57139 réponses à ce sujet

[NeoDobby]

Hmm, I don't like this. The thread is slow, no real discussion going on right now, so I am tempted to leave for now. But I don't want to miss the 2000 so I'm stuck here. Anything we could discuss? I'd even take the mating rituals of Protheans at this point ...

[MaximizedAction]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

polor89 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Kairi Hawke wrote...

has the theory been confirmed as true or false yet. Sorry im just curious.

The EC will confirm it, the content will speak for itself.

how are you so sure? i give a 30%(and i am been very generous)that the indoc. ther. will be true 

I think Balance meant that the EC will clarify whether IT is true or false. 

My guess is: >50% likely that Shepard was indoctrinated. In what way, or since when and what was real, aka IT, 50%

Sorry, but how the FRAK can anyone put a percentage on this?  It's completely subjective and up to Bioware. 

This isn't like calculating the odds of winning the lottery. 

(Which is about the same as being attacked by a polar bear and a regular bear on the same day.) 

Max - at least you said it was a guess.  So... 

Fair objection. Let me restate it:

IT in its current state in this thread, e.g. the hallucination started after Harby's laser to the knee, aka quite specific in its claims, something between 0% and 100%

An indoctrinated Shepard: more then likely, since the in-game evidence is crushingly for it, hence a higher percentage.

At least, this is how the experimental physicist in me wants to put it: in numbers. Number's rule, yayyy

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 03 mai 2012 - 09:08 .

[Kyzee]

HellishFiend wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Dante, you're right. The Starbrat's reasoning could be sound. But its logic is obviously framed around a value system incompatible with our own. 

I said it before and I'll say it again: "value systems" have no business in a logical analysis. Logic is a mathematical process that determines if an argument is valid or invalid. Values are opinions and do not affect whether or not logic is well formed or poorly formed. Starbrat's logic can be picked apart and destroyed regardless of the value system or objectivity of the analyst.

But this isn't strictly logical analysis. We're analyzing the Catalyst's/Reapers' reasoning and judgment calls.

Think of it more this way.

1. Organics will create synthetics.
2. Synthetics and organics will go into conflict.
3. A singularity with unchecked growth and aggression will threaten all organic life.
4. Preserving organic life is important.
5. Reaperizing a species preserves what is important about that species and provides a better form of existence.
6. The needs of the galaxy outweigh the needs of its current inhabitants.
7. The reapers know better than anyone else and have a responsibility/authority over all other life.

Therefore the reapers must implement a plan that prevents hard-takeoff singularities from forming.

And they judgement call they decided upon was to reaperize civilizations at a certain technological level. Yes, there are numerous premises that aren’t strictly factual.

#1 and #2 are verified truths
#3 is something they don’t want to risk verifying. It’s like assuming that human civilization will not endure a global nuclear exchange. You have plenty reason to believe it and not test it out.*
#4, #5, #6, and #7 are all based on the reapers’ value system.

Obviously #5, #6, and #7 clash with our own value systems. But without further information to examine them these remain fundamentally subjective premises. They could appear correct to the reapers and incorrect to us. So from our perspective the argument isn’t sound. But it is valid. (There are strict definitions of these terms.)

Validity: A property of arguments. An argument is valid if the conclusion must be true in any circumstance in which the premises are true.
Soundness:  An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true.

I of course still don't buy it. But the possibility is open that the Catalyst was laying down the genuine reaper agenda and that it does make sense, from their point of view. And this doesn't contradict IT, since remember that indoctrination is all about altering the subject's values and perspective to align with those of the reapers.

* It actually got pretty close to being confirmed, if you remember Project Overlord.

Sorry Simon but a lot of that is just wrong. 

• If you are to judge the values/morals of a logical conclusion, first the conclusion must be logically sound. If it were strictly an opinion, that would be another matter. But what is being put up for ethical judgement is a CONCLUSION, not an opinion.
• 1 is not a proven fact. It is a statistical probability. That can be used in the formation of assumptions, but not factual conclusions
• 2, same as above
• 3  is an assumption that is derived from statistical probabilities and historical trends.
• 4-7 is all subjective, which is fine, but it needs to be PRESENTED as being subjective. Starbrat presents it as irrefutable fact, which is flat out wrong

I think that by the time the starchild's logic gets into your head for analysis, you put it in the context of an opinion, when the Starchild is most definitely not presenting it as such. He is presenting it as fact. If it were to be reworded in the manner you guys are interpreting it, that would be fine. Loosely, it would look something like this:

Starbrat: "Based on our experience and analysis, we find it likely that the created will always rebel against their creators. We have also analyzed the development trends of purely Synthetic life, and given those trends, we've concluded if a patricidal synthetic race were to reach the point of Technological Singularity, Synthetic lifeforms would supplant Organic development indefinitely. We've concluded that the safest course of action is to prevent that irreversible scenario from ever having a chance to develop."

