Refuse in the place of Destroy

Page 9 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Maximus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:15 pm

Terramine wrote:No but SEE. This is what an indoctrinated person sounds like. You're saying we should give in to the Reapers. YOU'RE INDOCTRINATED. And all you are, is a Destroyer, defending destroy. This isn't some self contained thing, ALL DESTROYERS must think like this, it's an inevitably logical conclusion of rationalizing Destroy. Therefore, all Destroyers are indoctrinated.

There was nothing rational in my choice!
I wanted to destroy the Reapers because I hate them!
Immah creature driven by emotions, you see!
Therefore my choices are rarely based on logic!

Besides, I'm sick and tired of "godly childs" in Sci-Fi/Fantasy!
The moment I saw that damn kid on Earth...his fate was sealed, coz I knew I'll meet him again!
I shot him in the decision chamber, multiple times! I wanted him to suffer in agony of pain!

Mwahahahaha!
It was pre-EC though, so Refuse wasn't implemented yet, unfortunately...
There were three paths ahead of me, but I saw only one choice...fuckin' DESTROY!!!
I'm goin' down...but I'm takin' you with me, starbitch!
Burn in Hellfire, Cthulu! Mwahahahahahahaha!!!

I guess you're little theory fails now, huh?

EDIT: TOP!  Renegade 

_________________
"And in the end, as the darkness takes me, I am nothing. Now I know how you felt, my friend."
avatar
Maximus
Rampart Mech

Posts : 546
Join date : 2013-01-08
Age : 25
Location : Europe

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by DoomsdayDevice on Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:34 am

spotlessvoid wrote:Destroying the Reapers is literally the goal of every non indoctrinated person in the galaxy.

Therefore it is in their BEST INTEREST to dissuade anyone from pursuing that path who has any chance of actually accomplishing it.

So much this.

But no, it has all been  Ah, yes...  refuted by mr. genius here, brah. Deal with it brah.

Also, this:

ToGanymedeandTitan wrote:The perspective is, that no, the Catalyst is NOT fine with you taking Destroy, which is why the 'consequences' are so heavily laden on Destroy to begin with.

_________________
"A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men." - Anderson
avatar
DoomsdayDevice
Being of Light

Posts : 2960
Join date : 2013-01-08
Location : Probing Uranus

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by DoomsdayDevice on Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:24 pm

Besides, isn't it a well known fact that the refuse ending was added to the EC because fans asked for an ending in which they could...

_________________
"A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men." - Anderson
avatar
DoomsdayDevice
Being of Light

Posts : 2960
Join date : 2013-01-08
Location : Probing Uranus

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by DSharrah on Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:34 pm

Anyone watch Legends on TNT? Basic premise is it follows a deep covert operative and explains how their false indenties are created to help them complete their objective...

First episode...it is said that an operative will make the cover up with information that is close to the truth to be more believable...for example, if the operative is divorced, then the cover will be divorced as well b/c it is easier to mimic the emotions that go along with it.

So, if the catalyst is trying to convince you of choosing an option...you better believe that it would use a smattering of truths and lies to do so. If it didn't it would be too easy to see right through it.

Ask yourself this, if the original game ending only had the choice of synthesis or control...would anyone doubt that Shep had been indoctrinated? Just by including the option of destroy, the catalyst was able to plant seeds of doubt.

_________________
Renegade Shep's response to Starbinger the Reaperbieber stating that destroy would wipe out all synthetics:

"Does that mean it will kill your smug ass too?"



avatar
DSharrah
Space Cow

Posts : 816
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 37
Location : Lying in some rubble...

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by DoomsdayDevice on Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:36 pm

That's actually an excellent point.

_________________
"A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men." - Anderson
avatar
DoomsdayDevice
Being of Light

Posts : 2960
Join date : 2013-01-08
Location : Probing Uranus

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:05 am

If the original ending is all three choices are indoctrination, a minor blip of an extra ending in a dlc only released due to fan rage is not how Bioware would reveal anything if that was really their original point. That's bullshit storytelling, bullshit marketing, game design, etc It's so anticlimactic it's moronic. I'm sorry but thematically refuse = kill every fucking sapient being in the galaxy, how does that convey anything but epic fail?

