364 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Village Idiot wrote...
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.  

This explanation actually confused me more. I don't see how Shpeard is any less Shepard in that scene than he's ever been. 

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.

So the argument is that being able to disagree with the kid would make the information he presents more plausible?

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.

Don't say "you." I'm not really a fan of I-theory, myself. While if Bio wanted to go with it as a DLC I wouldn't necessarily mind too much, it strikes me as being a fairly tortured interpretation. My natural interpretation is that the kid is exactly what he says he is.

[MrAtomica]

Those are the clamps that the Crucible used to attach to the Citadel. I still hold that you are in open space.

[Oldbones2]

MrAtomica,

I hate the endings as much as anyone. I mean I literally turn the game off after Anderson. And yes there are tons of flaws in the ending sequence.

Having read your hypothesis, my opinion is unchanged, The series of inconsistencies within the ending sequence are the result of a rushed ending, a failed artistic vision that is at odds with the central themes of Mass Effect and a heavy does of artistic license.

I am not saying that the Indoctrination hypothesis couldn't be used to fix the problems with the endings. However with with each passing day more and more evidence accumulates that disproves the Indoctrination Hypothesis. The Final Hours, Developers Statements, etc.

And yet very few of the believers in the hypothesis are willing to accept this. In fact, most that I've encountered seem even more fervent in their beliefs.

[SkinnyMcfatty]

Zanath wrote...

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.

   .........and check mate. Sir i beleave you may have just made this thread obsolete. Until a pissed off polite rebuttle comes back.

[Sherbet Lemon]

AlanC9 wrote...

This explanation actually confused me more. I don't see how Shpeard is any less Shepard in that scene than he's ever been. 

Well, I don't agree.  I think Shepard would require more information than what the kid gave him/her and would certainly try to do more than just acquiesce but everyone's different.

So the argument is that being able to disagree with the kid would make the information he presents more plausible?

For me, yes.  Not just being able to disagree, but also getting more information.  How do you establish trust in a character that you just met? How do you make that character feel like in character? How can you make a major decision like the above without context?  

Don't say "you." I'm not really a fan of I-theory, myself. While if Bio wanted to go with it as a DLC I wouldn't necessarily mind too much, it strikes me as being a fairly tortured interpretation. My natural interpretation is that the kid is exactly what he says he is.

I apologize.  I didn't mean to offend, I thought you were implying otherwise.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 22 mars 2012 - 07:57 .

[MrAtomica]

If Shepard is truly the "hero" of the story, then why does he accept the enemy's assertions at face value? He deals with the situation in three separate ways, all of them so extreme as to be almost cruel.

Destroy: Genocide. You have wiped out billions of liquefied people for the sins of their master. You have also murdered EDI and the Geth.

Control: You are perpetuating the enslavement of organic life, in some sense. The Reapers are now YOUR puppets, rather than the Catalyst's.

Synthesis: Forced evolution. You are fundamentally altering all life in the entire universe, without any input from those you are inflicting this end on. Furthermore, you are Reaperfying everyone and everything. What's to say that the Catalyst is not still around, and capable of controlling everything?

Also, none of these endings solve the issue of tech singularity. None of them prevent the creation of new synthetics, nor do they create peace between the two factions. The only way to achieve lasting peace, and a real solution, would be to actually WORK toward peace. Shape the evolution of synthetics in a manner similar to EDI and the Geth.

Where's the option to release the Reapers from enslavement? If their only motivation is domination, then it stands to reason that they can no longer be the ultimate enemy. They are only tools, like TIM and Saren. And neither TIM nor Saren were anything more than pawns. We believed the Reapers to be our natural opposite, but the Catalyst occupies this spot alone. And we are forced to obey him. (it, him, whichever works)

[Tymvir]

It makes no sense that the "kid" would even reveal that the red option kills the reapers if it was indoctrination. He could have deceived Shepard into thinking that the red option is useless.

[MrAtomica]

Oldbones2 wrote...

MrAtomica,

I hate the endings as much as anyone. I mean I literally turn the game off after Anderson. And yes there are tons of flaws in the ending sequence.

Having read your hypothesis, my opinion is unchanged, The series of inconsistencies within the ending sequence are the result of a rushed ending, a failed artistic vision that is at odds with the central themes of Mass Effect and a heavy does of artistic license.

I am not saying that the Indoctrination hypothesis couldn't be used to fix the problems with the endings. However with with each passing day more and more evidence accumulates that disproves the Indoctrination Hypothesis. The Final Hours, Developers Statements, etc.

And yet very few of the believers in the hypothesis are willing to accept this. In fact, most that I've encountered seem even more fervent in their beliefs.

I do not believe that this was their original intention. Nor do I feel that it should have been. But I also feel that it could be used to create a much more satisfying conclusion. The groundwork is there, created by the fans, and it certainly makes more sense than what we've got.

[Ieldra]

MrAtomica wrote...
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?

What are you getting at? We don't need to know. This speculation is completely irrelevant.

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?

