(XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Page 1 of 40 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:33 am

I've been watching a Let's Play and he has Tali dead with the Geth upgraded, and there is the Geth Prime who basically says all of that. So its in game. There will be no more compromise with the Old Machines.

Though taken Literal, Controlling the Reapers isn't a result where the Geth compromise with the Old Machines (if anyone is, its Shepard and the Reapers, not the Geth) and they are not 'relinquishing sentience'. But I still think its an illusion.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:47 am

SwobyJ wrote:I've been watching a Let's Play and he has Tali dead with the Geth upgraded, and there is the Geth Prime who basically says all of that. So its in game. There will be no more compromise with the Old Machines.

Though taken Literal, Controlling the Reapers isn't a result where the Geth compromise with the Old Machines (if anyone is, its Shepard and the Reapers, not the Geth) and they are not 'relinquishing sentience'. But I still think its an illusion.
Ah, okay. So that's what you have to do to see him. Explains why I never have since I always go with the Peace Route.
avatar
Hanako Ikezawa
The Thorian

Posts : 3094
Join date : 2013-01-09

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:51 am

Speaking of the Geth Prime, listening to him it seems like he is sure the Geth will survive the battle. I wonder if that is a hint that the Crucible is not what the Catalyst says it is. After all, Geth helped work on the Crucible and thus every Geth knows what they know in ways that only synthetic life would understand, so perhaps they know the true function of the Crucible ad simply can't say, hence their certainty of the outcome of a battle where the plan is to use a device that nobody knows its function.
avatar
Hanako Ikezawa
The Thorian

Posts : 3094
Join date : 2013-01-09

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:37 am

i didn't agree with your point, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

EDI is irrelevant..She's a single sapient life. Against the backdrop of billions her life has no relevant importance. If the choice is billions dead vs one dead it's morally unjustifiable to not act. You don't have the right to kill EDI, you have a duty to.

That really makes it a question of delaying the extinction of the Geth at the cost of all sapient life in the galaxy. Again, it's morally unjustifiable to fail to act.

Also, Shepard has no reason to believe the next cycle will succeed We could be talking trillions dead before a cycle finds a solution. Just so you can let the Geth fight to the death? That takes a special kind of cowardice.
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:25 am

spotlessvoid wrote:i didn't agree with your point, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

EDI is irrelevant..She's a single sapient life. Against the backdrop of billions her life has no relevant importance. If the choice is billions dead vs one dead it's morally unjustifiable to not act. You don't have the right to kill EDI, you have a duty to.

That really makes it a question of delaying the extinction of the Geth at the cost of all sapient life in the galaxy. Again, it's morally unjustifiable to fail to act.

Also, Shepard has no reason to believe the next cycle will succeed We could be talking trillions dead before a cycle  finds a solution. Just so you can let the Geth fight to the death? That takes a special kind of cowardice.
Every life has importance and relevance. And where in my posts have I said it shouldn't be done? I'll save you some time, I haven't. All I've been saying is that with Destroy you do sacrifice people. That is an irrefutable fact.
avatar
Hanako Ikezawa
The Thorian

Posts : 3094
Join date : 2013-01-09

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Terramine on Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:45 pm

So uh, if the alleged reasons the Reapers are doing this whole cycle... are this whole rebellious AI thing. And you destroy the AIs, you prove the Reapers correct. Do you not? I could've sworn, back on rannoch the whole point was Shepard... was arguing with this thing. And it said, that the current situation on rannoch supports the Reaper's claims. But we technically, just proved them wrong didn't we?

They're only saying that, because in a debate they can respond to your refutation with another refutation. And that's exactly what Destroy is, but it's the finishing move in the debate because Shepard caves in and agrees with them.

At least that's how I see it, if someone could explain this otherwise, that'd be helpful.

