470 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Raptor_Thirteen wrote...

You totaled the time Shepard and company have spent around indoctrination-capable reaper tech as approximately 3 days. I think that's a fair baseline total.

You also pointed out quite accurately that we don't really know what level of reaper tech is required for indoctrination to occur. I'll accept that as truth as well.

A third point that I didn't see addressed (and that may very well be buried in the codex) regarding indoctrination: Does exposure need to be continuous? Or does excessive time away from the indoctrinating tech allow your body to recover? (I'd love an answer to this from anyone, actually)

Anyway, all those points being acknowledged, I'd like to focus on the second. "We don't know what level of tech is required".

If I remember correctly from the codex, there is no distinction between rapid indoctrination and the slower form aside from the rate of application and the end result (husk versus a slow transition that is slightly more 'normal' in appearance and function, until it eventually becomes a husk anyway). If that is the case, and further assuming that devices designed to indoctrinate rapidly don't require you to actually be impaled on them to work (and I will present evidence to that effect shortly), then Shepard and company have actually been exposed to far more indoctrination than the 3 days you've accounted for.

I don't believe impaling is required for a few simple reasons: The ardat-yakshi monastery being most significant. Samara's daughter (who's name escapes me) was not impaled, and was clearly undergoing rapid indoctrination. She had not reached the end-stage yet, obviously, but it seems silly to assume that she was the only one undergoing the slower form when the reapers were clearly there to harvest additional forces. To account for her presence, and the clearly varied rate of indoctrination, I would theorize that there was a device planted in the monastery capable of rapidly transforming those near it, which would allow for some to be indoctrinated faster than others, and explain the two who survived (mostly) whole. (It casts a bit of a shadow on the other daughter's decision to stay behind, but it makes more sense than assuming that the first daughter was indoctrinated by some slow-indoc device while the other ardat-yakshi were all impaled. 2 devices is harder to accept than 1, and from a tactical standpoint makes less sense.)

That being said, it would seem like a simple jump to assume that ALL indoctrination-capable devices function in the same way as object rho; their presence begins the process, and no direct contact is needed.

Of course I need to account for the geth devices, which is actually rather simple: The writers didn't have indoctrination in mind that early. I had originally written a long-winded explanation of how sovereign didn't have access to rapid-indoc(RI) tech and had the geth make some facsimiles here, but we all know what really happened.

Anyway, moving on... So here we have RI-tech capable of indoctrinating those in close proximity, in my theory. From a tactical standpoint this makes sense: impaling dead enemies is less effective than slowly transforming enemy armies into your soldiers. It still isn't an all-encompassing I-Win button for a war because we simply don't know the range of the effect, or the maximum speed RI occur. Perhaps these devices are also too big to move(a safe assumption, I think. Even the impaler-RI tech wasn't exactly mobile), further limiting their combat effectiveness and giving a need for places like the ardat-yakshi monastery, where the reapers can 'farm up' troops.

Bah. I'm going to run out of time.

I think you see where I'm going with this, though. If my theory is correct, we really don't know how much exposure to indoctrination Shepard has seen. Since we both A) know it to be higher than average and don't know where the event horizon lies, we can't assume that Shepard is NOT indoctrinated.

The current indoc theory is largely sensationalized and hardly scientific, yes, but it's also not entirely illogical. It's suffered under the weight of days of wishful thinking and desperation, not to mention literally EVERYONE adding to it whenever they saw anything that remotely resembled indoctrination... but that doesn't mean it's core is completely wrong. I'd love to debate this more, as I've spent a bit of time distilling the theory into more likely pieces, and debunking the sensationalist garbage... but I don't even have time to spell-check this and make sure I'm not rambling.

I'll try to come back this afternoon and do a better job of explaining myself, if there's cause to.

The codexes state that indcotrination is irevesable, but are somewhat vauge as to if the process needs to be completed first, or if you can shake off the build up given enough time away from sources. Personally given how a mind works, I'd think that this isn't the case and once you've started down the path, there's no going back. What matters is if you've gone so far down the path the Reaper can now use you. This is supposition though.

One other factor to consider as well is that I don't believe (may be wrong though) that indoctrination and transformation into a Reaper unit (husk, marauder e.t.c) are the same thing. Indcotrination has always seemed to me to just be a form of pure mental control- nothing physical. Saren of course gets his 'upgrade' in ME1, but he seems to have already been mostly indoctrinated by that point.

