Refuse in the place of Destroy

The crucible is a red herring. We know this for a fact. It isn't the fucking solution. As soon as you make your choice, you wake the fuck up and it never happened. In which case, if the crucible is a red herring. Then you're supposed to IGNORE it. To choose 1 of the 3 options is to follow that red herring down it's herring hole.

Which BTW, this is the only real explanation how what Samara said is true. That only your actions will be remembered. If your actions were in a dream... how could they affect anyone? Also WHO would it affect? The only person it could affect is Shepard, the dreamer.

Shepard wakes up, and his choice influences how he behaves from there onwards. So the most important thing to think about, is what happens when Shep wakes up from each choice.

If Shepard wakes up and charges into the beam, well it won't be like the dream I'll tell you that much. It'll probably mean his/her doom instantly. Even in the case where Rif is right and the third dream never ends. A shep who picked 1 of the 3 options, will charge off to earth and make the dream come true. Whereas refuse shep IGNORES THE DREAM. He'll wake up and from his perspective... that dream is irrelevant bullshit to be ignored. That means Shepard will choose to do something else.

Which reminds me. This is something that's been thematically happening throughout ME3. Is this whole sense of, should we use the crucible or not? Liara is all "it's worth a shot isn't it?"... what if we were given a dialogue wheel there and the choice to say "No, it's bullshit. Lets' find another way." That's literally what the ending choices are, is the penultimate expression of "Are you going to use the crucible or not". It all goes back to everything throughout the game. Some people say we should use it to destroy the reapers, this was the main idea. But then there was the idea presented by TIM suddenly, to control the Reapers with it. Once we're in the dream Crucible, Synthesis is there too because Saren had already informed us of this choice.

Look. If TIM, had vouched for control... without appealing to the Reapers directly? He wouldn't have been indoctrinated. If saren had some sort of Synthesis mentality WITHOUT working with the Reapers. He wouldn't have been indoctrinated. Despite both, still supporting control and synthesis respectively.

So if it's not the choices themselves. If it's not the core idea of controlling the Reapers, or becoming a union of flesh and steel, that are the problem. Then what is?

There is only 1 answer, you know it as well as I do: Working with the Reapers to achieve it.

The problem is not Control, and the problem is not Synthesis. The problem is that you're using the Crucible to do it. Literally there is this guy, called the Catalyst. You know what Catalyst means right?

-It's "a person or thing that precipitates an event."

-To precipitate means to "cause (an event or situation, typically one that is bad or undesirable) to happen suddenly, unexpectedly, or prematurely."

Now the Catalyst is basically, fighting for team Reaper. Correct? So then any decision made through him, is a choice made THROUGH THE REAPERS. He is the Catalyst, to the choices. No, not just Control and Synthesis. That is baseless, and ignores how everything is set up thematically. You're inside this device, that has 3 choices that are a part of it. That means to choose Destroy, the Catalyst is facilitating that choice. The Reapers are facilitating that choice.

To consider Destroy as separate is not supported by the narrative. The narrative is, RGB. All 3 choices are pretty much the same. The ending boils down to 3 endings. To ABC, RGB, 123. Let's put it like this... the WHOLE THING right? The ending. Destroy is part of the ending.

I guess what I'm painting here... is that the ending isn't simply an attempt to indoctrinate. IT IS INDOCTRINATION. Considering there is no reveal, this tells me, we were supposed to figure something out before the next game. I'm assuming, it's that Shepard IS indoctrinated. Period. Which would also explain why they would disassociate with our theory, because we tout the idea that Shepard WON'T be indoctrinated.

Everything is leading to the fact that what Bioware meant by there being a Reaper's win ending... is that THE ending, is the Reapers win. Does this mean, the Reapers win this cycle? I think not. Considering that Mass Effect 4 OST song, Shepard will do something to save the day even within his indoctrination. He'll resist it just enough to do what it takes.

