758 réponses à ce sujet

[Zhant]

MassEffected555 wrote...

nyogen wrote...

antony.daley wrote...

One point of the OP theory in that the Prothean VI says "Secuirty overridden" he then says something along the lines of "you have come to take me away from the indoctrinated ones" or something similar - If my memory serves me rightly.

Im not for or against the indoctrination theory - For the exact point that it is a theory. All the theory have possible valid points. They all equally have enough flaws in them to leave them as theory and not proof or fact.

He's still dingling that nonsense around ? lol I kindly dismantled that theory for him yesterday but I see he made another thread about that bull crap. His own supporters called him on that bs

http://social.biowar.../index/10185488

Doesn't matter and you keep ignoring me.

If you are right and Shep is indoctrinated what do we have to look forward to? Look I am even giving you more choices then we got in the game. Does Shep

Go insane?
Become a husk?
Become a brain dead vegi that is no longer able to wash and eat for himself?
Kill himself?
Get killed by a friend since he will eventually go crazy or turn into a husk (Like Morenth and Jack)
Space magic saves him with rainbow unicorns and everyone lives happily ever after?


What one do we get to look forward to?

became a leader of humanity and magically change his termintator eye with blue eyes and starts to call him/herself The Illusive Spectre?

[Xerkysz]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Doesn't matter and you keep ignoring me.

If you are right and Shep is indoctrinated what do we have to look forward to? Look I am even giving you more choices then we got in the game. Does Shep

Go insane?
Become a husk?
Become a brain dead vegi that is no longer able to wash and eat for himself?
Kill himself?
Get killed by a friend since he will eventually go crazy or turn into a husk (Like Morenth and Jack)
Space magic saves him with rainbow unicorns and everyone lives happily ever after?


What one do we get to look forward to?

If we are right and Harbinger has tried to indcotrinate shepard and failed.
We don't know what happens after we wake up in rubble, we are not BioWare.

Stop twisting my words.

[Jaze55]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

And who the **** are you to say everone else needs to believe in your idoc theory? Its stupid and the only out come is Shepard having a worse fate then what we got?

That is pretty ****ing arrogant you know.

Modifié par MassEffected555, 19 mars 2012 - 06:10 .

[Midnight Eternal]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

If the Indoctrination theory is what Bioware intended, they went about it in the most stupidly convoluted way they could possibly think of. If it is not what they intended they would be damn stupid to use it. Cause whomever could prove they thought of the idea first would be without all rights to sue Bioware over intellectual property. So if it wasn't intended, don't expect them to use it as an out.

[Rob_K1]

Capeo wrote...

Rob_K1 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Rob_K1 wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...

mooney6023 wrote...

KitePolaris wrote...

mooney6023 wrote...

With 4000+ EMS the Destroy ending is specifically a significant choice. Sure, you get the scene with shepard breathing in the rubble, but you also get a "lived to fight again" flag set in you save file.

You can confirm the existence of this flag with the GIBB ME3 save editor.

I think this supports the existence of post end content and, indirectly, a variation of the Indoc theory. Why have such a flag otherwise?

Or did someone prove that flag was set with other ending variations and I just haven't seen it?

Gib said he took a lot of stuff from his ME2 editor, so that flag could very well just be recycled.

Why does it get set only if you choose Destroy with 4000+ EMS?  Even if Gib recycled the text describing it in his editor it's still a value getting changed in the save file by the game.

Because that's the only ending where Shepard lives?  Where are you going with this?

I'm going to be short and sweet here:

The moment the 'child' says that the destroy option would destroy all synthetics and then says even Shepard is partly synthetic, implying he'd die, is what immediately brings into question everything the child says.

That is what sealed it for me that the ending is not as it seems, as Shepard is shown breathing with the destroy ending if you have enough EMS. I do not care about the rest of the evidence. Again, that one little bit shows me that nothing said can be taken at face value.