We have clear indications of it's process. It's show in ME:retribution with Paul grayson. He was igected with reaper nanites and resisted indoctionat using will alown. The only time the reapers over came him was when Cerberus in jected him with red sand. The book makes it clear that it a battle of will an at the very early stages can be resisted.

[dreman9999]

aimlessgun wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

What is the significance and/or purpose of the earlier dream sequences if not to symbolically foreshadow the ending? You chase the same boy who shows up in the end to tell you, more or less, that destroying the reapers is futile and accepting synthesis or control is preferable. When you embrace him, everything is engulfed in flames.

Did they include all that for ****s and giggles or does it maybe indicate that you should be wary of the little ****er at the very end?

The whole "Star child is steering you away from Destroy" is just people seeing what they want to see. They ignore signs to the contrary and interpret anything ambigious to fit the theory. 

Thanks for replying with an unfounded claim, not supporting it at all, and prompting yet more back and forth with me. I didn't fit anything to any theory floating around on the Internet. I played the game, paid attention, let it sink in, and came up with my own conclusions, long before I ever exposed myself to what others thought.

There's nothing ambiguous about the starchild saying that destroying the reapers is a futile attempt to postpone the inevitable and that more synthetics will be created and WILL rebel against their creators. That's straightforward.

He then goes on to provide alternative solutions that would end in Shepard's death but bring about perpetual peace. He claims those alternatives weren't available prior to the Crucible, yet they mirror the same beliefs two major, indoctrinated characters had. Nothing ambiguous about that either.

Explain how Control brings about perpetual peace. Explain how synthesis brings about perpetual peace. It was obvious to me at the time that neither of those 'solutions' solved the problem any more than destroy did. 

But the way you stating them is like your taking what seen as fact.  The theory states that all that is seen is not fact. Based on the theory, you question is irrelivent being that all of it is fake. The theory states that anyone the 3 choices do not but change your influence.

[BlackAlpha]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

What is the significance and/or purpose of the earlier dream sequences if not to symbolically foreshadow the ending? You chase the same boy who shows up in the end to tell you, more or less, that destroying the reapers is futile and accepting synthesis or control is preferable. When you embrace him, everything is engulfed in flames.

Did they include all that for ****s and giggles or does it maybe indicate that you should be wary of the little ****er at the very end?

The whole "Star child is steering you away from Destroy" is just people seeing what they want to see. They ignore signs to the contrary and interpret anything ambigious to fit the theory. 

Thanks for replying with an unfounded claim, not supporting it at all, and prompting yet more back and forth with me. I didn't fit anything to any theory floating around on the Internet. I played the game, paid attention, let it sink in, and came up with my own conclusions, long before I ever exposed myself to what others thought.

There's nothing ambiguous about the starchild saying that destroying the reapers is a futile attempt to postpone the inevitable and that more synthetics will be created and WILL rebel against their creators. That's straightforward.

He then goes on to provide alternative solutions that would end in Shepard's death but bring about perpetual peace. He claims those alternatives weren't available prior to the Crucible, yet they mirror the same beliefs two major, indoctrinated characters had. Nothing ambiguous about that either.

I think aimlessgun is making a good point. If Shepard is indoctrinated, then why didn't Star Child give him the following options:

1. Blue ending: Go through this door and be sucked out of an airlock.

2. Red ending: Go through this door and fall down a long elevator shaft.

3. Green ending: Go through this door and suffocate as the oxygen is vented out of the room.

Why did Star Child (the Reapers) even bother to explain Shepard any choice that is counter productive to what the Reapers are trying to do? It's like the Reapers are telling Shepard: Please jump of the building and die, and by the way, there's a gun laying on the ground over here, but please don't pick it up and use it to shoot me, okay?

Modifié par BlackAlpha, 31 mars 2012 - 03:15 .

[No Snakes Alive]

To those addressing my question about the dream as a measure taken by the devs to convey the emotional turmoil Shepard is undergoing: absolutely. I think that's majorly part of it. But I also think there's so much significance in the fact that the choices in the end of the game are provided to you by that same boy from your dreams. That has to be deliberate on the writers' part.

So maybe a better question to ask instead of why they bothered with the dream sequences would be why they chose that child for the last sequence. It's been established that the child is an image imbedded in Shepard's mind and starchild just so happens to take that form outside of his mind?