Because ME1 used different artistic standards. The whole style of ME1 is much more like "harder" SF while ME2 looks like a comic book. It's the one I resent most about the switch from Karpyshyn to Walters (who also writes comic books). The ME2 team decided it was more important to stick to characters' "iconic" look than to consider that people need to breathe in space. You recall the thing with the helmets caused a huge outcry among the fans? Now we have a helmet toggle again and the new character uniforms don't look like superhero costumes any more (but....*cough* EDI but she's made of metal so that's acceptable). Too bad they didn't change the ME2-exclusive characters though.

Just a hint: there are lots of things that can't be explained by in-world reasoning. Don't try. It only leads to confusion. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 08:04 .

[MrAtomica]

Ieldra2 wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...
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?

What are you getting at? We don't need to know. This speculation is completely irrelevant.

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?

Because ME1 used different artistic standards. The whole style of ME1 is much more like "harder" SF while ME2 looks like a comic book. It's the one I resent most about the switch from Karpyshyn to Walters (who also writes comic books). The ME2 team decided it was more important to stick to characters' "iconic" look than to consider that people need to breathe in space. You recall the thing with the helmets caused a huge outcry among the fans? Now we have a helmet toggle again and the new character uniforms don't look like superhero costumes any more. Too bad they didn't change the ME2-exclusive characters though.

Point conceded, this really isn't worth arguing over. You're probably correct on the standards changing, in any case.

[MrAtomica]

Tymvir wrote...

It makes no sense that the "kid" would even reveal that the red option kills the reapers if it was indoctrination. He could have deceived Shepard into thinking that the red option is useless.

He certainly tries. He tells you that you will kill the Reapers, the Geth, most technology that you use, and likely yourself. He also tells you that it most probably not solve the synthetic issue "Your children will build synthetics."

Modifié par MrAtomica, 22 mars 2012 - 08:05 .

[Heimdall]

AlanC9 wrote...

Don't say "you." I'm not really a fan of I-theory, myself. While if Bio wanted to go with it as a DLC I wouldn't necessarily mind too much, it strikes me as being a fairly tortured interpretation. My natural interpretation is that the kid is exactly what he says he is.

I have to agree with you.  I can't say I really get the Indoctrination theory.  It all seems to fall apart with the destruction ending option.

[bobito64]

Ieldra2 wrote...
That an idea has been embraced by a villain does not make it bad or wrong.
................................................................................................
The only thing Shepard must do is stop the Reapers. That's what makes him a hero and a legend. Otherwise, we could always be power-hungry bastards not at all concerned with justice or mercy. 
................................................................................................
Also, seeking power is also not bad or wrong. Not even seeking absolute power.

 Genghis Khan has a BSN account!!! 

Modifié par bobito64, 22 mars 2012 - 08:08 .

[bobito64]

To answer the point seriously though, the flaw in your argument is contained within your oopening comment:

Ieldra2 wrote...
The only thing Shepard must do is stop the Reapers. 

 

That has been Shepard's mission all along. Not to control them, not to merge with them, to stop them. Remember that and there is only one choice left.

Modifié par bobito64, 22 mars 2012 - 08:14 .

[MrAtomica]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the main reason why I will never choose Control. Too much influence may not necessarily change someone as willful as Shepard, but he/she isn't a god. Having an armada of apocalyptic machines at your beck and call, and the seed of a belief in some "inevitable conflict" leads me to remain cautious.

[Tymvir]

MrAtomica wrote...

Tymvir wrote...

It makes no sense that the "kid" would even reveal that the red option kills the reapers if it was indoctrination. He could have deceived Shepard into thinking that the red option is useless.

He certainly tries. He tells you that you will kill the Reapers, the Geth, most technology that you use, and likely yourself. He also tells you that it most probably not solve the synthetic issue "Your children will build synthetics."

I mean why even present it as a viable option with advantages and disadvantages, if it's the one option he doesn't want Shepard to use? Why not hide the fact that it will kill the Reapers?

Shepard: "But it will kill the Reapers?" Kid:"Yes"

Modifié par Tymvir, 22 mars 2012 - 08:13 .

[MrAtomica]

The fact that he hides the positive effects of Destroy behind a slew of negative ones is telling. This is why Destroy is so vital to the Indoctrination Hypothesis. It seems, to some, that this is the only REAL option, the only one where Shepard stands strong against the Reapers.

[Zanath]

Village Idiot wrote...

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!

Yeah, that's why he has a chance at fighting it instead of just succumbing to it. He's just THAT MUCH OF A BADASS !

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.

Hu ?
Your reasonning is like saying "hey we know bullets can kill, we've seen it on other character, so no need to make Shepard killable through bullets, it forces people to avoid them !"
Or saying that a labyrinth is bad because you need to find a way and not fall into traps - well, isn't that the very point of a labyrinth, and why it's more interesting than a corridor ?
Your counter doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Understanding the level of the tricks played through subtle hints is bad because... err because you plays Shepard ?

Sorry, still makes no sense.

In fact, if the theory was true, it would be a GREAT metagaming and narrative trick, much more deep and subtle than what the ending are for now.

[SalsaDMA]

Tymvir wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

Tymvir wrote...

It makes no sense that the "kid" would even reveal that the red option kills the reapers if it was indoctrination. He could have deceived Shepard into thinking that the red option is useless.