That's ridiculous.  It's directly from the script.  There's only one ending where Shep lives and that's it.  Oddly, the script never mentions indoctrination anywhere.  You're also reading far too much into "even you are partly synthetic" because, at most, that may imply Shep dies.  He's where your logic fails.  The kid tells Shep HE WILL DIE FOR SURE in the other two endings.  How the hell do you see that as him talking Shep out of Destroy?  Sorry for the shouting but I'm sick of hearing the same arguments over and over.

Yet I could also play the same card and say you're not reading enough into it? See, I will disagree with you, Capeo and Candidate, on this. I know the english language and, by that, I'm not saying that you do not. I am simply saying that the implication is there. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right either.

Fair enough, you take it to mean the synthetic parts of Shepard will die. I take it to mean Shepard will die as well. Besides, I'm not clear on this, but does Shepard not need those synthetic parts to live?

If you want to play the card that you did regarding the bolded part though, I could counter and say that bit wasn't the part that was meant to deter him from choosing the destroy option. Instead, it is the fact it's mentioned the Geth will die. And you could also see it as the 'child' implying that synthetics have their uses, as Shepard knows, due to his implants therefore making him see that it's not the best option.

Besides. there is no real reason for the child to reference Shepard's synthetic parts, if it would not kill him. Unless the child is trying to make Shepard aware of their benefits as I mentioned above. That is the only reason, other than lying, that it would say it in my mind.

Anyways, unless you can give a good reason as to why the child would say that about Shepard, there's not much  point trying to convince me otherwise as there's not much point in me trying to convince either of you otherwise.

Nothing you said changes the absolute logic of the kid saying two endings are definite death.  The only ending where definitive death isn't outright stated is Destroy.  You have no case.

Not to mention the script makes it abundantly clear Synergy is the reward for a "perfect game".  BW sees Destroy as the selfish ending.  That's why you can actually destroy the earth if you take it with your EMS too low.  It's a punishment for being selfish.  It's also why Synergy is the last of the three endings to unlock.

As you do not have a case either. Neither of us has enough proof to make a 'definite case', hence why we're not going to change each other's mind. It is quite futile.

If I had to argue it, I would say the child makes the synergy and control endings seem more attractive.

But honestly? I think it's best we simply stop trying to persuade each other of what is and what isn't the case. Your mind is made up, as is mine. The best we can do is try to help those whose mind is not made up, rather than debate/argue with each other.

[Capeo]

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Doesn't matter and you keep ignoring me.

If you are right and Shep is indoctrinated what do we have to look forward to? Look I am even giving you more choices then we got in the game. Does Shep

Go insane?
Become a husk?
Become a brain dead vegi that is no longer able to wash and eat for himself?
Kill himself?
Get killed by a friend since he will eventually go crazy or turn into a husk (Like Morenth and Jack)
Space magic saves him with rainbow unicorns and everyone lives happily ever after?


What one do we get to look forward to?

If we are right and Harbinger has tried to indcotrinate shepard and failed.
We don't know what happens after we wake up in rubble, we are not BioWare.

Stop twisting my words.

Indoctrination doesn't "fail".  A strong will can fight it for moments of clarity but if you're indoctrinated you are indoctrinated.  

[Jaze55]

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Doesn't matter and you keep ignoring me.

If you are right and Shep is indoctrinated what do we have to look forward to? Look I am even giving you more choices then we got in the game. Does Shep

Go insane?
Become a husk?
Become a brain dead vegi that is no longer able to wash and eat for himself?
Kill himself?
Get killed by a friend since he will eventually go crazy or turn into a husk (Like Morenth and Jack)
Space magic saves him with rainbow unicorns and everyone lives happily ever after?


What one do we get to look forward to?

If we are right and Harbinger has tried to indcotrinate shepard and failed.
We don't know what happens after we wake up in rubble, we are not BioWare.

Stop twisting my words.

Well according to your PROOF you DO know Bioware don't you?

All you do is talk in circles lol

Modifié par MassEffected555, 19 mars 2012 - 06:12 .