Also, what is the point of indoctrination of someone hell bent on destroying the Reapers with the end result of Shepard still wanting to destroy the Reapers?

Shepard: Wants to destroy the Reapers. Undergoes indoctrination. Still wants to destroy the Reapers. Problem solved?


Ignoring everything, if destroy really is indoctrination, what does it symbolize/what is it's correlated effect in reality? Lets assume the absolute worst case scenario that indoctrinated destroy equals the entire galaxy is screwed. That's basically the refuse ending. Same end result.

This refuse theory is wrong on so many levels.
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by dorktainian on Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:49 am

i like refuse. however I love destroy.

it's like the first time you tell your parents 'no'. up yours starjar...

''so be it'' oh shit that was the wrong choice methinks.


the all three choices being indoctrination thing - it does have potential outside indoctrination theory, but if shep is as he was before taking starjars elevator to hell, then it's not really possible.

i'll add the rest to CW theory because it does not belong here... pretty much like refuse.

_________________
avatar
dorktainian
Catalyst

Posts : 3499
Join date : 2013-01-08
Age : 48

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by DoomsdayDevice on Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:08 pm

spotlessvoid wrote:If the original ending is all three choices are indoctrination, a minor blip of an extra ending in a dlc only released due to fan rage is not how Bioware would reveal anything if that was really their original point. That's bullshit storytelling, bullshit marketing, game design, etc It's so anticlimactic it's moronic. I'm sorry but thematically refuse = kill every fucking sapient being in the galaxy, how does that convey anything but epic fail?

Also, what is the point of indoctrination of someone hell bent on destroying the Reapers with the end result of Shepard still wanting to destroy the Reapers?

Shepard: Wants to destroy the Reapers. Undergoes indoctrination. Still wants to destroy the Reapers. Problem solved?



Ignoring everything, if destroy really is indoctrination, what does it symbolize/what is it's correlated effect in reality? Lets assume the absolute worst case scenario that indoctrinated destroy equals the entire galaxy is screwed. That's basically the refuse ending. Same end result.

This refuse theory is wrong on so many levels.

My sentiments exactly. Especially the bolded.


Last edited by DoomsdayDevice on Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
"A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men." - Anderson
avatar
DoomsdayDevice
Being of Light

Posts : 2960
Join date : 2013-01-08
Location : Probing Uranus

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Guest on Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:28 pm

What if he just underwent enough indoctrination to become a cybernetic badass, but not enough to join the Reapers? Reaper antichrist? No?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:42 pm

SwobyJ wrote:What if he just underwent enough indoctrination to become a cybernetic badass, but not enough to join the Reapers? Reaper antichrist? No?


swobs what are you talking about? lol you're going to have to elaborate on that one
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Maximus on Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:17 pm

spotlessvoid wrote:
SwobyJ wrote:What if he just underwent enough indoctrination to become a cybernetic badass, but not enough to join the Reapers? Reaper antichrist? No?


swobs what are you talking about? lol you're going to have to elaborate on that one

Like this guy? 0,o

_________________
"And in the end, as the darkness takes me, I am nothing. Now I know how you felt, my friend."
avatar
Maximus
Rampart Mech

Posts : 546
Join date : 2013-01-08
Age : 25
Location : Europe

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Guest on Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:51 am

Yes. <3 ya Maximus, you got it.

By indoctrination, I mean cybernetics, nanite conversion. I don't mean control by Reapers. We use terms like 'Reaper' and 'indoctrination' and 'control', but only the side information actually explains that this just means 'old machine', 'rewriting', 'data transfer'.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:31 am

DoomsdayDevice wrote:
spotlessvoid wrote:Destroying the Reapers is literally the goal of every non indoctrinated person in the galaxy.

Therefore it is in their BEST INTEREST to dissuade anyone from pursuing that path who has any chance of actually accomplishing it.

