314 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

Makrys wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Call the TIM scene what you like, but it's not indoctrination.

The files/assets (like the dark veins effect) have "indoctrination" in their names.

"Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind. "

TIM possibly being used as a Harby indoc antenna? Hmm?

Yes. Precisely. This would also explain that once TIM kills himself, Harby doesn't have even partial control over Shepard. He has to instead trick Shepard with the Catalyst/star brat.

Why doesn't Harby simply indoctrinate the alliance's Admirals to shoot themselves? They're surrounded by Reaper tech, they are not strong as Shepard! Why should Harby resume control because TIM failed, if just to take him upstairs and offer him the kill switch?

Why... if...then... but...

[StElmo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Gods, can no minute go by without this abomination coming up. Why can't the thrice-damned IT just die...

To be fair, what is more likely, a game that is 99% quality dialogue going to utter CRAP (keeping in mind endings are frequently not written LAST), even if the game was rushed, it would show in the writing elseware if it was effecting the writing.

OR

the team that wrote such a great story, had a master plan to buy them some more time over the months with post IT content.

I think the odds are about 50-50 so stop being such a rude person and trying to crush people's hopes when

a) you are not bioware, so you have no real authority
you can just ignore IT threads.

[Cadeym]

"Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind. "

TIM possibly being used as a Harby indoc antenna? Hmm?

And how is it that Anderson and Shepard have the capacity to form their own opinions. Prior to this event there have never been any proof that reapers could take control of a persons body without first indoctrinating them.

Modifié par Mouseraider, 27 avril 2012 - 06:25 .

[EmEr77]

OdanUrr wrote...

SauliusL wrote...

OdanUrr, what are you talking about? Shepard dying and reborn didn't have any impact on the game later on? What about lots of storyline with his special implants and  being half organic/half synthetic?

Let's say you or me dies and is resurrected. Wouldn't you find it odd? Wouldn't you question how come you're alive now? Maybe you're a clone? If so, is it really you or somebody else who merely thinks it's you? Why would anyone go to the trouble of bringing you back? Back to Shepard, why would Cerberus of all people? Shepard now finds he's also synthetic. No eerie thoughts on Saren's description of the "perfect" organic/synthetic being? Are you more machine than man? Can you actually feel or love? What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be alive? Do you have a soul?

These are some of the questions I can come up with. Does Shepard ever deal with these complex issues in ME2? Nope.

I love that you brought this to light. I was thinking about this myself. Those questions actually extend beyond the scope of a video game, and begin probing into some very controversial philosophical/religious aspects. Mainly revolving around the idea of a soul, an entity separate from the physical human body. In many religions the soul is what is responsible for human emotion, morals, and decision making. There have been vast amounts of scientific research done, including brain mapping, to understand where the mechanism for decision-making is. There are of course influences such as manipulation of the frontal lobe of the brain, however there is still a constant scientific struggle over the true answer as to what the "mind" is. 

For example:

You set up a case-study in which you have the human brain and several areas for movement mapped out. When you interact with those areas in the brain, it sends an involuntary signal to the specific limb, and the limb jerks. Now, if you tell an individual to concentrate really hard on the limb NOT moving, when that area is interacted with, the limb will still move. Then the individual says: "My arm moved, but I didn't WANT it to move."

And in that statement it's the word "want" that is the source of all of the questioning. 


The very definition of "altruism" as well sparks debate about the idea of preservation of species. If a human being is only interested in the preservation of him/herself and their next generation, what makes them suddenly run out into the street to push a complete stranger out of the way of an oncoming car? It's a really fascinating debate. 

In the case of ME2, those questions get translated into Shepard's "resurrection." I think it's safe to assume however that the idea of a "soul" that leaves the body after death is not being utilized here. I think the idea that all human emotions, morals, and decision-making processes are physically located within the brain is what BioWare meant to go for, making it easier to introduce the idea of rebuilding a human being as well as their "essence" so-to-speak. So I think it requires a massive suspension of disbelief, and a belief in the context of the situation: this is an incredibly advanced galaxy technologically and it may have been almost scandalous to bring someone back from the dead, but with the right tools, brainpower, and financial backing, may have actually been possible in the Mass Effect universe.

