384 réponses à ce sujet

[ULS 980]

Vromrig wrote...

Pretty much what I'm saying. Except in an awesome Mordin voice.
Although I still wouldn't use the phrase "attempt to indoctrinate" personally. Just doesn't sound right.

Term chosen carefully. Reapers have potential to be successful. Go through motions. May not succeed. Results in failed attempt.

Except Indoctrination has been stated to be absolute in the end. It's inevitable.
The only time people have gotten out of it is on technicalities (Like Shiala).

I'm probably just arguing semantics (or something) at this point, but whatever.
Still don't like using the term "attempt" in relation to indoctrination. Never will.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 06:18 .

[ULS 980]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

If it was bioware's intention all along, then Bioware have NO excuse not to include the real ending after shepard breaks the indoctrination.

"Lot's of speculation for everyone".

There's your excuse.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

We see what we want to see. The evidence for indoc or dream theory is all circumstantial.

Circumstantial: Woman falls from building. Man seen standing on top of building. Circumstantial evidence that he pushed her, does not support.

Different form of evidence. Shepard is told he will die if he selects option. Selecting this option is the only way to not die. Therefore, hard evidence Star Child is not trusted source. In fact, cannot be trusted source.

Beginning of Indoctrination Theory.

He is told he will die if he selects synthesis or control. He is not told he will die if he choses destroy. The "Star child" lying is not evidence for anything but him being a lyer or poor writing.

[Bazedragon]

ULS 980 wrote...

Vigil_N7 wrote...

If it was bioware's intention all along, then Bioware have NO excuse not to include the real ending after shepard breaks the indoctrination.

"Lot's of speculation for everyone".

There's your excuse.

As a hide-saving attempt after "All your questions will. Be. answered!"

[phyreblade74]

Holiday wrote...

 Do you remember the Prothean VI on Thessia that Kai Leng took to the Cerberus station? If you do, then you'd also remember that it was able to discern between people who were indoctrinated and people who weren't. It stated that both the Illusive Man and Kai Leng were indeed indoctrinated, while at the same time, stated that Shepard wasn't indoctrinated. There you go. Indoctrination theory disproven.

Because Shepard was NEVER indoctrinated.  N-E-V-E-R.  Indoctrination, rather, is a process.  It's not like one day you're not indoctrinated and then you are.  It's not a sudden transformation, from one moment to the next.  Even TIM didn't just up and become indoctrinated.

What you see through the game, rather, is a systematic attack on Shepard's psyche.  It's subtle, because that's how indoctrination works, insidiously and subtly.  The victim of the attack never even notices consciously the attack is taking place.  Shepard doesn't notice it.  And you certainly didn't, since you're here on the forums swearing determinedly like any other indoctrinated person would, that, "No, no, it can't be!"

When Shepard approached the Prothean VI on Thessia, he still hadn't succumbed to the attack, he was still fighting it, and thus was NOT indoctrinated.  Hence, the VI doesn't describe him so.  It isn't until the very end of the game, when Harbinger descends, that the final confrontation between Shepard and the reapers ensues.  It isn't until that moment, when Shepard has to choose, his red pill / blue pill choice, that he can really, truly become indoctrinated.  Before then, before he chooses to succumb, or not, Shepard is not indoctrinated, not even once.  Not on Thessia, the Cerberus base, nor even as he made that desperate rush towards the Citadel beam, not indoctrinated, still fighting it.

My Shepard chose the red, shot the tubes in order to "destroy", and thus was able to overcome the reapers and pull herself out of the illusion, stop the reapers from plucking away at her mind.  My Shepard was never indoctrinated, showed will enough to withstand the attempts by the reapers to indoctrinate her, even at the very end.  That's why she took in a desperate breath in the closing scene of the game, a gasp that signaled she was waking up out of the attack.

Bottom line, which did you choose, the red or the blue?   Did your Shepard break free or remain lost in the illusion?