[Tsantilas]

Midnight Eternal wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

If the Indoctrination theory is what Bioware intended, they went about it in the most stupidly convoluted way they could possibly think of. If it is not what they intended they would be damn stupid to use it. Cause whomever could prove they thought of the idea first would be without all rights to sue Bioware over intellectual property. So if it wasn't intended, don't expect them to use it as an out.

Well the "intellectual property" argument holds no water, but I agree with you on the rest.  If it was intended, they went about it the wrong way.  If they release DLC that makes it appear it was intended, then it's obvious that they just took the idea from these forums and used it as an easy solution.

[Xerkysz]

Capeo wrote...

Indoctrination doesn't "fail".  A strong will can fight it for moments of clarity but if you're indoctrinated you are indoctrinated.

There's 2 results when you attempt something, what are they?

[IronSabbath88]

Capeo wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

We don't want an even worse ending than they already are and that's what IT is.  It's horrific and just as lore breaking.  It also invalidates the two other endings and removes all players choice.  They just need to explain the endings we got better and hopefully add more variations.  

How does it invalidate the other two endings?

Control is what the reapers want, they get to live another day. To say that you can control beings like the reapers is absolutely ridiculous. They control you, not the other way around.

Synthesis is Saren to a tee, and you disagreed with that in ME1. We saw what a merge of organics and synthetics did to him, and it wasn't pretty, not to mention it's a pretty selfish ending in it's own right by forcing people to go through an involuntary change. I'm sure Javik would LOVE to be part synthetic... Ashley too. Or better yet, I bet David Archer would be THRILLED... yeah, not likely.

Destroy is shown as a bad ending because it's not what the reapers want you to do. They make you think you're committing genocide! Rather than sacrificing yourself for the better cause, which is admirable, you're commiting full on genocide on every synthetic in the galaxy! They're using it as a way to make you feel guilty and drive you from that decision.

For the record, the IT is not horrific. We're not implying Shepard will turn into a husk. What we ARE implying is that it's been a slow, agonizing process. He's been constantly around reaper tech, it had to take a hold on him sooner or later. It's been shown that weaker individuals such as Saren and Benezia can still fight off the indoctrination, which is exactly what Shepard is doing, FIGHTING IT OFF. We're not saying he's fully indoctrinated, but if you choose to follow what the reapers want, then there's a good chance of it happening.

[Midnight Eternal]

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Doesn't matter and you keep ignoring me.

If you are right and Shep is indoctrinated what do we have to look forward to? Look I am even giving you more choices then we got in the game. Does Shep

Go insane?
Become a husk?
Become a brain dead vegi that is no longer able to wash and eat for himself?
Kill himself?
Get killed by a friend since he will eventually go crazy or turn into a husk (Like Morenth and Jack)
Space magic saves him with rainbow unicorns and everyone lives happily ever after?


What one do we get to look forward to?

If we are right and Harbinger has tried to indcotrinate shepard and failed.
We don't know what happens after we wake up in rubble, we are not BioWare.

Stop twisting my words.

You bring up something interesting, you see. In all of the ME lore, that I am aware of mind you, I have not read the novels. No one has stopped themselves from becoming indoctrinated. Apparently if it's gonna get ya, it is gonng get ya no bones about it.  Shepard may be "Space Jesus" but he is still human.

[Zhant]

Capeo wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Doesn't matter and you keep ignoring me.

If you are right and Shep is indoctrinated what do we have to look forward to? Look I am even giving you more choices then we got in the game. Does Shep

Go insane?
Become a husk?
Become a brain dead vegi that is no longer able to wash and eat for himself?
Kill himself?
Get killed by a friend since he will eventually go crazy or turn into a husk (Like Morenth and Jack)
Space magic saves him with rainbow unicorns and everyone lives happily ever after?


What one do we get to look forward to?

If we are right and Harbinger has tried to indcotrinate shepard and failed.
We don't know what happens after we wake up in rubble, we are not BioWare.

