Question about extended cut. (spoilers)

#11george43Posted 1/29/2013 12:06:18 PM
Delta123456789 posted...
undercover_jerk posted...
^ The only good ending is destruction. controling reapers? nope they will control you at the end. Put man and synthesis together? nope why would that be any good?


I think the epilogue implies that Control worked as advertised (though whether the Sheperd AI will become authoritarian or tyrannical is another question). As for synthesis it's less the fusion of man and machine I have problems with and more that the method is determined by an insane, troll-logic spouting idiot that thinks genocide is a good way to stop war. I don't trust the star kid to decide what's best for everyone. There's also the fact that the change is forced on others which is an issue.

I think synthesis would make more sense if we knew more about it and what it would entail. If the changes were clear and would be minor then it might be worth making a compromise if it will bring peace and allow cooperation with the reapers and all the civilisations they represent.

You could make a really interesting moral dilemma out of this (do you sacrifice part of your individuality in order to avoid killing another species, and can you legitimately make that decision on behalf of millions of others?), so it's a shame it wasn't explored more.



Anyone who thinks control "works" didn't pay attention to any of the trappings that are spread out throughout the series.
#12undercover_jerkPosted 1/30/2013 6:20:06 AM
Yeh I guesse just grasping for anything at this point I just wished Bioware could ATLEAST tell us that indoctrination theory is not true so I can have closure on that. I feel that (like alot of people said already) the ending doesn't match with the decisions you made from 1-3 really. extended cut just don't cut it for me.

btw for those who are curious
http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-analyzing-the-indoctrination-theory/
---
playing atm: BF3, FF13
#13Delta123456789Posted 1/30/2013 7:34:35 AM
undercover_jerk posted...
Yeh I guesse just grasping for anything at this point I just wished Bioware could ATLEAST tell us that indoctrination theory is not true so I can have closure on that. I feel that (like alot of people said already) the ending doesn't match with the decisions you made from 1-3 really. extended cut just don't cut it for me.

btw for those who are curious
http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-analyzing-the-indoctrination-theory/


I heard the indoctrination theory was jossed, though I can't recall the statement in question. Then again, the fact that nothing in the new extended endings supports it seems pretty telling. The epilogues in particular seem to rule it out, or else why would EDI and Hackett be saying things worked out? It's a nice theory but I don't think there's enough in game for it to be deliberately implied by the creators, and the creators didn't bring it into canon when they had the chance with the EC so I don't think it can be justifiably said to be canon.
---
DF: So why can a Marauder roll but a multiplayer Turian can't?
Delta1-9: You are fighting female turian husks. You have reach but they have flexibility.
#14DestinPosted 1/30/2013 7:46:49 AM
george43 posted...
Anyone who thinks control "works" didn't pay attention to any of the trappings that are spread out throughout the series.


that implies some kind of unified creation process throughout the series, the people who made ME3 did not care about what was done in the previous games.
---
Destin the Valiant
#15undercover_jerkPosted 1/31/2013 7:51:02 AM
''I heard the indoctrination theory was jossed, though I can't recall the statement in question. Then again, the fact that nothing in the new extended endings supports it seems pretty telling. The epilogues in particular seem to rule it out, or else why would EDI and Hackett be saying things worked out? It's a nice theory but I don't think there's enough in game for it to be deliberately implied by the creators, and the creators didn't bring it into canon when they had the chance with the EC so I don't think it can be justifiably said to be canon.''

yeh but lets say for a minute the theory is true. That would mean basically that everything that was said never actually was said its just the reapers trying to get into shepard's head.

So basically all that time and everything that was going on was in shepard's mind trying to fight off the indoctrination without even knowing it. It does explain quite a bit all the weird before-ending (I still don't know how anderson or even illusive man got to the citadel in the first place) because well it never actually happened. So until there a real valid fact that its not true (like bioware saying it or the last big dlc comming) im using the theory. I guesse the last chance is really the big dlc comming to clear things out.
---
playing atm: BF3, FF13
#16Delta123456789Posted 1/31/2013 8:30:49 AM
undercover_jerk posted...
''I heard the indoctrination theory was jossed, though I can't recall the statement in question. Then again, the fact that nothing in the new extended endings supports it seems pretty telling. The epilogues in particular seem to rule it out, or else why would EDI and Hackett be saying things worked out? It's a nice theory but I don't think there's enough in game for it to be deliberately implied by the creators, and the creators didn't bring it into canon when they had the chance with the EC so I don't think it can be justifiably said to be canon.''

yeh but lets say for a minute the theory is true. That would mean basically that everything that was said never actually was said its just the reapers trying to get into shepard's head.

So basically all that time and everything that was going on was in shepard's mind trying to fight off the indoctrination without even knowing it. It does explain quite a bit all the weird before-ending (I still don't know how anderson or even illusive man got to the citadel in the first place) because well it never actually happened. So until there a real valid fact that its not true (like bioware saying it or the last big dlc comming) im using the theory. I guesse the last chance is really the big dlc comming to clear things out.


What you are saying basically amounts to "This isn't true, but wouldn't it be cool if it was." If you want to think of the game yourself that's fine, whatever gives you the best experience is best, but it isn't canon for the reasons stated. While it would be nice to excuse some of the bad writing and poor decisions by the writers as "signs of indoctrination", the sad truth is that is really all they are.

As for Anderson he got to the beam the same way you did. As for TIM, he has got agents onto the Citadel before and has his new indoctrination powers to make things easier. He's also cooperating with the reapers (he told them about the Citadel's role within the Crucible) and indoctrinated, so they don't have a reason to stop him. It's not said outright but not much of a plot hole.

A more interesting point is why the Reapers didn't take the Citadel right away if they have the power to do so (they seem to do it the moment TIM warns them). You'd think they'd take the seat of galactic power ASAP, unless they are doing the whole "despair before dying" thing (though I guess you could explain it by saying it was costly, but TIM's warning made it worth suffering losses to take).
---
DF: So why can a Marauder roll but a multiplayer Turian can't?
Delta1-9: You are fighting female turian husks. You have reach but they have flexibility.
#17undercover_jerkPosted 2/2/2013 7:29:44 AM
yeh i guesse. Its just because im the type of guy that needs an ending with no plot holes or anything it has to be crystal clear about all of it. Its not the case with this ending. I didnt really mentioned them because there are to many to mention. Then i stumbled to the theory and it does fix some stuff but also causes new problems. Im not saying I believe it at 100% either but I do still take it seriously.
---
playing atm: BF3, FF13