Like you all said, it's open for interpretation but I give the writers more credit than that. Deliberately linking the ending scene to Shepard's inner thoughts through that same symbol just doesn't seem like it was done without purpose, in my eyes. There's only so many ways they can point you to the idea of the choices taking place within Shepard's mind without directly saying that's what's going on, and I think that's an obvious one among many others.

[dreman9999]

aimlessgun wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...
You know what sounds like a trick? Star Child saying "Hey, uh, if you shoot your own superweapon that will totally destroy us. Yup. Anderson would totally shoot his own superweapon, look I'll show you a vision of it. The man you respect most, why don't you do what he would do. Oh and the two other choices will kill you for sure. So why don't you go ahead and just shoot your superweapon."

Yeah, I see the trick here, and it's not what standard IT theory thinks it is. 

Yes, Some how, the star child got us to  the outside of the citadel, a place with no air,  on a magic platform to a place that is some how fix in a why the lat scene is designed with one point someone can grab on too and another point some one can jump into. The reaper made a concetion point like that just in the case that someone want to use it to contrl them...Makes sense.

You don't understand what I am saying. 

I am saying it could be all a dream. But Destroy is not the right choice. 

Then you point makes even less sense. Why would the repers try to change you mind from destory them, by telling you to destory them?

Here's the point: it could be a dream, but there is no correct choice, because you can choose all the different choices for very different reasons. I can avoid Destroy because if Shepard thinks everything is real, Destroy looks like a trap. So if Shepard chooses to avoid Destroy because he wants to resist reaper influence, I'm clearly resisting indoctrination, even I'm not picking the Destroy ending. 

You not understanding...If it is a dream then none of your choices in the dream have an effect on the current events. Nothing change in the world around you changes  if you pick a choice. The only thing that changes is your will and what you want to do.

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 mars 2012 - 03:18 .

[Leonia]

I'm highly sceptical of the Indoctrination codex entry. Who wrote it? Who in the ME universe would know enough about Indoctrination to write about it so factually? Everyone we've ever seen studying it has succumbed to it. The Codex is lacking in a lot of new entries for ME3 but there's this gem of a new entry for a concept nobody should know much about? Even if we do take it at face value, it doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything. As far as we know, Indocrination can not be reversed or "cured" unless it is replaced by some other form of mind control (Shiala, for example).

[phantomdasilva]

dreman9999 wrote...

That can be seen that way but the idea of the theory about the dreams is that it'a about weaking Sheps will...Which it does. The thing that can hold back indoctrination is the will of the person that it's happening to. This is made clear by what happens to Paul Grason in ME:retrubution. The concept is tied to the fact that Sheperd has many changes for the indoctrinaton to take effect in ME2. He/She  is always near reaper tech, which has long been stated to cause indoctrination. And then their's object rho, that hit him/her with an indoctrination feild so hard that he/she saw visions and herad voices. The fact remains that the chance of an attapt of indoctrination is there.

That's fair enough there
My personal interpretation of indoctrination theory is that Bioware didn't intend it but due to bad writing, the indoctrination theory is the only way we can logically make sense of the ending.  So I support indoctrination theory as a fan made concept but not as a planned event .

I mention before that, Shepard behaved out of character at the end. I believed it is due to bad writing with out of universe explanation but using in game explanation, I  believe that fighting off indoctrination is probably the best way to explain it.

In any case, I feel that people using Object Rho from the  Arrival DLC as evidence to support the Bioware planned indoctrination theory to be very problematic, It is the most likely starting point where indoctrination theory could begin. Unfortunately that is an optional DLC and if you don't play it and you don't import a mass effect 2 save. The game assumed that the alliance military squad did the arrival mission instead and that doesn't change the ending of the game

If bioware really preplanned this, then it should have been compulsory. and Shepard done the mission off screen, You don't make forshadowing to  key plot points to be optional DLC encounters or side quest.

Now I personally done the arrival DLC adn therefore my subjective interpretation of the ending was that he was fighting off indoctrination that started from that event. I can't really say that the Arrival DLC can really be used as strong evidence that it was all preplanned.

[dreman9999]

leonia42 wrote...