_________________
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 : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Terramine on Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:49 pm

That first one was intended as a legitimate curiousity about Destroy. Now, since people are talking about the ending. I will throw a fresh idea out, and I swear I won't spark any sort of argument over it. I'll share this idea, and y'all can respond with whatever and that'll be that. I wont respond. This is just as a heads up, because it's not necessarily pro-refuse. Anyways:

But to me, in a "mind battle"(which is what a debate is), the 3 endings look like 3 different types of /religious thinking/. Synthesis would be the one where you just accept everything blindly, you take the bible as literal 100%. Control is the more refined, apologetic, who knows how to pick and choose to believe what they want. And Destroy is the one where, you've started doubting and questioning and challenging... but in your doubt you still decide to believe the bullshit.

It reminds me of myself, in that... when I'm emotionally vulnerable, I feel a desire to believe rainbows and sunshine. And destroy isn't rainbows and sunshine, but what I'm saying is... I start caving in to the idea that God exists and whatnot. Though I always just resort to rational thinking, so it results in the same outcome every time, rejection.

Now, I don't know where Refuse actually plays in. Because as much as it's rejection at face value, there might be some kind of spin on it. Part of rejection is being open minded, so it's possible refuse isn't open minded enough.

_________________
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 : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Terramine on Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:56 pm

Also Destroy could very well be akin to, something similar to what I do in a debate and something I've seen Paragon Shep do... which is, go down a tangent, agreeing with certain points made... for the sake of leading down a different path than intended.

Basically you agree with the argument on some level, to show how it's flawed even if you start to agree with it. Paragon Shep does this in Arrival when talking to Harbinger, I forget exactly what he said... but you guys have actually mentioned it in the past /against/ paragon. Saying paragon is weak in resolve or something. But that's not relevant here, point is Shepard was being idealistically argumentative.

_________________
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 : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:05 pm

"And that's exactly what Destroy is, but it's the finishing move in the debate because Shepard caves in and agrees with them."


To the Reapers? Maybe.

To Shepard, he's not even debating. He's stating how he'll force his right for freedom past any debate. Renegade is - who'd have thunk - RENEGADE. Blah blah blah talky talky, shut up robot while I put a rocket in your mouth. That's the red-Renegade path.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:08 pm

"Part of rejection is being open minded, so it's possible refuse isn't open minded enough."

Yes. The message is that regardless of what it brings, you must have hope if you want to move forward in any way.

Thankfully, even Refuse carries the message that Shepard hopes that the galaxy is ready enough to defeat the Reapers without the Crucible. He may be the most hopeless, but the story still urges Shepard to think the best (in whatever form) of the galaxy, not the worst (Saren's whole nihilistic spiel).

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Raistlin Majere on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:10 pm

Terramine wrote:Also Destroy could very well be akin to, something similar to what I do in a debate and something I've seen Paragon Shep do... which is, go down a tangent, agreeing with certain points made... for the sake of leading down a different path than intended.

Basically you agree with the argument on some level, to show how it's flawed even if you start to agree with it. Paragon Shep does this in Arrival when talking to Harbinger, I forget exactly what he said... but you guys have actually mentioned it in the past /against/ paragon. Saying paragon is weak in resolve or something. But that's not relevant here, point is Shepard was being idealistically argumentative.

Full Arrival Harbinger paragon answer: "Maybe you are right, maybe we cant win. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign, just like I am doing now. However 'insignificant' we might be, we will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That's what humans do."

_________________
Heroes get Remembered, but Legends never Die.
avatar
Raistlin Majere
N7

Posts : 1089
Join date : 2013-01-08
Age : 25
Location : Denmark

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:24 pm

"Basically you agree with the argument on some level, to show how it's flawed even if you start to agree with it. Paragon Shep does this in Arrival when talking to Harbinger, I forget exactly what he said... but you guys have actually mentioned it in the past /against/ paragon. Saying paragon is weak in resolve or something. But that's not relevant here, point is Shepard was being idealistically argumentative."


In ME1 Shepard just wants to beat the Reapers. His dialogue doesn't have him doubt that the Reapers can be defeated. They face Sovereign, they beat Sovereign, they'll beat the odds.