BTW there is loads of conceptual shit, that makes it seem like they intended to have Shepard be indoctrinated. Like the fact that Shepard was going to have Reaper tech implanted just like TIM and Saren. The LI was going to confront Shep.

Also, FYI. Y'all cannot account, for the 2 different outcomes that need to be accounted for if Shep can avoid being indoctrinated. That would constitute 2 whole games. 2 separate games.

Either none of the choices lead to indoctrination, or they all do. I never meant to argue that Refuse is the way out literally... I mean it kinda is. But the whole point is that, Shepard can't even choose that choice in vanilla. It's in some side thing, that basically doesn't even count. The next game won't factor it in, unless refuse also leads to indoctrination.

Terramine wrote: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.

I can't possibly fathom how you could jump to that conclusion. If Shep wakes up in London, and the Reapers are still around, the first thing (s)he will realize is that the damn thing is a trap. (S)he'll be going to destroy the Reaper homebase in dark space or something like that.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

Terramine wrote: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.

I can't possibly fathom how you could jump to that conclusion. If Shep wakes up in London, and the Reapers are still around, the first thing (s)he will realize is that the damn thing is a trap. (S)he'll be going to destroy the Reaper homebase in dark space or something like that.

Nope. Shep will simply realize that he/she was simply unconscious. Just because I dream my trip to the doctor before it happens, does not mean I'll avoid the real trip. In fact, if in the dream, I comply with taking the trip... when I wake up, I'll just end up repeating that decision.

Dreaming of something does not implicate that something is a trap.

Literally, dreaming of something is not at all evidence that something is a trap. It doesn't even imply it. Shep, will just know that he dreamed of the decision he would make IF that's what is inside the Crucible. He'll just assume it was all part of the dream, meaning it was just his mind making up what is in there.

That proves that Shepard thinks there is some sort of mechanism to destroy the Reapers, in there.

Yeah, because Shep is that retarded.

smh

Terramine wrote:This is something that's been thematically happening throughout ME3. Is this whole sense of, should we use the crucible or not? Liara is all "it's worth a shot isn't it?"... what if we were given a dialogue wheel there and the choice to say "No, it's bullshit. Lets' find another way." That's literally what the ending choices are, is the penultimate expression of "Are you going to use the crucible or not". It all goes back to everything throughout the game.

There was no dialogue option to doubt or refuse the crucible because there was obviously no alternative. Any mention of conventional victory is dismissed by someone saying it's impossible. It was obviously Bioware's intent that we had to use the Crucible. They simply gave us no other option. Their intent is obvious in the original endings.

Once again I'll remind you that the only reason the refuse ending was included in the EC, was that many fans were asking for an option to refuse to make any of the three choices, and Bioware were in 'we are listening' damage control mode, and here we are.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:Once again I'll remind you that the only reason the refuse ending was included in the EC, was that many fans were asking for an option to refuse to make any of the three choices, and Bioware was in 'we are listening' damage control mode, and here we are.

Again, even if I give you that Refuse leads nowhere in terms of the sequel. That's kinda the point.

Because, you, still cannot account for Shepard breaking out of indoctrination. First of all, that idea is impossible, as per lore. But it also does not work, because Bioware would have to create 2 completely different games. The same reason you guys point out that Synthesis and  Control cannot be accounted for. You can't account for Shepard not being indoctrinated either.

It's plainly obvious, that Shepard is indoctrinated period. If this is true, it explains how they won't have to deal with different outcomes. It's a single outcome. SHEPARD IS INDOCTRINATED. Period. As well, everything points to said outcome way more than it does that Shepard can break out

Critias wrote: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.

We got the refusal ending because fans demanded it.

The thing about Saren and TIM and what they showed us about Indoctrination is that a person does not so become controlled by the Reapers as they become certain in a cause of action that the Reapers can control them through. Saren was made to believe that by making himself useful he would be spared, TIM was made to believe the Reapers could be controlled and in his delusion caused a lot of harm to the war effort. It is obvious how this benefited the Reapers.