[SteamPunkJin]

I'm not weighing in either way in the Indoctrination Theory but I will point out - so what? Kai Leng shows up and the VI hides, but doesn't lock itself down or put up any security measures. It just hides and then lets Kai take it. I don't think it can actually do anything about Indoctrinated people

[ULS 980]

kathic wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

We see what we want to see. The evidence for indoc or dream theory is all circumstantial.

Circumstantial: Woman falls from building. Man seen standing on top of building. Circumstantial evidence that he pushed her, does not support.

Different form of evidence. Shepard is told he will die if he selects option. Selecting this option is the only way to not die. Therefore, hard evidence Star Child is not trusted source. In fact, cannot be trusted source.

Beginning of Indoctrination Theory.

He is told he will die if he selects synthesis or control. He is not told he will die if he choses destroy. The "Star child" lying is not evidence for anything but him being a lyer or poor writing.

Star Child clearly stated that not only will the Reapers be destroyed in the Destroy ending, but synthetics like the Geth will.
Then he states "Even you are part synthetic" implying that Shepard will die if he chose it.

His exact words are and I quote verbatim, "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the Geth. Even you are part synthetic".

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I just kept role playing my character throughout the entire sequence. ...

Irina (thinking): Just keep the kid talking.... no options.... must complete mission.... must complete mission.... destroy reapers.

To end an epic story this way absolutely sucked. If this was a movie the writers would have had to pick ONE ending, and if they wanted to make any money past the first weekend they wouldn't have picked any of these three. This was plainly and simply bad writing.

Their vision for how the trilogy should end was flawed.

[Iwillbeback]

That's what the Protheans thought, turns out they were betrayed from the inside.

[ULS 980]

SteamPunkJin wrote...

I'm not weighing in either way in the Indoctrination Theory but I will point out - so what? Kai Leng shows up and the VI hides, but doesn't lock itself down or put up any security measures. It just hides and then lets Kai take it. I don't think it can actually do anything about Indoctrinated people

The VI states, when Kai Leng shows up "Indoctrinated presence approaches. Security protocols engaging".
It's designed to lock down when an indoctrinated person is in the area.

[Vromrig]

He is told he will die if he selects synthesis or control. He is not told he will die if he choses destroy. The "Star child" lying is not evidence for anything but him being a lyer or poor writing.

Incorrect: it is stated that you will die. Justification: synthetic parts inside of Shepard.

Shepard does not, die, however. This proves conclusively that the Star Child is a liar. Lying itself is evidence. Evidence of what? That the Star Child is trying to influence you to make a decision. Without truth.

What could it be trying to achieve? Indoctrination Theory explains. I choose simple option so you can understand. You accuse "all" evidence circumstantial. It is not. There is much. Data does not support any theory that is not Indoctrination.

[Tamahome560]

Yeah I mean the Protheans didn't get betrayed by indoctrinated agents that their UBER VI'S didn't detect.

Oh wait...

[kathic]

ULS 980 wrote...
Star Child clearly stated that not only will the Reapers be destroyed in the Destroy ending, but synthetics like the Geth will.
Then he states "Even you are part synthetic" implying that Shepard will die if he chose it.

His exact words are and I quote verbatim, "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Includes the Geth. Even you are part synthetic".

That does not mean Shepard will die. It is an appeal to Shepard to think of himself as part synthetic and make him more sympathetic to the view that the AI boy is pushing. Regardless of how that scene is interpruted it does not provide any evidence for indoc.

[CavScout]

DS_Abe wrote...

Mims wrote...

But you could also make the good counter argument of: if the protheans had the technology to accurately predict indoctrination, why did they keep getting infiltrated?

/not for or against the theory.

Scumbag Protheans.

Have technology to detect indoctrination with 100% accuracy.

Fail to detect indoctrination in their own people.

We have geiger counters today. It doesn't mean it is impossible to get poisoned or exposed to radiation.

[Paragon Auducan]

Just rewatched the VI scene and guess what, it IS Shepard he is sensing. When he is about to Interface with 'your' systems THAT is when he says he detects the Indoctrination. Before he only scans for two things, Reapers are here, this is a new cycle.