But ME2 Shepard sees more and more the powers of the Reapers and the odds he actually is facing. He's determined, but knows the galaxy is barely ready for any sort of invasion. So his resolve stands, but slightly wavers (moreso if Paragon). At the same time, when Paragon, he also has more faith in the ties that bind the galaxy and people in it, and humanity's capabilities, rather than humanity's strength.

Passing by the 'ending is Reaper indoctrination and all a lie' concept - Paragon, Control, finds a way to stop the Reapers, while Renegade finds a way to rid the Galaxy of the Reapers. But either way, that's a difference from ME1's stance of just fighting the Reapers and as Anderson put it, push them back into dark space. That is no longer an option. ME2 adds some level of complexity that tells the player that not everything is as direct as the Battle of the Citadel seemed.

Renegade is the person who concedes a point, but not an idea. Someone who would be told a lot of blah blah by some hostage taker, and concede that yes, the hostage taker wants something - but not give a damn anyway. He'll shoot the hostage taker, accept hostages dying, but reason that with the hostage taker dead, well, the hostage taker will likely never take hostages again, so yay!
Its necessary to have some level of communication though, otherwise the hostage taker will just immediately try to kill you (in many cases, this would ruin the situation) and all of the hostages may die.

And that is pretty much Refuse. Sure, you're not engaging as much with the enemy, okay, but that just increases the chance of the enemy winning. Nothing is as absolutely simple in the MEU as 'fight all enemies, win'. There is always a cost to being hostile (social, physical, etc), even as it achieves direct results. And even if Destroy is the right choice, it is still made with at minimum, the acceptance of losing EDI. Shepard accepting it, not necessarily the Player.
This is ultimately okay if your Shepard doesn't view EDI as really being 'alive', or has spoken to her enough to know that she's quite fine with dying in order to end the Reaper threat.

Pretty much everything points to Destroy being okay to pick more than the other choices, in terms of the game universe itself. There is a struggle in many players about it, but I think the narrative keeps supporting it - the 'crucial context' to keep in mind.

Shepard is a Destroyer. We're hammered with that. He can deny that identity as much as he wants, but Shepard is still Shepard. Fuck the innocence of the kid - he's just a projection based on memories that as far as we know, may be illusions themselves.

If Shepard chooses to be something other than a Destroyer of Reapers, well, I'd like to see those results rather than just get a game over at the start of ME4.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Terramine on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:05 pm

SwobyJ wrote:"And that's exactly what Destroy is, but it's the finishing move in the debate because Shepard caves in and agrees with them."


To the Reapers? Maybe.

To Shepard, he's not even debating. He's stating how he'll force his right for freedom past any debate. Renegade is - who'd have thunk - RENEGADE. Blah blah blah talky talky, shut up robot while I put a rocket in your mouth. That's the red-Renegade path.
Well, if you're a renegade that may be true. But if the underlying interpretation you are presenting were true, Paragon Shepard IS probably doing that I said. What you're saying fits the difference between how Renegade Shep and Paragon Shep act towards Harbinger in arrival. One is pragmatically doing, the other is idealistically proving. Which both create the same result. Both result in turning words into actions.

_________________
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 : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Terramine on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:07 pm

Raistlin Majere wrote:
Terramine wrote:Also Destroy could very well be akin to, something similar to what I do in a debate and something I've seen Paragon Shep do... which is, go down a tangent, agreeing with certain points made... for the sake of leading down a different path than intended.

Basically you agree with the argument on some level, to show how it's flawed even if you start to agree with it. Paragon Shep does this in Arrival when talking to Harbinger, I forget exactly what he said... but you guys have actually mentioned it in the past /against/ paragon. Saying paragon is weak in resolve or something. But that's not relevant here, point is Shepard was being idealistically argumentative.

Full Arrival Harbinger paragon answer: "Maybe you are right, maybe we cant win. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign, just like I am doing now. However 'insignificant' we might be, we will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That's what humans do."
Thank you. See what Shepard is doing is saying "Even if we lose, we win". Even if the Reapers are right, they are wrong lol

Destroy is like that, because it's like "Maybe AIs do inherently rebel. But we will solve it on our own". From a paragon perspective.