[shepskisaac]

The Angry One wrote...

That is not indoctrination. Indoctrination does not involve motor control while the mind is untouched. That is in fact the exact opposite of indoctrination.
I'm reasoning that BioWare are in fact not that stupidly unaware of their own lore and merely reused assets that were intended for an indoctrination scene. But if you want to say they are, fine. Whatever.

But Shep and Anderson clearly have problems with mind functions, they're struggling to form words and speak. Plus, TIM, this is not gradual indoctrination. TIM is heavily indoctrinating them.
And they can add new stuff or even bend the lore a bit if it's still consistient. Indoctrination's purpouse is control. Not to mention that TIM says "I took what I wanted from them [Reapers] and made it my own" so it is poossible that Cerberus may have further enhanced/modified the technique.

[Unschuld]

Iconoclaste wrote...
Why doesn't Harby simply indoctrinate the alliance's Admirals to shoot themselves? They're surrounded by Reaper tech, they are not strong as Shepard! Why should Harby resume control because TIM failed, if just to take him upstairs and offer him the kill switch?

Why... if...then... but...

Maybe because that would create an instant end-game and make for a boring story? I think the whole point is really that they're trying to impress upon us the importance of Shepard as an influential figure. If indoctrinated, he could rally more people to follow his lead than TIM, for sure, who seems to be a bit unpopular at the moment. Maybe there is no kill switch, maybe the crucibal is just a... just a... a...

[OdanUrr]

SauliusL wrote...

He deals with these complex issues in Cerberus base at the end of Mass effect 3, when watching video logs. Did you see them?

First, these issues should've been dealt with in ME2, not in the middle of a war.

Second, these are not really dealt with in ME3, merely acknowledged.

Third, the videos at the end feel like an afterthought. Shepard has no time to process them because he needs to find the Catalyst and defeat the Reapers. He drops one or two lines on the matter of his "resurrection" but I never really felt he cared. Surely, such a complex topic deserved more than a minute of exposition? Better than the videos is the scene with your LI where s/he will either say they don't care or that it's really you. That's nice, but a little too late and, again, if Shepard didn't care in ME2, why should he care in ME3? Worse, why should I?

In short, the theme of Shepard's humanity in ME3 really feels like more of an afterthought than anything else. But the point I was trying to make was that Bioware dropped the ball on dealing with these issues in ME2.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 27 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[EmEr77]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Makrys wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Call the TIM scene what you like, but it's not indoctrination.

The files/assets (like the dark veins effect) have "indoctrination" in their names.

"Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind. "

TIM possibly being used as a Harby indoc antenna? Hmm?

Yes. Precisely. This would also explain that once TIM kills himself, Harby doesn't have even partial control over Shepard. He has to instead trick Shepard with the Catalyst/star brat.

Why doesn't Harby simply indoctrinate the alliance's Admirals to shoot themselves? They're surrounded by Reaper tech, they are not strong as Shepard! Why should Harby resume control because TIM failed, if just to take him upstairs and offer him the kill switch?

Why... if...then... but...

Conoclaste: It also states in the Codex that in order for affective Reaper Indoc to take place, it must be done gradually, and that Reaper indoc ultimately destroys the minds of the individual. If they were to put full force into indoctrinating the generals while on earth, they would completely destroy their minds, and render them useless to do what they wanted. Also, their ultimate goal was to harvest the humans, not completely destroy them.

