315 réponses à ce sujet

[Asharad Hett]

ClixWizard wrote...

Control felt like the best of the terrible endings, even though it still doesn't make sense. How am I controlling the Reapers if I'm dead?

You aren't.  Sorry.

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Control and systhesis are clearly shown to be  idealogies of indocrinated characters. So once again your wrong.

And that stil isn't true.  Reaper synthesis and control through the use of reaper tech were goals the indoctrinated villains falsely believed were possible.  Through the Reapers, they were not possible, but through the Crucible, they were.  Again, we see them happen at the end.

and this time the indoctrinated would be hero false believes they're possible

Geneaux486 wrote... 

Ending is so speculative, and unclear what the result of shepards actions are. It does not prove anything. So your wrong again.

We clearly see in control and synthesis that the Reapers cease their attack immediately, and withdraw from battle.  We clearly see in synthesis that something has changed about organics by looking at Joker and the plant life on that planet he landed on.  Those things are not speculative, they're right there in plain sight for us to see.  Ignoring them won't make them go away.

Lord Eddard Stark: A madman sees what he sees.

May i remind you, that we also see Shepard chasing the Earthchild through the forest with loads of shadowy things around. According to your logic, that actually happened. We also saw Shepard's Prothean visions.

Geneaux486 wrote... 
The Catalyst shows up, explains why the Reapers do what they do, and explains how you activate the Crucible, which it admits it cannot do itself.  It doesn't do anything but explain things to you, so what exactly would you call it?

He never actually explains how to activate the crucible, he tells you that you've thought of destroying them, then you see anderson shooting the crucible. the starchild then proceeds to tell you how bad a choice that is (talk about bias). Then he asks "Or do you think you can control us?" and you see TIM grabbing those things, and Shepard says "so the illusive man was right?" to which the starchild responds postively.   If those images were the explanation, then that means the catalyst is projecting these images onto Shepards mind. Why can't it do this again with the fake endings?

 The Starchild then suggests the synthesis option. and now i just noticed something:

Shepard: I dunno...
Starchild: Why not? synthetics are already part of you. can you imagine your life without them?
Shepard: And there will be peace?
Starchild: (pause) the cycle will be broken. (that sounds evasive to me.)

 

but yeah he's complete up for synthesis. The only one he doesn't like is destroy. And it is the reapers who are the enemy. Not the synthetics who are on your side. Would you have trusted the starchild if it appeared as StarSovereign instead? The starchild is exploiting the Shepard's emotional vulnerabilities.

Modifié par KingZayd, 15 avril 2012 - 08:25 .

[Geneaux486]

KingZayd wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Control and systhesis are clearly shown to be  idealogies of indocrinated characters. So once again your wrong.

And that stil isn't true.  Reaper synthesis and control through the use of reaper tech were goals the indoctrinated villains falsely believed were possible.  Through the Reapers, they were not possible, but through the Crucible, they were.  Again, we see them happen at the end.

and this time the indoctrinated would be hero false believes their possible

Geneaux486 wrote... 

Ending is so speculative, and unclear what the result of shepards actions are. It does not prove anything. So your wrong again.

We clearly see in control and synthesis that the Reapers cease their attack immediately, and withdraw from battle.  We clearly see in synthesis that something has changed about organics by looking at Joker and the plant life on that planet he landed on.  Those things are not speculative, they're right there in plain sight for us to see.  Ignoring them won't make them go away.

Lord Eddard Stark: A madman sees what he sees.

Geneaux486 wrote... 
The Catalyst shows up, explains why the Reapers do what they do, and explains how you activate the Crucible, which it admits it cannot do itself.  It doesn't do anything but explain things to you, so what exactly would you call it?

He never actually explains how to activate the crucible, he tells you that you've thought of destroying them, then you see anderson shooting the crucible. the starchild then proceeds to tell you how bad a choice that is (talk about bias). Then he asks "Or do you think you can control us?" and you see TIM grabbing those things, and Shepard says "so the illusive man was right?" to which the starchild responds postively. 
 The Starchild then suggests the synthesis option. and now i just noticed something:

Shepard: I dunno...
Starchild: Why not? synthetics are already part of you. can you imagine your life without them?
Shepard: And there will be peace?
Starchild: (pause) the cycle will be broken. (that sounds evasive to me.)