_________________
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 : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:42 pm

Terramine wrote:
SwobyJ wrote:"And that's exactly what Destroy is, but it's the finishing move in the debate because Shepard caves in and agrees with them."


To the Reapers? Maybe.

To Shepard, he's not even debating. He's stating how he'll force his right for freedom past any debate. Renegade is - who'd have thunk - RENEGADE. Blah blah blah talky talky, shut up robot while I put a rocket in your mouth. That's the red-Renegade path.
Well, if you're a renegade that may be true. But if the underlying interpretation you are presenting were true, Paragon Shepard IS probably doing that I said. What you're saying fits the difference between how Renegade Shep and Paragon Shep act towards Harbinger in arrival. One is pragmatically doing, the other is idealistically proving. Which both create the same result. Both result in turning words into actions.

Paragon Shepard always tries to be something more than what he currently is. That's been the pattern since ME1. He's not a soldier, he's also a Spectre. He's not a leader, he's also an inspiration. He's not just a man, he's also a hero, or even a freaking savior. Possibly up to the level of 'he's not a human/organic, he's also a transhuman/transorganic'. (But I don't don't necessarily think that Synthesis is either Paragon or Renegade.)

What Mass Effect acknowledges is that there's downsides to being the hero of all, or especially the savior - at least is concepts like IT are correct. That being, while Paragon Shepard can be idealistically and theoretically consistent (woo go him!), this may blind him to the brutal truth that the Reapers really are gonna fuck you up because they have billions of years of practice, and will manipulate the hell out of you to gain your trust, no matter how dedicated you've been to fighting them.

Anyway, what I mean is that a Renegade Shepard choosing Destroy doesn't give a shit about Reapers' assertions. It's irrelevant to him. He'll dozily listen a bit to the Catalyst, but not care. But yes, a Paragon Shepard that tried to, for example, Paragon engage with the Reaper Destroyer on Rannoch, could more easily be imagined to be choosing Destroy knowing that in the assertions that the Catalyst makes, he'd be proving it correct about them. Oh the angst.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:48 pm

Terramine wrote:
Raistlin Majere wrote:
Terramine wrote:Also Destroy could very well be akin to, something similar to what I do in a debate and something I've seen Paragon Shep do... which is, go down a tangent, agreeing with certain points made... for the sake of leading down a different path than intended.

Basically you agree with the argument on some level, to show how it's flawed even if you start to agree with it. Paragon Shep does this in Arrival when talking to Harbinger, I forget exactly what he said... but you guys have actually mentioned it in the past /against/ paragon. Saying paragon is weak in resolve or something. But that's not relevant here, point is Shepard was being idealistically argumentative.

Full Arrival Harbinger paragon answer: "Maybe you are right, maybe we cant win. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign, just like I am doing now. However 'insignificant' we might be, we will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That's what humans do."
Thank you. See what Shepard is doing is saying "Even if we lose, we win". Even if the Reapers are right, they are wrong lol

Destroy is like that, because it's like "Maybe AIs do inherently rebel. But we will solve it on our own". From a paragon perspective.

Even Shepard picking Control has its own (smaller) injection of this approach. Except 'our own' includes the Reapers, but now under the supposed control/influence of Shepard's thoughts and memories.

Hubris as fuck, of course, but from what it seems as Shepard's perspective, it appears to be about significantly winning at *something* even as a more militaristic loss has occurred (Shepard died, the Reapers technically rule/watch over, and there is a degree of compromise with the new Reaper mode of existence; all things that the united Alliance force did not consciously intend, even as the outcome would qualify as 'stopping' the Reapers in harvesting everyone).

I just want to clarify that there's Shepard's perspective, the story's overt presentation, and what seems to be its secrets within the script and design. And I think these layer over each other, but also interact. I can't help but feel that even if Shepard is harvested and the Reapers 'win', the result would not quite be something like Harbinger or misc other Reapers. Too much hope! *explodes with rainbow colors*

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:00 pm

if a bullet to the head is agreeing....