But if it is in Shepard's mind, if the Reapers are pushing Shepard down a path taken by two Indoctrinated beings...then where would Destroy lead in a way that would benefit the Reapers? If we look at the precedents set by Saren and TIM, then Destroy would be...the absolute conviction that the Reapers can be destroyed, which we know they can and is what we have been pushing towards the whole time.

This is from my stand point also why the Catalyst or whatever the hell that thing is, does not exactly recommend that path. It basically states that destroy is bad, you will lose all, the Geth will die, he even hints you might die. It is trying to scare you away. It does not want you to pick that.

Control it pushes more towards, but it is not what it considers best. Comparing to TIM, TIM while manipulated by the Reapers was not for a long time in their absolute control. He believed he could fight them in his own way.

But Synthesis, Saren, he gave himself fully to the Reapers, followed their orders and did everything to please them. They had control, complete control off him. Therefore it is pushed the hardest as it holds no negative intentions towards the Reapers.

Now the reason I think it even comes down to these choices is because Shepard was too strong. If the TIM / Anderson confrontation earlier was in Shepard's mind as a battle between the Indoctrinated and Non-Indoctrinated parts, then it can be seen as Indoctrination trying to brute force its way into control of Shepard, similar to the rapid Indoctrination we know can happen. It would have left the Reapers in control had it succeeded, but the neural decay would have set in faster.

But Shepard is too strong, breaking the brute force attempt so they are forced into a stalemate, forced to try and trick him instead, make him choose his doom. And the moment things move to that stage it also offers a way out because it does not have control of him.

That is what Destroy is to me, it is Shepard's subconscious mind showing him the right path, the way out and the Catalyst, the representative of Indoctrination, is forced to acknowledge the path as there as anything else would be suspicious and can only try to talk around it, sway Shepard with words instead of brute forcing the outcome.

While it is true none have truly broken Indoctrination, both Benezia and Saren could break it for short periods and to quote Thane in regards to Shepard, "You have made a career out of doing the impossible." If anyone can break Indoctrination, defeat the Reapers greatest weapon, it is Shepard. Though I am not ruling out the possibility of long term effects and problems.

Because it has been drilled into our heads from the start, by pretty much everyone, that:

1: This war cannot be won without sacrifice.
2: Dead Reapers are how we win this, no other way.

The Crucible also might be a trap, but we cant throw it away either because we will not win conventionally. Sure there are other ways, like hacking the FTL, but this has not been brought up as possibility and thus we cant rely on it. All we have is a horribly outgunned fleet and a device able to generate vast amounts of energy. Trap or not, we are not winning without the Crucible, not as things are presented.

Terramine wrote:SHEPARD IS INDOCTRINATED.

...for wanting to destroy the Reapers.

That makes no sense.

Must we keep going over this continuously?

Raistlin Majere wrote:But if it is in Shepard's mind, if the Reapers are pushing Shepard down a path taken by two Indoctrinated beings...then where would Destroy lead in a way that would benefit the Reapers? If we look at the precedents set by Saren and TIM, then Destroy would be...the absolute conviction that the Reapers can be destroyed, which we know they can and is what we have been pushing towards the whole time.

This. So much.

I actually can get myself to believe that the Catalyst/Intelligence and their cause is all real, just corrupt. Just as I get myself to believe that the Templars and their cause is all real, but corrupt and I never support them. (I know, different scales, but I'm talking order/chaos here.)

Destroy would still establish the position that shows that organics have outright had enough of the Reapers and pose enough of a threat to them and that the experiment needs to be addressed, and if a solution is really what the collective intelligence of the Reapers is looking for, then that'd still count as one. Even if it doesn't like it, would never pick it, and doesn't support you picking it.
Yes, if its a mindscape ending, Shepard created Destroy to be there. I can just also see the 'Reapers' (or rather a specific AI) allowing it to be there due to their goal. Or being forced to allow it, somehow.

I don't think it benefits the Reapers themselves, and I don't think they're supposed to be sympathetic.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

Raistlin Majere wrote:That is what Destroy is to me, it is Shepard's subconscious mind showing him the right path, the way out (...)