 

but yeah he's complete up for synthesis. The only one he doesn't like is destroy. And it is the reapers who are the enemy. Not the synthetics who are on your side. Would you have trusted the starchild if it appeared as StarSovereign instead? The starchild is exploiting the Shepard's emotional vulnerabilities.

Also speculative, not factual.  The game tells us what it tells us.  There's nothing wrong with speculating that those things may not be the case, nor is there anything wrong with taking the facts in the game at face value.  My beef is with the people who are telling me I just don't get the game because I don't agree with their speculation (in a fictional story that they didn't create), or that I'm wrong when I cite the bare-bones facts as they are presented in the game (also in a fictional story that they didn't create).

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 avril 2012 - 08:23 .

[Cobra's_back]

KingZayd wrote

"but yeah he's complete up for synthesis. The only one he doesn't like is destroy. And it is the reapers who are the enemy. Not the synthetics who are on your side. Would you have trusted the starchild if it appeared as StarSovereign instead? The starchild is exploiting the Shepard's emotional vulnerabilities."

Yes, I really had issues with this kid for that same reason.

[Meltemph]

The Illusive Man poured uncontrollable Reaper tech into his body and got himself indoctrinated.

Umm no, that would be the reaper artifact. You know, the thing that gave him his eyes, the thing that killed his friend, the thing that talked to him, the thing that could have destroyed Palaven?

He didn't have a pretty damn good idea on how to do anything.

Ya, that would explain why the reapers were attacking the base, right? And the fact that he knew to try the control ending? The kid even says he was right, but that he couldn't do it because he was indoctrinated.

Furthermore, people keep saying the three endings fit with the Catalyst's philosophy. They don't. The Catalyst's philosophy was "We're needed so organics don't kill themselves with thier own technology." It only had one philosophy before the Crucible was introduced to it. After that, it was able to rethink itself.

You missed the point. The crucible FIT perfectly with the fixes of his philosophy, outside of the destroy ending.

And that's still not true. The Catalyst does not say "You'll die" in destroy. He says you are partly synthetic. Partly. And you can either die, or not.

There was NO implication of chance. Shepards life was "saved" through synthetics, we are reminded of this in ME3, we are shown this in ME2, if ALL synthetics are destroyed, Shep dies, even if the star child didnt say it, whcih he clearly did.  Only you are doing all you can do avoid it sicne you have 1 ounce of wiggle room cause he didnt talk incredibly redundant like, with the destroy conversation.

Also, edi can live with the destroy ending, last I checked she is the very definition of a synthetic, so again, NO you can not take everything that happened at face value. And the reason we dont see the reapers again, is because they ended the game with no exposition, they left that part to speculation.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 avril 2012 - 08:25 .

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...


Also speculative, not factual.  The game tells us what it tells us.  There's nothing wrong with speculating that those things may not be the case, nor is there anything wrong with taking the facts in the game at face value.  My beef is with the people who are telling me I just don't get the game because I don't agree with their speculation (in a fictional story that they didn't create), or that I'm wrong when I cite the bare-bones facts as they are presented in the game (also in a fictional story that they didn't create).

But what the game tells us, doesn't make sense ---> either the game is horribly broken (Incompetence Theory) or the game is lying to us (Indoctrination Theory)

[Geneaux486]

Meltemph wrote...
Umm no, that would be the reaper artifact. You know, the thing that gave him his eyes, the thing that killed his friend, the thing that talked to him, the thing that could have destroyed Palaven?

There's nothing to suggest he was indoctrinated during the events of Mass Effect 2.  Everything he did in that game was counter-productive to Harbinger's goal of creating a human reaper.  You've seen what he did to his soldiers in Mass Effect 3, modifying them with lots of Reaper tech.  By the end of the game he's done the same thing to himself.  That is how he came to be indoctrinated.

Ya, that would explain why the reapers were attacking the base, right? And the fact that he knew to try the control ending? The kid even says he was right, but that he couldn't do it because he was indoctrinated.

But if he was indoctrinated, why would the reapers be attacking the base at all?

You missed the point. The crucible FIT perfectly with the fixes of his philosophy, outside of the destroy ending.

No, he adjusted his philosophy to accept the the possible fixes.  He was unaware of them before the Crucible was plugged in, hence why they were "new" possibilities.