But no, Shepard doesn't agree with the Reapers. Paragon Shepard doesn't want to kill the Geth, it's just unavoidable to keep the galaxy from being wiped out. The Reapers have back the galaxy into a corner, and as it's avatar it's Shepard's job to save it. He didn't choose this, the Reapers forced it on him. If there was a destroy Geth live option Paragon Shepard would take it. But there isn't.
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:10 pm

ideals are peaceful, history is violent.

Paragon Shepard is a very empathetic person. His empathy for EDI cannot override his empathy for billions of sapient beings. To suggest that sacrificing EDI to save the galaxy is anything but the only sane, empathetic, logical choice is nothing but the ideological nonsense of someone who's a sheltered fool arguing ethics on an academic level. EDI vs billions. That choice may be traumatic to make but a paragon accepts that burden. Also, the Reapers can't be controlled and even if they could the risk is enormous, unacceptably so when billions, possibly trillions, of lives are at stake.

Renegade Shepard may have a different line of reasoning leading him to choose destroy than Paragon Shepard's thought process, but the act itself is pure paragon regardless. Paragon DOES NOT equal idealistic!

As such refuse is the most cowardly choice of all. The galaxy chose you to save them and you failed to act because of some utterly misguided ideals. Here's an ideal: don't let everyone die. Refuse is such a pathetic choice.

avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:18 pm



"This thing is fucking impossible." -says representation of angry, direct personality traits (Yellow)

"So you thought you'd get a price for him." -Shepard being forced into participating in the Crucible, and might as well choose something if its in front of him
"He asked. Looked simple enough - goddamn it!" - Still doesn't know what/how to pick

"Where's the kid?" "What do I care?" - Child doesn't matter. He's just narrative device as far as the main story goes.

"Isn't there something better we could go do?" - Bioware knows that the scenario is bullshit. It screams bullshit, just like the whole Crucible matter from the start. The time spent building the Crucible was time that, in a different setup with a more early united force, could have been spent rallying the galaxy to strike at the Reapers hard. But everything urged everyone to build the thing, and here Shepard is, speaking to the child and picking a color.
"What could possibly be more important than Zaeed Massani not being bested by some fucking kids' game?" - Everyone is so angry at BW, so angry at the Crucible, meanwhile Shepard prob lies dying in a battlefield.

"You really want one of those plushy toys." - Damn right people want their happy blue babies Star Wars celebration ending! They'll do anything for it, even deny the Reapers' powers of manipulation.
"Goddamn right I do!"

RENEGADE: Stand aside. - "Here. Let me." - Quickly grabs orange. 'Beginner's luck'. That's all there was to it. Want to win, go Destroy. Worry about the machine and odds and the kid and all that later.
"Its obviously rigged somehow." - No, its just Shepard, the only one with the stuff (somehow) to pick Destroy against the Reapers so readily.
"But I just... never mind."

"I'm going to hunt this shit-for-brains "inventor" of this crooked game and pull his inspiration out his arse-hole." - Ha, several meanings here (one of them meta :P), but yes, the Reapers will pay. People will be pissed. Angry orphans looking for answers. Looking for satisfaction.
"Probably some smart-ass, salarian bastard." - Yeah those salarians, the ones with issues of control and uplifting of species.

"I'm going back in. Credits?" *picks Green* "All right." - He won.. something. Got a volus plushie. Gave it to an Asari. Yay!

RENEGADE: Move on. You conquered it. - "Zaeed, will another victory ever match the one you just experienced."
"You're right. Guess you've been around that block a few times."
"A few too many."
The endings are all the same. Or rather, no ending really changes your first decision (though I'd debate that; I did Destroy every time after Synthesis). But the point imo is that it doesn't matter that its a (mind) game, it doesn't matter about getting the very best prize, a lot of this doesn't matter in the end. Either you keep up the loop or you pick Destroy and move the fuck on. Anything else just keeps discussion going until the next game. Refuse is just rejecting the story that Bioware is presenting you with, because you hate the circumstances. But the game is there anyway, and only gives you these choices.





