1357 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

Only advanced life? Harvester's say hi.

[ev76]

Wow, what happened here?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
The former. It clearly states it culls the advanced civilizations.

Seems like they just liquify organics to be used as fuel and as a means to reproduce. but I'm just using the collector base as an example, you know, where WE ACTUALLY SAW A REAPER BEING MADE MY LIQUIFYING HUMANS. 

I suppose a little memory of a ghost boy who clearly lies is a trustworthy source of information....<_<

Who is arguing that Reapers don't cull advanced civilizations?

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

But if you actually hear what the Catalyst says then you would realise that this is an incorrect representation of his argument. He has says he will kill advanced life with synthetic-organics machines (Reapers), living the less advanced races to continue. That is not a circular argument.

So what you are saying is that the reapers, an advanced synthetic civilization, kill advanced civilizations so they don't get killed by other advanced synthetics?

And how is that not circular logic?

The Catalyst is not about saving advanced civilizations, it's about preventing the total extinction of organics. You're attributing a reason to the Catalyst that it doesn't express. You then attack it for it.

So the Preothean didn't go extinct? must have missed that part<_<

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

[dreamgazer]

ohupthis wrote...

If your assets only allow for Destroy, your not worthy of being 'uplifted' and everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is destroyed...........the Earth, all your allies, everything!

Vaporized. end of story.

Interesting.  Admittedly, I hadn't thought about the ending where you have absolutely NO other option outside of Destroy. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 05 mai 2012 - 08:36 .

[SubAstris]

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

Well indirectly killed the Child on Earth, it is unclear whether he controls every individual Reaper's actions or delegates responsibility somewhat to the Reaper themselves. Regardless, you should assume that what a character is saying is true unless the narrative distinctively tells you otherwise. Just because he has committed horrendous actions doesn't mean that everything he says is complete bull.

[/quote]

no but he hasn't given me any reason to trust him.  also, why should you automatically assume that every character is telling the truth unless you're explicitly told so? i know it's science fiction, but i think you're taking it a little far. Everybody lies.

It doesn't matter that he might not have directly killed the Child on Earth. He still gave the order (if he indeed controls the reapers). He's similarly responsible for the deaths of many other children, and grownups too.

I actually think he's manipulating you with half-truths as well as lies. Without them killing us earlier, it's quite possible that we (like the Quarians) would start a stupid war and get ourselves killed by some synthetics. But I don't believe that this is their true motivation, and nothing in my encounter warranted my beginning to trust this abomination,

[/quote]

I'll give you an example. You know that scene when you meet Garrus for the 1st time in ME1? Did you initially assume that he was lying to begin? About working for C-Sec for example? If you didn't, then why assume the Catalyst is lying, despite having the same prior information on it as for Garrus?

Evidence in game?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

But if you actually hear what the Catalyst says then you would realise that this is an incorrect representation of his argument. He has says he will kill advanced life with synthetic-organics machines (Reapers), living the less advanced races to continue. That is not a circular argument.

So what you are saying is that the reapers, an advanced synthetic civilization, kill advanced civilizations so they don't get killed by other advanced synthetics?

And how is that not circular logic?

The Catalyst is not about saving advanced civilizations, it's about preventing the total extinction of organics. You're attributing a reason to the Catalyst that it doesn't express. You then attack it for it.

So the Preothean didn't go extinct? must have missed that part<_<

Preotheans were the last sentient organics?

Modifié par CavScout, 05 mai 2012 - 08:36 .

[Conle]

AlexXIV wrote...

There is the plain fact that if the IT was true then Bioware should have resolved it in game. Aka showing the player/obvserver that it was an indoctrination attempt. Though the ending as it is suggests that everything we saw actually happened. It doesn't matter how much sense the IT makes. And I am surely not anti IT. But the ending (post catalyst decision) does not support it.

Actually they did but the gameplay was too hard to integrate they had to scrap the entire idea. 