Stop twisting my words.

Indoctrination doesn't "fail".  A strong will can fight it for moments of clarity but if you're indoctrinated you are indoctrinated.  

which means team mates you chose to enter derelict reaper, plus all N7spec ops team( from multiplayer) ince they need to disable reaper indoc device?

indoc takes time to even start, or least a "spark" or somthing, IMO

[The Real Bowser]

Xerkysz wrote...

As far as I see it, Indoc is the science side of things, and people who don't believe in it are the Christians.

You guys have beliefs and masses, with everyone saying the same thing (Grasping for Straws, Sound familiar?), we have results.

Results > Beliefs.

WTF?  Are you serious?  You're going to bring religion into a discussion about video game mechanics?  Are you really this ignorant?

This could have been a very interesting discussion, but this downright ruined it.  You're freaking loco.

Modifié par The Real Bowser, 19 mars 2012 - 06:14 .

[Rob_K1]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

We don't want an even worse ending than they already are and that's what IT is.  It's horrific and just as lore breaking.  It also invalidates the two other endings and removes all players choice.  They just need to explain the endings we got better and hopefully add more variations.  

How does it invalidate the other two endings?

Control is what the reapers want, they get to live another day. To say that you can control beings like the reapers is absolutely ridiculous. They control you, not the other way around.

Synthesis is Saren to a tee, and you disagreed with that in ME1. We saw what a merge of organics and synthetics did to him, and it wasn't pretty, not to mention it's a pretty selfish ending in it's own right by forcing people to go through an involuntary change. I'm sure Javik would LOVE to be part synthetic... Ashley too. Or better yet, I bet David Archer would be THRILLED... yeah, not likely.

Destroy is shown as a bad ending because it's not what the reapers want you to do. They make you think you're committing genocide! Rather than sacrificing yourself for the better cause, which is admirable, you're commiting full on genocide on every synthetic in the galaxy! They're using it as a way to make you feel guilty and drive you from that decision.

For the record, the IT is not horrific. We're not implying Shepard will turn into a husk. What we ARE implying is that it's been a slow, agonizing process. He's been constantly around reaper tech, it had to take a hold on him sooner or later. It's been shown that weaker individuals such as Saren and Benezia can still fight off the indoctrination, which is exactly what Shepard is doing, FIGHTING IT OFF. We're not saying he's fully indoctrinated, but if you choose to follow what the reapers want, then there's a good chance of it happening.

The bolded part could also be seen as what the Reapers do anyway, as evidenced by ME 2, when they were using humans to build that Reaper.

[smah]

Morrden wrote...

1. Nightmare with Shadow Figures and space child that no one else but shepard sees. Note the tree’s.

Not sure what the evidence is here. I interpreted this as Shepard finally showing cracks in the stoic facade. Nightmares have never been listed as a symptom of indoctrination.

2. Prothean VI: "Security protocols have been overridden, I will comply."

This is in TIM's base, so why did he tell TIM about the Catalyst? When TIM was clearly indoctrinated? Yet if Shep is indoctrinated it won’t tell him? Make up your mind.

The VI told TIM about the catalyst because, as he just said in your quote, his security protocols were overwritten. He says nothing about detecting indoctrinated presences earlier on Thessia until Kai Leng shows up with Reaper implants. If Shepard has been being indoctrinated the whole time, why wouldn't the VI respond the same way to him?

3. After being hit by the beam. Faded trees from your Nightmares, which aren't there before you get hit by the beam.

The trees are there before he gets hit by the beam. Look at the far right in this video. http://www.youtube.c...EM5K0g#t=26m52s

4. Anderson aboard the Citadel: "Followed you up, but we didn't come out in the same place..."

Yeah, he mentions he came out in a different place, probably ahead of you. That's why he gets there first. No teleport magic required.

5. Scars on my face when I'm full Paragon?

...what? First, there aren't any, second, that means indoctrination?

