1357 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game itself doesn't. But they're saying it does.

The game shows it. Shepard and Anderson can talk but can't move. They are trying to convince TIM to let them go. They have their minds they just can't move their bodies. This shouldn't need to be said.

This is the one and only time. Considering the entire debate is about whether this scene is actually happening or not, you're going to have to find at least ONE other example to serve as the controlled variable. Otherwise the info is faulty.

No my original point was that TIM isn't using reaper indoctrination to control shpeard and anderson. He reverse engineered the process and made it into his own.

Why make it so he can control organics and not reapers/husks? Which was his plan? It isn't reverse engineering if it works better than what the reapers alreeady have. It's improving indoctrination.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game itself doesn't. But they're saying it does.

The game shows it. Shepard and Anderson can talk but can't move. They are trying to convince TIM to let them go. They have their minds they just can't move their bodies. This shouldn't need to be said.

This is the one and only time. Considering the entire debate is about whether this scene is actually happening or not, you're going to have to find at least ONE other example to serve as the controlled variable. Otherwise the info is faulty.

No my original point was that TIM isn't using reaper indoctrination to control shpeard and anderson. He reverse engineered the process and made it into his own.

Why make it so he can control organics and not reapers/husks? Which was his plan? It isn't reverse engineering if it works better than what the reapers alreeady have. It's improving indoctrination.

It's not indoctrination at all. Indoctrination is subtly altering the victims judgement & ideals, to make them believe you are right, not directly controlling their bodies.

Modifié par LaZy i IS, 06 mai 2012 - 09:44 .

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

Agugaboo wrote...
I see what you're saying, but for me it's not so clear cut;
1) Then why add them? Why would they go back and add them after the fact? Why use the same foliage from the dream sequence.
2) Yet clearly they did. And what's more we were supposed to "speculate" about the whole ending.
Because as of yet all anyone has is evidence without any clear cut proof and only indirect hints at motive.

1) It's the same trees/etc. you can see in the background, even before the beam.

I understand the doubts here, but, this being weak evidence, I'm really starting to doubt Pro-IT arguments.
Heard of an argument technique called fast-talking? You show piece after piece of weak evidence so that it eventually overshadows the stronger evidence against and seems like more. Most Pro-IT'ers employ this technique, weakening their own argument imo. Show me strong, non-cirumstantial evidence please.

P.S- I'd like to note that I'm not particularly against IT, just that it's far less probable than the idea that it's just down to bad writing.

Before:



After:



So you're saying that trees move? Or was it invisible before the beam? Point is this specific tree isn't in this spot until after you are hit with Harbinger's Beam. Can you accept that?

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game itself doesn't. But they're saying it does.

The game shows it. Shepard and Anderson can talk but can't move. They are trying to convince TIM to let them go. They have their minds they just can't move their bodies. This shouldn't need to be said.

This is the one and only time. Considering the entire debate is about whether this scene is actually happening or not, you're going to have to find at least ONE other example to serve as the controlled variable. Otherwise the info is faulty.

No my original point was that TIM isn't using reaper indoctrination to control shpeard and anderson. He reverse engineered the process and made it into his own.

Why make it so he can control organics and not reapers/husks? Which was his plan? It isn't reverse engineering if it works better than what the reapers alreeady have. It's improving indoctrination.

It's not indoctrination at all. Indoctrination is subtly altering the victims judgement & ideals, to make them believe you are right, not directly controlling their bodies.

What is TIM doing to Shep and Anderson in this scene then?

Modifié par balance5050, 06 mai 2012 - 09:48 .

[KingZayd]

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game itself doesn't. But they're saying it does.

The game shows it. Shepard and Anderson can talk but can't move. They are trying to convince TIM to let them go. They have their minds they just can't move their bodies. This shouldn't need to be said.

And this only makes sense if TIM has been able to improve reaper tech, which is very impressive indeed. There is another answer: That scene isn't real. Shepard's still unconscious in London, where we see him/her after the high EMS destruction ending.

How is it an improvement? Are you ignoring my points to the flaws of TIM's control vs reaper indoctrination?

Because apparently it works damn near instantaneously. It works on Anderson, and it stops Shepard for a good while. If the Reapers were using this, and not a human who had just had this made after at most 1 year of development, then yes it's certainly an improvement.