So much this.

But no, it has all been  Ah, yes...  refuted by mr. genius here, brah. Deal with it brah.

Also, this:

ToGanymedeandTitan wrote:The perspective is, that no, the Catalyst is NOT fine with you taking Destroy, which is why the 'consequences' are so heavily laden on Destroy to begin with.
Watch this, I will refute that specific argument: Refuse is a destroy the Reapers ending. Every bit of dialogue mentioning destroying the Reapers, supports refuse too. In fact, with all the dialogue about sticking to your resolve and not caving into the reapers AT ALL it thematically fits Refuse ONLY, it does not at all apply to Destroy. Bam.

Also, I'm going to have to ask for proof that the Catalyst is against Destroy. He suggests it, he doesn't at all have any conflict with Destroy other than he seems to be MOST in favor of Synthesis. But I'm surprised, that you guys think this is his real intention anyways. It's a mind battle, one that you won't bluntly see his intentions. He's playing mind games, in this case reverse psychology. He's barely acting like Destroy is all that bad, he's making it his least preferred(but still accepted) choice... which is how reverse psychology works when you're trying to be subtle about it.

However he bluntly hates Refuse and is 1000000% against it. You want to claim he is AGAINST Destroy which is different from perferring least, supply some evidence.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2466
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 23
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:35 am

SwobyJ wrote:Yes. <3 ya Maximus, you got it.

By indoctrination, I mean cybernetics, nanite conversion. I don't mean control by Reapers. We use terms like 'Reaper' and 'indoctrination' and 'control', but only the side information actually explains that this just means 'old machine', 'rewriting', 'data transfer'.
This is completely baseless, in fact they framed the narrative against this by saying nobody can resist. I can imagine, the way to break away from this is to stick 100% to ignoring Reaper influence. Either that, or they wanted to show us what indoctrination is like and Shep is inevitably indoctrinated. IMO

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2466
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 23
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:53 am

TurianRebel212 wrote:Okay, so the crucibles choices or "paths" well none of them are legit in terms of a real perepective. There is no Destroy the Reapers and everyone lives happily ever after and the reapers are defeated. Nope.


You just wake up. That's it. You still have to finish the fight.

Which is what makes IT so strong to begin with it, IT leaves room for a legit sequel to ME3.

Also, and yet again this is redundant because Holy fuck have we gone over this over and over again. But thematically the core ideas and themes of what Mass Effect and Shepard is are represented with Destroy vs. the other choices. I mean, again you have to look at the dreams and the ending (as it's a dream also, remember?) from a thematic perspective.

Which IT does in spades. Again, only strengthening it's legitimacy by doing so.
"Okay, so the crucibles choices or "paths" well none of them are legit in terms of a real perepective. There is no Destroy the Reapers and everyone lives happily ever after and the reapers are defeated. Nope. "

And yet you then become a hypocrite and contradict this when it comes to Refuse. Refuse is the same bro, what you see doesn't literally happen.

And when you look at Destroy, Shepard CONSENTS to everything you go on to see afterwards. In Refuse, it's 100% the catalyst claiming the Reapers will continue the cycle and Shepard is like "No it won't". So what we see afterwards, is against Shepard's intent.

Basically, what we see in refuse is Reaper propaganda. in fact, in all 3 choices this is also true, it's just that in the 3 main choices Shepard BELIEVES the propaganda.

Also look at that, I proved Rif wrong.

TurianRebel212 wrote:
I guess, I mean refuse is pretty obviously a reaper trick once again. Accept it literally shows you what happens.

-Death of Shepard
-Loss of cycle
-Reaper Harvest completed.


I mean the whole after credits stargazer asari scene with the "well da shepard showed us da way so our cycle could beat da reapez" is really fvckin' herp derp and yet again a 4th wall break. But like you said, this has been showed over and over and over again. So.... Yeah.