6. Anderson at the shifting walls, which is on the other side of the door. First he's behind you now he's in front of you?

Yeah, because obviously that is the only wall in the Citadel capable of shifting.

7. The control panel is in view as soon as you pop your head over the top of the ramp. Where's Anderson?

Standing in front of it.

8. Human writing on the Citadel?

Firstly it might not even be writing, could just be symbols people are interpreting as letters or numbers. Secondly, even if they were letters, the codex mentions races adding and modifying the citadel in their own ways. Is it impossible to imagine humans contributed to this as well?

9 & 10. Clearly only one way into this place.

Anderson mentions walls shifting and such, so it's not inconceivable for there to be several ways in that close/open up because of this.

11. Citadel still in full effect? Even when The Reapers have taken control?

Why not, most of it's automated.

12. Random circle pops out of the ground?

What?

13. Ohhey Javik, I heard you were on my squad during the bolt for the beam.
Nice Teleports brah.

Again, bad writing and plotholes is far more likely an explanation than grand conspiracy. The end cutscene with the Normandy crashlanding just codes for your LI and most common squad members to exit the Normandy, with no regard for whether they were on the final charge or not.

QFT

[Xerkysz]

Midnight Eternal wrote...

You bring up something interesting, you see. In all of the ME lore, that I am aware of mind you, I have not read the novels. No one has stopped themselves from becoming indoctrinated. Apparently if it's gonna get ya, it is gonng get ya no bones about it.  Shepard may be "Space Jesus" but he is still human.

Which raises another question, this one intrigues me.

From the lore, it will get you no bones about it, yet Harbinger wanted Shep in ME2, but couldn't get him.

Thought's on this Midnight?

[ArkkAngel007]

Capeo wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

I'm pretty sure Shepard was hearing voices AND seeing ghostly images. So what if it was only in his nightmares? It seems that everytime he let his mind rest, he would have those visions. When he was vunerable.

... OR you know, since he only has those nightmares after someone significant dies?  Like after the kid dies? After Mordin Dies? After Thane dies?  PTSD!  The only time in the whole trilogy that Shepard (and us as players) ever experience something even closely resembling what has been established through the Narrative as Indoctrination, is during the TIM sequence.  TIM dies, blurry black outline thing goes away.  No more control.  That is the ONLY time.  Never during the whole 5 year experience, through all the contact he's had with reapers and reaper tech, has Shepard experienced anything even remotelly resembling Indoctrination other than that one scene.  Not so much as a "well maybe reapers aren't completely wrong".

Ah, common sense!  The script makes it clear the nightmares are about guilt.  It states outright that as the game goes on blurry ghost images appear in the nightmares representing all the civilians dying.  The game does too actually.  That's why, if you don't import a Shep you have to choose your biggest regret.

No one is saying that isn't what the nightmares are.  But, particularly in that last dream, there are other things happening behind the scenes.  The script doesn't explain why the child bursts into flames (nor does it say that Shepard witnesses himself burning with the child).

The script doesn't explain what is happening behind the scenes and the motivation.  Only a few notes to help cinematic designers and animators express the correct emotion and atmosphere.  Also realize a lot of what was in the ending wasn't in the script as far as the walk to the beam, the actual visual result of the ending choice, and what happens to the Normandy and crew.

So of course, if you were to take the ending literally, the script works well.  But it isn't entirely reliable.

It's far more reliable than baseless conjecture.  It's what you call objective evidence.  And it gels with all the other objective evidence such as Final Hours, dev interviews, BW saying last night on FB that these are the endings and most importantly the damn game tells you, no matter your choice, you have defeated the Reapers and the same epilogue plays.

Space magic and the writers just writing a bad ending are baseless conjecture as well.  And nothing in the statements and interviews did not say the endings are what they are literally and at face value.  They are the ending to the game, and to the game you did defeat the Reapers because that's what is presented to you.

And again, I know why Shepard is having the dreams and why the child burst into flames (in the first two dreams).  But the third is off.