[balance5050]

Scratch that, the game files specifically called the black wavy lines "indoctrination_effect". I don't need to debate that because it's just to obvious, what with the reaper growls in the background and what not.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

Agugaboo wrote...
I see what you're saying, but for me it's not so clear cut;
1) Then why add them? Why would they go back and add them after the fact? Why use the same foliage from the dream sequence.
2) Yet clearly they did. And what's more we were supposed to "speculate" about the whole ending.
Because as of yet all anyone has is evidence without any clear cut proof and only indirect hints at motive.

1) It's the same trees/etc. you can see in the background, even before the beam.

I understand the doubts here, but, this being weak evidence, I'm really starting to doubt Pro-IT arguments.
Heard of an argument technique called fast-talking? You show piece after piece of weak evidence so that it eventually overshadows the stronger evidence against and seems like more. Most Pro-IT'ers employ this technique, weakening their own argument imo. Show me strong, non-cirumstantial evidence please.

P.S- I'd like to note that I'm not particularly against IT, just that it's far less probable than the idea that it's just down to bad writing.

Before:



After:



So you're saying that trees move? Or was it invisible before the beam? Point is this specific tree isn't in this spot until after you are hit with Harbinger's Beam. Can you accept that?

lol. I never stated that the trees move or w/e. Go back and read what I said.

My point was, they aren't the same trees from Sheperd's dreams, they are the same as the ones in the background, even before the beam hits you. They were likely added as details after the beam hits. Not much need for random trees in the way while sprinting towards the citadel beam, being fired at by a reaper.
Again, I'm not totally refuting IT, just saying that the evidence is weak.

[KingZayd]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game itself doesn't. But they're saying it does.

The game shows it. Shepard and Anderson can talk but can't move. They are trying to convince TIM to let them go. They have their minds they just can't move their bodies. This shouldn't need to be said.

This is the one and only time. Considering the entire debate is about whether this scene is actually happening or not, you're going to have to find at least ONE other example to serve as the controlled variable. Otherwise the info is faulty.

No my original point was that TIM isn't using reaper indoctrination to control shpeard and anderson. He reverse engineered the process and made it into his own.

Why make it so he can control organics and not reapers/husks? Which was his plan? It isn't reverse engineering if it works better than what the reapers alreeady have. It's improving indoctrination.

It's not indoctrination at all. Indoctrination is subtly altering the victims judgement & ideals, to make them believe you are right, not directly controlling their bodies.

It's based on the same tech though isn't it?  If so, why haven't the reapers thought of using it? It seems to work pretty well considering the amount of time spent developing it.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

Agugaboo wrote...
I see what you're saying, but for me it's not so clear cut;
1) Then why add them? Why would they go back and add them after the fact? Why use the same foliage from the dream sequence.
2) Yet clearly they did. And what's more we were supposed to "speculate" about the whole ending.
Because as of yet all anyone has is evidence without any clear cut proof and only indirect hints at motive.

1) It's the same trees/etc. you can see in the background, even before the beam.

I understand the doubts here, but, this being weak evidence, I'm really starting to doubt Pro-IT arguments.
Heard of an argument technique called fast-talking? You show piece after piece of weak evidence so that it eventually overshadows the stronger evidence against and seems like more. Most Pro-IT'ers employ this technique, weakening their own argument imo. Show me strong, non-cirumstantial evidence please.

P.S- I'd like to note that I'm not particularly against IT, just that it's far less probable than the idea that it's just down to bad writing.

Before:



After:



So you're saying that trees move? Or was it invisible before the beam? Point is this specific tree isn't in this spot until after you are hit with Harbinger's Beam. Can you accept that?

lol. I never stated that the trees move or w/e. Go back and read what I said.

My point was, they aren't the same trees from Sheperd's dreams, they are the same as the ones in the background, even before the beam hits you. They were likely added as details after the beam hits. Not much need for random trees in the way while sprinting towards the citadel beam, being fired at by a reaper.
Again, I'm not totally refuting IT, just saying that the evidence is weak.

Why add trees behind you where few people actually look?  the trees are hardly important to the tone, particularly since if you don't turn round you don't see them. If they weren't there noone would miss them. No, someone put these in deliberately and deliberately triggered them to appear after Harbinger blasts you. 

[Agugaboo]

LaZy i IS wrote...

Agugaboo wrote...
I see what you're saying, but for me it's not so clear cut;
1) Then why add them? Why would they go back and add them after the fact? Why use the same foliage from the dream sequence.
2) Yet clearly they did. And what's more we were supposed to "speculate" about the whole ending.
Because as of yet all anyone has is evidence without any clear cut proof and only indirect hints at motive.