I'm highly sceptical of the Indoctrination codex entry. Who wrote it? Who in the ME universe would know enough about Indoctrination to write about it so factually? Everyone we've ever seen studying it has succumbed to it. The Codex is lacking in a lot of new entries for ME3 but there's this gem of a new entry for a concept nobody should know much about? Even if we do take it at face value, it doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything. As far as we know, Indocrination can not be reversed or "cured" unless it is replaced by some other form of mind control (Shiala, for example).

In ME2 ..Their's a scientist on your ship studying collectors ......I would say He did.

[BlackAlpha]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

To those addressing my question about the dream as a measure taken by the devs to convey the emotional turmoil Shepard is undergoing: absolutely. I think that's majorly part of it. But I also think there's so much significance in the fact that the choices in the end of the game are provided to you by that same boy from your dreams. That has to be deliberate on the writers' part.

So maybe a better question to ask instead of why they bothered with the dream sequences would be why they chose that child for the last sequence. It's been established that the child is an image imbedded in Shepard's mind and starchild just so happens to take that form outside of his mind?

Like you all said, it's open for interpretation but I give the writers more credit than that. Deliberately linking the ending scene to Shepard's inner thoughts through that same symbol just doesn't seem like it was done without purpose, in my eyes. There's only so many ways they can point you to the idea of the choices taking place within Shepard's mind without directly saying that's what's going on, and I think that's an obvious one among many others.

Personally I think the boy was chosen so that it would be a character that is already somewhat known. It's not a completely, out of the blue, new character. Also, the child was chosen for a more dramatic effect. In stories, something powerful and mysterious without a form is often portrayed as a child. It has a certain effect on adults. It wouldn't be the same if it was some random adult human that you've never seen before. So basically, it's part of the whole "making the game more emotional" routine.

[ericjdev]

Really well thought out, really well written. Good job op.

[FataliTensei]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is mint, it has no flaws.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

It is true, at least it is the way I view the ending.
I can only view it from that angle because it makes sense and works.

It doesn't make sense and it doesn't work. That is exactly what this post is about.

Actually it makes a hell of alot of sense, saying it doesn't make sense doesn't automatically make it so and there alot of things that would simply be horrible writing without the Indoc theory filling in the holes. So take your pick, sh!tastic writing or indoc.

[FataliTensei]

BlackAlpha wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

To those addressing my question about the dream as a measure taken by the devs to convey the emotional turmoil Shepard is undergoing: absolutely. I think that's majorly part of it. But I also think there's so much significance in the fact that the choices in the end of the game are provided to you by that same boy from your dreams. That has to be deliberate on the writers' part.

So maybe a better question to ask instead of why they bothered with the dream sequences would be why they chose that child for the last sequence. It's been established that the child is an image imbedded in Shepard's mind and starchild just so happens to take that form outside of his mind?

Like you all said, it's open for interpretation but I give the writers more credit than that. Deliberately linking the ending scene to Shepard's inner thoughts through that same symbol just doesn't seem like it was done without purpose, in my eyes. There's only so many ways they can point you to the idea of the choices taking place within Shepard's mind without directly saying that's what's going on, and I think that's an obvious one among many others.

Personally I think the boy was chosen so that it would be a character that is already somewhat known. It's not a completely, out of the blue, new character. Also, the child was chosen for a more dramatic effect. In stories, something powerful and mysterious without a form is often portrayed as a child. It has a certain effect on adults. It wouldn't be the same if it was some random adult human that you've never seen before. So basically, it's part of the whole "making the game more emotional" routine.

But it made no damn sense. And thats a very cheap and cliche'd way of trying to make something emotional.

[aimlessgun]

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...
You know what sounds like a trick? Star Child saying "Hey, uh, if you shoot your own superweapon that will totally destroy us. Yup. Anderson would totally shoot his own superweapon, look I'll show you a vision of it. The man you respect most, why don't you do what he would do. Oh and the two other choices will kill you for sure. So why don't you go ahead and just shoot your superweapon."

Yeah, I see the trick here, and it's not what standard IT theory thinks it is. 

Yes, Some how, the star child got us to  the outside of the citadel, a place with no air,  on a magic platform to a place that is some how fix in a why the lat scene is designed with one point someone can grab on too and another point some one can jump into. The reaper made a concetion point like that just in the case that someone want to use it to contrl them...Makes sense.

You don't understand what I am saying. 

I am saying it could be all a dream. But Destroy is not the right choice. 

