57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Boradam]

I'm ashamed. My year has come and past.

[lex0r11]

Kyzee wrote...

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.) 

Resident Mom Kyzee does not need to feel silly, she is Resident Mom and may tap dance as much as she likes.

Modifié par lex0r11, 03 mai 2012 - 09:32 .

[Hihoshi101]

MaximizedAction 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). 

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

That is what made me think  there was more to come[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie] I was always hoping for an EC. I just wish it was preplanned

[Earthborn_Shepard]

lex0r11 wrote...

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.

Uh yeah maybe just the major points.. and what's that about a celebration?

[Nekroso22]

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

I would feel silly right now if I was trying to disprove it, but I wasn't and I'm not. I was pointing out how, even with the internal consistency of the IT, the endings of Mass Effect are broken at their core and cannot be fixed by tweaking and glossing over.

[Big Bad]

Regarding the odds of the ending turning out to be one thing or another, i won't even guess about IT, but I think it is HIGHLY LIKELY that the end is not what it seems.

[Kyzee]

lex0r11 wrote...

Kyzee wrote...

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.) 

Resident Mom Kyzee does not need to feel silly, she is Resident Mom and may tap dance as much as she likes.

ROTFL!! Oh, lex0r11! Never stop being awesome! 

[SubAstris]

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works (which is one of the reasons I am reluctant to accept IT, we don't know that much about it, and if it was really BW's intention I don't think we would have a lot of these questions)

That's were we diverge: I think we know enough about indoctrination to understand that Shepard could be in the process of indoctrination and that there are various hints to that (like the oily shadows in the dreams, to mention just one). The ending was left this way with the goal of "lots of speculation from everyone", so there is no wonder there are multiple ways to interpret the ending. So there is the possibility that all the evidence that we IT guys are seeing are just red herrings or maybe they point to something entirely different we haven't come up with yet.

There will always be some questions that won't be answered, either because this is sci-fi and there is obviously some technoligy we don't have and thus cannot be explained with scientific knowledge we have. Some of it has to come down to suspension of disbelief, and I understand that the writers stop at a level that goes deep enough to make it believable. Other questions aren't answered to leave room for interpretation. As I said, I think there's enough info about indoctination to make our interpretation plausible. But if it isn't enough for you, I can live with that. Maybe we won't even have a definite answer to the question "Is IT true?" after the EC comes out. We'll just have to wait.

Another example: I think they never precisely told us who attacked first in the conflict of the Quarians and Geth. I'm ok to leave it at that and let everyone make up their mind about it.

SubAstris wrote...

2) Precisely, why have infinite. Of course, this comes down to game mechanics and resources, which some IT theorists, I am not accusing you directly, think are irrelevant

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You mean infinite endings? Yeah, of course there has to be some limit, but the question "Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?" was one of the examples I gave for what might not be answered. In this case, I meant that they won't explain which decisions led to a particular combination of ending options we are presented in the Citadel.

Game mechanics: yes, there are limits, I think the Final Hours App even says that they tried to implement a gameplay section where the player loses control of Shepard. Which is ok, they might have put that in the dialogue with Anderson and TIM.

Resources: I think Bioware asked for 6 months more time in the end and only got 3, so time is a factor to be considered, too. (I think Arian said that, so you'd have to ask him for a source)

I agree that those have an impact on how the game turns out in the end. We may never know what limits made the developers to change which plans. But I think that this shouldn't have an impact (or maybe no too big impact) to our interpretation. What counts in the end is the information about the world and the events in it that is canon, and by that I mean what is in the game or in the books and comics that were released alongside. There is even some ARG-content like the ANN-Website that can be considered.

I think what people are possibly forgetting about the "oily shadows" comment is that the Rachni sense things very differently to humans. They interpret sensory data in terms of music and images; from what I got from it it seems like they were talking about death rather than indoctrination.