IT could be wrong, but nothing has discounted it.  

[Midnight Eternal]

Tsantilas wrote...

Midnight Eternal wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

If the Indoctrination theory is what Bioware intended, they went about it in the most stupidly convoluted way they could possibly think of. If it is not what they intended they would be damn stupid to use it. Cause whomever could prove they thought of the idea first would be without all rights to sue Bioware over intellectual property. So if it wasn't intended, don't expect them to use it as an out.

Well the "intellectual property" argument holds no water, but I agree with you on the rest.  If it was intended, they went about it the wrong way.  If they release DLC that makes it appear it was intended, then it's obvious that they just took the idea from these forums and used it as an easy solution.

Thank you. I shall correct myself to make it that I assume that intellectual property rights would be brought into question. Since I'm no law student and wouldn't know XP. Pardon my haste.

[Jaze55]

Xerkysz wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Indoctrination doesn't "fail".  A strong will can fight it for moments of clarity but if you're indoctrinated you are indoctrinated.

There's 2 results when you attempt something, what are they?

"
Rana Thanoptis, an asari neuroscientist on Virmire, goes into more detail. She describes indoctrination as a subtle whisper you can't ignore, that compels you to do things without knowing why. Over days, perhaps a week of exposure to Sovereign's signal, the subject stops thinking for themselves and just obeys, eventually becoming a mindless servant. That was the fate of Rana's predecessor, who became her first test subject, and the captured salarians who had once been Captain Kirrahe's men. 


Next. 

Modifié par MassEffected555, 19 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[Tsantilas]

Xerkysz wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Indoctrination doesn't "fail".  A strong will can fight it for moments of clarity but if you're indoctrinated you are indoctrinated.

There's 2 results when you attempt something, what are they?

The people supporting the Indoctrination Theory seem to have an incorrect (as far as established canon goes) understanding of how Indoctrination works.  The reapers do not try to convert people to their side.  They simply alter their way of thinking.  It is not brainwashing in the traditional sense, where a successfull will save breaks the effect.  The subject simply starts thinking the reapers are right and eventually become completely under their control.  Not a single character in the narrative has ever successfuly broken Indoctrination permanently.  Those who managed to temporarily break the grasp only lived long enough to appologize before commiting suicide or being shot.

[mooney6023]

Tsantilas wrote...

Midnight Eternal wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

If the Indoctrination theory is what Bioware intended, they went about it in the most stupidly convoluted way they could possibly think of. If it is not what they intended they would be damn stupid to use it. Cause whomever could prove they thought of the idea first would be without all rights to sue Bioware over intellectual property. So if it wasn't intended, don't expect them to use it as an out.

Well the "intellectual property" argument holds no water, but I agree with you on the rest.  If it was intended, they went about it the wrong way.  If they release DLC that makes it appear it was intended, then it's obvious that they just took the idea from these forums and used it as an easy solution.

I think whether they did that will be dependent on the production values of the DLC.  If it appears to be something slapped together -- possible.  If it is high enough production value then it's unlikely they could have developed it in a time frame short enough to base it on forum feedback.

[Jaze55]

Xerkysz wrote...

Midnight Eternal wrote...

You bring up something interesting, you see. In all of the ME lore, that I am aware of mind you, I have not read the novels. No one has stopped themselves from becoming indoctrinated. Apparently if it's gonna get ya, it is gonng get ya no bones about it.  Shepard may be "Space Jesus" but he is still human.

Which raises another question, this one intrigues me.

From the lore, it will get you no bones about it, yet Harbinger wanted Shep in ME2, but couldn't get him.

Thought's on this Midnight?

How about the reapers weren't here in full force and at that time they could have used a sleeper agent of Shepards status.

Modifié par MassEffected555, 19 mars 2012 - 06:22 .