You're not supposed to pay attention to what is shown. That's Reaper propaganda. Following your logic. What do we see in Synthesis:

-Peace
-Victory
-Happiness for everybody

Control:

-Control
-Victory
-Happiness for most

Destroy;

-Destruction
-Victory
-Sacrifice of a squadmate and an entire species

You guys acknowledge, that following this... Synthesis looks like the best option. This is how the Catalyst "supports" Synthesis according to y'all, because it's twisted Reaper propaganda. But when taken literally, Synthesis IS superior to Destroy.

So if you don't look at the other 3 endings this way, why do you look at refuse that way?


Last edited by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:57 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2466
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 23
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:55 am

In a mind battle what matters is RESOLVE. Not what the endings show you at face value. Only in Refuse is Shepard's resolve in tact 100%. In Destroy he defers to the Reapers. I've had you guys even admit this, and you still claim Destroy is the right choice. What.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2466
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 23
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Rifneno on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:21 am


_________________
Remember folks.  We didn't get A, B, C endings.  We got A, A, A endings.
avatar
Rifneno
Honey Badger

Posts : 2620
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 36
Location : Razgriz Straits

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:22 am

ToGanymedeandTitan wrote:Uhhh...

First, there are two very fundamental differences in the results of Destroy vs that of Control/Synthesis. One, Destroy doesn't involve keeping the Reapers alive. As far as we know, the Reapers are destroyed when that choice is taken. Two, when you opt for that choice, you aren't 'giving in' to anything because the results are immediate destruction, and there's no way in hell that the Reapers would even want that. And you still haven't answered why the consequences are laden on this but not on Control/Synthesis. If they were perfectly okay with that choice being there they wouldn't have bothered with that.

After all, Synthesis/Control ARE EVIDENTLY DISTINCT from Destroy, and for a damn good reason.

Besides, all Destroyers thinking a certain way does not mean they have been indoctrinated, what the hell? If anything, it means they HAVEN'T because the whole galaxy basically is calling for their destruction and a few select people have been gunning for control/synthesis. There's no way that the way of thinking for Destroy itself is inherent in indoctrination. Unless you're somehow suggesting that the Reapers are alive after Destroy; as much as the endings oversimplify everything going down with Control/Synthesis, the fact remains that the Reapers are alive in those and that they die in Destroy. THAT we can be sure of.

The 'deal' with the Reapers is broken if you make that choice. Nothing about what Anderson says means he's indoctrinated. Just because 'thematically speaking' he has had that same 'growth journey' as those who were indoctrinated, it's the same for every creature in the cosmos calling for the Reapers' heads.

The two may be similar at a glance but they aren't one and the same. So don't put the choices together as if they mean the exact same thing because they really, really don't. There's a huge difference between TIM 'making use of the resources' by ALLYING himself with the Reapers, and Shepard 'making use of them' as a means to simply stab them in the back. Fundamentally they rely on completely different thought processes.
Actually, control and Synthesis are very distinct from each other too. And your logic doesn't add up.

The Illusive Man believed he was against the Reapers even well past the point where it was certain he was indoctrinated. At the very end, last confrontation with him... he was claiming to still be against the Reapers. That he is going to stop them by controlling them. Then if and when he kills Shepard, he walks AWAY from the control panel.

It's NOT just that control will fail. You can't argue that. Because TIM doesn't even ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THEM. How can he fail, if he doesn't try? So trying to claim, that the difference between Destroy and Control is that even if TIM still tried to control the Reapers he'd fail cause control aint possible... is nonsense.

Haven't you ever heard of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Google it. Destroy Shep would look identical to The Illusive Man, talking about how he's going to Destroy the Reapers... but you gotta let him do all this other bullshit FIRST he SWEARS it will lead to their destruction. Meanwhile, he's shooting his own squadmates claiming it will lead to him destroying the Reapers.