Unschuld: Utilizing a body to amplify the signal is not the same as controlling it. However, I think it's pretty well established that TIM is indoctrinated, or else he wouldn't have gone off the deep end and jeoprdized so many human lives the way that he did. In ME2 he may have been a ******, but he was pretty gung-ho for human survival. Also, it does not state that it's amplifying its signals to indoctrinate other beings. Considering it's necessary to be around Reaper-tech in order to be indoctrinated, it may simply mean that the neuro-chemical make up of an organic body is prime in order for the Reaper to be able to boost its signal to not only solidify control over that single body, but for espionage for all we know. The description is vague. 

Modifié par EmEr77, 27 avril 2012 - 06:36 .

[eddieoctane]

Someone is probably worried that if they denounce IT, actual torches and pitchforks will be turned loose on BioWare and EA. In reality, there will probably be 1-2 days of angry ranting on these boards (likely enough to lock the entire forum down temporarily) before everyone just shrugs and walks away. No purchase of future content. No micro-transactions in MP. Everyone just washes their hands of the whole mess and lets BioWare implode. At that point, all I could hope for is that the stain ME3 would leave on senior team members resumes will leave the only job they can find a burger-flipper at Mc D's.

[DTKT]

eddieoctane wrote...

Someone is probably worried that if they denounce IT, actual torches and pitchforks will be turned loose on BioWare and EA. In reality, there will probably be 1-2 days of angry ranting on these boards (likely enough to lock the entire forum down temporarily) before everyone just shrugs and walks away. No purchase of future content. No micro-transactions in MP. Everyone just washes their hands of the whole mess and lets BioWare implode. At that point, all I could hope for is that the stain ME3 would leave on senior team members resumes will leave the only job they can find a burger-flipper at Mc D's.

Bing Bing.

Bioware won't kill the only "good" thing to have come out of this entire debacle. It's literrally the only positive thing born of all this mess. Mostly because it assumes that Bioware are genuises are crafted 1 hour of content as being a giant hoax.

So silly.

[Ieldra]

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You know, I'm fine with the primary effects of all three choices, and if people like you didn't shove "Destroy is the only option" into my face all the time I would actually debate its merits just as I debate the merits of the others.

People like me? I'm not an IT theorist. I just don't find the idea particularily bad either, compared to what we got.

As I said, I'm not in principle opposed to the idea that the starchild sequence isn't real, only that IT invalidates two of the choices.

But how would you react if I started to spout "Destroy and Control are totally irreal. Synthesis is the only choice that matters" every chance I get, and actually lobbied to remove your favorite choice from the game as a viable option to win? I can't believe people are acting like this, I can't believe they don't see the hypocrisy. I don't think anything has managed to worsen my opinion of the fanbase as much as this. 

Have you ever thought that if synthesis and to a lesser extent control weren't so blatantly pro-Reaper, people wouldn't come to think this? 
Yeah turn everyone into a Reaper (don't say it isn't, developer notes from leaked scripts call it "becoming one with the Reapers")! Nothing can go wrong with this plan!

The older script has this as "Shepard becoming one with the Reapers". That's just Shepard though. No mention of the rest of the galaxy. You could see it as yet another version of Control, where Shepard's personality is disseminated among the Reapers to pacify them.

All choices stop the harvesting, and neither choice turns anyone into a mindless slave or an "abomination", neither removes "free will" (apart from the Reapers in Control), removes anyone's individuality or forces anyone into a collective consciousness like the Reapers would've done. Thus, neither choice is a pro-Reaper choice. That's just a fact. What happens beyond that is up for debate, but all endings are good endings in that way.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 avril 2012 - 06:41 .

[Ieldra]

eddieoctane wrote...
Someone is probably worried that if they denounce IT, actual torches and pitchforks will be turned loose on BioWare and EA. In reality, there will probably be 1-2 days of angry ranting on these boards (likely enough to lock the entire forum down temporarily) before everyone just shrugs and walks away. No purchase of future content. No micro-transactions in MP. Everyone just washes their hands of the whole mess and lets BioWare implode. At that point, all I could hope for is that the stain ME3 would leave on senior team members resumes will leave the only job they can find a burger-flipper at Mc D's.