1) It's the same trees/etc. you can see in the background, even before the beam.

I understand the doubts here, but, this being weak evidence, I'm really starting to doubt Pro-IT arguments.
Heard of an argument technique called fast-talking? You show piece after piece of weak evidence so that it eventually overshadows the stronger evidence against and seems like more. Most Pro-IT'ers employ this technique, weakening their own argument imo. Show me strong, non-cirumstantial evidence please.

P.S- I'd like to note that I'm not particularly against IT, just that it's far less probable than the idea that it's just down to bad writing.

The background way far back. I think we all agree the evidence is circumstantial and that's why it's a theory. Yet we have to argue even that. There is plenty convincing circumstantial IT evidence, but no one has found any proof.
As to your PS there's no reason it couldn't in fact be that, but I think I am more of a glass half full person (no offense meant). Certainly it could be stupidity of the writers/ developers.

Modifié par Agugaboo, 06 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[liggy002]

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

I can totally see where you are coming from with this.  To dismiss this as delusional is an idiotic action at best.

Modifié par liggy002, 06 mai 2012 - 09:58 .

[balance5050]

liggy002 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

I can totally see where you are coming from with this.  To dismiss this as delusional is an idiotic action at best.

And a trollish action at worst.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

Agugaboo wrote...
I see what you're saying, but for me it's not so clear cut;
1) Then why add them? Why would they go back and add them after the fact? Why use the same foliage from the dream sequence.
2) Yet clearly they did. And what's more we were supposed to "speculate" about the whole ending.
Because as of yet all anyone has is evidence without any clear cut proof and only indirect hints at motive.

1) It's the same trees/etc. you can see in the background, even before the beam.

I understand the doubts here, but, this being weak evidence, I'm really starting to doubt Pro-IT arguments.
Heard of an argument technique called fast-talking? You show piece after piece of weak evidence so that it eventually overshadows the stronger evidence against and seems like more. Most Pro-IT'ers employ this technique, weakening their own argument imo. Show me strong, non-cirumstantial evidence please.

P.S- I'd like to note that I'm not particularly against IT, just that it's far less probable than the idea that it's just down to bad writing.

Before:



After:



So you're saying that trees move? Or was it invisible before the beam? Point is this specific tree isn't in this spot until after you are hit with Harbinger's Beam. Can you accept that?

lol. I never stated that the trees move or w/e. Go back and read what I said.

My point was, they aren't the same trees from Sheperd's dreams, they are the same as the ones in the background, even before the beam hits you. They were likely added as details after the beam hits. Not much need for random trees in the way while sprinting towards the citadel beam, being fired at by a reaper.
Again, I'm not totally refuting IT, just saying that the evidence is weak.

Why add trees behind you where few people actually look?  the trees are hardly important to the tone, particularly since if you don't turn round you don't see them. If they weren't there noone would miss them. No, someone put these in deliberately and deliberately triggered them to appear after Harbinger blasts you. 

There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately, unless you assume IT true first. (circular reasoning)

Just looking at the pics and the gameplay in each situation, it is probably just that during the fast-paced part, you are less likely to notice small details like a few trees, etc., whilst when the gameplay has slowed down you're gonna notice the lack of detail.
By the way; the trees are the same as the background ones... not the ones in the dreams, so this goes further against you statement.

[Raiil]

@Zayd no. But literary analysis and critique is based on literature, a medium vastly different than a game (video games actually has its own subdivision, now that I think about it) and is informed/viewed a variety of different techniques, depending on what sort of lens you want to view it through (library, feminist, racial, etc). A literary critique and analysis will wildly differ through what ideology you want to take; it's not nearly as demanding as scientific theory and analysis.

The scientific method is what both pro and anti-ITers in this thread have been espousing. Straight up opinions in facts, assertations, x = y because of a, b, c. Obviously we're coming to different conclusions, but our methods to 'validate' our hypotheses remains the same.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...


If you talk to her in ME2 she tells you what she was doing, trying to be a good person by helping Okeer. She was helping Okeer.

ME wiki:

"[color=rgb(255, 255, 255)">If Rana survived Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, she will appear in an ] Report on indoctrination. She has apparently murdered several top asari officials and then committed suicide. While in custody, Thanoptis reported "voices" in her head (a typical symptom of indoctrination) to investigators."[/color]


This is evidence that long range control is possible, considering it happened on Thessia before the Reapers made it to Earth. I doubt they have Reaper tech just lying around Thessia.