Source The final hours of mass effect

[Sable Phoenix]

I think that this passage from this entry on the Zakera Ward blog is highly applicable:

One, falsifiability is a standard in scientific thinking, not literary critical analysis.  It's a standard for verifying or disproving the results of scientific experiments based on tests and observations.  Wikipedia's example: Postulate that "all swans are white."  If you find a black swan, boom.  Falsified.  Indoctrination Theory is more akin to, say, writing an essay trying to explain what the painting on the wall in Gregor Samsa's room means in The Metamorphosis. (*) At its basic level, yes, there's something of the ass-pull to it.  Congratulations: you've just discovered basic critical writing as it's practiced by every working critic in non-video-gaming fields, every school kid who's had to read Of Mice and Men in tenth-grade English class, and people who hang at forums to shoot the **** over random parts of the video games.  Ask a question.  So long as the answer you provide is founded on evidence in the text and is readily supportable, voila.  You have interpreted the work critically.  You get a gold star.  You're really, really, really smart.
 
(*) A Venus in Furs, if memory serves.

The sarcasm is thick enough to slice off and bake, I know, but I can't believe people aren't getting this very easy point.  Indoctrination Theory looks at the game's disastrously muddled ending, finds something weird in it (well, a lot of somethings weird in a very brief period of time), forms an idea about why that might be weird -- the way Shepard yelling at the (Indoctrinated) Illusive Man about Control is juxtaposed with Shepard seriously considering the Catalyst's offer of Control as a serious option is less a subtle insinuation and more like an open-fisted punch to the balls, interpretively speaking -- and then flips backwards through the rest of the game/trilogy to see what might support it.  Whereupon a dozen warning signs with big red letters pop out of the material.  (In about three cases in this game alone, we are talking literal warning signs.)  After we find these things, we string them together into a theory.  We Call Upon the Author to Explain, and the Author in this case simply says "lots of speculation from everyone," and then "artistic integrity," and says nothing else.  He's taken himself out of the discussion entirely, leaving us to come with whatever we want.  He's useless.  His intentions are so unstated that the Author might as well just be Dead for the sake of analyzing Mass Effect 3.

So if you don't like Indoctrination Theory, or you think it's an ass-pull, or whatever, that's fine.  It kind of is.  That's how this sort of analysis works.  It's certainly how I was taught it through long years of public school, community college, and big-boy college; and I doubt your experiences are really any different from mine in this regard.  But you cannot claim the theory is awful solely because it is not falsifiable, because it is not a scientific theory subject to that standard of proof.  And as it's not technically a factual assertion -- it's "this is what we think is happening," rather than "this is what's happening," although you will find some people who get those two confused -- you can't disprove it the way you can (say) disprove a claim that 2 + 2 = 5.  You can disprove it as some kind of evil-genius masterplan on BioWare's behalf, or will soon be able to, because that would be completely ****ing insane despite BioWare apparently being very comfortable leading people to believe it's true.  Many people believe IT and evil-genius theory, but they're not automatically connected.  You can think BioWare are lazy ****s who cut every corner at the end due to time crunch and/or we-don't-have-a-****ing-clue syndrome -- yo -- but still see a game that pretty much reads as long-term indoctrination due to a long string of mostly really goddamn obvious contextual clues.  These are not mutually exclusive.  It's literary analysis, people.

In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 05 mai 2012 - 08:43 .

[ev76]

Well in game edi lies and poses as a vi, why couldnt the catalyst be lying or be manipulating you to do it's bidding. All is not what it seems in those last moments with the catalyst. Choose destroy choose the red pill.

[CavScout]

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

I can prove he's acting ignorant to things that he knows already.

Catalyst: "What are you doing here?"

He already knows the answer to this....
And he brought you up there himself anyway with a nonsensical magic floating elevator.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat 

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

Again, you can't show it lying.

[Sable Phoenix]

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

... did you even read the excerpt I posted?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

ev76 wrote...

Cavscout The destroy choice is still presented because Shepard is not indoctrinated, you are at the end stages of being indoctrinated. You will either become indoctrinated by choosing control or synthesis or you will literally destroy idoctrinations grasp and reapers by choosing that option.

According to IT, it's all fake anyways. It's a dream. Why offer an actuall solution? Hell, why is Destroy sometimes the ONLY option?

IT wants us to believe the Shep is so far along in indoctrination that he can't see reality but yet we are to believe the Reapers actually allow him to stop them.

