied by in-game information. If you want to fill the blanks, you can fill it with whatever is not denied by in-game information. Not with whatever you wish. Nad if you fill it with nonsense, explicitly refuted by in-game information (is the catalyst god? Shepard subconscious? NO: it is an ancient artificial intelligence that resides within the Citadel, that embodies the collective consciousness of the Reapers, created by the Leviathans, which they referred to as "The Intelligence"), you are just inventing things that are not real. If the rule is "anything goes", let's say that Saren is Shepard from the synhtesis-future, trying to stop his old himself to trust the catalyst. How can you seriously discuss with me if I start to made up things like that? People head-canoning that synthesis is not what it is shown and told, or that control will necessarly fail, are doing it wrong. If you see someone collapsing and than standing up again, you have cannot interpret it as a person dying. You have to interpret it as a people collapsing and than standing up again (and being sudden and inexplicable resurrection not part of the ME3 lore, we have to pick "faint" -> occam razor). For the same reasons, the platform is just a platform, as long as someone doesn't told you that it is the very light of ascension to heaven. Mass Effect 3 ending is factually about Shepard meeting with the reapers boss and deciding how to shape the future of the galaxy. It's not about Shepard in the afterlife talking with god. This is what factually/really happen in the ending, and it must be the starting point for any factual and rigorous debate. If we want to talk about the philosophical meaning of the game, ok, of course we can do it, but we must not confuse the two aspects. Can we interpret the meaning of Mass Effect 3 ending as a metaphor about life and death, about the meaning of choices and their consequences? Yes, of course, it's a good and interesting interpretation. However, it's a person bleeding profusely and collapsing totally without signs of any movement... suddenly and inexplicably finding themselves on a platform that's magically raised upwards (and in the original endings with a blinding light around them)... and then just simply standing up after being told to "wake up." Under no circumstance has Shepard been sleeping. An organic being that collapses due to blood loss does not recover just from resting... they continue to bleed out unless something is specifically done to stop the blood loss... and we are not shown at any time that any such steps were taken either by Shepard before collapsing or by the Catalysts before telling Shepard to "wake up." In addition, what would be the Catalyst's purpose in reviving an enemy just to talk to them about a peaceful solution? At that point, simply leaving Shepard to die ensures that the Reapers win the war and can continue their harvest. The surrealness of the scene is obviously intentional and does lend itself to a symbolic (and religious) interpretation of what the game is at that moment literally showing us. Head canon is required to resolve ANY of the endings... even synthesis. So, how is one personal head canon superior to another? IMO, it's not. It's all part of the same role playing exercise. It's not a case of "They're doing it wrong." It's a case of "They're doing it differently than you are."
The philosophy of writing the game in a vague way to allow for different personalities of Shepard to be constructed by the players and to allow for different moral points of view on the same issues is basic to Bioware's style of writing. Let's look at destroy again. It can be interpreted as being a "deliberate attempt to annihilate" the reapers as an entire identifiable group (which absolutely fits the UN 1948 definition of genocide... as does destroying the rachni queen and several aspects of the genophage, BTW) but also all synthetics. I can absolutely role play Shepard as a racist bastard who is motivated by that racism to be a genocidal maniac. I have to head canon in some of it... but there is enough usable dialogue that fits that personality that I can construct that sort of character within the confines of what we literally see in the game. I can also do the reverse - construct a Shepard to respect EDI's uniqueness and believes that she is indeed alive, but finds himself/herself in a position where to accomplish the assigned mission and follow orders to destroy the Reapers, he/she has to sacrifice EDI and the geth to save the rest of the galaxy. A head canon is still required, but there is also enough usable dialogue to build towards this sort of ending interpretation.
Of course, it's never going to be perfect. By writing this so that such a diverse character can be constructed by the player, Bioware forfeits that sort of perfection in the writing. The player's head canon has to necessarily overlook some things that are just never going to fit into their chosen scenario. I think my religious ending interpretation, however, is equal to all the others. We are shown enough throughout the game specifically about faith and thoughts about the afterlife that the game literally makes that sort of ending interpretation totally valid... as valid as the "believe everything the catalyst says about synthesis" interpretation. We're also shown enough literally in game that can give other players reason to be skeptical about the Catalyst's motives... which leads, in part, to the IT interpretation... and is likely why Bioware itself has never totally debunked it. Do I myself ever use IT as an ending to ME3?... no I don't; but I believe I'm fighting for the continued existence of ALL the possible endings of the game. I don't want to see any sort of canon ending chosen because I've never yet seen another RPG that offers this sort of latitude in constructed the character of the PC. I'm hoping that, for all its flaws, Bioware will progress the Andromeda story by allowing Ryder to enjoy this same amount of role playing diversity as Shepard. Also, I believe, choosing a canon for the Trilogy itself would diminish that ability significantly... and, therefore, diminish what I personally cherish most about it.