I know what she was doing when you found her. However, this doesn't mean she wasn't being exposed to reaper tech from virmire that she escaped with. We also don't know what projects she was working on after Okeer's project ended. She could have gotten exposed to reaper tech then. Also, she may have murdered those commandos on thessia, but it doesn't mean she was on thessia when she heard the voices.

In the beginning of the game, the asari councilor says that they're worlds are falling to. The colonies got hit first. Illium was attacked before thesia also, she could have been influenced near reaper tech there.

[EpyonX3]

KingZayd wrote...


It's based on the same tech though isn't it?  If so, why haven't the reapers thought of using it? It seems to work pretty well considering the amount of time spent developing it.

So are eezo drive cores. Are all aliance ships reapers?

Again look at the flaws of TIM's control. The victim is aware of the control, can talk, and can fight back with decision making and reasoing. This is not a good slave, agent or loyal subject. So who cares if it's instant.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately, unless you assume IT true first. (circular reasoning)

Just looking at the pics and the gameplay in each situation, it is probably just that during the fast-paced part, you are less likely to notice small details like a few trees, etc., whilst when the gameplay has slowed down you're gonna notice the lack of detail.
By the way; the trees are the same as the background ones... not the ones in the dreams, so this goes further against you statement.

I'm not saying they are the ones from the dream.

Every asset is placed "deliberatly", it's called game design. Every detail is placed deliberatly, I'm asking why add detail where there wasn't before in a place that few people look? If they left it barren no one would notice. It makes no sence to add so much detail to a place that no one would see unless they are looking for it. Similar to this:


 

You don't see these things unless you look for it.

Modifié par balance5050, 06 mai 2012 - 10:16 .

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


If you talk to her in ME2 she tells you what she was doing, trying to be a good person by helping Okeer. She was helping Okeer.

ME wiki:

"[color=rgb(255, 255, 255)">If Rana survived Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, she will appear in an ] Report on indoctrination. She has apparently murdered several top asari officials and then committed suicide. While in custody, Thanoptis reported "voices" in her head (a typical symptom of indoctrination) to investigators."[/color]


This is evidence that long range control is possible, considering it happened on Thessia before the Reapers made it to Earth. I doubt they have Reaper tech just lying around Thessia.

I know what she was doing when you found her. However, this doesn't mean she wasn't being exposed to reaper tech from virmire that she escaped with. We also don't know what projects she was working on after Okeer's project ended. She could have gotten exposed to reaper tech then. Also, she may have murdered those commandos on thessia, but it doesn't mean she was on thessia when she heard the voices.

In the beginning of the game, the asari councilor says that they're worlds are falling to. The colonies got hit first. Illium was attacked before thesia also, she could have been influenced near reaper tech there.

She sounded like she was trying to avoid reaper tech because she was afraid of being indoctrinated. It took her time to get in good with Okeer. All from the game, I'm not going to fill in the blanks with "She was spilunking for reaper artifacts" because it isn't mentioned in the game at all.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...


It's based on the same tech though isn't it?  If so, why haven't the reapers thought of using it? It seems to work pretty well considering the amount of time spent developing it.

So are eezo drive cores. Are all aliance ships reapers?

Again look at the flaws of TIM's control. The victim is aware of the control, can talk, and can fight back with decision making and reasoing. This is not a good slave, agent or loyal subject. So who cares if it's instant.

TIM was indoctrinated when he was using his own version of indoctrination right?

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately, unless you assume IT true first. (circular reasoning)

Just looking at the pics and the gameplay in each situation, it is probably just that during the fast-paced part, you are less likely to notice small details like a few trees, etc., whilst when the gameplay has slowed down you're gonna notice the lack of detail.
By the way; the trees are the same as the background ones... not the ones in the dreams, so this goes further against you statement.

I'm not saying they are the ones from the dream.

Every asset is placed "deliberatly", it's called game design. Every detail is placed deliberatly, I'm asking why add detail where there wasn't before in a place that few people look? If they left it barren no one would notice. It makes no sence to add so much detail to a place that no one would see unless they are looking for it. Similar to this:


 

You don't see these things unless you look for it.