Wording it in that fashion changes it from a fallacious conclusion to a logical one, which is then subject to ethical debate. I believe you guys are interpreting the starbrat's drivel as if it were properly worded like above, but it is not. It is worded as a factual conclusion (Like, dogs are mammals, Brian is a dog, therefore Brian is a mammal), which is inarguably fallacious since the premises are NOT FACTS. 

Oh my god, having such a flashback to when I took Logic course in college. Thanks, HellishFiend! 

[MaximizedAction]

NeoDobby wrote...

Hmm, I don't like this. The thread is slow, no real discussion going on right now, so I am tempted to leave for now. But I don't want to miss the 2000 so I'm stuck here. Anything we could discuss? I'd even take the mating rituals of Protheans at this point ...

Hey, it was mating rutuals among Collectors.

And it was a hell of a Bachelor party!

[marcelo_sdk]

Supposing IT is true, what the Crucible really does? They said it alters dark matter and use the relay tech to reach any place in the galaxy. But it's just an energy weapon or something else?

[TheConstantOne]

Salient Archer wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...

Salient Archer wrote...

*snip*

So, that’s my rant out of the way! I’d love to hear thought and opinions from either side of the IT camps

Pretty well reasoned.  A lot of thoughts of this variety were going around WAAAAAYYYYYYY back in the beginning.  I think greywardencommander had a pretty similar interpretation as you.

My problem with conventional IT's take on the control ending is this: as you said, it IS a possible low EMS choice for those who kept the collector base.  I have a different take on it then you do. What if Shepard figured that whatever evil the illusive man would cause with the tech was better than outright extinction?  Fight the Reapers first and then worry about Cerberus? Shepard's resolve to destroy the Reapers was so great that s/he was willing to sacrifice lives to make sure that they could be stopped.  That suggests a *higher* default resolve to me, not lower.  So why make the default choice control=complete indoctrination?

So I have two counter arguments for you to think about.  They come from both my literalist side and my IT side

Literalist: The biggest difference the base makes in the game is whether the Reaper Heart or Brain is in the Crucible.  Since those different components lead to different default choices, is it not logical to assume that the Crucible's construction plays a role in the order the choices are presented?

IT alternative: What if the Illusive Man/Anderson scene was really the indoctrination scene?  Once Reaper Bieber's scene comes up, Shepard WILL escape indoctrination.  Perhaps the 3 choices offer 3 different ways out of indoctrination, each having different end consequences: a good/bad flavor for control and destroy and one single variety for synthesis?

Let me know what you think 

Hi TheConstantOne, thanks heaps for your reply, insight and input. I will get back with a response tomorrow, I'm just too tired to give you an answer with the deliberation it deserves... but I will write one soon.

I'm looking forward to reading it 

The default control scenario is rarely mentioned so it will be doubly nice to see someone else's take on what that means

[HellishFiend]

Kyzee wrote...

Oh my god, having such a flashback to when I took Logic course in college. Thanks, HellishFiend! 

I took Logic in college too (I even did extra reading in the textbook because it interested me so much), so I have a pretty good understanding of how it works. It frustrates me to see my fellow IT folk defending Starbrats reasoning when anyone who is schooled in logic (and not just from the pop culture portrayal of it) can see that it was most likely written by Bioware to be intentionally fallacious.

[NeoDobby]

MaximizedAction wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

Hmm, I don't like this. The thread is slow, no real discussion going on right now, so I am tempted to leave for now. But I don't want to miss the 2000 so I'm stuck here. Anything we could discuss? I'd even take the mating rituals of Protheans at this point ...

Hey, it was mating rutuals among Collectors.

And it was a hell of a Bachelor party!

Yep, I know. But as Simon_Said: Replaced by implants. So I went for the next best thing

[NeoDobby]

HellishFiend wrote...

Kyzee wrote...

Oh my god, having such a flashback to when I took Logic course in college. Thanks, HellishFiend! 

I took Logic in college too (I even did extra reading in the textbook because it interested me so much), so I have a pretty good understanding of how it works. It frustrates me to see my fellow IT folk defending Starbrats reasoning when anyone who is schooled in logic (and not just from the pop culture portrayal of it) can see that it was most likely written by Bioware to be intentionally fallacious.