That's the narrative Shepard accepts in Destroy isn't it? That he has to sacrifice Edi, a squadmate... to achieve his goal? So why wouldn't this line of thought, be able to lead him to kill ALL of his squadmates under the impression it'll stop the Reapers? Listen to the Attitude of Saren and TIM. TIM is bluntly against the Reaper's even having any sort of agency. Saren is against their harvest, he believes making peace will spare people from the harvest.  "MY way is the ONLY way ANYONE will survive" - Saren

Also... all Destroyers must believe they have to sell their soul to the Reapers... and that doesn't mean they're all indoctrinated? LMAO


Last edited by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:26 am; edited 2 times in total

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2466
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 23
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:23 am

Rifneno wrote:
Sup, indoctrinated scum.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2466
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 23
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Rifneno on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:46 am

Terramine wrote:
Rifneno wrote:
Sup, indoctrinated scum.

Just marking idiot threads as read, Reaper's bitch.

_________________
Remember folks.  We didn't get A, B, C endings.  We got A, A, A endings.
avatar
Rifneno
Honey Badger

Posts : 2620
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 36
Location : Razgriz Straits

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by spotlessvoid on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:51 am

Allows EDI to die to save the galaxy
Next step wipe out every living being

you are a silly silly person
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Critias on Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:36 pm

Hello Guys, 1st I wanna say, excuse me for my bad english I'm trying my best.
I just recently found out about the IT and I started playing ME 1-3 last December (thank god for that steam sale or I would have never bought it).

Im currently rolling with the refusal option as the best in my opinion, because I also believe this the choice the starkid wants the least and from all that I've read, they want Shepard as a Reaper agent to be as "natural" as possible and picking destroy is again IMO exactly that, making him believe he makes the right choice.

I remember seeing a tweet from someone at bioware saying something along the lines like, they want to wait for more and more players to experience the game before they reveal the ending and after that we got the EC and the refusal option, it just makes so much sense to me. Also if you pick destroy, which seems like the true option and have high enough EMS you get the breath scene, but with refusal it looks like the cycle lost and everyone died, I think thats also switched around by the reapers, I read a threat here where someone let his brother play ME 1-3 and he chose I think control because he thought it was paragon and not destroy because it was renegade from his point of view, so it could be thats also the case since I believe the reapers show you the images after picking an option.

Anyway thats just my opinion about it which makes more sense to me than the others. What do you think about it?:)

Critias
Drone

Posts : 2
Join date : 2014-10-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by dorktainian on Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:06 pm

Critias wrote:Hello Guys, 1st I wanna say, excuse me for my bad english I'm trying my best.
I just recently found out about the IT and I started playing ME 1-3 last December (thank god for that steam sale or I would have never bought it).

Im currently rolling with the refusal option as the best in my opinion, because I also believe this the choice the starkid wants the least and from all that I've read, they want Shepard as a Reaper agent to be as "natural" as possible  and picking destroy is again IMO exactly that, making him believe he makes the right choice.

I remember seeing a tweet from someone at bioware saying something along the lines like, they want to wait for more and more players to experience the game before they reveal the ending and after that we got the EC and the refusal option, it just makes so much sense to me. Also if you pick destroy, which seems like the true option and have high enough EMS you get the breath scene, but with refusal it looks like the cycle lost and everyone died, I think thats also switched around by the reapers, I read a threat here where someone let his brother play ME 1-3 and he chose I think control because he thought it was paragon and not destroy because it was renegade from his point of view, so it could be thats also the case since I believe the reapers show you the images after picking an option.

Anyway that's just my opinion about it which makes more sense to me than the others. What do you think about it?:)

another thing is that the refuse ending does not show shepard dying. Only him being on the citadel (or is it? i dont think it is... but that's another story) when the crucible is turned off. I kinda agree in a way that Refusal is the very thing starjar does not want. It wants Shepard to choose from the three options.... the three options it gives you. Where was the choice to tell the kid to fuck off? Well we got that with refuse (in a way) and it didn't clarify anything at all. If anything it only annoyed people more by telling us that we fucked up by not choosing.

Congrats us. We killed everyone from our inaction.