[Zhant]

"
Rana Thanoptis[color=rgb(255, 255, 255)">, an ] neuroscientist on [/color]Virmire[color=rgb(255, 255, 255)">, goes into more detail. She describes indoctrination as a subtle whisper you can't ignore, that compels you to do things without knowing why. Over days, perhaps a week of exposure to Sovereign's signal, the subject stops thinking for themselves and just obeys, eventually becoming a mindless servant. That was the fate of Rana's predecessor, who became her first test subject, and the captured salarians who had once been ]'s men."[/color]


Next. 

just like my teacher, she never fails

[Primula Nightfall]

Hey all.

First of all, I would like to state that I support the Shep indoctrination theory. At the moment it seems to me the most "logical" one, and few things don't leave much room for doubt IMHO (Shepard's eyes are a big give-away. You cannot argue with that).

But I would like to ponder something AGAINST this theory.

Let's suppose that Shep is NOT indoctrinated, and the Star Child is indeed some kind of "God" that created the Reapers.

Why are so many players claiming that the Star Child assertions make no sense? I don't get it.
The Star Child basically says that he created the Reapers in order to bring order to the galaxy. To "harvest" evolved civilizations in order to avoid the creation of synthetic life that would eventually kill everything in the universe. It seems that this time they're a bit late since the Geth are already around, but they're still not a galactic-wide thread so they still have time.
One of the arguments that people bring when stating that this is "nonsense" is: "So he's killing people with synthetic creatures in order to avoid people dying from synthetic creatures? That makes no sense!".

I don't get why it's nonsense. The Star Child never said he was "good". He just said he wants order, and he does not like chaos. He never said he did this to protect people. He simply dislikes how things would turn out, so created the reapers to use as giant hoovers and clean up the galaxy before the filth spreads. He does not care about people dying.
He may say that to Shepard, probably trying to bring him to his side, but I believe he simply does not care. He's a being so far different than humans that we cannot comprehend his motives (and this is exactly what Sovereign says).

So, what exactly is nonsensical and unacceptable about this Star Child?

P.S. Sorry if this is not the right thread. But there are so many that I don't know where to post. And this seems quite lively at the moment

Modifié par Primula Nightfall, 19 mars 2012 - 06:21 .

[Jaze55]

Primula Nightfall wrote...

Hey all.

First of all, I would like to state that I support the Shep indoctrination theory. At the moment it seems to me the most "logical" one, and few things don't leave much room for doubt IMHO (Shepard's eyes are a big give-away. You cannot argue with that).

But I would like to ponder something AGAINST this theory.

Let's suppose that Shep is NOT indoctrinated, and the Star Child is indeed some kind of "God" that created the Reapers.

Why are so many players claiming that the Star Child assertions make no sense? I don't get it.
The Star Child basically says that he created the Reapers in order to bring order to the galaxy. To "harvest" evolved civilizations in order to avoid the creation of synthetic life that would eventually kill everything in the universe. It seems that this time they're a bit late since the Geth are already around, but they're still not a galactic-wide thread so they still have time.
One of the arguments that people bring when stating that this is "nonsense" is: "So he's killing people with synthetic creatures in order to avoid people dying from synthetic creatures? That make no sense!".

I don't get why it's nonsense. The Star Child never said he was "good". He just said he wants order, and he does not like chaos. He never said he did this to protect people. He simply dislikes how things would turn out, so created the reapers to use as giant hoovers and clean up the galaxy before the filth spreads. He does not care about people dying.
He may say that to Shepard, probably trying to bring him to his side, but I believe he simply does not care. He's a being so far different than humans that we cannot comprehend his motives (and this is exactly what Sovereign says).

So, what exactly is nonsensical and unacceptable about this Star Child?

P.S. Sorry if this is not the right thread. But there are so many that I don't know where to post. And this seems quite lively at the moment

Why is the Catalyst a God? he is just an AI or VI created by whoever created the Reapers. Why do we keep calling him God? IT didnt do anything, the Citadel did everything lol, so the Citadel is the god not the stupid VI or AI kid.