ETA: Additional information: Definition of genocide adopted by the UN in 1948: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Article 2 CPPCG)"
|
|
inherit
1853
0
May 27, 2023 15:25:28 GMT
440
kalreegar
395
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 18, 2019 16:30:13 GMT
No, you cannot interpret them however you wish. What the slides are showing, that's canon, that's real (for example, reapers helping organics to rebuild their cities), as long as it is not denied by in-game information. If you want to fill the blanks, you can fill it with whatever is not denied by in-game information. Not with whatever you wish. Nad if you fill it with nonsense, explicitly refuted by in-game information (is the catalyst god? Shepard subconscious? NO: it is an ancient artificial intelligence that resides within the Citadel, that embodies the collective consciousness of the Reapers, created by the Leviathans, which they referred to as "The Intelligence"), you are just inventing things that are not real. If the rule is "anything goes", let's say that Saren is Shepard from the synhtesis-future, trying to stop his old himself to trust the catalyst. How can you seriously discuss with me if I start to made up things like that? People head-canoning that synthesis is not what it is shown and told, or that control will necessarly fail, are doing it wrong. If you see someone collapsing and than standing up again, you have cannot interpret it as a person dying. You have to interpret it as a people collapsing and than standing up again (and being sudden and inexplicable resurrection not part of the ME3 lore, we have to pick "faint" -> occam razor). For the same reasons, the platform is just a platform, as long as someone doesn't told you that it is the very light of ascension to heaven. Mass Effect 3 ending is factually about Shepard meeting with the reapers boss and deciding how to shape the future of the galaxy. It's not about Shepard in the afterlife talking with god. This is what factually/really happen in the ending, and it must be the starting point for any factual and rigorous debate. If we want to talk about the philosophical meaning of the game, ok, of course we can do it, but we must not confuse the two aspects. Can we interpret the meaning of Mass Effect 3 ending as a metaphor about life and death, about the meaning of choices and their consequences? Yes, of course, it's a good and interesting interpretation. However, it's a person bleeding profusely and collapsing totally without signs of any movement... suddenly and inexplicably finding themselves on a platform that's magically raised upwards (and in the original endings with a blinding light around them)... and then just simply standing up after being told to "wake up." Under no circumstance has Shepard been sleeping. An organic being that collapses due to blood loss does not recover just from resting... they continue to bleed out unless something is specifically done to stop the blood loss... and we are not shown at any time that any such steps were taken either by Shepard before collapsing or by the Catalysts before telling Shepard to "wake up." In addition, what would be the Catalyst's purpose in reviving an enemy just to talk to them about a peaceful solution? At that point, simply leaving Shepard to die ensures that the Reapers win the war and can continue their harvest. The surrealness of the scene is obviously intentional and does lend itself to a symbolic (and religious) interpretation of what the game is at that moment literally showing us. Head canon is required to resolve ANY of the endings... even synthesis. So, how is one personal head canon superior to another? IMO, it's not. It's all part of the same role playing exercise. It's not a case of "They're doing it wrong." It's a case of "They're doing it differently than you are."
1. Not necessarly true. Lot of people during real wars/fight were shot/injured, left for dead on the battlefield and than wake up. Lot of movie/books used that situation. Were all of these injured people in the afterlife in the following scenes? Of course not. So yes, an organic collapses due to blood loss/injuries can recover by its own, with no need of magical/supernatural intervetion. The blood-loss can simply stop by its own, it depends. A light blood loss could have been a contributing cause of Shepard brief fainting (in addition to fatigue, other traumas, stress, adrenaline drop, pain for the bullet, etc.). There and tons of possibile medical explanations that don't require a supernatural intervention. And there are even more possibile explanations within the lore. Shepard is a uber-soldier, filled with cerberus upgrades and improvements. Can we exclude that his blood coagulation is faster and more efficient than mine or yours? No need of gods and afterlife, imo. What we see can easily be real, corporeal. 2. BTW, Shepard had regained consciousness (he's shaking his head and looking around) before the catalyst told him to wake up. 3. The variables have been changed. The reapers WON'T WORK ANYMORE. A new solution is required. If the reapers continue their harvest, "they will be no longer a threat" (refusal ending). So the catalyst is willing to allow a new solution. We can speculate about the exact reason (the mere existence of the crucible proved that the reapers are very very vulnerable? This cycle proved so special that this has falsified part of his theories? Who knows...), but the catalyst actions are clear and understandable, on a general level. 4. headcanon is a good headcanon as long as it strictly adheres to facts shown in the game. Used to fill in what is not said/not shown, and not to say/add/invent new things that contradict what has already been said/shown. IMO. 5. BTW headcanon is not required to solve anything. Everything is perfecly solved. There are "holes" in the plot, but in a physiological (not pathological) sense. Omissions, not inconsistencies. Do we know in great detail what shepard did between ME1 and ME2? Nope, but who cares? Not a problem for 99% of the player. Do we know what in great detail what happen to the galaxy after synthesis? No, but who cares? We know enough. If you want to invent things about synthesis it's ok, but it's it's not mandatory. There's no need to specific head-canon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:52:08 GMT