EVERY Indoctrinated subject WE have encountered through ALL 3 friggen games, has HAD moments of RESISTING indoc, how is that so hard to see? Saren resisted long enough, to shoot himself. Benezia gave us VITAL information, in a MOMENT of resistance!!!!!!!!

WAKE THE F***-UP, GAH!! Why, oh why IS it NOT possible to beotch-slap through the internet?

In IT, the entire scene on the Citadel/Crucible is a not real. Shep never snaps out of it. All the choices are made in the "dream state". According to IT he resists nothing... he simply picks one of the choices before him.

He either sticks on the path of destroying the reapers as he should, or he REJECTS destruction of the reapers in favour of some other choice. his choice doesn't affect him waking up. (just because we only see it in the destruction ending, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to the others). He's unconscious, it just affects his mental state when he wakes up.

Again, if it's all a dream state, created by the Reapers, why are they putting in the "Win" button for Shep to use? Why doesn't the Catalyst just omit the Destroy ending option?

GAH!! again read this very slowly, let it sink in,OK?  The Destroy option is the only way to break their hold on Sheps' mind, its only SYMBOLIC, not literal, as in if the EMS is too low, the entire Earth, all inhabitants, and allies are vaporized, I don't see that as a win, IN ANY FORM!!

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat 

We're not discussing quantum mechanics..... you fail at the internet.

[CavScout]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

... did you even read the excerpt I posted?

It doesn't make your comments anymore valid.

[dreamgazer]

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

You could argue that "the ending should be taken literally" is also a theory at this point.  Therefore, you have two conflicting theories that both require a burden of proof.

[KingZayd]

SubAstris wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SubAstris wrote... 
Well indirectly killed the Child on Earth, it is unclear whether he controls every individual Reaper's actions or delegates responsibility somewhat to the Reaper themselves. Regardless, you should assume that what a character is saying is true unless the narrative distinctively tells you otherwise. Just because he has committed horrendous actions doesn't mean that everything he says is complete bull.

no but he hasn't given me any reason to trust him.  also, why should you automatically assume that every character is telling the truth unless you're explicitly told so? i know it's science fiction, but i think you're taking it a little far. Everybody lies.

It doesn't matter that he might not have directly killed the Child on Earth. He still gave the order (if he indeed controls the reapers). He's similarly responsible for the deaths of many other children, and grownups too.

I actually think he's manipulating you with half-truths as well as lies. Without them killing us earlier, it's quite possible that we (like the Quarians) would start a stupid war and get ourselves killed by some synthetics. But I don't believe that this is their true motivation, and nothing in my encounter warranted my beginning to trust this abomination,

I'll give you an example. You know that scene when you meet Garrus for the 1st time in ME1? Did you initially assume that he was lying to begin? About working for C-Sec for example? If you didn't, then why assume the Catalyst is lying, despite having the same prior information on it as for Garrus?

Evidence in game?

Was there a reason I shouldn't have trusted Garrus? everything he was saying seemed reasonable, and I don't think I had any prior information about Garrus's actions that would make me distrust him?

When the lift was moving upwards, and the Starchild was approaching, I was neutral. The Starchild then said he controlled the reapers, and they were his solution. That automatically means he is responsible for the reapers' actions. That shifts my position into one of distrust. Nothing he said gave me a reason to trust him. So i didn't.

Modifié par KingZayd, 05 mai 2012 - 08:48 .

[ev76]

Cavscout But you can't prove he isn't lying either. Why? because you must make a final choice. You either trust him and choose control or synthesis or you don't and choose destroy.

[ThinkIntegral]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

You know if it was lying or even wanted to lie, it wouldn't even have bother to lift Shepard to the outside on the bottom of the Presidium. The Reapers were already winning.  In other words, why even bother to fool Shepard when it was already winning?

Modifié par ThinkIntegral, 05 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[Optimus J]

Just dropping my two cents: I'm not really anti-Indoctrination Theory. I think it's good.

That's the problem in me not supporting it. It's too good to be conceived a an option. Bioware already proved they want to do something smelly, so I'm not investing my hopes in something that they will obviously discard.