About the Quarians and the Geth, the Geth Consensus mission makes it clear that the Quarians start their degradation of the Geth which led to them uprising. The Geth are essentially, not under Reaper control, a peaceful race and don't really want to hurt the Quarians. This is one of the reasons why what the Catalyst says doesn't seem to make sense because it goes against something like that in-game

I don't know the exact amount of time, although I know that the game was originally meant to be released Fall/Autumn 2011, and came out beginning of March. That's a quite long time to be delayed, in gaming terms, and you can bet EA was pushing very hard to get it released as fast as possible. I would be a bit weary about using a lot of information from outside game material, such as comics, because the fact is the vast majority of people who play ME have only played the games (me included). Doesn't mean other parts are wrong, but BW know they are making a game for those people primarily, and if they can't get the story without referring to a comic, then they have failed.

[BatmanTurian]

marcelo_sdk wrote...

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?

No, I think it only channels their energy and turns the relays into a mass driver-like weapon that can pinpoint enemy ships from across the galaxy like it can pinpoint exact coordinates for a ship to emerge from a relay trip.

[NeoDobby]

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

I would feel silly right now if I was trying to disprove it, but I wasn't and I'm not. I was pointing out how, even with the internal consistency of the IT, the endings of Mass Effect are broken at their core and cannot be fixed by tweaking and glossing over.

In the IT, the endings as we have them now won't be tweaked or glossed over. They will stay in there, but they will turn out to be a dream and the real ending will be shown after Shepard wakes up. You may not like that, but if the IT turns out to be true, that's what will probably happen.

[blooregard]

marcelo_sdk wrote...

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?

Destroy seems unlikely disable (temporarily) seems more likely

Unless you have low EMS in which case it blows the relays to smitheroons.

[BatmanTurian]

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

I would feel silly right now if I was trying to disprove it, but I wasn't and I'm not. I was pointing out how, even with the internal consistency of the IT, the endings of Mass Effect are broken at their core and cannot be fixed by tweaking and glossing over.

Well, you are free to have your opinion and I am free to believe you are wrong and are not considering all of the possible outcomes of an Extended Cut.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

For example, we don't how much being closer to the Reaper artifacts will quicken indoctrination compared to be away. And answer for such a question would to decide whether the indoctrination of Shepard would even be possible at the end. So no, we don't know everything or even sufficiently to provide good arguments for IT .

Considering throughout ME3 you can actually capture reaper artifacts for Glygh to study ON THE SHIP, I don't think that "vicinity" is the issue.

That's right, you're actually using reaper tech upgrades.

Yes, but if they are capable of indoctrinating the crew, they wouldn't be used. But if that is the case, the Reaper tech is indoctrinating us, why doesn't the whole crew become indoctrinated? Surely all the crew would succumb to indoctrination before Shep?

[Nekroso22]

NeoDobby wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

I would feel silly right now if I was trying to disprove it, but I wasn't and I'm not. I was pointing out how, even with the internal consistency of the IT, the endings of Mass Effect are broken at their core and cannot be fixed by tweaking and glossing over.

In the IT, the endings as we have them now won't be tweaked or glossed over. They will stay in there, but they will turn out to be a dream and the real ending will be shown after Shepard wakes up. You may not like that, but if the IT turns out to be true, that's what will probably happen.

How is saying that the ending we all just witnessed was actually a Reaper-induced hallucination not glossing it over?

I'm not trying to disprove the IT. It's a community effort to make sense of the Mass Effect endings, and it works within it's own frame of logic. The core of the problem is still the ending itself, not what the fans think the ending really is.

[HellishFiend]

SS2Dante wrote...

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

Yes, but only if the amount of times the coin is flipped is infinite. Otherwise there is still a mathematically insignificant chance that the coin will never show tails, and "the universe will soon be gone" can not be presented as a factual conclusion. In pseudocode, the logic would be as follows:

A OR B
If B, then z
Therefore, z

Wait, that doesnt work, right? Right! In fact, if you understand why that doesnt work, you're a step closer to understanding why Starbrat's logic is wrong.