Kai Leng is a red herring.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

He is told he will die if he selects synthesis or control. He is not told he will die if he choses destroy. The "Star child" lying is not evidence for anything but him being a lyer or poor writing.

Incorrect: it is stated that you will die. Justification: synthetic parts inside of Shepard.

Shepard does not, die, however. This proves conclusively that the Star Child is a liar. Lying itself is evidence. Evidence of what? That the Star Child is trying to influence you to make a decision. Without truth.

What could it be trying to achieve? Indoctrination Theory explains. I choose simple option so you can understand. You accuse "all" evidence circumstantial. It is not. There is much. Data does not support any theory that is not Indoctrination.

Even if the child is lying, there is no logical connection between the lie and Indoc Theory.

[Forgomoth]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

I find it troubling that so many people are willing to settle for the indoctrination theory. If I did, I know I would be absolutely livid.

If it was bioware's intention all along, then Bioware have NO excuse not to include the real ending after shepard breaks the indoctrination. But they never did, they were clearly happy with whatever they had done by release.

If they purposely held off the ending until an expansion/DLC, then Bioware should be ashamed and everyone should quite frankly be disgusted. 

However, I feel many people would purchase it anyway, thus vindicating Bioware's orginal stance.

As I said earlier, I believe that if BioWare is saving the real ending for an expansion pack, it's because it's so epic and huge that they couldn't finish in time.  I mean, there is a seriously large amount of factors to account for.  Among the obvious ones, did wrex survive?  What about the Geth and Quarians?  Who are the current counsellors? Did you rescue the students of Grissom Academy? How about the Cerberus scientists?  The list goes on and on...

Do I expect them to get everything?  No.
Am I content with the current ending, if they do indeed do nothing about it? Yes.
Do I still think they're not done with the ending? Yes.

BioWare employees have said that we'd be singing a different tune (and not the hated sour notes) if we knew what they had in store, so...  I'm optimistic.

[Bazedragon]

Vromrig wrote...

He is told he will die if he selects synthesis or control. He is not told he will die if he choses destroy. The "Star child" lying is not evidence for anything but him being a lyer or poor writing.

Incorrect: it is stated that you will die. Justification: synthetic parts inside of Shepard.

Shepard does not, die, however. This proves conclusively that the Star Child is a liar. Lying itself is evidence. Evidence of what? That the Star Child is trying to influence you to make a decision. Without truth.

What could it be trying to achieve? Indoctrination Theory explains. I choose simple option so you can understand. You accuse "all" evidence circumstantial. It is not. There is much. Data does not support any theory that is not Indoctrination.

You almost turned Elcor in that first sentence.

Also. Stop. You're being too awesome!

[Vromrig]

That does not mean Shepard will die. It is an appeal to Shepard to think of himself as part synthetic and make him more sympathetic to the view that the AI boy is pushing. Regardless of how that scene is interpruted it does not provide any evidence for indoc.

Evidence is cumulative. Science, law, philosophy, necessitates road built out of evidence to reach the destination, conclusion. Single incident does not constitute final thesis, but is supportive of thesis. Supports argument of questioning Catalyst and Catalyst scenario. Not itself direct support of Indoctrination Theory. But, first important step to justifying further arguments.

Evidence to support evidence. Much like court case. Proof that Defendant was at Krispy Kreme at 2am is not proof that defendant is murderer. Proof instead that Defendant is in location where murder happened. Evidence to support argument, which is used to support other argument.

[Fingertrip]

How about having Javik and play the DLC, then get back to trying to tear apart "facts".

Pathetic.

[ULS 980]

kathic wrote...

ULS 980 wrote...
Star Child clearly stated that not only will the Reapers be destroyed in the Destroy ending, but synthetics like the Geth will.
Then he states "Even you are part synthetic" implying that Shepard will die if he chose it.

His exact words are and I quote verbatim, "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Includes the Geth. Even you are part synthetic".

That does not mean Shepard will die. It is an appeal to Shepard to think of himself as part synthetic and make him more sympathetic to the view that the AI boy is pushing. Regardless of how that scene is interpruted it does not provide any evidence for indoc.