There was NO implication of chance. Shepards life was "saved" through synthetics, we are reminded of this in ME3, we are shown this in ME2, if ALL synthetics are destroyed, Shep dies, even if the star child didnt say it, whcih he clearly did, only you are doing all you can do avoid it sicne you have 1 ounce of wiggle room cause he didnt talk incredibly redundant like, with the destroy conversation.

 
You're claiming he said something he didn't really say.  He said "You can destroy all synthetic life.  Even you are partly synthetic."  Can Shepard die?  Yes.  Can he live?  Yes.  Do either of these things contradict what the Catalyst told you?  No, because he didn't say "You will die".  He says it for control, but not for destroy.  Why do you think that is?

Also, edi can live with the destroy ending, last I checked she is the very definition of a synthetic, so again, NO you can not take everything that happened at face value. And the reason we dont see the reapers again, is because they ended the game with no exposition, they left that part to speculation.

I'd like to see a youtube video fo EDI living after destroy.  Not saying I don't believe you, I just have yet to come across one.  Furthermore, even if the Catalyst was wrong about how the destroy option would end up, it doesn't mean he's lying to you about it.  It's your weapon, not his.

But what the game tells us, doesn't make sense ---> either the game is horribly broken (Incompetence Theory) or the game is lying to us (Indoctrination Theory)

What the game tells us does make sense.  There are unanswered questions, yes, but not to a degree that the game becomes broken.  The endings aren't perfect, but they're very salvageable.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[Bill Casey]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Catalyst's task, above all else, is to preserve the existence of all organic life.  The Crucible introduced new means to do this, means the Catalyst probably deemed preferable because the Reapers were not only being resisted in the last few cycles, but the synthetic race they created was benign. 

Incorrect, the Catalyst's task, above all else, is to ensure the continuation of the cycle of organic life. If the goal was simply preservation, they could preserve all organic life in Reaper form and be done with it...


How does Destroying The Reapers prevent synthetics from wiping out all organic life?
How does Controlling The Reapers prevent synthetics from wiping out all organic life, you know, without continuing the cycle?
How does merging Organic and Synthetic together prevent synthetic/organic hybrids from creating synthetics that wipe out organics?

The Catalyst just said we can't keep our forms, just now...

[Meltemph]

There's nothing to suggest he was indoctrinated during the events of Mass Effect 2.

I was talking about TIM, you said he got himself indoctrinated. That jsut simply isnt true.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 avril 2012 - 08:34 .

[Meltemph]

I'd like to see a youtube video fo EDI living after destroy. Not saying I don't believe you, I just have yet to come across one. Furthermore, even if the Catalyst was wrong about how the destroy option would end up, it doesn't mean he's lying to you about it. It's your weapon, not his.

Seriously, the devs have been talking about it, it is why they have been arguing that EDI isnt reaper tech.

You're claiming he said something he didn't really say. He said "You can destroy all synthetic life. Even you are partly synthetic." Can Shepard die? Yes. Can he live? Yes. Do either of these things contradict what the Catalyst told you? No, because he didn't say "You will die". He says it for control, but not for destroy. Why do you think that is?

He said "You can destroy all synthetics, the Geth as well, even you are partly synthetic". I mean seriously? You need people being that redundant for you?

[Geneaux486]

I was talking about TIM, you sid he got himself indoctrinated. That jsut simply isnt true.

Yeah, the Illusive Man wasn't indoctrinated in Mass Effect 2.  Everything he did was counterproductive to the Reapers in that game.  It wasn't until he modified himself with Reaper tech in Mass Effect 3 that he was indoctrinated.

Incorrect, the Catalyst's task, above all else, is to ensure the continuation of the cycle of organic life. If the goal was simply preservation, they could preserve all organic life in Reaper form and be done with it...

In other words, it's what I said it was.

How does Destroying The Reapers prevent synthetics from wiping out all organic life?

It doesn't, which is why the Catalyst says "the peace won't last".

How does Controlling The Reapers prevent synthetics from wiping out all organic life, you know, without continuing the cycle?

It doesn't have to, the Geth are still around, the first known synthetic race to be peaceful in nature.  The cycle is no longer needed as long as the Geth exist.