However, it's a person bleeding profusely and collapsing totally without signs of any movement... suddenly and inexplicably finding themselves on a platform that's magically raised upwards (and in the original endings with a blinding light around them)... and then just simply standing up after being told to "wake up." Under no circumstance has Shepard been sleeping. An organic being that collapses due to blood loss does not recover just from resting... they continue to bleed out unless something is specifically done to stop the blood loss... and we are not shown at any time that any such steps were taken either by Shepard before collapsing or by the Catalysts before telling Shepard to "wake up." In addition, what would be the Catalyst's purpose in reviving an enemy just to talk to them about a peaceful solution? At that point, simply leaving Shepard to die ensures that the Reapers win the war and can continue their harvest. The surrealness of the scene is obviously intentional and does lend itself to a symbolic (and religious) interpretation of what the game is at that moment literally showing us. Head canon is required to resolve ANY of the endings... even synthesis. So, how is one personal head canon superior to another? IMO, it's not. It's all part of the same role playing exercise. It's not a case of "They're doing it wrong." It's a case of "They're doing it differently than you are."
1. Not necessarly true. Lot of people during real wars/fight were shot/injured, left for dead on the battlefield and than wake up. Lot of movie/books used that situation. Were all of these injured people in the afterlife in the following scenes? Of course not. So yes, an organic collapses due to blood loss/injuries can recover by its own, with no need of magical/supernatural intervetion. The blood-loss can simply stop by its own, it depends. A light blood loss could have been a contributing cause of Shepard brief fainting (in addition to fatigue, other traumas, stress, adrenaline drop, pain for the bullet, etc.). There and tons of possibile medical explanations that don't require a supernatural intervention. And there are even more possibile explanations within the lore. Shepard is a uber-soldier, filled with cerberus upgrades and improvements. Can we exclude that his blood coagulation is faster and more efficient than mine or yours? No need of gods and afterlife, imo. What we see can easily be real, corporeal. 2. BTW, Shepard had regained consciousness (he's shaking his head and looking around) before the catalyst told him to wake up. 3. The variables have been changed. The reapers WON'T WORK ANYMORE. A new solution is required. If the reapers continue their harvest, "they will be no longer a threat" (refusal ending). So the catalyst is willing to allow a new solution. We can speculate about the exact reason (the mere existence of the crucible proved that the reapers are very very vulnerable? This cycle proved so special that this has falsified part of his theories? Who knows...), but the catalyst actions are clear and understandable, on a general level. 4. headcanon is a good headcanon as long as it strictly adheres to facts shown in the game. Used to fill in what is not said/not shown, and not to say/add/invent new things that contradict what has already been said/shown. IMO. 5. BTW headcanon is not required to solve anything. Everything is perfecly solved. There are "holes" in the plot, but in a physiological (not pathological) sense. Omissions, not inconsistencies. Do we know in great detail what shepard did between ME1 and ME2? Nope, but who cares? Not a problem for 99% of the player. Do we know what in great detail what happen to the galaxy after synthesis? No, but who cares? We know enough. If you want to invent things about synthesis it's ok, but it's it's not mandatory. There's no need to specific head-canon. You're still using a head canon to decide that Shepard could have survived the sort of wound we were clearly shown. You're pulling in different imagery from what you've read elsewhere and seen used in other movies, etc. to apply a reasoning that suits you and works towards constructing your interpretation of the ending. Your method is actually basically the same as mine... I'm focusing on the severity of the wound were being shown and assessing that Shepard was extremely unlikely to have survived such a wound without intervention. I'm using other imagery from something I've read (The Bible) to construct my interpretation of the end. The approach is basically the same... neither conclusion is superior or constitutes doing it wrong. You're just attending to different details than I, drawing on different outside influences than I... and still using a head canon to construct your interpretation of the endings. We're not shown Shepard's injuries being treated. We're not shown him just waking up where he fell. Again... what is the Catalyst's motivation in bringing Shepard to him and waking Shepard up? A logical being would have just let him lie there... having essentially won the war at that point. There was no need to "find a new solution." We were shown clearly that the Crucible failed, as we were told it had failed many times before. Sorry, but not everything is perfectly solved without a head canon.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 18, 2019 18:00:39 GMT