You'd see a barrage of rants from me if they confirmed IT, that's for sure.

[OdanUrr]

EmEr77 wrote...

I love that you brought this to light. I was thinking about this myself. Those questions actually extend beyond the scope of a video game, and begin probing into some very controversial philosophical/religious aspects.

As well they should. They should challenge the player's views, make him ponder these subjects, and, in the process, have him find out more about himself. It was an ideal setup for Bioware to explore the concepts of one's mortality and humanity... but that didn't happen. If videogames are to grow as a form of art, these topics need to be embraced, not shied away from.

[Unschuld]

EmEr77 wrote...

Unschuld: Utilizing a body to amplify the signal is not the same as controlling it. However, I think it's pretty well established that TIM is indoctrinated, or else he wouldn't have gone off the deep end and jeoprdized so many human lives the way that he did. In ME2 he may have been a ******, but he was pretty gung-ho for human survival. Also, it does not state that it's amplifying its signals to indoctrinate other beings. Considering it's necessary to be around Reaper-tech in order to be indoctrinated, it may simply mean that the neuro-chemical make up of an organic body is prime in order for the Reaper to be able to boost its signal to not only solidify control over that single body, or for espionage for all we know. The description is vague. 

What I'm offering is conjecture and speculation, not necessarily things that I believe to be true. However, these are still possibilities. It may not state that the amplifying of signals is used to directly control other beings, but it doesn't concretely state that it doesn't, either. You're right, the description is vague, which is why it's still up for interpretation.

As for TIM in ME2, I'm not sure yet. One of the theories I tended to favor more as ME2 progressed was that TIM was indoctrinated to some extent before ME2 (even before I read that comic). The Reapers took notice of humanity after Shepard blew up Sovvy. TIM's actions could be percieved as further testing humanity as a prime candidate for the next reaper neonate by making Shep run around a bit, even if he thought in his mind that he was furthering the cause of humanity (in a sense, he was). Doing so also upped the chance of either eliminating a powerful opposing force in the equation (Shepard) by death, or exposing him to enough Reaper tech to seduce him as a plan B.

Like I said though, speculation. That's just a hypothesis.

[Unschuld]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You'd see a barrage of rants from me if they confirmed IT, that's for sure.

Why? Because you'd be proven wrong or do you just genuinely have a distaste for the implications of indoctrination being further used as a plot device?

[EmEr77]

Unschuld wrote...
What I'm offering is conjecture and speculation, not necessarily things that I believe to be true. However, these are still possibilities. It may not state that the amplifying of signals is used to directly control other beings, but it doesn't concretely state that it doesn't, either. You're right, the description is vague, which is why it's still up for interpretation. 

As for TIM in ME2, I'm not sure yet. One of the theories I tended to favor more as ME2 progressed was that TIM was indoctrinated to some extent before ME2 (even before I read that comic). The Reapers took notice of humanity after Shepard blew up Sovvy. TIM's actions could be percieved as further testing humanity as a prime candidate for the next reaper neonate by making Shep run around a bit, even if he thought in his mind that he was furthering the cause of humanity (in a sense, he was). Doing so also upped the chance of either eliminating a powerful opposing force in the equation (Shepard) by death, or exposing him to enough Reaper tech to seduce him as a plan B.

Like I said though, speculation. That's just a hypothesis.

I honestly thought it was going to be a full-circle thing and you'd be able to talk him into suicide like you did Saren, then Harbinger would take control, and there would be one last fight in order to keep you from opening the Citadel so the Crucible could be connected.