Then you point makes even less sense. Why would the repers try to change you mind from destory them, by telling you to destory them?

Here's the point: it could be a dream, but there is no correct choice, because you can choose all the different choices for very different reasons. I can avoid Destroy because if Shepard thinks everything is real, Destroy looks like a trap. So if Shepard chooses to avoid Destroy because he wants to resist reaper influence, I'm clearly resisting indoctrination, even I'm not picking the Destroy ending. 

You not understanding...If it is a dream then none of your choices in the dream have an effect on the current events. Nothing change in the world around you changes  if you pick a choice. The only thing that changes is your will and what you want to do.

Right, what matters is what you want to do. Even if you pick Destroy, you still think you are destroying the reapers. You only realize it was indoctrination after, no matter what you pick. The important thing is that you want to destroy the reapers. 

So if you pick something that is not red with the intent of destroying the reapers, then that should also resist indoctrination. So in my example, red looks like a trap to this Shepard, so he does something else because he wants to resist and destroy the reapers. So he should resist indoctrination.

In another example, someone could pick Control because they want to order the reapers to fly into a black hole. They want to destroy the reapers. So they resist indoctrination. 

[dreman9999]

phantomdasilva wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That can be seen that way but the idea of the theory about the dreams is that it'a about weaking Sheps will...Which it does. The thing that can hold back indoctrination is the will of the person that it's happening to. This is made clear by what happens to Paul Grason in ME:retrubution. The concept is tied to the fact that Sheperd has many changes for the indoctrinaton to take effect in ME2. He/She  is always near reaper tech, which has long been stated to cause indoctrination. And then their's object rho, that hit him/her with an indoctrination feild so hard that he/she saw visions and herad voices. The fact remains that the chance of an attapt of indoctrination is there.

That's fair enough there
My personal interpretation of indoctrination theory is that Bioware didn't intend it but due to bad writing, the indoctrination theory is the only way we can logically make sense of the ending.  So I support indoctrination theory as a fan made concept but not as a planned event .

I mention before that, Shepard behaved out of character at the end. I believed it is due to bad writing with out of universe explanation but using in game explanation, I  believe that fighting off indoctrination is probably the best way to explain it.

In any case, I feel that people using Object Rho from the  Arrival DLC as evidence to support the Bioware planned indoctrination theory to be very problematic, It is the most likely starting point where indoctrination theory could begin. Unfortunately that is an optional DLC and if you don't play it and you don't import a mass effect 2 save. The game assumed that the alliance military squad did the arrival mission instead and that doesn't change the ending of the game

If bioware really preplanned this, then it should have been compulsory. and Shepard done the mission off screen, You don't make forshadowing to  key plot points to be optional DLC encounters or side quest.

Now I personally done the arrival DLC adn therefore my subjective interpretation of the ending was that he was fighting off indoctrination that started from that event. I can't really say that the Arrival DLC can really be used as strong evidence that it was all preplanned.

Therestill the dirlict reaper and the reaper divices Sheperd comes near by.  Reguardless to how you cut it, Shep always is put in posistions where an attempt of indoctrination can happen.

[KaeserZen]

I can appreciate the efforts done by Eviscerators on this lengthy post.

However, his shining demonstration of logic is as flawed as the point he is trying to debunk : he dismisses several facts because they do not fit in his conclusion.

You barely mention Shepard talking to the child in the air duct, and it disappearing right away, without making any noises (and let's assume that the Reaper growl we hear in the background has got nothing to do with the child), when Anderson talks to Shepard.

In fact, you clearly say you don't want to talk about that. I would like to have your standpoint on this.

[DevilBeast]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

phantomdasilva wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

You only have to look at stuff like the Genophage plot or the Rannoch plot to see that Bioware can be fantastic writers. Mordin's sacrifice for example was one of the best moments in the trilogy imo.

And if the IT somehow turns out to be true, that doesn't make the writers better. If anything, the theory makes the endings worse:

-No actual closure included with the game
-In a game of choice, only one of the end choices is 'correct'
-you have to play MP to get the 'true' ending

I find it more likely that the writers messed up the endings - pretty much the worst ten minutes they could've messed up - than the idea that they simply shipped ME3 without its ending, and will later give out a 'true' ending that, despite the series being about choice, only works for one choice and only if you played MP.

Yeah I mainly agree with that. The Indoctrinated theory if intended by Bioware would be very problematic. Releasing a game without an ending, ot be release to another date.