BUT, the logic can work if you do this:

While NOT B, A OR B 
If B, then Z
Therefore, Z

That fixes it, because you are guaranteed to infinitely have either A or B until you eventually get B

Replacing variables with terminology, the logic becomes this:

While coin flip is not tails, flip coin
If coin flip = tails then universe destroyed
thus, universe eventually destroyed

[MaximizedAction]

Hihoshi101 wrote...

MaximizedAction 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). 

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

That is what made me think  there was more to come[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie] I was always hoping for an EC. I just wish it was preplanned

As Arian here theorised, Bioware's plan might've been to first offer us SP and MP DLCs that are well placed in the ME3 story line to then, as the last DLC, give us the actual ending as a surprise with the reveal of Shepard having been indoctrinated.

Now, as Bioware stated, they had to reprioritise their DLC plans and make the EC absolute priority. Maybe they already had the ending DLC laid out but not completely ready and it maybe relied on the other SP DLCs.
So now they have to combine some stuff into the EC.

So all in all, the EC might've been partially planned, but not in a way such that it could be released as soon as summer.

[Rifneno]

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). 

This is pretty much the only logical conclusion.  If the Crucible actually does harm the Reapers, I'll consider it a plot hole.  They say the thing has been worked on for countless cycles, each cycles' organics improving upon it.  Millions of years.  There's no way the Reapers would have been that sloppy that many times with something that important.  No way.  It's simply out of the question as far as I'm concerned.  There's very few remnants of the civilizations that pre-date the Protheans.  The stuff on Ilos is the only example we're shown and that was only from the cycle directly before the Protheans.  There's a few planetary descriptions that suggest remnants of previous civilizations, but very little to go on really.

So they were that thorough in, as Liara put it in ME1, "cleansing the galaxy of clues" of previous cycles... yet for hundreds of cycles they let the plans for a superweapon that could destroy them survive?  I call bull****.  While we're at it, remember that cro-magnon flashback thing on Eletania?  Of a "Prothean" ship observing them?  Here's a description: "You hear it before you see it, its call a deafening roar as it descends from above, swooping down on you. A single great eye opens on the underbelly, a glowing red orb. You try to run, but a finger of red light extends from the eye and engulfs you, and all goes black again."  Now does that sound like Prothean design, or Reaper?  Add to that the fact that cro-magnons only appeared 15,000 years after the Protheans were destroyed.  At the time, we (the fanbase) wrote it off as some writer not checking his dates.  In retrospect?  ... 

[Nekroso22]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

I would feel silly right now if I was trying to disprove it, but I wasn't and I'm not. I was pointing out how, even with the internal consistency of the IT, the endings of Mass Effect are broken at their core and cannot be fixed by tweaking and glossing over.

Well, you are free to have your opinion and I am free to believe you are wrong and are not considering all of the possible outcomes of an Extended Cut.

You mean the Extended Cut that will not change the endings? Bioware doesn't have the time or the money to give the endings the reworking treatment they need.

I honestly hope Bioware doesn't use the IT because it won't fix the endings and it will introduce too many new variables in the story.

[SS2Dante]

Boradam wrote...

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.

Yeah, I thought so. Surely this doesn't jam at all with the literal interpretation, where the Citadel is moved in response to the Citadel threat?

I'm genuinely interested to hear what's going on with this in the literal version. Ideas?

[HellishFiend]

TheConstantOne wrote...

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

Everything you just said falls apart unless the universe is infinite. Do we have anything that suggests the universe has an infinite life cycle? I dont think we do. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 03 mai 2012 - 09:46 .

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

For example, we don't how much being closer to the Reaper artifacts will quicken indoctrination compared to be away. And answer for such a question would to decide whether the indoctrination of Shepard would even be possible at the end. So no, we don't know everything or even sufficiently to provide good arguments for IT .

Considering throughout ME3 you can actually capture reaper artifacts for Glygh to study ON THE SHIP, I don't think that "vicinity" is the issue.

That's right, you're actually using reaper tech upgrades.