How does merging Organic and Synthetic together prevent synthetic/organic hybrids from creating synthetics that wipe out organics?

Again, the Geth make the cycle unecesarry.  There's always the chance that someone somewhere will be an idiot and make hostile synthetics anyway, but I wouldn't exactly call that likely.

He said "You can destroy all synthetics, the Geth as well, even you are partly synthetic". I mean seriously? You need people being that redundant for you?

To accept it as a possibility?  No.  To take it as a fact that proves the Catalyst is a liar?  Yes.  It needs to be specific before it can be taken as concrete proof.  It's not impossible, but it's also not definite.  We simply do not know, partly because the Catalyst didn't specifically say "you'll die" and partly because we don't know whether or not it knew Shepard could potentially survive.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 avril 2012 - 08:37 .

[Meltemph]

Yeah, the Illusive Man wasn't indoctrinated in Mass Effect 2. Everything he did was counterproductive to the Reapers in that game. It wasn't until he modified himself with Reaper tech in Mass Effect 3 that he was indoctrinated.

Yes he was, just the extent wasn't there, he was fighting it. Evolution literally tells you this. He was hit by an indoctrination device, this is a known fact.

[Geneaux486]

Meltemph wrote...

Yeah, the Illusive Man wasn't indoctrinated in Mass Effect 2. Everything he did was counterproductive to the Reapers in that game. It wasn't until he modified himself with Reaper tech in Mass Effect 3 that he was indoctrinated.

Yes he was, just the extent wasn't there, he was fighting it. Evolution literally tells you this. He was hit by an indoctrination device, this is a known fact.

Yeah, he was hit by the device, and since that time, he completely ended the Collector threat and interrupted the Reapers' plans.  Then, when we see that he's clearly been modifying himself with Reaper tech, he begins to show signs of indoctrination.  It's more logical to assume it was the latter action that led to his indoctrination, not the former.  Indoctrination requires prolonged exposure.  This has been a stated fact since the very first game.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 avril 2012 - 08:39 .

[Cobra's_back]

rachellouise wrote...

I don't think the kid lies. If he was, he could say "none of those will prevent the reapers, my way is the only option"

At this point, lying  wouldn't help him. People can make it to where he is; the crucible is complete and attatched etc.

He is not a kid.


 “The Catalyst is an ancient and powerful entity of unknown origin that resides within the Citadel. Its nature is unclear, there being no reference to it being organic, synthetic, or any other alternative.The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. "

Why should Shepard trust everything it said without question. Should Shepard believe its wisdom.
 
 

[Meltemph]

Yeah, he was hit by the device, and since that time, he completely ended the Collector threat and interrupted the Reapers' plans. Then, when we see that he's clearly been modifying himself with Reaper tech, he begins to show signs of indoctrination. It's more logical to assume it was the latter action that led to his indoctrination, not the former. Indoctrination requires prolonged exposure. This has been a stated fact since the very first game.

Unless you are hit by a reaper indoctrination device... You get hit by this you get indoctrinated, he was fighting the effects, reapers can speed this up at any time, but they obviously use people like him in cycles to prevent them from making the crucible or at the very minimum try and force them to use the control option. Once you are indoctrinated you are indoctrinated. There has been no known way to break free of it, maybe after the reapers die, but other then that... it is a guessing game.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 avril 2012 - 08:45 .

[Cobra's_back]

KingZayd wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...


Also speculative, not factual.  The game tells us what it tells us.  There's nothing wrong with speculating that those things may not be the case, nor is there anything wrong with taking the facts in the game at face value.  My beef is with the people who are telling me I just don't get the game because I don't agree with their speculation (in a fictional story that they didn't create), or that I'm wrong when I cite the bare-bones facts as they are presented in the game (also in a fictional story that they didn't create).

But what the game tells us, doesn't make sense ---> either the game is horribly broken (Incompetence Theory) or the game is lying to us (Indoctrination Theory)

Could be broken. If not why do we listen to the Reaper God.

[Meltemph]

To accept it as a possibility? No. To take it as a fact that proves the Catalyst is a liar? Yes. It needs to be specific before it can be taken as concrete proof. It's not impossible, but it's also not definite. We simply do not know, partly because the Catalyst didn't specifically say "you'll die" and partly because we don't know whether or not it knew Shepard could potentially survive.