For the record, the Paragon options are:
1)Say please. - "Sure, but even a bounty hunter's got to use his manners once in a while." "Please."
Zaeed tries it. Shep goes "Easy, easy..". Zaaed tries to get the Green one but fails, instead of Shep getting the Orange one. (Zaeed still gets the Green one the second time)

2)Let's play. - "But this time you play with your own damn credits." "I'm man enough to pay for my own addictions, Shepard." "Addiction, already?" "I'm an 'all-in' kinda guy." "I think I knew that about you."
This is more about handing the responsibility to others to make their own decisions. Shepard makes better ties with his friends, but also lets them make mistakes... over.... and over....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:30 pm

spotlessvoid wrote:ideals are peaceful, history is violent.

Paragon Shepard is a very empathetic person. His empathy for EDI cannot override his empathy for billions of sapient beings. To suggest that sacrificing EDI to save the galaxy is anything but the only sane, empathetic, logical choice is nothing but the ideological nonsense of someone who's a sheltered fool arguing ethics on an academic level. EDI vs billions. That choice may be traumatic to make but a paragon accepts that burden. Also, the Reapers can't be controlled and even if they could the risk is enormous, unacceptably so when billions, possibly trillions, of lives are at stake.

Renegade Shepard may have a different line of reasoning leading him to choose destroy than Paragon Shepard's thought process, but the act itself is pure paragon regardless. Paragon DOES NOT equal idealistic!

As such refuse is the most cowardly choice of all. The galaxy chose you to save them and you failed to act because of some utterly misguided ideals. Here's an ideal: don't let everyone die. Refuse is such a pathetic choice.


Having the Geth die makes the decision a lot easier for a lot of people. There isn't even the dilemma, unless you love EDI SOOOOO MUCH that you're willing to do anything to keep her - in which case, you're not being a good person. Even EDI would be 'wtf' at that sort of behavior, so its a good thing that Shepard himself (as opposed to players) isn't that way.

I tend to think of the Crucible decision to work on a whole other level that any Shepard of any of the games isn't used to. It isn't actually the same as anything previously experienced, even if it uses a similar 'language'. We're not just working on Shepard's level, but possibly some mix of Shepard's + 'the child's' level. We have ascended into the heavens and are looking down on earth, in a way.

So to pick Destroy, yes, you're sticking with most of what's gone before and most of the messages we're given by those close to Shepard. Its the human choice, and most of the time, any Shepard has only wanted to be human, and content of ME3 prepares Shepard for deciding to stay this way.

But there is still content that theoretically and in a secondary manner, support or at least allow a Shepard to go Control. It isn't the 'right choice'. It isn't even on the realm of reality (imo), but it still is one, and I personally look forward to something like that concept art of a Leng-ish Reaper Shepard that Ashley points her gun at. Not because I'd even love that Shepard character, but because I'd be interested in that story.