Yes, but if they are capable of indoctrinating the crew, they wouldn't be used. But if that is the case, the Reaper tech is indoctrinating us, why doesn't the whole crew become indoctrinated? Surely all the crew would succumb to indoctrination before Shep?

That's the thing. You don't know if it's happening until it's too late. Let's say we rule out the little artifacts. That still leaves a lot of time around Reapers.

[NeoDobby]

Nekroso22 wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

In the IT, the endings as we have them now won't be tweaked or glossed over. They will stay in there, but they will turn out to be a dream and the real ending will be shown after Shepard wakes up. You may not like that, but if the IT turns out to be true, that's what will probably happen.

How is saying that the ending we all just witnessed was actually a Reaper-induced hallucination not glossing it over?

I'm not trying to disprove the IT. It's a community effort to make sense of the Mass Effect endings, and it works within it's own frame of logic. The core of the problem is still the ending itself, not what the fans think the ending really is.

I get what you mean. But here it depends on what was Bioware's plan to begin with. If they planned IT all along, that wouldn't be glossing over. If they use the IT as a way out because the players didn't like their "real" ending, yes, I'd call that glossing over too. But we'd probably never know. If IT turns out to be true, there will be two factions of fans. The one will think it was planned, the others will think it was their way out.

[BatmanTurian]

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

I would feel silly right now if I was trying to disprove it, but I wasn't and I'm not. I was pointing out how, even with the internal consistency of the IT, the endings of Mass Effect are broken at their core and cannot be fixed by tweaking and glossing over.

Well, you are free to have your opinion and I am free to believe you are wrong and are not considering all of the possible outcomes of an Extended Cut.

You mean the Extended Cut that will not change the endings? Bioware doesn't have the time or the money to give the endings the reworking treatment they need.

I honestly hope Bioware doesn't use the IT because it won't fix the endings and it will introduce too many new variables in the story.

At this point, I'm convinced you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

[Kyzee]

Nekroso22 wrote...

How is saying that the ending we all just witnessed was actually a Reaper-induced hallucination not glossing it over?

I'm not trying to disprove the IT. It's a community effort to make sense of the Mass Effect endings, and it works within it's own frame of logic. The core of the problem is still the ending itself, not what the fans think the ending really is.

It's not glossing over if it's what Bioware intended in the first place. The trouble is that you're presuming that IDT is purely a fan-produced theory. That may indeed be it's current status, as nothing has been concretely stated or proven by the developers for or against the theory, but as such, one cannot dismiss IDT as simply "fanfiction." There's evidence to back it up, not simple wishful thinking.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works.

This is a really bad argument. We know how it works. All of our villians have been indoctrinated. Indoctrination has been explained in the codex. We saw it first hand on humans at Object Rho. I think it's more like you don't understand the concept of it or how it works. Hint: it's similar to demonic possession except not super-natural.

For example, we don't how much being closer to the Reaper artifacts will quicken indoctrination compared to be away. And answer for such a question would to decide whether the indoctrination of Shepard would even be possible at the end. So no, we don't know everything or even sufficiently to provide good arguments for IT .

We know that Red Sand and adrenaline quicken indoctrination. We know that being within a close proximity to an artifact or Reaper causes indoctrination. We know that Harbinger himself can assume control of indoctrinated organics from as far away as the space between galaxies. What has Shepard been doing around artifacts and Reapers? Fighting. What does fighting do? Increase adrenaline. What does adrenaline do? Quicken indoctrination.

Obviously, close proximity can be anywhere from a one mile radius to deep space beyond our galaxy. Either way, it doesn't matter because Shepard has been in close proximity, which is needed to fight the Reapers, which again causes adrenaline, which again quickens indoctrination, at which point your argument that we need more information about indoctrination falls apart. The end.

1) Admittedly, for very short periods of time in relation to the events of the ME Trilogy
2) So why take any precautions before going near a Reaper artifact? I was always under the impression that close proximity to indoctrinated artifacts boosted the signal, quickening indoctrination
3) We still don't know how much faster it quickens it anyway, so argument not destroyed