Or Bioware didn't take a Logic course in college

[Hihoshi101]

I have played through the end to test and look at various things many MANY times but i realized something about Anderson... His words are way behind my location... One time I was about to start crossing the bridge when he said he had found a chasm and then almost to the control area when he said he found it... another time I had already gotten close enough to the door to have it slide open when Anderson is startled by the shifting walls...

[HellishFiend]

Hihoshi101 wrote...

I have played through the end to test and look at various things many MANY times but i realized something about Anderson... His words are way behind my location... One time I was about to start crossing the bridge when he said he had found a chasm and then almost to the control area when he said he found it... another time I had already gotten close enough to the door to have it slide open when Anderson is startled by the shifting walls...

Yeah, I've pointed that out before too. If you run through it and imagine that you ARE Anderson, it actually makes more sense. The things that Anderson says make perfect sense based on where Shepard is currently located, but not where Anderson is supposedly located. 

In my eyes, this supports the portion of IT that states Anderson is actually a representation of Shepard's willpower. 

[Lokanaiya]

@marcelo_sdk
What guarantee do we have that it does anything? Especially anything good for us. Considering the time and place it was found, the amount of resources it takes up, and the fact that nobody, not even all of the brightest minds in the galaxy all gathered in one place, have a real idea what it actually does, it sounds a lot more like a Reaper trap to me than anything else.

[BatmanTurian]

marcelo_sdk wrote...

Supposing IT is true, what the Crucible really does? They said it alters dark matter and use the relay tech to reach any place in the galaxy. But it's just an energy weapon or something else?

nobody knows. If IT is correct, then nothing we've seen about it at the end is true and it looks different and operates differently. If it isn't true, then it does what it does in the ending taken at face value.

If IT is true, then it may either scramble Reaper ships, causing them to deactivate their shields or just become paralyzed like Sovereign in ME1 except on a galactic scale, or it uses dark energy in a way similar to how organics use biotics and uses Dark Energy as a weapon that targets and fires precisely through the relays (targeting precisely using the relay's technology to precisely transport a ship to the relay on the other side, except in this case targeting a Reaper in another solar system from across the galaxy). The relays would be able to target quickly and rapidly fire the energy accumulated in their eezo cores.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 03 mai 2012 - 09:21 .

[HellishFiend]

Lokanaiya wrote...

@marcelo_sdk
What guarantee do we have that it does anything? Especially anything good for us. Considering the time and place it was found, the amount of resources it takes up, and the fact that nobody, not even all of the brightest minds in the galaxy all gathered in one place, have a real idea what it actually does, it sounds a lot more like a Reaper trap to me than anything else.

Yep, assuming IT is true, I find it far more likely that the Crucible is a Reaper trap rather than the superweapon they think it is. Hell, its not outside the realm of possibility that the plans for the Crucible were planted on Mars by Dr Eva (though I dont actually think that is the case). 

[Boradam]

HellishFiend wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

@marcelo_sdk
What guarantee do we have that it does anything? Especially anything good for us. Considering the time and place it was found, the amount of resources it takes up, and the fact that nobody, not even all of the brightest minds in the galaxy all gathered in one place, have a real idea what it actually does, it sounds a lot more like a Reaper trap to me than anything else.

Yep, assuming IT is true, I find it far more likely that the Crucible is a Reaper trap rather than the superweapon they think it is. Hell, its not outside the realm of possibility that the plans for the Crucible were planted on Mars by Dr Eva (though I dont actually think that is the case). 

Well Javik references his knowledge of the Crucible so I find that Dr. Eva planting it's plans is out of the question. (Unless you mean it planted the plans as a trap, not as something Cerberus created to give Shepard false hope.)

[SS2Dante]

Ok, DEFINITELY not getting involved in this argument again, especially since we've gone so far down the rabbit hold I actually think we're all pretty much agreeing with each other in a confused way. Semantic confusion.

HellishFiend, just in general and not to me, can you clarify if, given a coin toss in which the result tails blows up the universe, you can logically deduce the universe will soon be gone? May help clarify things and then we can all move the heeeeell on

Modifié par SS2Dante, 03 mai 2012 - 09:26 .

[Nekroso22]

Tempting fate here, but whatever.

I don't like the Indoctrination Theory.I don't want "clarification" on these bad endings and I certainly don't think that the theory itself can save Mass Effect. While it is admirable that there has been such an outpouring of support and research involved in its creation, I can't help but feel as though it dances around the heart of the problem, which is the ending itself.