1. Not necessarly true. Lot of people during real wars/fight were shot/injured, left for dead on the battlefield and than wake up. Lot of movie/books used that situation. Were all of these injured people in the afterlife in the following scenes? Of course not. So yes, an organic collapses due to blood loss/injuries can recover by its own, with no need of magical/supernatural intervetion. The blood-loss can simply stop by its own, it depends. A light blood loss could have been a contributing cause of Shepard brief fainting (in addition to fatigue, other traumas, stress, adrenaline drop, pain for the bullet, etc.). There and tons of possibile medical explanations that don't require a supernatural intervention. And there are even more possibile explanations within the lore. Shepard is a uber-soldier, filled with cerberus upgrades and improvements. Can we exclude that his blood coagulation is faster and more efficient than mine or yours? No need of gods and afterlife, imo. What we see can easily be real, corporeal. 2. BTW, Shepard had regained consciousness (he's shaking his head and looking around) before the catalyst told him to wake up. 3. The variables have been changed. The reapers WON'T WORK ANYMORE. A new solution is required. If the reapers continue their harvest, "they will be no longer a threat" (refusal ending). So the catalyst is willing to allow a new solution. We can speculate about the exact reason (the mere existence of the crucible proved that the reapers are very very vulnerable? This cycle proved so special that this has falsified part of his theories? Who knows...), but the catalyst actions are clear and understandable, on a general level. 4. headcanon is a good headcanon as long as it strictly adheres to facts shown in the game. Used to fill in what is not said/not shown, and not to say/add/invent new things that contradict what has already been said/shown. IMO. 5. BTW headcanon is not required to solve anything. Everything is perfecly solved. There are "holes" in the plot, but in a physiological (not pathological) sense. Omissions, not inconsistencies. Do we know in great detail what shepard did between ME1 and ME2? Nope, but who cares? Not a problem for 99% of the player. Do we know what in great detail what happen to the galaxy after synthesis? No, but who cares? We know enough. If you want to invent things about synthesis it's ok, but it's it's not mandatory. There's no need to specific head-canon. You're still using a head canon to decide that Shepard could have survived the sort of wound we were clearly shown. You're pulling in different imagery from what you've read elsewhere and seen used in other movies, etc. to apply a reasoning that suits you and works towards constructing your interpretation of the ending. Your method is actually basically the same as mine... I'm focusing on the severity of the wound were being shown and assessing that Shepard was extremely unlikely to have survived such a wound without intervention. I'm using other imagery from something I've read (The Bible) to construct my interpretation of the end. The approach is basically the same... neither conclusion is superior or constitutes doing it wrong. You're just attending to different details than I, drawing on different outside influences than I... and still using a head canon to construct your interpretation of the endings. We're not shown Shepard's injuries being treated. We're not shown him just waking up where he fell. Again... what is the Catalyst's motivation in waking him up? A logical being would have just let him lie there... having essentially won the war at that point. Sorry, but not everything is perfectly solved without a head canon. shepard did survive in high ems destroy ending. That was why they did the "breath" scene at the end. In real life he would have died but it's a video game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 18:17:09 GMT
You're still using a head canon to decide that Shepard could have survived the sort of wound we were clearly shown. You're pulling in different imagery from what you've read elsewhere and seen used in other movies, etc. to apply a reasoning that suits you and works towards constructing your interpretation of the ending. Your method is actually basically the same as mine... I'm focusing on the severity of the wound were being shown and assessing that Shepard was extremely unlikely to have survived such a wound without intervention. I'm using other imagery from something I've read (The Bible) to construct my interpretation of the end. The approach is basically the same... neither conclusion is superior or constitutes doing it wrong. You're just attending to different details than I, drawing on different outside influences than I... and still using a head canon to construct your interpretation of the endings. We're not shown Shepard's injuries being treated. We're not shown him just waking up where he fell. Again... what is the Catalyst's motivation in waking him up? A logical being would have just let him lie there... having essentially won the war at that point. Sorry, but not everything is perfectly solved without a head canon. shepard did survive in high ems destroy ending. That was why they did the "breath" scene at the end. In real life he would have died but it's a video game. Did he... or could that also be interpreted as his/her final gasp? Does the LI not putting up a plaque actually prove he/she survived hours, days, etc. after that breath? There's lots of people who have held hope that their missng loved one was still alive long after they died somewhere distant from them. How do explain the changes in the setting... Shepard does not appear to be either in the setting where he first collapsed or in the area of the "tube" used to trigger the Crucible to destroy the Reaperrs? Why the different trigger mechanisms. Shouldn't the Crucible been fired in the same way for any of the 3 endings? Multiple trigger mechanisms were not built into the device by the Alliance, as far as we were either told or shown in the game. Isn't some sort of head canon STILL required to interpret that ending?