Exactly. Like when Aria and Shepard are trapped inside a force field in the Omega generator, Aria refuses to go down without a fight; she attacks the very fabric of the thing that's holding them captive (like when Shepard shoots the tube in destroy), and finds a way out. When asked how she knew she could do that, her reply is: "I didn't."

I still firmly believe in this specific point. As far as I see it, Destroy is the only way actually out. And sometimes the only way out is through... forcibly.

Aria could have thrashed around that cage as much as she wanted. It was the urgency to find a way out of the cage, somehow, someway, that rattled it enough that the walls were breached. If our Shepards want to survive, they need to pick Destroy and hope for the best.

Yaaaaay we agree on something.

Haha.

Its a hero's journey, at least normally.

Destroy is good good good against the Reapers.
Control is bad bad bad against the Reapers.

Bioware couldn't have been clearer about this.

So yeah, I want my heroic journey with Shepard. I pick Destroy.

Where I think we disagree, is that I still think Control and Synthesis will go places. I just think that they'll tell a different kind of story, with more moral ambiguity, more weakness of the protagonist being shown, and more subjective perspectives being the focus.

Essentially, I think that Control and Synthesis is more of a thematic bridge into the next game(s), than they are of the Shepard Trilogy. For players who love and value Shepard especially, STICK TO THE DAMN MISSION. For players who outright state that they are sick of Shepard, sick of war fighting and aiming for victory, and want another take on things, then go, kill Shep off (heck, people even intentionally did that in the SM)! Add the drama when whatever wakes up has to face down the VS and kill them due to <insert variable>, or something. Road to hell and best intentions and all that. Or attempting to rise above the fighting and come to a consensus, even at the cost of your own life.

In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers.
-Neville Chamberlain

^^ Where I think the next game will go. Seeing an environment so ruined in the minimal material BW has released so far, makes me think.


EDIT: An interesting comment I found

There is a concept of a Pyrrhic victory, where one wins a war but the costs of which are so great that they outweigh any gains made in the war. Named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus who defeated the Romans several times but his military campaign had cost him dearly (he eventually lost all his Italian holdings and a lot of money).

So yes, it is possible to win a war and lose at the same time. And sometimes the losers of a war gain much from their defeat, e.g. Germany and Japan after WWII. So one can lose a war and still win.

The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be called a Pyrrhic victories. Although those wars were "won" in respectively November 2001 and May 2003 the resulting insurgencies are continuing to drain the coalition forces (and especially the US) of both money and lives and there is no end in sight where one can acheive "peace with honor" (a Vietnam War policy which eventually saw the entire of Vietnam under communist rule).

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

Terramine wrote:SHEPARD IS INDOCTRINATED.

...for wanting to destroy the Reapers.

That makes no sense.

Must we keep going over this continuously?

You literrally just avoided everything i said without addressing it. Again, it makes less sense that Shepard can break out. It's impossible in lore. In fact, hey Raistlin Majere... too strong eh? How's that workin out for you when it was established in lore, that there is no such thing? Maybe Shepard was too strong for that specific thing, but he cannot be too strong for indoctrination itself. Shepard cannot break out, that has been established as impossible.

Even if he could, which he can't, but IF he could? You cannot explain how Bioware could possibly pull that off. They would have to create 2 whole fucking games. 1 where he is indoctrinated, and 1 where he isn't.

Raistlin Majere wrote:

Raistlin Majere wrote:If the TIM / Anderson confrontation earlier was in Shepard's mind as a battle between the Indoctrinated and Non-Indoctrinated parts, then it can be seen as Indoctrination trying to brute force its way into control of Shepard, similar to the rapid Indoctrination we know can happen. It would have left the Reapers in control had it succeeded, but the neural decay would have set in faster.