The endings do not make sense, and no amount of conjecture or theorizing can fix them. They need to be completely redone so that they mesh better with the story of Mass Effect. Bioware has made it clear that they do not intend to do this, which is not surprising. It's not that they wouldn't if they could; Bioware has made some great games in the past and I think they really do want to make the best games they can. The resources and time required to redo the ending, however, aren't really feasible from a business standpoint. The game is out, and it is what it is. Bioware messed up on this one and we can only hope that they learn from it.

That's not to say that all this theorizing and research has to go to waste, though. Fan fiction, tabletop RPG's, mods and books are all outlets for this type of thing.

[lex0r11]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

So, I'm back from Britain! News since last Saturday?

You are so on time for the biggest celebration this thread will have until the DLC.

Oh, you want that summary from Blue Baby? I could ask if it's ready.

Modifié par lex0r11, 03 mai 2012 - 09:28 .

[MaximizedAction]

HellishFiend wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

@marcelo_sdk
What guarantee do we have that it does anything? Especially anything good for us. Considering the time and place it was found, the amount of resources it takes up, and the fact that nobody, not even all of the brightest minds in the galaxy all gathered in one place, have a real idea what it actually does, it sounds a lot more like a Reaper trap to me than anything else.

Yep, assuming IT is true, I find it far more likely that the Crucible is a Reaper trap rather than the superweapon they think it is. Hell, its not outside the realm of possibility that the plans for the Crucible were planted on Mars by Dr Eva (though I dont actually think that is the case). 

The Crucible might very well be the red herring Casey was talking about in one of the interviews.

[Kyzee]

NeoDobby wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Kyzee wrote...

Oh my god, having such a flashback to when I took Logic course in college. Thanks, HellishFiend! 

I took Logic in college too (I even did extra reading in the textbook because it interested me so much), so I have a pretty good understanding of how it works. It frustrates me to see my fellow IT folk defending Starbrats reasoning when anyone who is schooled in logic (and not just from the pop culture portrayal of it) can see that it was most likely written by Bioware to be intentionally fallacious.

Or Bioware didn't take a Logic course in college

Very true. Doesn't change the fact the StarChild's (::cough::Harbinger::cough: reasoning is extremely fallible, not to mention reeks of Reaper propaganda, in my view.

::tap dances her way toward page 2000::

(Sorry, I'm feeling very silly right now. Probably need a nap.) 

[SS2Dante]

HellishFiend wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

@marcelo_sdk
What guarantee do we have that it does anything? Especially anything good for us. Considering the time and place it was found, the amount of resources it takes up, and the fact that nobody, not even all of the brightest minds in the galaxy all gathered in one place, have a real idea what it actually does, it sounds a lot more like a Reaper trap to me than anything else.

Yep, assuming IT is true, I find it far more likely that the Crucible is a Reaper trap rather than the superweapon they think it is. Hell, its not outside the realm of possibility that the plans for the Crucible were planted on Mars by Dr Eva (though I dont actually think that is the case). 

Is the strategic importance of London ever actually clarified in the game? Isn't it mentioned as being important long before the Citadel is brought to Earth?

[Boradam]

SS2Dante wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

@marcelo_sdk
What guarantee do we have that it does anything? Especially anything good for us. Considering the time and place it was found, the amount of resources it takes up, and the fact that nobody, not even all of the brightest minds in the galaxy all gathered in one place, have a real idea what it actually does, it sounds a lot more like a Reaper trap to me than anything else.

Yep, assuming IT is true, I find it far more likely that the Crucible is a Reaper trap rather than the superweapon they think it is. Hell, its not outside the realm of possibility that the plans for the Crucible were planted on Mars by Dr Eva (though I dont actually think that is the case). 

Is the strategic importance of London ever actually clarified in the game? Isn't it mentioned as being important long before the Citadel is brought to Earth?

It was said the Reapers were "planning something big over at London."

If IT turns out true, we should be able to find out after we get the EC.

[BatmanTurian]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Tempting fate here, but whatever.

I don't like the Indoctrination Theory.I don't want "clarification" on these bad endings and I certainly don't think that the theory itself can save Mass Effect. While it is admirable that there has been such an outpouring of support and research involved in its creation, I can't help but feel as though it dances around the heart of the problem, which is the ending itself.