He certainly tries. He tells you that you will kill the Reapers, the Geth, most technology that you use, and likely yourself. He also tells you that it most probably not solve the synthetic issue "Your children will build synthetics."

I mean why even present it as a viable option with advantages and disadvantages, if it's the one option he doesn't want Shepard to use? Why not hide the fact that it will kill the Reapers?

Shepard: "But it will kill the Reapers?" Kid:"Yes"

Not to mention that there is no proof that either option is actually what they are portrayed as by the starchild, if the whole dream thing is to be accepted. The different coloured explosions certainly doesn't give much evidence of anything.

The main issue with accepting illusions as part of the ending means that anything could be something else, even as far as the choice in the 'reality' being shepard picking wether he is turning on the toaster, the coffeemaker or egg-boiler, while believing the switches are far more important. It basicly nullifies the whole ending totally and makes the game have no end then, with the player never knowing how the game ended.

[kalle90]

Tymvir wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

Tymvir wrote...

It makes no sense that the "kid" would even reveal that the red option kills the reapers if it was indoctrination. He could have deceived Shepard into thinking that the red option is useless.

He certainly tries. He tells you that you will kill the Reapers, the Geth, most technology that you use, and likely yourself. He also tells you that it most probably not solve the synthetic issue "Your children will build synthetics."

I mean why even present it as a viable option with advantages and disadvantages, if it's the one option he doesn't want Shepard to use? Why not hide the fact that it will kill the Reapers?

Shepard: "But it will kill the Reapers?" Kid:"Yes"

If it's Shepard's mind fighting, obviously there has to be a way out (assuming we are to win the battle against indoctrination), but kid tries to convince you to not to follow your original intentions. The kid probably is better off quietly stating that yes it will do that and look like he's on your side rather than trying too hard to cover it up.

[Sherbet Lemon]

MrAtomica wrote...

The fact that he hides the positive effects of Destroy behind a slew of negative ones is telling. This is why Destroy is so vital to the Indoctrination Hypothesis. It seems, to some, that this is the only REAL option, the only one where Shepard stands strong against the Reapers.

Or--

It could be Bioware's way of creating some nuance into the endings.  Each ending has positive and negative impact therefore one has to carefully consider what to choose.  You know part of the whole tough choices thing everybody wants implemented nowadays.  While I may not agree with the logic behind making these things this way I can respect it.

[Heimdall]

MrAtomica wrote...

The fact that he hides the positive effects of Destroy behind a slew of negative ones is telling. This is why Destroy is so vital to the Indoctrination Hypothesis. It seems, to some, that this is the only REAL option, the only one where Shepard stands strong against the Reapers.

He wouldn't even present it if the indoctrination theory was true.  It doesn't make sense.  That there are a slew of negative effects is just facts not conspiracy.  Even if the indoctrination theory is not true, the Catalyst would not favor that option because it fails to solve the very issue the Reapers exist to "solve"

So really, it proves nothing.

[Zanath]

Tymvir wrote...

It makes no sense that the "kid" would even reveal that the red option kills the reapers if it was indoctrination. He could have deceived Shepard into thinking that the red option is useless.

Lord Aesir wrote...

He wouldn't even present it if the indoctrination theory was true.  It doesn't make sense.  That there are a slew of negative effects is just facts not conspiracy.  Even if the indoctrination theory is not true, the Catalyst would not favor that option because it fails to solve the very issue the Reapers exist to "solve"

So really, it proves nothing.

Why people have such a hard time understanding the "it's in your mind" sentence ?
According to the theory, the kid DOESN'T EXISTS ! It's just the result of indoctrination, it's the result of your mind being twisted.

Indoctrination is a form of very subtle brainwashing, distorting how your perceive reality and how you reason so that you will take actions that helps the Reapers.
The kid is just the REPRESENTATION of how your mind is twisted. The "destroy" ending is just a representation of Shepard's determination to kill the Reaper despite early indoctrination warping his perception so that it's shown as the worst solution.

When, IRL, you talk with someone in your dreams, there is nobody feeding him his line. Your mind provides them, from your memory, your mood, your mental situation and the like. If you're drugged and sad, you probably will have nightmares, if you're happy and full of hope, you'll probably make nice dreams. It doesn't mean someone outside is creating himself your dream, it depend on your own mind.

Same here, just that the working of the brain are parasited with indoctrination, so that the dream show a twisted reality where the actions helping the reapers LOOK positive.

Modifié par Zanath, 22 mars 2012 - 08:31 .

[bo_7md]

MrAtomica wrote...

Those are the clamps that the Crucible used to attach to the Citadel. I still hold that you are in open space.

The clamps are attached to the outer part not the inner part watch the whole thing.

[Ieldra]

bobito64 wrote...
To answer the point seriously though, the flaw in your argument is contained within your oopening comment:

Ieldra2 wrote...
The only thing Shepard must do is stop the Reapers. 

 

That has been Shepard's mission all along. Not to control them, not to merge with them, to stop them. Remember that and there is only one choice left.

Every ending stops the Reapers from reaping. Mission accomplished.