Except Anderson is most definitely indoctrinated. Sooooo how exactly could he, thematically, symbolize a non-indoctrinated person? Even in context of the situation, even if we ignore real Anderson... he's being controlled right now by TIM and he cannot resist like Shepard can. Thus meaning he is indoctrinated even in this example. Him and TIM, are both indoctrinated in real life as well inside the dream. Then again, even simply being indoctrinated outside of the dream, implies the terms and conditions for their presence INSIDE the dream. That is to say, Anderson could not possibly represent a lack of indoctrination.

"While it is true none have truly broken Indoctrination, both Benezia and Saren"

Benezia, admitted that she could never be free from it. She "broke out" but she admitted that the Reapers would always be inside her head and that they would just gain control again.

"If anyone can break Indoctrination, defeat the Reapers greatest weapon, it is Shepard."

Again, this is just hyped bullshit. Even IF Shepard could resist it, it would have to be a reason that does not apply to the normal attempts to do so. It can't simply be, that Shepard is too strong. The only idea in that regard, is that Shepard has his own ability. But first of all, there actually isn't much solid evidence in the way of this.

Furthermore, once again. We go to how you cannot account for it in terms of the sequel. You cannot account for it from a business perspective. As well thematically, in terms of the hero archetype and all that. You can't have both a Shepard is indoctrinated scenario, and a Shepard is not indoctrinated scenario. Also as per Occam's razor, not only is the explanation that Shepard inevitably gets indoctrinated the simpler explanation. It also is the most well substantiated. It's more backed up, than the idea that Shepard breaks out.

"The Crucible also might be a trap, but we cant throw it away either because we will not win conventionally."

It's not just a maybe, it IS a trap. Otherwise you must accept that Synthesis and Control are not traps either. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But also, there's too much pointing to the fact that there is no way it isn't a trap. I shouldn't have to explain this, because it's been explained a billion times. Rif is with me on this one at least, the crucible is a trap. We CAN throw it out. Simply because it's a false dichotomy to say it's either we use the crucible, or we attempt conventional victory. A false dichotomy presented by the Catalyst and the Reapers no less.

In fact last I checked, there is no dispute that when Shepard wakes up. Shep won't be using the crucible. Shep will find some other way to get the job done. End of story, no matter which ending you think is the right one. All I'm saying is that because it's a trap, none of them are any more right. They all indoctrinate.

"Trap or not, we are not winning without the Crucible, not as things are presented."

This is blatantly false, everything that's been presented to us says that again either way... things will ONLY be won without the crucible. You are not even following what main IT says.

".then where would Destroy lead in a way that would benefit the Reapers?"

Within context of the dream, because that's all that matter btw, is at face value what do the Reapers CLAIM. Because even if they're lying, and Synthesis isn't really what they want... that's ok... because that's not the point. The point is, that at face value, in context of the dream... Shepard is making peace with the Reapers. That's the problem, that's the point. So then, in context of the dream where the synthetic VS organic conflict is being painted at face value. To benefit the Reapers, is within context of this. The only way to benefit the Reapers in this context, is not to bluntly let them harvest us... it's to bluntly, help them, with the conflict in question.

The point is that if we forget that, all this is a dream. We look at it at face value... it's about helping the Reapers get what they want. IF in this dream, it was painted that the Reapers simply wanted teddy bears... then helping them, would be giving them teddy bears. It'd be giving them, what they CLAIM to want. Not what they might, in actuality want, deceptively. What Shepard doesn't know, is that the Reapers want to indoctrinate him. That much is irrelevant, to the right choice. What decides if Shepard DOES get indoctrinated or not... is if he/she gives the reapers what they CLAIM to want. Even if what they claim, isn't what they truly want deep down.

Basically indoctrination is working with the Reapers. If i tell you, that I want you to do X. To work for me, is to give me X. Even if, I don't actually care for X, your compliance is loyalty to me. If I ask you to do X, and you refuse to do X... even if I don't actually give a damn about X, just idea of the fact that you won't comply... means you aren't loyal to me.