The endings do not make sense, and no amount of conjecture or theorizing can fix them. They need to be completely redone so that they mesh better with the story of Mass Effect. Bioware has made it clear that they do not intend to do this, which is not surprising. It's not that they wouldn't if they could; Bioware has made some great games in the past and I think they really do want to make the best games they can. The resources and time required to redo the ending, however, aren't really feasible from a business standpoint. The game is out, and it is what it is. Bioware messed up on this one and we can only hope that they learn from it.

That's not to say that all this theorizing and research has to go to waste, though. Fan fiction, tabletop RPG's, mods and books are all outlets for this type of thing.

Thank you for your opinion. After almost 2000 pages pouring over evidence, I'm certain your post, in which you offer no conclusive proof against it, will change our minds about how likely it is that IT is correct.

[TheConstantOne]

HellishFiend wrote...

Sorry Simon but a lot of that is just wrong. 

• If you are to judge the values/morals of a logical conclusion, first the conclusion must be logically sound. If it were strictly an opinion, that would be another matter. But what is being put up for ethical judgement is a CONCLUSION, not an opinion.
• 1 is not a proven fact. It is a statistical probability. That can be used in the formation of assumptions, but not factual conclusions
• 2, same as above
• 3  is an assumption that is derived from statistical probabilities and historical trends.
• 4-7 is all subjective, which is fine, but it needs to be PRESENTED as being subjective. Starbrat presents it as irrefutable fact, which is flat out wrong

I think that by the time the starchild's logic gets into your head for analysis, you put it in the context of an opinion, when the Starchild is most definitely not presenting it as such. He is presenting it as fact. If it were to be reworded in the manner you guys are interpreting it, that would be fine. Loosely, it would look something like this:

Starbrat: "Based on our experience and analysis, we find it likely that the created will always rebel against their creators. We have also analyzed the development trends of purely Synthetic life, and given those trends, we've concluded if a patricidal synthetic race were to reach the point of Technological Singularity, Synthetic lifeforms would supplant Organic development indefinitely. We've concluded that the safest course of action is to prevent that irreversible scenario from ever having a chance to develop."

Wording it in that fashion changes it from a fallacious conclusion to a logical one, which is then subject to ethical debate. I believe you guys are interpreting the starbrat's drivel as if it were properly worded like above, but it is not. It is worded as a factual conclusion (Like, dogs are mammals, Brian is a dog, therefore Brian is a mammal), which is inarguably fallacious since the premises are NOT FACTS. 

I'm still of the mind that the values and overall reasoning of the Reapers is because of some programming restraint they are forced to follow at the behest of some "other" entity.

However, I am here to come to Simon's defense.  Hellish, you are completely right to say that Reaper Bieber is arguing based on fundamentally statistical arguments.  Yet he is right to say "Organics WILL create synthetics" and "Organics and synthetics WILL go to war".  While these two statements are indeed statistical probabilities, you must keep in mind that the Reapers consider themselves to be eternal.  If time is allowed to reach infinity, then all possibilities for a system will occur.  This is a mathematical fact.  Since the Reapers believe that they will indeed live forever (quote Sovereign: "We have no beginning. We have no end.") then any statistical probability WILL be experienced by them, and it can be considered factual.  It's just a matter of "when." The odds of this occurring must be high enough that the Reapers 
(or their makers) calculate it to occur frequently enough as to have a severe threat to organic life and so consider it a threat that must be dealt with.

If this were an argument with any being besides a Reaper, you be entirely correct Hellish.  After all, it isn't possible for us to truly examine things for an infinite time.  But for the Reapers, this time constraint doesn't apply and so statistics become factual premises

[marcelo_sdk]

BatmanTurian wrote...

marcelo_sdk wrote...

Supposing IT is true, what the Crucible really does? They said it alters dark matter and use the relay tech to reach any place in the galaxy. But it's just an energy weapon or something else?

nobody knows. If IT is correct, then nothing we've seen about it at the end is true and it looks different and operates differently. If it isn't true, then it does what it does in the ending taken at face value.

If IT is true, then it may either scramble Reaper ships, causing them to deactivate their shields or just become paralyzed like Sovereign in ME1 except on a galactic scale, or it uses dark energy in a way similar to how organics use biotics and uses Dark Energy as a weapon that targets and fires precisely through the relays (targeting precisely using the relay's technology to precisely transport a ship to the relay on the other side, except in this case targeting a Reaper in another solar system from across the galaxy). The relays would be able to target quickly and rapidly fire the energy accumulated in their eezo cores.

So, in your second guess, it would destroy the mass relays too?