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 18, 2019 18:21:02 GMT
shepard did survive in high ems destroy ending. That was why they did the "breath" scene at the end. In real life he would have died but it's a video game. Did he... or could that also be interpreted as his/her final gasp? Does the LI not putting up a plaque actually prove he/she survived hours, days, etc. after that breath? There's lots of people who have held hope that their missng loved one was still alive long after they died somewhere distant from them. oh for... Why would they put that scene in their otherwise. I think they even came out and said that meant he lived. That not putting up the plaque was supposed to mean he isn't dead. This is a video game not real life.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Mar 18, 2019 18:39:28 GMT
Did he... or could that also be interpreted as his/her final gasp? Does the LI not putting up a plaque actually prove he/she survived hours, days, etc. after that breath? There's lots of people who have held hope that their missng loved one was still alive long after they died somewhere distant from them. oh for... Why would they put that scene in their otherwise. I think they even came out and said that meant he lived. That not putting up the plaque was supposed to mean he isn't dead. This is a video game not real life. Actually, no. They said not putting the plaque up meant that there was "hope" that Shepard was still alive. They NEVER outright confirmed Shepard's survival in any ending at all. So yeah, in almost every ending you get to watch Shepard burn to death before your very eyes. Or you get "hope" that the faceless torso that twitches once might survive.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Mar 18, 2019 18:39:29 GMT
Did he... or could that also be interpreted as his/her final gasp? Does the LI not putting up a plaque actually prove he/she survived hours, days, etc. after that breath? There's lots of people who have held hope that their missng loved one was still alive long after they died somewhere distant from them. oh for... Why would they put that scene in their otherwise. I think they even came out and said that meant he lived. That not putting up the plaque was supposed to mean he isn't dead. This is a video game not real life. Actually their only comment on the matter was that it could be seen as both.
|
|
wright1978
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Prime Posts: 8,116
Prime Likes: 2073
Posts: 1,632 Likes: 2,469
inherit
1492
0
2,469
wright1978
1,632
Sept 8, 2016 12:06:29 GMT
September 2016
wright1978
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
8,116
2073
|
Post by wright1978 on Mar 18, 2019 18:41:21 GMT
Did he... or could that also be interpreted as his/her final gasp? Does the LI not putting up a plaque actually prove he/she survived hours, days, etc. after that breath? There's lots of people who have held hope that their missng loved one was still alive long after they died somewhere distant from them. oh for... Why would they put that scene in their otherwise. I think they even came out and said that meant he lived. That not putting up the plaque was supposed to mean he isn't dead. This is a video game not real life. Other devs came out and trolled with maybe it’s last breath. the whole plaque thing was horribly cheap. Why are the crew holding a memorial service if they have no clue as to shep’s Fate. Being desperate to declare someone dead shows characters in a pretty scummy light. Just set it later and have shep and their li present(give a basic damn about people with other li) as a basic modder was able.
|
|
inherit
1853
0
May 27, 2023 15:25:28 GMT
440
kalreegar
395
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 18, 2019 21:00:58 GMT
You're still using a head canon to decide that Shepard could have survived the sort of wound we were clearly shown. You're pulling in different imagery from what you've read elsewhere and seen used in other movies, etc. to apply a reasoning that suits you and works towards constructing your interpretation of the ending. Your method is actually basically the same as mine... I'm focusing on the severity of the wound were being shown and assessing that Shepard was extremely unlikely to have survived such a wound without intervention. I'm using other imagery from something I've read (The Bible) to construct my interpretation of the end. The approach is basically the same... neither conclusion is superior or constitutes doing it wrong. You're just attending to different details than I, drawing on different outside influences than I... and still using a head canon to construct your interpretation of the endings. We're not shown Shepard's injuries being treated. We're not shown him just waking up where he fell. Again... what is the Catalyst's motivation in bringing Shepard to him and waking Shepard up? A logical being would have just let him lie there... having essentially won the war at that point. There was no need to "find a new solution." We were shown clearly that the Crucible failed, as we were told it had failed many times before. Sorry, but not everything is perfectly solved without a head canon. 1) no, I'm not using head-canon. I'm sticking to what the game shows, without adding anything. I see Shepard collapsing, than waking-up. Does it make sense? Is it something that can happen? Yes. End of discussion. Do I need to add/invent things to explain this event? Do I need head-canon? No. You don't need god intervention to rationally explain Shepard collapsing and than waking-up. The point is that you WANT to add god intervetion, in order to be satisfied with the ending. So you assume a serious wound, you assume an heavy blood loss, you assume that elevator is more than a simple elevator, you assume that the catalyst is something supernatural in the afterlife, you assume that wake-up is some sort of biblical order like Jesus with Lazarus etc. Your reasoning is not rigorous, imo. You're adding informations and circumstances where there would be no need for. You have to admit it. It's perfectly legit, but not rigorous. 