There is an argument that when shep wakes up in the destroy ending that he isn't quite himself, and may indeed now be working for the reapers. There are other theories which are discussed both on these forums and others such as clevernoobs.

As it stands at the moment nobody is correct. There are no definite answers yet.

_________________
avatar
dorktainian
Catalyst

Posts : 3499
Join date : 2013-01-08
Age : 48

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Critias on Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:51 pm

dorktainian wrote:
another thing is that the refuse ending does not show shepard dying. Only him being on the citadel (or is it?  i dont think it is... but that's another story) when the crucible is turned off.  I kinda agree in a way that Refusal is the very thing starjar does not want.  It wants Shepard to choose from the three options.... the three options it gives you.  Where was the choice to tell the kid to fuck off?  Well we got that with refuse (in a way) and it didn't clarify anything at all.  If anything it only annoyed people more by telling us that we fucked up by not choosing.

Congrats us.  We killed everyone from our inaction.

There is an argument that when shep wakes up in the destroy ending that he isn't quite himself, and may indeed now be working for the reapers.  There are other theories which are discussed both on these forums and others such as clevernoobs.

As it stands at the moment nobody is correct.  There are no definite answers yet.
Yeah and judging from what BW has said and done so far we are never going to find that out, but I do wish ME4, DLC or an Add-On would clarify everything

But the thing I dont understand is crucible means translated in german "Feuerprobe" which basically means 2 things
1. Test of highest quality and endurance - can you hold up to everything you've done so far and prove you are able to break free
2. An ordeal in the middel ages where you judge a person guilty or innocent by forcing him touch glowing iron and look at how the wound heals. - Could this have to do with the different kind of endings as "trying to heal form indoctrination" and if you want to go supernatural like controlling reapers, synthesis or destroying all reapers you are going to be guilty and therefore indoctrinated? Since in the middle ages magic was a big no-no - guilty/indoctrinated and refusal is the only choice that doesnt include space magic which would mean innocent / not indoctrinated.

And why the heck does the crucible only work with the citadel which was a trap from the reapers? To me that as a stand-alone fact is enough evidence to support the IT. You cant play PS3 games on Xbox 360...unless the developers make that possible! Therefore the reapers knew about the crucible all along why should they let someone develop a weapon to destroy them? Unless its a trap

I could be entirely wrong though..

Critias
Drone

Posts : 2
Join date : 2014-10-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:43 pm

Ok first of all, can we stop saying Destroy is refusal? Because it's not. That is a big fat lie. That would essentially mean there is 2 refusal endings. There isn't, there is only 1 and you either shoot the catalyst or verbally tell him to fuck off. That is refusal. Just clarifying, because saying "Destroy is refusal" really pisses me off. Everything within the narrative, says it isn't any sort of refusal. Deal with it.

Also everyone who keeps pointing out the Reapers are still alive in Refuse. Well you know what else y'all talk about? That Destroy's breath scene somehow implicates acknowledging things aren't over. But not only is this not true, as per the breath scene being WITHIN the context that the Reapers have ALREADY been Destroyed. But Refuse is actually the ending where this is true.

Refuse is the only ending that thematically acknowledges that things aren't over. That there's still shit left to do. That's all btw, it DOESN'T imply that Shepard gives up. If anything, it implies finding another way. So a Shepard that wakes up from Refuse, is fully aware that it's not over, AND he's ready to look for another way. If Shepard, wakes up from Destroy. He is neither aware that the Reapers weren't Destroyed, nor is he aware that he needs to use a different method.

IN FACT THAT'S JUST IT. IF SHEPARD USES THE CRUCIBLE AND HE WAKES UP? HE'S GOING TO THINK THAT'S WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO WHEN HE WAKES UP. HE'LL CHARGE INTO THE BEAM ALL OVER AGAIN, WHICH ISN'T WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. BECAUSE THE CRUCIBLE WAS A TRAP TO BEGIN WITH. DESTROY SHEP WON'T REALIZE THIS THOUGH WHEN HE WAKES UP.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2466
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 23
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 9 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum