364 réponses à ce sujet

[bo_7md]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
(1) Who says Shepard doesn't wake up on a broken-off Citadel ward still orbiting Earth?

That rubble didn't look like Citadel construction to me. Looked more like stone, which means London.This works if Shepard never goes to the Citadel at all, and everything after Harbinger fires is hallucinated.

I think it is an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them. Anyone who contests this is not thinking rationally and prone to the (very common) delusion that evil is somehow contagious. 

I agree with this, but isn't it the premise of I-theory that the ideas presented in the endgame are irrelevant? Are lies?

If you watch the scene where the reaper fries them that doesn't fit as shep is running on open ground. In the last scene(Breath scene) He has rubble under him and all around him so unless someone picks him up and puts him somewhere else I.T doesn't work.

[MDT1]

bo_7md wrote...

MDT1 wrote...


No its not logical, how should ems and/or the fact when anderson dies have an effect on this?

I'm saying shep falling to London is logical, I'm not with the Theory i'm against it.

And I'm saying falling to London isn't logical at all, it's ridiculous but it was in the leaked script or somewhere.
And to clarify, I'm also aware that Bioware didn't intend to use the indoctrination Theory.

All I'm saying is, that the ending is broken as it is and imho not fixable.

Modifié par MDT1, 22 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[TheLastAwakening]

Man this is in the wrong section, so I will have to remain a bit vague.

Imo, the other two choices are not objectively wrong. Rather the first choice, the one that was chosen long ago as the solution is the only wrong choice. Every other choice is filled with uncertainty, had that not been the case then Shepard would not have a choice to make. No, rather, the thing allowing Shepard to make the choice imo is doing so by relying on Shepard's will, which is very subjective. Shepard's will, the fact that he is here presents another perspective, this in a way lends its self to the almost surreal feel that indoc theory draws from in saying that Shepard may be indoc.

The problem lies in that Shepard has to make a decision which affects everyone through it's Effect,y es a Mass Effect. Furthermore, all three decisions embody a sense of betrayal--wrong section! Basically, what was everyone fighting for? One of the choices applies an effect--seen it in the memes lol--that nobody asked for (DX-HR). And the other two choices equally have their own sense of betrayal, though I might add from different sides of the table. Imo indoc theory doesn't force the idea that two of the choices are wrong, rather, I think it present that something is wrong entirely with the whole surreal feeling of the end.

Modifié par TheLastAwakening, 22 mars 2012 - 07:07 .

[AlanC9]

bo_7md wrote...
If you watch the scene where the reaper fries them that doesn't fit as shep is running on open ground. In the last scene(Breath scene) He has rubble under him and all around him so unless someone picks him up and puts him somewhere else I.T doesn't work.

Conceivably he could have been dragged to a place of relative safety. It sure beats falling from a wrekced Citadel to Earth....

[Sherbet Lemon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

 The problem with the conversation between Reaper Damian and Shepard is that it essentially breaks the fourth wall and the  conversation no longter takes place within the space of the narrative.  The Star Child functions more as a voice for the developer and less a character just as Shepard isn't really Shepard during this moment.  Shepard is us.  The developer/game master lays out all of the cards on the table and essentially asks us to choose.  In turn, we are expected to consider the options and pick "wisely."  Narratively speaking, this is problematic because it causes confusion, gives off the illusion of "Shepard" still being in game himself/herself when they are not.   We have broken that wall and now are being expressly addressed.

I'm having a little trouble following this. What's the distinction between Shepard and the player at this point? Shepard's decision-making is in the player's hands, and Shepard doesn't have any information that the player does not have.

As for the question of trusting Space Damian -- I kinda prefer Starchild myself --  if you can't trust him then the choice is meaningless anyway. Which is kind of the point of the indoctrination hypothesis, right?

Well, yes.  I would say there is less distinction between PC and Shepard in this scene than normal.  If you consider the setting within the game, Shepard interacts with other characters as him/herself and not as the PC themselves.  Sure we control Shepard, but we are never acknowledged as the controller.  While I think this instance differs from the actual threatrical sense of "breaking the fourth wall" the sensibility is still there.  

The reason why people read that Shepard is out of character because he/she is out of character.  You aren't given the chance to play that character for the majority of the conversation is autodialogue (with the exception of one superfical choice in choosing throwaway line).  

Space Damien/Starkid, whatever you call him isn't a character.  He becomes the developer's voice and this gives him authority that we are supposed to take at his word.  The problem is the gamer will resist this because we are normally allowed to discuss, debate, disagree.  In other words, the game expects you to make that distinction, to make that logical leap, but you can't.  It's hasn't been the parameters in the game so far so it leads to distrust and doubt.

My point is this:  the kid is the developer giving you info dump, you are meant to accept info dump and then make a decision.  This goes against what is normally expected for Mass Effect games.  This leads you to doubt kid's authority and makes him unrealiable therefore proof for indoctrination theory.  I'm saying, I don't see this kid's unrealiability as means for indoctrination theory, I see it more as a design/narrative  mistake.  

I see the kid as Casey Hudson/Mac Walters (et. al) and you see the kid as the Harbinger/Catalyst trying to "trick" the player into choosing the wrong choice.  In your view the characters are still interacting within the parameters of the narrative, in my view they are not.  The narrative has been broken and we are not interfacing in ways that is part of the superficial game mechanic.

EDIT:  I mostly use Space Damien as a joke...because creepy kid in omen, creepy kid in game but that's just my weird sense of humor.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 22 mars 2012 - 07:15 .

[J.C. Blade]

cyborg2501 wrote...
Hypothetically, all 3 of the choices have merit when looked at rationally. However, for a story that's so built around evoking emotional reactions, I'm not surprised they didn't build the end around a rational decision. In fact, I think it might feel a bit out of character for the game itself.  Shepard from the beginning has always been about destroying the Reapers. The control and synthesis options will still have a major story effect if you choose them, but there still has to be a roughly defined path for how to conclude the story. And I think at this point, people would accept the illusion of true choice in exchange for a well-conceived ending.

Bioware's Shepard is all about destroying the Reapers. The Shepard I guided through two games was all about stopping them and wouldn't bat an eyelash at the prospect of choosing either Control or Synthesis. In fact, Control grants survival, even if it's only in the form of a mind parked in the Citadel.

[MrAtomica]

Let's assume that you chose Destroy. You then get the scene where you are alive. You are obviously not on the Citadel, since you are lying on stone/concrete. Therefore:

1. Shepard fell to Earth from the Citadel

OR

2. Shepard was teleported back down to Earth from the Citadel

OR

3. Shepard was never on the Citadel in the first place

As to number one, this is simply not possible. We KNOW, from the onset of Mass Effect 2, that Shepard cannot survive in open space. He/she is not wearing a full suit (not that it would matter), is clearly badly wounded, and is engulfed in flames from the exploding Citadel. Surviving the initial explosion, then the vacuum of space, the heat of falling into Earth's atmosphere, followed by impact with a solid surface, is entirely impossible.

To number two, if the beam could be used to pick throw anyone off of the Citadel, at any time, from anywhere, then what was the purpose of the teleportation pad that Shepard landed on in the beginning? Would the Reapers REALLY risk allowing random people to stumble upon the Catalyst, or go anywhere else but where the Reapers decided? I believe that Anderson described the beam as a means to get victims up to the Citadel. If not, what was the purpose of the beam at all? Some believe that the Catalyst could have sent you back. If that is true, why would he ever have allowed you to threaten his "solution" at all?

The final option is not perfect. Many have stated, and I can see to some extent, that it seems to come off as "Your choices didn't really matter." For this reason, they'll probably never use the Indoctrination Hypothesis. Still, this explanation is FAR AND AWAY more logical than the other two. Again, the google docs document outlining WHY the hypothesis is so believable is a good place to start. Don't try refuting something until you have all the facts.

https://docs.google....?pli=1&sle=true

Modifié par MrAtomica, 22 mars 2012 - 07:15 .

[SalsaDMA]

bo_7md wrote...

Actually Indoctrination makes you see things that aren't there. It doesn't make you think it is not there. Now read the above quotes again.

By that statement, it doesn't matter which choice is made, as the indoctrinatino will only make options available that it wants the indoctrinated to see, having 'painted over' the others. You could even go so far as to argue that the scenery displayed after the choice is part of the indoctrination dreams as well, and thus doesn't really proove anything as to what 'really' happened.

In short, going for the route: "It's an indoctrination vision" nullifies any of the displayed scenes and litterally means that the player never actually got an ending cause he/she never saw the 'reality'. For all the player is aware, an indoctrinated Shepard never did any choice anywhere and had no actual physical effect on the world around him, despite what he/she might 'think' he/she saw during the indoctrination dreams.

In my eyes, such an ending would be even worse than what was displayed, as it wouldn't be an ending at all giving you no idea at all what actually happened.

[Oldbones2]

The only thing that I truly hate about the Indoctrination theory, is that SOME of its proponents actually look down everyone else for not believing in it.

Come on guys. It's not that perfect a theory. And Bioware CLEARLY didn't plan to use it.

[MrAtomica]

How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

[OdanUrr]

MrAtomica wrote...

Let's assume that you chose Destroy. You then get the scene where you are alive. You are obviously not on the Citadel, since you are lying on stone/concrete.

I don't think that's it though. While it certainly looks like concrete, it could be Nahqadah for all we know and it'd look similar. I think the most compelling element of the scene is the beam.

MrAtomica wrote...

How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

 

Energy shield? Or, in this case, mass effect field?

Modifié par OdanUrr, 22 mars 2012 - 07:17 .

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
(1) Who says Shepard doesn't wake up on a broken-off Citadel ward still orbiting Earth?

That rubble didn't look like Citadel construction to me. Looked more like stone, which means London.This works if Shepard never goes to the Citadel at all, and everything after Harbinger fires is hallucinated.

I think it is an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them. Anyone who contests this is not thinking rationally and prone to the (very common) delusion that evil is somehow contagious. 

I agree with this, but isn't it the premise of I-theory that the ideas presented in the endgame are irrelevant? Are lies?

Then ALL of them should be lies, and the only option to get out of it should be to challenge the starchild's logic. I wouldn't like that either. I don't like the whole indoctrination premise. But that at least would be acceptable on the grounds of reason, other objections to the whole premise notwithstanding. 

When it comes down to it, I do like the final choice as such and wouldn't like to any of the options invalidated as a way to win. I just want a better explanation after all I did to make peace between the quarians and the geth, and an actual fourth option based on challenging the star child, but no indoctrination.

Since I guess they'll be redoing the post-choice cutscenes anyway to fix some of the plot holes, I think there's a chance exactly that will happen.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 07:18 .

[bo_7md]

SalsaDMA wrote...

bo_7md wrote...

Actually Indoctrination makes you see things that aren't there. It doesn't make you think it is not there. Now read the above quotes again.

By that statement, it doesn't matter which choice is made, as the indoctrinatino will only make options available that it wants the indoctrinated to see, having 'painted over' the others. You could even go so far as to argue that the scenery displayed after the choice is part of the indoctrination dreams as well, and thus doesn't really proove anything as to what 'really' happened.

In short, going for the route: "It's an indoctrination vision" nullifies any of the displayed scenes and litterally means that the player never actually got an ending cause he/she never saw the 'reality'. For all the player is aware, an indoctrinated Shepard never did any choice anywhere and had no actual physical effect on the world around him, despite what he/she might 'think' he/she saw during the indoctrination dreams.

In my eyes, such an ending would be even worse than what was displayed, as it wouldn't be an ending at all giving you no idea at all what actually happened.

Well ya but i'm not with the indoc theory. Please read my other posts.

[MrAtomica]

Oldbones2 wrote...

The only thing that I truly hate about the Indoctrination theory, is that SOME of its proponents actually look down everyone else for not believing in it.

Come on guys. It's not that perfect a theory. And Bioware CLEARLY didn't plan to use it.

Read the article that I posted in my first post, then make a decision about the hypothesis (it isn't really a theory). I see too many people make insulting statements about how believing it could work is moronic. This theory is the most logical way to rectify the massive lack of consistency and sense in the current "endings".

Everything, up to Harbinger, is good enough to satisfy me. I would have liked a little more input from the assets, and a finale closer to the SM from ME2, but I can live with everything to this point. Hell, I can even appreciate the Anderson talk. But the Catalyst portion is just inexclusable.

[Ieldra]

MrAtomica wrote...
How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

Have you played ME2? Jack was walking in open space without a suit or helmet. The ME development team appears to find such things acceptable, though they toned it down in ME3.

Anyway, a transparent dome? Energy screens? This is Sufficiently Advanced Technology, you know....

[jamesp81]

OP, your post would be more convincing if it didn't more or less come out and call the people who like the Indoc theory stupid. That was not a good way to bring people around to your way of thinking.

[Sherbet Lemon]

MrAtomica wrote...

How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

The same way that Shepard crash landed on a planet whereby there was a recoverable body with a brain still intact that could be brought back to life after a considerable lack of oxygen to the brain.

Mass Effect fields, scientific magic, take your pick.

[bo_7md]

AlanC9 wrote...

bo_7md wrote...
If you watch the scene where the reaper fries them that doesn't fit as shep is running on open ground. In the last scene(Breath scene) He has rubble under him and all around him so unless someone picks him up and puts him somewhere else I.T doesn't work.

Conceivably he could have been dragged to a place of relative safety. It sure beats falling from a wrekced Citadel to Earth....

Well well see this is what happens when you have a theory it all falls apart when you notice the huge holes in it. See you are adding things to the theory now he was dragged to safety and got squashed again ? how many things are you people going to add to this theroy LOL.

In current gen satellites of earth material have fallen to earth and a big chunck made it through. You are talking about the citadel made with reaper technology and reaper material why wouldn't it make to London ?

[MrAtomica]

Ieldra2 wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...
How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

Have you played ME2? Jack was walking in open space without a suit or helmet. The ME development team appears to find such things acceptable, though they toned it down in ME3.

Anyway, a transparent dome? Energy screens? This is Sufficiently Advanced Technology, you know....

Okay, let's accept that. The Citadel probably has some powerful mass effect fields to give it gravity and an atmosphere of sorts. But, how far do these fields extend? The final area appears to be the point where the Citadel meets the Crucible. In that case, we are on the exterior of the station, and in open space. Would the fields be powerful enough to protect those outside the Citadel?

For that matter, why did we then need to suit up in Mass Effect 1, on the way to Sovereign? We were on the exterior of the station then, and we clearly were in space. The sound was muffled, we walked slowly, and we were wearing a full suit. If there was protection against the vacuum, why would this be present now and not then?

Modifié par MrAtomica, 22 mars 2012 - 07:26 .

[OdanUrr]

Village Idiot wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

The same way that Shepard crash landed on a planet whereby there was a recoverable body with a brain still intact that could be brought back to life after a considerable lack of oxygen to the brain.

Mass Effect fields, scientific magic, take your pick.

I think I'm in love.

[bo_7md]

MrAtomica wrote...

How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

Look at the part where is talking to the child, Hope part you should see air vents and a top floor/roof so that in the back could be glass.

The citadel itself is like a giant indoor planet it is all either inside a building or they have a way of keeping air/oxygen around in acceptable levels.

[MrAtomica]

bo_7md wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

Look at the part where is talking to the child, Hope part you should see air vents and a top floor/roof so that in the back could be glass.

The citadel itself is like a giant indoor planet it is all either inside a building or they have a way of keeping air/oxygen around in acceptable levels.

I don't see any vents, or any roof. All I see is the Crucible, which is directly above where you are standing.

[Zanath]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The title is deliberately provocative, but I stand by it. More to the point, it would an insult to everyone whose morality is based on reason more than emotion and knee-jerk outrage. I will proceed to explain why.

I am not, in principle, opposed to the idea that the Citadel sequence isn't real. The sticking point is the part about Destroy being the only option. This presumes that the other two options for the final choice are in some way objectively wrong. This is false. Here is why:

That an idea has been embraced by a villain does not make it bad or wrong.

Funny, you start by taking a shot at the supposed idiots who use indoctrination as a "knee-jerk emotionnal response without using their reason", while actually you're the very one guilty of it, and the whole indoc theory is based on logic and not what people "like" or not.

Because the point is : you reject the theory not because of logical inconsistencies, but just because you don't like the idea that the other "moral choices" were supposedly "objectively wrong". Here you go, you have exactly what is a "knee-jerk emotional outrage" rather than using your brain and your reason. Funny.

You simply missed the point.
According to the indoc theory, the fact that the "destroy" solution is the "good" one has nothing to do with the objective morality of the three options. It has ONLY to do with the fact that the other options are the twisted "positive" versions of what would actually help the Reapers (symbiosis => harvesting ; control => they are the one controling).
"destroying" is the goal they don't want.

It's nothing to do with how "moral" or "immoral" would be a choice where the indoctrinated person would really be able to bring peace between synthetics and organic via some space magic, or would be able to control the Reaper. It's all to do with how these visions are not what they seem, as they are just the result of the mind-twist the indoctrination is trying to pull on Shepard.

The fact that the other choices LOOK better is precisely the POINT of indoctrination - people WILLINGLY helping the Reapers, because what they THINK they do is a twisted reflection of what they ARE doing. Saren and TIM ILLUSTRATES the concept, they are not "tainting" it.

Next time you want to be obnoxious and condescending, try to at least get the idea correctly.

[bo_7md]

MrAtomica wrote...

bo_7md wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

How would anyone logically explain Shepard's standing in open space in the Catalyst "room"? I see no walls between me and the outside, and I doubt I could survive without a full spacesuit.

Look at the part where is talking to the child, Hope part you should see air vents and a top floor/roof so that in the back could be glass.

The citadel itself is like a giant indoor planet it is all either inside a building or they have a way of keeping air/oxygen around in acceptable levels.

I don't see any vents, or any roof. All I see is the Crucible, which is directly above where you are standing.

Go back and watch the video on you tube see part where he says "By wiping...."

[Sherbet Lemon]

Zanath wrote...

The fact that the other choices LOOK better is precisely the POINT of indoctrination - people WILLINGLY helping the Reapers, because what they THINK they do is a twisted reflection of what they ARE doing. Saren and TIM ILLUSTRATES the concept, they are not "tainting" it.

But--your point presupposes the idea that Shepard is just another character. S/He is not.   Shepard is the PC, the hero, the center figure within the narrative.  This distinction must be made and important to explaining why Shepard is different from Illusive Man/Saran and others.  It is the very function of game!

Furthermore, this point has already been made by characters like Illusive Man and Saren and Benezia.  We know that indoctrination is powerful and insidious.  Forcing it upon the player as a means to make a false choice doesn't do much but attempt to be clever. 

(Sorry to jump in on your convo, but I just had to respond to this )

Modifié par Village Idiot, 22 mars 2012 - 07:49 .