So the question is, what do the Reapers ask of you INSIDE the dream? They ask, that you resolve the Organic VS AI conflict. Anything that resolves this conflict 1 way or the other, is benefiting the conflict. Which means, it's benefiting the Reapers, from the perspective of inside the dream. Killing off the Geth, resolves the conflict. Aka it benefits the Reapers within the context, that they simply want to resolve the conflict. It's helping them, end the conflict, between our galaxy and the Geth.

But again, the fact that Shepard is inevitably indoctrinated shows that even if I don't know the way it leads to indoctrination... there must be some way. It's necessitated by the fact that Shepard is going to be indoctrinated period.

SwobyJ wrote:*snip*

Shepard being indoctrinated VS not being indoctrinated, requires 2 seperate games. You cannot boil it down to a simple subtle difference because 1 leads to Shepard dying, the other leads to Shepard living. If Shepard gets indoctrinated, he must die... which then means the sequel is driven by a new protagonist.

To create a game where the main protagonist can die, and then be replaced... means the replacement is the real protagonist. But then to also, make it so you can choose to avoid that death and thus keep playing as Shepard. That just can't work.

Only 1 in such a situation can be the protagonist. It's either or.

God I suck at articulating myself.

Either Shepard dies, or he/she doesn't. You can't have both in the game unless it's the ending itself. That would constitute so many differences as to warrant 2 separate games.

Also did anyone actually listen to this?:



Sounds like Shepard is indoctrinated to me. And this is evidence from Mass Effect 4 itself.

Video's description: "The lyrics are about people being forced to fight for the amusement of higher beings. Think gladiator. The sing is about the primal part in all of us that takes over that fights for survival. You know its wrong, but if you know if it's either you or the other guy, something deep down will fight for your survival. The moment of death can seem like an eternity (or so we've heard haha) so "Beautiful still behind your eyes" represents that last moment of life that fades from your opponent's eyes."

Terramine you seem to have missed the fact that I do not believe the TIM / Anderson / Shepard confrontation to be real in any shape or form. To me it is all in Shepard's mind. This Anderson being indoctrinated or not means jack shit, cause Shepard does not think he is Indoctrinated (and I would personally be cautious declaring any certainty on it. Sure he has his weird moments, but just about everyone, Shepard included, are acting weird to some degree in those final parts of the game).

While Shepard has many close friends in his crew, Anderson is the closest to a mentor figure and he was close Harbingers beam knocks Shepard over, thus the reason he appears there. TIM and Anderson to me are not but projections, TIM is the indoctrination fighting for control, Anderson is the part or a part of Shepard's mind, possibly his subconsciousness, resisting that.

When the scene is over the direct part of the Indoctrination, the force full part is dead, but with died part of Shepard's own resolve in the form of Anderson. It forces the Reapers to use subterfuge in the form of the choices, but Shepard is also not quite there anymore either being heavily mentally weakened.

There is certainly plenty of weird things in the Tim / Anderson scene. The fact that Anderson supposedly comes up after Shepard despite no sign of him as we push to the beam, him coming up somewhere else for some reason. TIM suddenly gained fucking magically precise biotics as it is not Indoctrination since it is not affecting their brain, only their body. And the strange wound Shepard has after Anderson "dies."

Terramine, I thought you were done arguing? This latest explosion of, hmm... "forum-hogging" posts do not help anybody -- least of all yourself.

You'd spare yourself lots of grief, if you were to be content with there only being one person here who share many of your assessments of the Mass Effect situation, and refrain from poking sleeping bears. Do not try to ram your opinions down their throats, and they'll keep their own ramming non-personal.
Everybody have had enough time to settle in their own convictions, given available data, and nothing is going to change them, until there is new data to fuel reevaluation.

It is quite ridicolous (...and one might think: "telling"...) how people, to this day, equate the idea of rejecting the Crucible, with rejecting /any/ unconventional strategy; But at the moment none of us can assert exactly what the authorial intent was, behind the blatant Crucible railroading in ME3 -- perhaps the next Mass Effect will tell, perhaps not.