I would be on the Indoc Theory (hypothesis) train, except for one thing:

It's just speculation. That's all it is, there is no real incontrovertible evidence within the game itself to suggest that Shepard was indoctrinated. Whatever "evidence" there may be can just as easily be refuted through other examples that seem to contradict it, which essentially means that unfortunately, it's not Indoctrination Theory. At least... not yet. If this Extended Cut DLC was always scheduled to be released, then that might actually make somewhat of a case for Indoc Theory, but unfortunately the Extended Cut DLC seems to be coming solely out of this debacle going on right now over the ending of the game. If it does end up high-lighting Indoc Theory I don't believe it's all that much of a cause for celebration for this simple fact:

They're covering up a mistake of poor writing by augmenting what they already have in order for it to make sense. If the writers wanted it to be indoc, we would clearly know it's indoc, and it would be impressive. As it stands right now, this DLC they've stated is a "clarification" which should send up some red flags right there about what we already have. It should spark two questions: "should the ending even NEED clarification?" "Why does it need clarification?"

The why part has been spoken about... to death. The question as to whether or not we should even be in this position in the first place hasn't been addressed all that much. BioWare should have never needed to release a DLC to clear up the ending to this game--period. They didn't need to do it for ME1, they didn't need to do it for ME2, and there is absolutely no strong enough reason for them to have needed to do it for this one, except for the big trip and fall ending, which is the only reason. Basically what I'm saying is, with the quality of material BioWare has put out, and the standards they set for themselves that we, as consumers, are now holding them to, none of this should have ever happened. They should have taken their time, and crafted an ending that did justice to the series, and wouldn't need the embarrassment of an additional DLC to make it better.

"But BioWare wanted to leave an air of mystery..." no. I'm going to just cut that one off right there, because, no. BioWare did not intend to leave an air of mystery, someone in those offices with authority actually thought this ending was complete, and good the way it was. There are plenty of other ways in which BioWare could have sparked intellectual discussion on the endings, without this catastrophe happening.

I'm not denouncing the Indoc Theory, because it's intriguing, and I'd love to have seen it in play, but, just saying, it was never actually intended by the writers, or else we'd know it. With all of the technical pitfalls of the ending, I'm expected to believe that BioWare actually intended for this interesting twist ending of indoctrination, in which, that's pretty much it? Take earth back? What... in Shepard's drug dreams? Really? Wouldn't indoc require more game play, if you "break it" as in the Destroy Ending? Yet there's not going to be more game play?

Call me skeptical, but, I'm skeptical.

Modifié par EmEr77, 27 avril 2012 - 06:53 .

[EmEr77]

OdanUrr wrote...

EmEr77 wrote...

I love that you brought this to light. I was thinking about this myself. Those questions actually extend beyond the scope of a video game, and begin probing into some very controversial philosophical/religious aspects.

As well they should. They should challenge the player's views, make him ponder these subjects, and, in the process, have him find out more about himself. It was an ideal setup for Bioware to explore the concepts of one's mortality and humanity... but that didn't happen. If videogames are to grow as a form of art, these topics need to be embraced, not shied away from.

You say all the right things my friend. Exactly. If BioWare is going to start labeling what they do as art, they shouldn't shy away from the controversial things that art embraces. Provided it's done well... of course. There is such a thing as bad art--or making mistakes. 

[Unschuld]

EmEr77 wrote...

I would be on the Indoc Theory (hypothesis) train, except for one thing:

*snipped for pyramid control, not content*

Call me skeptical, but, I'm skeptical.

If "being on the train" is referring to being wholly invested in it as gospel truth, I'm with you on that in the sense that I'm not hopping aboard either. It's still just a theory. But there's nothing wrong with enjoying a possible hypothesis.

Modifié par Unschuld, 27 avril 2012 - 06:51 .

[Thorn Harvestar]

Dranks wrote...

He IS right though. They've said stuff about how they won't comment and not even 5 minutes later I saw threads about "ITS CONFIRMED" and "HAHAHA YOUR THEORY IS DEAD".

This.

[M Hedonist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Gods, can no minute go by without this abomination coming up. Why can't the thrice-damned IT just die...

That's the whole point of this thread. IT doesn't die because the devs refuse to deny or confirm it. You didn't pay attention, did you?

Modifié par Sauruz, 27 avril 2012 - 06:55 .