2) I'm not using head-canon to justify the catalyst actions It's motivation are clearly exposed by the catalyst itself. Catalyst: You have hope, more than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever proves it. But it also proves my solution won’t work any more.Shepard: So now what? Catalyst: We find a new solution. Shepard: Why are you telling me this? Why Help me? Catalyst: You have altered the variables. Shepard: What do you mean? Shepard: The crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can’t make them happen. If there is to be a new solution. You must act Reapers are done. Won't work anymore. Variables have been altered. A new solution is needed. The explanation why the Catalyst is helping Shepard is there. Shepard asked, the Catalyst answered. Linear, crystal clear, no problem. But maybe you WANT this to be a lie, or a plot hole, or a dream, and so... you start adding things. Imagining things that are not shown/told in the game. Anything goes.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Mar 18, 2019 21:18:33 GMT
You're still using a head canon to decide that Shepard could have survived the sort of wound we were clearly shown. You're pulling in different imagery from what you've read elsewhere and seen used in other movies, etc. to apply a reasoning that suits you and works towards constructing your interpretation of the ending. Your method is actually basically the same as mine... I'm focusing on the severity of the wound were being shown and assessing that Shepard was extremely unlikely to have survived such a wound without intervention. I'm using other imagery from something I've read (The Bible) to construct my interpretation of the end. The approach is basically the same... neither conclusion is superior or constitutes doing it wrong. You're just attending to different details than I, drawing on different outside influences than I... and still using a head canon to construct your interpretation of the endings. We're not shown Shepard's injuries being treated. We're not shown him just waking up where he fell. Again... what is the Catalyst's motivation in bringing Shepard to him and waking Shepard up? A logical being would have just let him lie there... having essentially won the war at that point. There was no need to "find a new solution." We were shown clearly that the Crucible failed, as we were told it had failed many times before. Sorry, but not everything is perfectly solved without a head canon. 1) no, I'm not using head-canon. I'm sticking to what the game shows, without adding anything. I see Shepard collapsing, than waking-up. Does it make sense? Is it something that can happen? Yes. End of discussion. Do I need to add/invent things to explain this event? Do I need head-canon? No. You don't need god intervention to rationally explain Shepard collapsing and than waking-up. The point is that you WANT to add god intervetion, in order to be satisfied with the ending. So you assume a serious wound, you assume an heavy blood loss, you assume that elevator is more than a simple elevator, you assume that the catalyst is something supernatural in the afterlife, you assume that wake-up is some sort of biblical order like Jesus with Lazarus etc. Your reasoning is not rigorous, imo. You're adding informations and circumstances where there would be no need for. You have to admit it. It's perfectly legit, but not rigorous. 2) I'm not using head-canon to justify the catalyst actions It's motivation are clearly exposed by the catalyst itself. Catalyst: You have hope, more than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever proves it. But it also proves my solution won’t work any more.Shepard: So now what? Catalyst: We find a new solution. Shepard: Why are you telling me this? Why Help me? Catalyst: You have altered the variables. Shepard: What do you mean? Shepard: The crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can’t make them happen. If there is to be a new solution. You must act Reapers are done. Won't work anymore. Variables have been altered. A new solution is needed. The explanation why the Catalyst is helping Shepard is there. Shepard asked, the Catalyst answered. Linear, crystal clear, no problem. But maybe you WANT this to be a lie, or a plot hole, or a dream, and so... you start adding things. Imagining things that are not shown/told in the game. Anything goes.This is actually what gives IT legs. Because we HAVE seen Reapers lying to people, convincing them that they are presenting them with "solutions" "I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines. And in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed."
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 13:29:51 GMT
24,246
themikefest
14,804
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 18, 2019 22:09:43 GMT
Actually, no. They said not putting the plaque up meant that there was "hope" that Shepard was still alive. They NEVER outright confirmed Shepard's survival in any ending at all. Isn't there a filename saying Shepard lives?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 22:44:23 GMT
|
|
wright1978
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Prime Posts: 8,116
Prime Likes: 2073
Posts: 1,632 Likes: 2,469
inherit
1492
0
2,469
wright1978
1,632
Sept 8, 2016 12:06:29 GMT
September 2016
wright1978
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
8,116
2073
|
Post by wright1978 on Mar 18, 2019 23:15:04 GMT
You have to wonder why bioware even bothers with any story stuff at all, they can just leave it down to the player to read the various file names. Just so satisfying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 23:42:37 GMT
They don't tell you where Shepard is found though, however there are several clues in the breath scene.
I didn't need the file names to tell me it was Shepard. There's the N7 logo, and the charred armor as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 0:06:03 GMT
... and that actually says Shepard Alive... not Shepard Lives. At the moment the breath is taken, he/she is alive. That's not an indication that SHepard survives in the hours, days, etc. after that breath is taken. It could still be a final breath without it making such an innocuous as a file name "false." Therefore, it's still a vague enough scene to be interpreted either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 19, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 0:10:43 GMT
You're still using a head canon to decide that Shepard could have survived the sort of wound we were clearly shown. You're pulling in different imagery from what you've read elsewhere and seen used in other movies, etc. to apply a reasoning that suits you and works towards constructing your interpretation of the ending. Your method is actually basically the same as mine... I'm focusing on the severity of the wound were being shown and assessing that Shepard was extremely unlikely to have survived such a wound without intervention. I'm using other imagery from something I've read (The Bible) to construct my interpretation of the end. The approach is basically the same... neither conclusion is superior or constitutes doing it wrong. You're just attending to different details than I, drawing on different outside influences than I... and still using a head canon to construct your interpretation of the endings. We're not shown Shepard's injuries being treated. We're not shown him just waking up where he fell. Again... what is the Catalyst's motivation in bringing Shepard to him and waking Shepard up? A logical being would have just let him lie there... having essentially won the war at that point. There was no need to "find a new solution." We were shown clearly that the Crucible failed, as we were told it had failed many times before. Sorry, but not everything is perfectly solved without a head canon. 1) no, I'm not using head-canon. I'm sticking to what the game shows, without adding anything. I see Shepard collapsing, than waking-up. Does it make sense? Is it something that can happen? Yes. End of discussion. Do I need to add/invent things to explain this event? Do I need head-canon? No. You don't need god intervention to rationally explain Shepard collapsing and than waking-up. The point is that you WANT to add god intervetion, in order to be satisfied with the ending. So you assume a serious wound, you assume an heavy blood loss, you assume that elevator is more than a simple elevator, you assume that the catalyst is something supernatural in the afterlife, you assume that wake-up is some sort of biblical order like Jesus with Lazarus etc. Your reasoning is not rigorous, imo. You're adding informations and circumstances where there would be no need for. You have to admit it. It's perfectly legit, but not rigorous. 2) I'm not using head-canon to justify the catalyst actions It's motivation are clearly exposed by the catalyst itself. Catalyst: You have hope, more than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever proves it. But it also proves my solution won’t work any more.Shepard: So now what? Catalyst: We find a new solution. Shepard: Why are you telling me this? Why Help me? Catalyst: You have altered the variables. Shepard: What do you mean? Shepard: The crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can’t make them happen. If there is to be a new solution. You must act Reapers are done. Won't work anymore. Variables have been altered. A new solution is needed. The explanation why the Catalyst is helping Shepard is there. Shepard asked, the Catalyst answered. Linear, crystal clear, no problem. But maybe you WANT this to be a lie, or a plot hole, or a dream, and so... you start adding things. Imagining things that are not shown/told in the game. Anything goes. You are clearly not seeing Shepard waking up where he fell. Again, WHY would the catalyst bring Shepard to him? The Crucible has failed to fire (Hackett clearly tells us that nothing is happening). At that moment, the Reapers can just win the war... continue their harvest. They don't need a new solution. The old solution (harvesting), will work yet again because the Crucible at that point has failed yet again. So, why does a logical AI snatch defeat from the jaws victory by bringing Shepard to him so that Shepard now would have access to the triggers that fire the Crucible?
Even if Shepard "wakes up" on his/her own (which is clearly not the case since he/she doesn't move until the Catalyst tells him/her to "wake up.")... but even IF he/she did wake up on their own, he/she has no access to the space where the Catalyst is without being raised on the platform... and the control for that platform is certainly nowhere in sight. It's obviously not the console where Anderson was standing before Shepard entered and where Shepard stood only moments before... and he/she never reached the console again to try to trigger anything new. He/she clearly collapses before being able to reach it.
I'm only literally describing what we've been shown... and asking you to fill the "hole" in your interpretation. What IS the Catalyst's motivation for allowing Shepard to gain access to the controls that trigger the Crucible? It's in the best interest of the Reapers that the Crucible just never fire... and that's the state of things when Shepard collapses in front of the console. Refuse even bears this out... IF Shepard does nothing, the harvest continues. The old solution works just fine.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,940 Likes: 17,667
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
17,667
dmc1001
9,940
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 19, 2019 1:27:53 GMT
I'm only literally describing what we've been shown... and asking you to fill the "hole" in your interpretation. What IS the Catalyst's motivation for allowing Shepard to gain access to the controls that trigger the Crucible? It's in the best interest of the Reapers that the Crucible just never fire... and that's the state of things when Shepard collapses in front of the console. Refuse even bears this out... IF Shepard does nothing, the harvest continues. The old solution works just fine. The Catalyst said that Shepard getting there (to the spot where Anderson died, we have to assume) changed the variables. New possibilities were opened up. As I read it, the Reapers were a temporary solution until the real one can be found. This is even borne out by the Leviathan waiting in the wings for that solution to be found. They said so when Shepard encountered them. Theory: The Catalyst took a risk, hoping Shepard would make some different choices. Possible solutions available depends on Shepard's mindset (game mechanics using EMS). If Shepard has done things to create a low EMS, only two options exist: kill or be killed. Medium(?) EMS opens up Control. High EMS offers Synthesis. The more open Shepard might be to other ideas, the more options exist. Perhaps none of that is obvious to the Catalyst until Shepard is right before it. It's gambling that it can persuade Shepard to make a sacrifice for what it sees as a better world, for itself, for the Reapers, for synthetics and for organics.
|
|
ahglock
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: ShinobiKillfist
Posts: 2,864 Likes: 3,472
inherit
9886
0
Apr 18, 2024 23:34:31 GMT
3,472
ahglock
2,864
Feb 21, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
February 2018
ahglock
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
ShinobiKillfist
|
Post by ahglock on Mar 19, 2019 1:50:39 GMT
I'm only literally describing what we've been shown... and asking you to fill the "hole" in your interpretation. What IS the Catalyst's motivation for allowing Shepard to gain access to the controls that trigger the Crucible? It's in the best interest of the Reapers that the Crucible just never fire... and that's the state of things when Shepard collapses in front of the console. Refuse even bears this out... IF Shepard does nothing, the harvest continues. The old solution works just fine. The Catalyst said that Shepard getting there (to the spot where Anderson died, we have to assume) changed the variables. New possibilities were opened up. As I read it, the Reapers were a temporary solution until the real one can be found. This is even borne out by the Leviathan waiting in the wings for that solution to be found. They said so when Shepard encountered them. Theory: The Catalyst took a risk, hoping Shepard would make some different choices. Possible solutions available depends on Shepard's mindset (game mechanics using EMS). If Shepard has done things to create a low EMS, only two options exist: kill or be killed. Medium(?) EMS opens up Control. High EMS offers Synthesis. The more open Shepard might be to other ideas, the more options exist. Perhaps none of that is obvious to the Catalyst until Shepard is right before it. It's gambling that it can persuade Shepard to make a sacrifice for what it sees as a better world, for itself, for the Reapers, for synthetics and for organics. I assumed that when the catalyst said the crucible changed me it meant that literally. That the crucible effectively hacked him and gave him 3 additional commands. Initially before extended ending just 3 commands with no refuse option. But it needed someone to hit the buttons so it brought Shepard to it. The catalyst wasn’t taking a risk or making a decision it had no choice as it got hacked.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,940 Likes: 17,667
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
17,667
dmc1001
9,940
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 19, 2019 2:14:43 GMT
The Catalyst said that Shepard getting there (to the spot where Anderson died, we have to assume) changed the variables. New possibilities were opened up. As I read it, the Reapers were a temporary solution until the real one can be found. This is even borne out by the Leviathan waiting in the wings for that solution to be found. They said so when Shepard encountered them. Theory: The Catalyst took a risk, hoping Shepard would make some different choices. Possible solutions available depends on Shepard's mindset (game mechanics using EMS). If Shepard has done things to create a low EMS, only two options exist: kill or be killed. Medium(?) EMS opens up Control. High EMS offers Synthesis. The more open Shepard might be to other ideas, the more options exist. Perhaps none of that is obvious to the Catalyst until Shepard is right before it. It's gambling that it can persuade Shepard to make a sacrifice for what it sees as a better world, for itself, for the Reapers, for synthetics and for organics. I assumed that when the catalyst said the crucible changed me it meant that literally. That the crucible effectively hacked him and gave him 3 additional commands. Initially before extended ending just 3 commands with no refuse option. But it needed someone to hit the buttons so it brought Shepard to it. The catalyst wasn’t taking a risk or making a decision it had no choice as it got hacked. That makes some sense, at least in terms of Destroy. The other options had to be from the Catalyst. Maybe the Catalyst could be hacked and overwritten. Maybe. The Catalyst didn't seem to think it was so odd though it didn't care for it. Synthesis, though? No way any organic anywhere came up with that. Had to purely be the Catalyst.
|
|