dreman9999 wrote...
It's basicly saying , nicely, that anyone tha believe the IT theory is deluional.leonia42 wrote...
pablosplinter wrote...
I only read half of that but had to stop, not patronizing enough for me.
How is any of it patronising?
Praetor Shepard
Shepard's gut wound is so similar to Anderson's wound in this section. But I dunno how to take it in one direction or another, without further details as to the nature of their injuries at this point.
dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see any thing similiar to the synthesis choice in all of ME?Lmaoboat wrote...
If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.Jigokou wrote...
aimlessgun wrote...
IT theory is interesting and unoffensive, until the part about Destroy being the "correct" choice. That part is clearly ridiculous.
Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.
Not Sarens argument, the collector, and the reapers themselve?
You can't see that it's a trick?
Xandurpein wrote...
Praetor Shepard
Shepard's gut wound is so similar to Anderson's wound in this section. But I dunno how to take it in one direction or another, without further details as to the nature of their injuries at this point.
I really don't understand how people can make such a big thing about Separd's wound. The simplest solution is just that Bioware reused the same animation sequence. They reuse animations all the time.
leonia42 wrote...
Most people who buy into conspiracy theories are labelled as such, it isn't so much an insult as it is an observation.
Modifié par phantomdasilva, 31 mars 2012 - 02:44 .
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.
phantomdasilva wrote...
leonia42 wrote...
Most people who buy into conspiracy theories are labelled as such, it isn't so much an insult as it is an observation.
So are you delusional for creating your own subjective interpretation of the ending of the game that was designed to be open ended, subjective and interpretive.
I understand why certain subsets of the IT people can be labled delusional (especially those that treat it as objective truth and demeans other people subjective interpretation) but you can't tar everyone with the same brush especially when majority of the IT proponents accept that it's their subjective interpretation
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 to and another point some one can jump into. The reaper made a conciteration like that just in the case that someone want to use it to contrl them...Makes sense.aimlessgun wrote...
Dreman you have not responded to this so I will repost it.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see any thing similiar to the synthesis choice in all of ME?Lmaoboat wrote...
If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.Jigokou wrote...
aimlessgun wrote...
IT theory is interesting and unoffensive, until the part about Destroy being the "correct" choice. That part is clearly ridiculous.
Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.
Not Sarens argument, the collector, and the reapers themselve?
You can't see that it's a trick?
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.
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Modifié par dreman9999, 31 mars 2012 - 02:54 .
don't know where the event horizon lies, we can't assume that Shepard is NOT indoctrinated.
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?
dreman9999 wrote...
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.aimlessgun wrote...
Dreman you have not responded to this so I will repost it.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see any thing similiar to the synthesis choice in all of ME?Lmaoboat wrote...
If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.Jigokou wrote...
aimlessgun wrote...
IT theory is interesting and unoffensive, until the part about Destroy being the "correct" choice. That part is clearly ridiculous.
Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.
Not Sarens argument, the collector, and the reapers themselve?
You can't see that it's a trick?
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.
Modifié par aimlessgun, 31 mars 2012 - 02:54 .
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?
But your also ignoring thefact that his most convincing argument is the synthesis choice, which is what Saren wanted and what the reapers and collector are. And the fact that being on the outside of the citadel the way Shepard is is impossible.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.
phantomdasilva wrote...
leonia42 wrote...
Most people who buy into conspiracy theories are labelled as such, it isn't so much an insult as it is an observation.
So are you delusional for creating your own subjective interpretation of the ending of the game that was designed to be open ended, subjective and interpretive.
I understand why certain subsets of the IT people can be labled delusional (especially those that treat it as objective truth and demeans other people subjective interpretation) but you can't tar everyone with the same brush especially when majority of the IT proponents accept that it's their subjective interpretation
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?
Modifié par BlackAlpha, 31 mars 2012 - 02:58 .
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?aimlessgun wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
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.aimlessgun wrote...
Dreman you have not responded to this so I will repost it.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see any thing similiar to the synthesis choice in all of ME?Lmaoboat wrote...
If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.Jigokou wrote...
aimlessgun wrote...
IT theory is interesting and unoffensive, until the part about Destroy being the "correct" choice. That part is clearly ridiculous.
Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.
Not Sarens argument, the collector, and the reapers themselve?
You can't see that it's a trick?
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.
You don't understand what I am saying.
I am saying it could be all a dream. But Destroy is not the right choice.
Modifié par dreman9999, 31 mars 2012 - 02:59 .
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?
Eviscerator03 wrote...
Iwillbeback wrote...
The Indoctrination Theory is mint, it has no flaws.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
Modifié par Cucobr, 31 mars 2012 - 03:01 .
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
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.
Modifié par Eviscerator03, 31 mars 2012 - 03:05 .
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.
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.phantomdasilva 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?
Indoctrination is a valid interpretation of that dream sequence but it isn't the only interpretation
The boy represents all the people that Shepard can't save in his/her life. That dream sequence always had the boy with dead squad mates who lives were lost influence by the reapers.
Shepard fears that eventually all the fight and resistance will end up achieving nothing.
There have been conversation throughout the game that Shepard can't save them all. Remember the conversation with Liara on Mars where she believes maybe this is all pointless and that we are all fighting to achieve a victory taht can't be won.
The dream represents that self-doubt in Shepard. When Shepard chase the boy, shepard is trying to save the boy and the boy gets engulfed in red, it symbolises that shepard failed to save teh boy
At the end when shepard sees another shepard joining the boy. It symbolises that perhaps shepard would fail as well.
Now I 'm not saying my interpretation is more correct than the indoctrination theory foreshadowing. I'm just saying it's an open ended dream sequence where people can interpret many different things about it.
dreman9999 wrote...
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?aimlessgun wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
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.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.
You don't understand what I am saying.
I am saying it could be all a dream. But Destroy is not the right choice.
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.
Retour en haut