Separating the ending at a later date has no artistic purpose either. If immediately after choosing control and syntesis we see shepard being indoctrinated or shepard being converted into a husk. Everyone will be shocked that they failed the puzzle and then think, wow bioware fooled me that was genious, or if they chose destroy and defeated the puzzle. We would feel clever taht we saw through the twist and then play through to the end.

However if the real ending is release 3-4 months later. The twist and shock is gone and they can't take back the foul taste in the mouth 

Thank you for making a lot of sense.

This, mixed with the many Bioware statements not even hinting at anything Indoc, should give us a clear idea that what could've been genius (and maybe was planned at some time in the past) ended up being just another rushed ending.

DevilBeast wrote...

To both the ID supporters and those
who oppose it: Why is it so important to disprove or deny this theory??
What do you gain from it?? I mean, does it really matter to you what
other people think regarding the endings??
So far there are evidence that supports the theory, but it is also possible to find evidence that opposes it.

Untill
Bioware actually makes a statement regarding all this speculation
neither of the two groups are right or wrong. Only Bioware knows the
truth.

Ironically, I'm fighting them for their sake.

The way I see it, a lot of people are just setting themselves up for yet another disappointment from Bioware, by beeing so deeply invested in a theory that has received nothing but coffin nails from Bioware up to this point.

Each and every bit of official info, starting with the Final Hours app and ending with Ray's statement and recent Twitter messages has defended the ending as it is. Sure, no one went ahead and said "Indoc Theory is wrong!" but if this was their plan all along, they sure as hell would've hinted at it by now - to ease some of the backlash.

The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that people are getting their hopes up for nothing. And I kinda wanna save them from that. We've all had our share of disappointment already

Technically defending the ending does not necerssarily rule out the ID theory. If Shepard being indoctrinated really was what Bioware had intended then it´s only natural that they thought this is a "good" ending.
Anyway, let people believe what they want. If it helps them understand and deal with the ending. Heck, even if Bioware don´t release any end-game content (which they have said they will, but still), then the Id theory could still be used to explain the ending. I mean, open endings aren´t uncommen in many stories.

[Leonia]

dreman9999 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I'm highly sceptical of the Indoctrination codex entry. Who wrote it? Who in the ME universe would know enough about Indoctrination to write about it so factually? Everyone we've ever seen studying it has succumbed to it. The Codex is lacking in a lot of new entries for ME3 but there's this gem of a new entry for a concept nobody should know much about? Even if we do take it at face value, it doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything. As far as we know, Indocrination can not be reversed or "cured" unless it is replaced by some other form of mind control (Shiala, for example).

In ME2 ..Their's a scientist on your ship studying collectors ......I would say He did.

What do the Collectors have to do with Indoctrination, they were Prothean husks?

[dreman9999]

aimlessgun wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...
You know what sounds like a trick? Star Child saying "Hey, uh, if you shoot your own superweapon that will totally destroy us. Yup. Anderson would totally shoot his own superweapon, look I'll show you a vision of it. The man you respect most, why don't you do what he would do. Oh and the two other choices will kill you for sure. So why don't you go ahead and just shoot your superweapon."

Yeah, I see the trick here, and it's not what standard IT theory thinks it is. 

Yes, Some how, the star child got us to  the outside of the citadel, a place with no air,  on a magic platform to a place that is some how fix in a why the lat scene is designed with one point someone can grab on too and another point some one can jump into. The reaper made a concetion point like that just in the case that someone want to use it to contrl them...Makes sense.

You don't understand what I am saying. 

I am saying it could be all a dream. But Destroy is not the right choice. 

Then you point makes even less sense. Why would the repers try to change you mind from destory them, by telling you to destory them?

Here's the point: it could be a dream, but there is no correct choice, because you can choose all the different choices for very different reasons. I can avoid Destroy because if Shepard thinks everything is real, Destroy looks like a trap. So if Shepard chooses to avoid Destroy because he wants to resist reaper influence, I'm clearly resisting indoctrination, even I'm not picking the Destroy ending. 

You not understanding...If it is a dream then none of your choices in the dream have an effect on the current events. Nothing change in the world around you changes  if you pick a choice. The only thing that changes is your will and what you want to do.