The Synthesis stuff is much more of a, well, leap of faith. It has sentiments expressed a bit in ME2, and in some of ME3, but almost all of that is optional to see, and none of it is based on facts that we know, but instead concepts that we can barely think of. Its far, far, far beyond human, and I think appropriately so. In fact, it seems to in ways be beyond Reapers themselves. So yeah, 'best ending', maybe, okay Bioware - but its NOT Shepard. It's something totally else, and yes, it did betray everyone for a single ideal that Shepard can optionally cultivate mostly through parts of ME3.

~~~

I'd agree that Paragon does not *equal* idealistic. Its just that its ideals are more widely spread, and possibly naive. A Renegade's ideals are more close to home, him as an individual, or the familiar. Even traditionalism is a kind of ideal sometimes, for example. A Paragon's ideals are more welcoming of the other, concepts of societal peace, him as a part of a system, or the unfamiliar. (And that Synthesis thing contains parts of both - the way to make life the 'best' for those close to him, while also for everyone else including the Reapers; at the cost of having less freedom AND safety, as no one can even imagine what the later outcomes will be.)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:55 pm

Well Swoby, I my first choice was control because I believed sacrificing myself for everyone was the most ideal choice. Again, paragon actions are far more important than paragon ideals, and after finding Mark 1 i quickly realized I had made a horrific mistake, and that my paragon ideals had led me to make a decision that was anything but paragon in result.

Synthesis, good idea or not for the individual, isn't a decision one being can make for others. Assuming you have the right to decide not only the fate but the very nature of every sapient being is the most renegade decision of the entire series.
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:01 pm

"paragon actions are far more important than paragon ideals"

Actually, that's an interesting take. One's Paragon ideals are very very nice, but their actions in getting there can make or break things for the many (disaster vs problematic vs peace).

While one's Renegade's actions are very very useful, but their ideals that cause them to do these action can make or break a character (evil vs antihero vs hero).

So a Paragon Shepard has all the reason to pick Destroy. *I* do not think it's a Paragon choice, but its perfectly appropriate for a Paragon to pick - because as I put it, I consider the Crucible to be on a whole other plane.


"right to decide not only the fate but the very nature of every sapient being is the most renegade decision of the entire series."

In a sense. Well I consider it also in that same sense to be the most paragon because of how much it seems to benefit everyone involved (the paragon part), their will regarding it be damned (the renegade part). 

Maybe we should just call it green. I do wonder if Bioware is going to add a green choice to things in the next game, and what the hell they would call it. It just does not seem the same as the blue stuff we see.

And considering how shitty many of the Renegade actions a person takes can be, I also (assuming there would be a green choice added in next game etc) wouldn't assume that all the green choices are as eerie and directly betraying as Synthesis is.

I still don't choose Synthesis because its really fucking disturbing to me.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:20 pm

"their will regarding it be damned" is the collectivist mantra. That singular statement instantly nullifies anything paragon about it. Regardless I see synthesis as destroying everyone not saving them.

Ultimately, your ideals guide you, but it is your actions that actually impact others. That's why I say it's the act, not the thought behind it, that ultimately matters. Now I believe both paragon and renegade alike can come to the same conclusions for very different reasons, but from the galaxy's perspective the ideals are mostly irrelevant in the face of extinction.

There's a buddhist parable where Buddha must kill an assassin to stop him from sinking a ship full of people. Buddhas are considered beings of infinite empathy, including for the assassin. The choice to kill is against everything the Buddhas believe in, and the parable teaches that this choice is not the Buddhas to make. Yet he makes it anyways. Buddhism teaches pragmatism over universal ideology. It's not exactly like killing the Geth, who have no intention of harming others, but the point is valid. Ideals are wonderful, and we should try to live by these lofty ideals, but nothing should ever replace analyzing each situation as it's own event with it's own myriad of causes and consequences. The Buddhist believe the end justifies the mean, however they believe the end is just as importantly about what you become in the process. Nobody has the right to kill anyone, yet the Buddha kills the assassin....
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by spotlessvoid on Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:24 pm

destroy: renegade or paragon ideal, paragon action
control: paragon ideal, renegade action
synthesis: renegade ideal, renegade action
refuse: no ideals, no action

imo
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:26 pm

Terramine wrote:So uh, if the alleged reasons the Reapers are doing this whole cycle... are this whole rebellious AI thing. And you destroy the AIs, you prove the Reapers correct. Do you not? I could've sworn, back on rannoch the whole point was Shepard... was arguing with this thing. And it said, that the current situation on rannoch supports the Reaper's claims. But we technically, just proved them wrong didn't we?

They're only saying that, because in a debate they can respond to your refutation with another refutation. And that's exactly what Destroy is, but it's the finishing move in the debate because Shepard caves in and agrees with them.

At least that's how I see it, if someone could explain this otherwise, that'd be helpful.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the Reapers always win in this case from  an ingame viewpoint.

Synthesis: They are connected to everyone.
Control: They are managing the galaxy.
Destroy: They have their point is proven.
Refuse: They harvest this cycle.
avatar
Hanako Ikezawa
The Thorian

Posts : 3094
Join date : 2013-01-09

Back to top Go down

Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 40 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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