All I see with this is you want him to say, "You will destroy all synthetics, even the reapers and geth will really die, and even you will really die"... Seems more like trying to do everything possible to hold up the starchild as NOTHING but an infodump.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 avril 2012 - 08:47 .

[Cobra's_back]

Geneaux486 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Control and systhesis are clearly shown to be  idealogies of indocrinated characters. So once again your wrong.

And that stil isn't true.  Reaper synthesis and control through the use of reaper tech were goals the indoctrinated villains falsely believed were possible.  Through the Reapers, they were not possible, but through the Crucible, they were.  Again, we see them happen at the end.

and this time the indoctrinated would be hero false believes their possible

Geneaux486 wrote... 

Ending is so speculative, and unclear what the result of shepards actions are. It does not prove anything. So your wrong again.

We clearly see in control and synthesis that the Reapers cease their attack immediately, and withdraw from battle.  We clearly see in synthesis that something has changed about organics by looking at Joker and the plant life on that planet he landed on.  Those things are not speculative, they're right there in plain sight for us to see.  Ignoring them won't make them go away.

Lord Eddard Stark: A madman sees what he sees.

Geneaux486 wrote... 
The Catalyst shows up, explains why the Reapers do what they do, and explains how you activate the Crucible, which it admits it cannot do itself.  It doesn't do anything but explain things to you, so what exactly would you call it?

He never actually explains how to activate the crucible, he tells you that you've thought of destroying them, then you see anderson shooting the crucible. the starchild then proceeds to tell you how bad a choice that is (talk about bias). Then he asks "Or do you think you can control us?" and you see TIM grabbing those things, and Shepard says "so the illusive man was right?" to which the starchild responds postively. 
 The Starchild then suggests the synthesis option. and now i just noticed something:

Shepard: I dunno...
Starchild: Why not? synthetics are already part of you. can you imagine your life without them?
Shepard: And there will be peace?
Starchild: (pause) the cycle will be broken. (that sounds evasive to me.)

 

but yeah he's complete up for synthesis. The only one he doesn't like is destroy. And it is the reapers who are the enemy. Not the synthetics who are on your side. Would you have trusted the starchild if it appeared as StarSovereign instead? The starchild is exploiting the Shepard's emotional vulnerabilities.

Also speculative, not factual.  The game tells us what it tells us.  There's nothing wrong with speculating that those things may not be the case, nor is there anything wrong with taking the facts in the game at face value.  My beef is with the people who are telling me I just don't get the game because I don't agree with their speculation (in a fictional story that they didn't create), or that I'm wrong when I cite the bare-bones facts as they are presented in the game (also in a fictional story that they didn't create).

If you take the final ten minutes as fact then you are speculating that everything Star child said was correct. The game doesn't tell you to believe everything he said. It also doesn't tell you to not believe what he said.

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Ya, that would explain why the reapers were attacking the base, right? And the fact that he knew to try the control ending? The kid even says he was right, but that he couldn't do it because he was indoctrinated.

But if he was indoctrinated, why would the reapers be attacking the base at all?

because indoctrination isn't just a discrete On/Off, 1/0 thing. At that point, TIM still had a bit of free will, and he was getting dangerously interesting results in those labs.

Geneaux486 wrote...

You missed the point. The crucible FIT perfectly with the fixes of his philosophy, outside of the destroy ending.

No, he adjusted his philosophy to accept the the possible fixes.  He was unaware of them before the Crucible was plugged in, hence why they were "new" possibilities.

The hardware changes the options. His philosophies haven't changed. He says the old solution won't work any more because Shepard was standing there, although he's only standing there because of the lift. Why bring him upstairs?

Geneaux486 wrote...

Also, edi can live with the destroy ending, last I checked she is the very definition of a synthetic, so again, NO you can not take everything that happened at face value. And the reason we dont see the reapers again, is because they ended the game with no exposition, they left that part to speculation.

I'd like to see a youtube video fo EDI living after destroy.  Not saying I don't believe you, I just have yet to come across one.  Furthermore, even if the Catalyst was wrong about how the destroy option would end up, it doesn't mean he's lying to you about it.  It's your weapon, not his.

he seems to know the new possibilities just fine. I imagine he'd have a better understanding of the tech than you too.