Right, what matters is what you want to do. Even if you pick Destroy, you still think you are destroying the reapers. You only realize it was indoctrination after, no matter what you pick. The important thing is that you want to destroy the reapers. 

So if you pick something that is not red with the intent of destroying the reapers, then that should also resist indoctrination. So in my example, red looks like a trap to this Shepard, so he does something else because he wants to resist and destroy the reapers. So he should resist indoctrination.

In another example, someone could pick Control because they want to order the reapers to fly into a black hole. They want to destroy the reapers. So they resist indoctrination. 

Yes...The reapers telling you to kill them is an indoctrination attempt. Getting you to kill them is clearly an attempt tricking you to do what you don't want to do, like killing the reapers.They don't want you to kill the reaper....they want you to kill the reapers.

[vigna]

Valid points. I do assume after he passes out at the console Shepard is fighting an "indoctrination " of some type, but there is no proof for it. It is the only thing that make sense to me.
Indoctrination may not be the proper term as mind-game is more fitting I suppose.

[No Snakes Alive]

BlackAlpha wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

What is the significance and/or purpose of the earlier dream sequences if not to symbolically foreshadow the ending? You chase the same boy who shows up in the end to tell you, more or less, that destroying the reapers is futile and accepting synthesis or control is preferable. When you embrace him, everything is engulfed in flames.

Did they include all that for ****s and giggles or does it maybe indicate that you should be wary of the little ****er at the very end?

The whole "Star child is steering you away from Destroy" is just people seeing what they want to see. They ignore signs to the contrary and interpret anything ambigious to fit the theory. 

Thanks for replying with an unfounded claim, not supporting it at all, and prompting yet more back and forth with me. I didn't fit anything to any theory floating around on the Internet. I played the game, paid attention, let it sink in, and came up with my own conclusions, long before I ever exposed myself to what others thought.

There's nothing ambiguous about the starchild saying that destroying the reapers is a futile attempt to postpone the inevitable and that more synthetics will be created and WILL rebel against their creators. That's straightforward.

He then goes on to provide alternative solutions that would end in Shepard's death but bring about perpetual peace. He claims those alternatives weren't available prior to the Crucible, yet they mirror the same beliefs two major, indoctrinated characters had. Nothing ambiguous about that either.

I think aimlessgun is making a good point. If Shepard is indoctrinated, then why didn't Star Child give him the following options:

1. Blue ending: Go through this door and be sucked out of an airlock.

2. Red ending: Go through this door and fall down a long elevator shaft.

3. Green ending: Go through this door and suffocate as the oxygen is vented out of the room.

Why did Star Child (the Reapers) even bother to explain Shepard any choice that is counter productive to what the Reapers are trying to do? It's like the Reapers are telling Shepard: Please jump of the building and die, and by the way, there's a gun laying on the ground over here, but please don't pick it up and use it to shoot me, okay?

You REALLY need to pay attention, because this has been said many, many times before. FOR THE LAST TIME, Shepard is NOT indoctrinated. He is fighting off the Indocrination attempt. Indoctrination isn't just a sudden flick of the control switch in your brain and you're under reaper control. It's something your mind has to succumb to. It's voices in your head trying to coerce you into believing what Saren was made to believe, or what TIM was made to believe.

And what better way to portray an Indoctrination attempt on not only Shepard, but the player himself, then to have the solution you've been chasing all along addressed and dismissed, brushed off as a possibility, sure, but a futile one. Now those other options that formerly indoctrinated characters were spewing all trilogy long? Yeah you'll die but everyone will join together in symbiotic harmony or you'll in chrge to do as you see fit.

It's supposed to CONVINCE Shepard, and the player, that what the enemies believed is actually the right way to go and what you believed will only lead back to square 1.

YOU ARE NOT INDOCTRINATED UNLESS YOU SUCCUMB TO THE CHOICES THAT WERE ALWAYS THE REAPERS' AND NEVER SHEPARD'S.

Modifié par No Snakes Alive, 31 mars 2012 - 03:30 .

[dreman9999]

leonia42 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I'm highly sceptical of the Indoctrination codex entry. Who wrote it? Who in the ME universe would know enough about Indoctrination to write about it so factually? Everyone we've ever seen studying it has succumbed to it. The Codex is lacking in a lot of new entries for ME3 but there's this gem of a new entry for a concept nobody should know much about? Even if we do take it at face value, it doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything. As far as we know, Indocrination can not be reversed or "cured" unless it is replaced by some other form of mind control (Shiala, for example).