RIght... "There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately to show indoctrination, unless you assume IT true first. "
Better?
And the kid at the railing... you find him in a vent a few metres away about a minute after that moment, why is that strange? If he was somewhere he really doesn't belong, then it might be more convinving.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

RIght... "There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately to show indoctrination, unless you assume IT true first. "
Better?
And the kid at the railing... you find him in a vent a few metres away about a minute after that moment, why is that strange? If he was somewhere he really doesn't belong, then it might be more convinving.

The trees either imply nothing or indoctrination then.

I'll just chalk the trees up to detail oriented game design.

Well, if you just stand there so does the kid.... He doesn't actually go inside until you trigger him to, so he'll just stand there looking at the reapers for hours if you want.

Modifié par balance5050, 06 mai 2012 - 10:32 .

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...


It's based on the same tech though isn't it?  If so, why haven't the reapers thought of using it? It seems to work pretty well considering the amount of time spent developing it.

So are eezo drive cores. Are all aliance ships reapers?

Again look at the flaws of TIM's control. The victim is aware of the control, can talk, and can fight back with decision making and reasoing. This is not a good slave, agent or loyal subject. So who cares if it's instant.

TIM was indoctrinated when he was using his own version of indoctrination right?

But yet he had full control of his body and most of his thought processes, which made him a perfect target since cerberus had more resources than god.

See the difference?

[liggy002]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

Agugaboo wrote...
I see what you're saying, but for me it's not so clear cut;
1) Then why add them? Why would they go back and add them after the fact? Why use the same foliage from the dream sequence.
2) Yet clearly they did. And what's more we were supposed to "speculate" about the whole ending.
Because as of yet all anyone has is evidence without any clear cut proof and only indirect hints at motive.

1) It's the same trees/etc. you can see in the background, even before the beam.

I understand the doubts here, but, this being weak evidence, I'm really starting to doubt Pro-IT arguments.
Heard of an argument technique called fast-talking? You show piece after piece of weak evidence so that it eventually overshadows the stronger evidence against and seems like more. Most Pro-IT'ers employ this technique, weakening their own argument imo. Show me strong, non-cirumstantial evidence please.

P.S- I'd like to note that I'm not particularly against IT, just that it's far less probable than the idea that it's just down to bad writing.

Before:



After:



So you're saying that trees move? Or was it invisible before the beam? Point is this specific tree isn't in this spot until after you are hit with Harbinger's Beam. Can you accept that?

lol. I never stated that the trees move or w/e. Go back and read what I said.

My point was, they aren't the same trees from Sheperd's dreams, they are the same as the ones in the background, even before the beam hits you. They were likely added as details after the beam hits. Not much need for random trees in the way while sprinting towards the citadel beam, being fired at by a reaper.
Again, I'm not totally refuting IT, just saying that the evidence is weak.

Why add trees behind you where few people actually look?  the trees are hardly important to the tone, particularly since if you don't turn round you don't see them. If they weren't there noone would miss them. No, someone put these in deliberately and deliberately triggered them to appear after Harbinger blasts you. 

There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately, unless you assume IT true first. (circular reasoning)

Just looking at the pics and the gameplay in each situation, it is probably just that during the fast-paced part, you are less likely to notice small details like a few trees, etc., whilst when the gameplay has slowed down you're gonna notice the lack of detail.
By the way; the trees are the same as the background ones... not the ones in the dreams, so this goes further against you statement.

LOL.  The tree was added intentionally!  It' hard to get any more obvious than that.  Adding that tree in a spot where few people look would cost more time and money.  Why would they even do that?  They wouldn't.

And what about that shadow too?  That wasn't there before either.  Looks like a building shadow or something.

Modifié par liggy002, 06 mai 2012 - 10:39 .

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...


It's based on the same tech though isn't it?  If so, why haven't the reapers thought of using it? It seems to work pretty well considering the amount of time spent developing it.

So are eezo drive cores. Are all aliance ships reapers?

Again look at the flaws of TIM's control. The victim is aware of the control, can talk, and can fight back with decision making and reasoing. This is not a good slave, agent or loyal subject. So who cares if it's instant.

TIM was indoctrinated when he was using his own version of indoctrination right?

But yet he had full control of his body and most of his thought processes, which made him a perfect target since cerberus had more resources than god.

See the difference?

Indeed, using TIM to control Shepard..... not a very succesful plan obviously. I just find it weird that since the Reapers were controlling TIM that they would rely on a human variant of indoc instead of their own, superior version.

[jpraelster93]

I bet they planned the it but they got rushed