The statement was made in the context of the Destroy choice wiping out all synthetic life.
The only way to take "Even you are part synthetic" is to say "You will die because you are part synthetic".

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

That does not mean Shepard will die. It is an appeal to Shepard to think of himself as part synthetic and make him more sympathetic to the view that the AI boy is pushing. Regardless of how that scene is interpruted it does not provide any evidence for indoc.

Evidence is cumulative. Science, law, philosophy, necessitates road built out of evidence to reach the destination, conclusion. Single incident does not constitute final thesis, but is supportive of thesis. Supports argument of questioning Catalyst and Catalyst scenario. Not itself direct support of Indoctrination Theory. But, first important step to justifying further arguments.

Evidence to support evidence. Much like court case. Proof that Defendant was at Krispy Kreme at 2am is not proof that defendant is murderer. Proof instead that Defendant is in location where murder happened. Evidence to support argument, which is used to support other argument.

None of this successfully addresses the mountain of circumstantial evidence that Indoc theory is built on. A far simpler and more likely answer is that the ending was poorly written or simply unsatisfactory for the audience. The real Mordin would not rely on such flimsy evidence.

[ULS 980]

Paragon Auducan wrote...

Just rewatched the VI scene and guess what, it IS Shepard he is sensing. When he is about to Interface with 'your' systems THAT is when he says he detects the Indoctrination. Before he only scans for two things, Reapers are here, this is a new cycle.

Kai Leng is a red herring.

When the VI indicates there is an indoctrinated person in the area, he directs his attention towards Kai Leng (having to turn around to do so).

It's clearly Leng who's the indoctrinated presence on Thessia.
If it was Shepard, the VI wouldn't have interfaced with Shepard's suit nor offered to do so.
If Shepard was indoctrinated at that point, the VI would have been "You're indoctrinated. I'm not talking to you".

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[Vromrig]

None of this successfully addresses the mountain of circumstantial evidence that Indoc theory is built on. A far simpler and more likely answer is that the ending was poorly written or simply unsatisfactory for the audience. The real Mordin would not rely on such flimsy evidence.

Building false argument, getting unnecessarily emotional. Appealing to lack of what was said in context of discussion and arguing that this is a lack of evidence existing. If fault, lies in presentation, not in data.

Point remains, I am expressing the hole in your argument that all evidence is circumstantial. The Catalyst's erroneous statements are a "hard" evidence. This evidence is used to fill the story of the Indoctrination Theory.

Okham's Razor being invoked. Okham's Razor not an excuse to be lazy. Assumes most likely to be true is least unmerited assumptions made. In this case, Okham's Razor is in support of Indoctrination Theory. No assumptions necessary, impossible to read ending as anything but Indoctrination attempt. Evidence does not add up to support genuine climax. Too many assumptions necessary.

Assumption that the voice acting direction and script were erroneous after Shepard is shot. Assumption that consistency was unintentional. Assumption that Bioware suffer sudden and inexplicable story writing degradation. Assumption that surreal scene filled with plot holes further accidents. Assumption after assumption. Assumptions inconsistent with data available, too many required to invoke Okham's Razor.

Indoctrination Theory assumes little. Only assumption that the ending will be hashed on later. Only requires faith in consistency of material. Not unreasonable.

Further, circumstantial evidence, still evidence.  Invocation of term does not make it inadmissable.  Simply requires more corroberation.  Convictions have been had on circumstantial evidence.  Conclusion often that large quantities of circumstantial evidence cannot exist if they do not agree to an outcome.

Irrelevant point, simply side tidbit about logic.  Most evidence is not circumstantial, but wanted to address erroneous logic.  Circumstantial evidence still evidence.  Not lacking, only enforces conclusive evidence.

Modifié par Vromrig, 20 mars 2012 - 06:40 .

[Dr_Hello]

As I understand it, and logically speaking, yes the Prothean VI can detect indoctrinated people but not people going through the process of indoctrination. Shepard wasn't indoctrinated when he met the Prothean VI. If he were already, he'd be the bad guy and wouldn't pursue the mission.