In ME2 ..Their's a scientist on your ship studying collectors ......I would say He did.

What do the Collectors have to do with Indoctrination, they were Prothean husks?

Exactly....They were husk...A product of indoctrination. It's not like Mordin would not see what happened to the team on the dirlict reaper, or back track what happened to the prothean. In any event, the study of the collector would still be a study of indoctrination.

[aimlessgun]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes...The reapers telling you to kill them is an indoctrination attempt. Getting you to kill them is clearly an attempt tricking you to do what you don't want to do, like killing the reapers.They don't want you to kill the reaper....they want you to kill the reapers.

No, I'm saying none of the choices directly leads to indoctrination or not. Since people can choose them all for very different reasons, you can subconciously 'resist indoctrination' in different ways. 

[Iwillbeback]

I feel the original post was a troll post.
If you read it you got trolled, luckily I know better than to read nonsense.

[dreman9999]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

What is the significance and/or purpose of the earlier dream sequences if not to symbolically foreshadow the ending? You chase the same boy who shows up in the end to tell you, more or less, that destroying the reapers is futile and accepting synthesis or control is preferable. When you embrace him, everything is engulfed in flames.

Did they include all that for ****s and giggles or does it maybe indicate that you should be wary of the little ****er at the very end?

The whole "Star child is steering you away from Destroy" is just people seeing what they want to see. They ignore signs to the contrary and interpret anything ambigious to fit the theory. 

Thanks for replying with an unfounded claim, not supporting it at all, and prompting yet more back and forth with me. I didn't fit anything to any theory floating around on the Internet. I played the game, paid attention, let it sink in, and came up with my own conclusions, long before I ever exposed myself to what others thought.

There's nothing ambiguous about the starchild saying that destroying the reapers is a futile attempt to postpone the inevitable and that more synthetics will be created and WILL rebel against their creators. That's straightforward.

He then goes on to provide alternative solutions that would end in Shepard's death but bring about perpetual peace. He claims those alternatives weren't available prior to the Crucible, yet they mirror the same beliefs two major, indoctrinated characters had. Nothing ambiguous about that either.

I think aimlessgun is making a good point. If Shepard is indoctrinated, then why didn't Star Child give him the following options:

1. Blue ending: Go through this door and be sucked out of an airlock.

2. Red ending: Go through this door and fall down a long elevator shaft.

3. Green ending: Go through this door and suffocate as the oxygen is vented out of the room.

Why did Star Child (the Reapers) even bother to explain Shepard any choice that is counter productive to what the Reapers are trying to do? It's like the Reapers are telling Shepard: Please jump of the building and die, and by the way, there's a gun laying on the ground over here, but please don't pick it up and use it to shoot me, okay?

You REALLY need to pay attention, because this has been said many, many times before. FOR THE LAST TIME, Shepard is NOT indoctrinated. He is fighting off the Indocrination attempt. Indoctrination isn't just a sudden flick of the control switch in your brain and you're under reaper control. It's something your mind has to succumb to. It's voics in your head trying to coerce you into believing what Saren was made to believe, or what TIM was made to believe.

And what better way to portray an Indoctrination attempt on not only Shepard, but the player himself, then to have the solution you've been chasing all along addressed and dismissed, brushed off as possibility, sure, but a futile one. Now those other options that formerly indoctrinated characters were spewing all trilogy long? Yeah you'll die but everyone will join together in symbiotic harmony or you'll in chrge to do as you see fit.

It's supposed to CONVINCE Shepard, and the player, that what the enemies believed is actually the right way to go and what you believed will only lead back to square 1.

YOU ARE NOT INDOCTRINATED UNLESS YOU SUCCUMB TO THE CHOICES THAT WERE ALWAYS THE REAPERS' AND NEVER SHEPARD'S.

He clearly understands this...He's for the indoctriation theory...He's just using the logic the other person presented to show how flawed th logic is...Calm down..You biting your own tail.

[SauliusL]

I really pitty for the people, who don't understand the indoctrination theory completely, with lack of information gathered and too less thought put into it. What fascinates me, is that instead of truly understanding what indoc theory people are talking about, the spend so much time on the same arguments, which were discussed and explained with logic/facts and detail multiple times... Good luck on april 6th!