Geneaux486 wrote...

But what the game tells us, doesn't make sense ---> either the game is horribly broken (Incompetence Theory) or the game is lying to us (Indoctrination Theory)

What the game tells us does make sense.  There are unanswered questions, yes, but not to a degree that the game becomes broken.  The endings aren't perfect, but they're very salvageable.

The contradictions with the major plot points of the original game, mean that it doesn't make sense. The entire Saren and Sovereign story becomes nonsense. The endings are salvageable, correct. With Indoctrination theory, or something else of that nature.

[Vox Draco]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

I don't think the kid lies. If he was, he could say "none of those will prevent the reapers, my way is the only option"

At this point, lying  wouldn't help him. People can make it to where he is; the crucible is complete and attatched etc.

He is not a kid.


 “The Catalyst is an ancient and powerful entity of unknown origin that resides within the Citadel. Its nature is unclear, there being no reference to it being organic, synthetic, or any other alternative.The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. "

Why should Shepard trust everything it said without question. Should Shepard believe its wisdom.
 
 

The problem is: Shepard is not even present when this kid starts talking...at least I cannot remember her being there. Sure, there is some person that looks and sounds like Shepard...but it cannot be her, because Shepard would have never accpeted anything of this importance without any real questioning...

So it is all up to us to decide the fate of the galaxy using almost NO information beside what the kid says. We have to swallow all of it and jump into the darnkess, hoping to do the right thing. And based upon my experiences with Reapers throughout the series...there can't be any other choice than destroy them.

But i only make that choice because the designers don't leave me with any other option. The force us to jump through one of the flaming rings the kid is presenting us so the game can end. I'd prefer my shepard to find out more about those choices before making a leap of faith...

[Cobra's_back]

Vox Draco wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

I don't think the kid lies. If he was, he could say "none of those will prevent the reapers, my way is the only option"

At this point, lying  wouldn't help him. People can make it to where he is; the crucible is complete and attatched etc.

He is not a kid.


 “The Catalyst is an ancient and powerful entity of unknown origin that resides within the Citadel. Its nature is unclear, there being no reference to it being organic, synthetic, or any other alternative.The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. "

Why should Shepard trust everything it said without question. Should Shepard believe its wisdom.
 
 

The problem is: Shepard is not even present when this kid starts talking...at least I cannot remember her being there. Sure, there is some person that looks and sounds like Shepard...but it cannot be her, because Shepard would have never accpeted anything of this importance without any real questioning...

So it is all up to us to decide the fate of the galaxy using almost NO information beside what the kid says. We have to swallow all of it and jump into the darnkess, hoping to do the right thing. And based upon my experiences with Reapers throughout the series...there can't be any other choice than destroy them.

But i only make that choice because the designers don't leave me with any other option. The force us to jump through one of the flaming rings the kid is presenting us so the game can end. I'd prefer my shepard to find out more about those choices before making a leap of faith...

I did the same thing. If destroy wasn't correct then the ending was broken. We shouldn't be in a position to trust everything the Reaper God said. This is asking too much. Any twist should have been earlier  in the story and we should have had more data.

[tractrpl]

If they're trying to let us know how insidious indoctrination is they needn't bother. We already got the picture.

[Cobra's_back]

tractrpl wrote...

If they're trying to let us know how insidious indoctrination is they needn't bother. We already got the picture.

I didn't know this was about indoctrination. I thought it was about a possible broken ending or make choices with the infomation you have. Explain??

[tractrpl]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

If they're trying to let us know how insidious indoctrination is they needn't bother. We already got the picture.

I didn't know this was about indoctrination. I thought it was about a possible broken ending or make choices with the infomation you have. Explain??

People we talking about IT.

[Cobra's_back]

tractrpl wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

If they're trying to let us know how insidious indoctrination is they needn't bother. We already got the picture.

I didn't know this was about indoctrination. I thought it was about a possible broken ending or make choices with the infomation you have. Explain??

People we talking about IT.

It is not IT if you question the wisdom of the Star Child, or if you question his motives. Shepard doesn’t have to be indoctrinated to question the information. Earlier I added a comment from one of BioWare’s moderators to show that each person is going to have to weigh the information given all the way through the three games to make their final decision. His reasoning made sense. He didn’t believe in indoctrination.