[EmEr77]

Unschuld wrote...

EmEr77 wrote...

I would be on the Indoc Theory (hypothesis) train, except for one thing:

*snipped for pyramid control, not content*

Call me skeptical, but, I'm skeptical.

If "being on the train" is referring to being wholly invested in it as gospel truth, I'm with you on that in the sense that I'm not hopping aboard either. It's still just a theory. But there's nothing wrong with enjoying a possible hypothesis.

Yeah definitely. It would have been amaaazing, and not to mention completely made sense. How great would it have been... a fight for earth, and for Shepard's mind? Brilliant. 

[Iconoclaste]

EmEr77 wrote...

Conoclaste: It also states in the Codex that in order for affective Reaper Indoc to take place, it must be done gradually, and that Reaper indoc ultimately destroys the minds of the individual. If they were to put full force into indoctrinating the generals while on earth, they would completely destroy their minds, and render them useless to do what they wanted. Also, their ultimate goal was to harvest the humans, not completely destroy them.

Unschuld: Utilizing a body to amplify the signal is not the same as controlling it. However, I think it's pretty well established that TIM is indoctrinated, or else he wouldn't have gone off the deep end and jeoprdized so many human lives the way that he did. In ME2 he may have been a ******, but he was pretty gung-ho for human survival. Also, it does not state that it's amplifying its signals to indoctrinate other beings. Considering it's necessary to be around Reaper-tech in order to be indoctrinated, it may simply mean that the neuro-chemical make up of an organic body is prime in order for the Reaper to be able to boost its signal to not only solidify control over that single body, but for espionage for all we know. The description is vague.

If indoctrination enables a Reaper to control the movements of a sentient humanoid, how could Saren turn his weapon against himself? If the Reapers did not wish to destroy their targets but just "preserve" their minds (in a liquefied substance, collected after death!), why would Sovereign and Harby pretend they will just destroy the sentients? How could Harby's beam blast Shepard off his feet but still be a "mild indoc" attempt that didn't destroy his mind? If he was indoc at that point, why did he never side with the Reapers in any point in the game, not even in the slightest of his opinions? He even resists TIM when totally under his control, which was expressed by a ball of white light around TIM's fist.. Why the Reapers don't have this kind of effect?

IT will not reconnect all these inconsistencies without resorting to lots of speculation, the same thing to address questions like the "mind", the "soul" and such. The Reapers wish and actually DO destroy the alliance's vessels, so why not just plainly reducing their damages with their superior indoc powers? They are numerous, they even "dock" on top of alliance's ships, and drill holes in their hulls. They are not preserving anything here : they are waging war. Their motives have been explained by the kid? IT tells us the kid is lying. What's up now? A twitter non-comment is going to prove IT has not been disproved?

Unbelievable.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 27 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[Gsr4me]

Question: "Can you answer if EC DLC will answer the question if indoc theory is true or not?"

What he should have answered: Yes the EC will put that issue to rest.

What is so hard about that answer? Doesn't confirm either side, but actually ANSWERS someone's question.

Modifié par Gsr4me, 27 avril 2012 - 06:57 .

[Ieldra]

Unschuld wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You'd see a barrage of rants from me if they confirmed IT, that's for sure.

Why? Because you'd be proven wrong or do you just genuinely have a distaste for the implications of indoctrination being further used as a plot device?

Because it would make the only ending I don't like canonical. I don't want to destroy the Reapers, I don't want to destroy the synthetics, and I don't want to destroy the Citadel and the mass relays. And if they give me an option a transhumanist would like if interpreted a certain way only to tell me "boo, it's a trap" then I'd never forgive them for invalidating my Shepard's personal value system.

[RukiaKuchki]

What's wrong with just waiting a bit? If all of these questions are answered in the upcoming DLC, why can't you wait for the DLC? Will it really kill anyone to wait? Seriously? Why spoil it for yourself? Savour the anticipation!