1357 réponses à ce sujet

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

TIM was fighting it off though. He wasn't under complete control, nor was he brainwashed the same as Saren was. However, he couldn't keep up the fight for that much longer.

Also, you're assuming that the reapers sent TIM to stop Shepard. That wasn't the case.

TIM tells reapers that Citadel is the crucible, reapers move citadel to earth, TIM is on the citadel.

TIM couldn't be alive unless the reapers wanted him to be. Also they were all in a part of the citadel that apparently only the reapers knew of.

WHY KEEP TIM ALIVE? There has to be a reason they indoctrinated him instead of killed him.

The motive behind TIM warning the reapers is that if the crucible docked, Shepard would destroy the reapers, foiling his plan. The reapers didn't even know about the crucible until TIM told them about it. Otherwise, they would have used TIM's resources to find out where the crucible was being constructed.

As a reward for giving them such valuable info, they spared his life until further notice. TIM still has command of cerberus, even though his base is somewhat useless to him. He's still an asset.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

DTKT wrote...

I love how you call an assortment of pictures that show really nothing conclusive "evidence".

Nice going.

I love how you never actually talk about the game at all....

Let's start at the beginning, why is Shepard alive when the kid implies that he will die, AND how did he live through an explosion several km wide?

 

False dilemma.

You're implying unless something is explained then it is proof of indocrination.

Unexplained simply means unexplained.

Pffffft! You mean you can't explain it with the knowledge you currently possess.... THANK YOU!

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

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.

I'm wondering why TIM wants to control organics in the first place. I thought he wanted to control the reapers and their forces.

It's a good thing we never see TIM's forces made up of human forces.... oh wait.. what?

I wouldn't have used sarcasm but I agree. TIM having those powers eliminates the need to jam their faces with implants that only simulate reaper control.

Right, because an army of organics is how we control the reapers... DERP

It's almost like you are ignoring the human forces he had and ignoring the research he did to improve them. Oh, you are ignoring it.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?

I don't, particularly. Although IT would anger a lot of people, full ending not actually in the game, etc.


I just found those tree-like reflections at the crucible too... 1 possible piece of evidence.

[jijeebo]

balance5050 wrote...

How does Shepard live through the destroy ending... anyone?

Plot armor.


+900 Charisma
Save vs Death +infinity
Weight - 40

Not useable by:
Anyone who isn't Commander f***ing Shepard

[CavScout]

savionen wrote...

@CavScout

How does Shepard survive the Citadel explosion and land back on Earth?

How does his surviving prove indoctrination?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

No, this is a false choice. You are using an either-or fallacy.

What else would they imply? I'm just leaving the only logical possibilities here.

No you're not. You're presupposing indoctrination and then assuming it to be the only likely outcome. You are not employing logic at all.

[Leafs43]

Occam's razor a simple theory is better than a complex one.

So we have

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and it explains all the anomalies.

or

The endings were a result of bad writing and all the anomalies require various explanations to explain.



Occam's Razor says pick the simple theory. Which is simpler? Pick the theory that explains pretty much everything that happened or believe all evidence is one massive complex coincidence?

*hint* The answer is A.

Modifié par Leafs43, 06 mai 2012 - 11:59 .

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?

I was pissed off at first because I got the destroy option only and low EMS the first playthrough, so my ending was suprano style.

I was less pissed when I unlocked the other options. I didn't hate it, but I came to the realization that it was what it was and enjoyed the story leading up to it.

[Ukjack44]

Occam's razor.
Basically the hypothesis that makes the least assumptions resulting in the simplest answer.

In the case of ME3 the most likely answer is the fact that the ending was a result in bad choices and bad writing.

[CavScout]

Leafs43 wrote...

Senario wrote...

Oh look this thread again, Indoctrination is nothing more than a fan made idea that has several problems including being a total cop out with "evidence" that they claim to be true yet are nothing more than instances where they stretch the truth.

Fine if you want to believe it, but don't try and force it onto everybody. The ending is likely a result of bad writing PERIOD

Bad writing might be the cause, but that is only one explanation.


Just because you don't like evidence, you can't ignore it.

It's not evidnece when it's not evidence.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...


The motive behind TIM warning the reapers is that if the crucible docked, Shepard would destroy the reapers, foiling his plan. The reapers didn't even know about the crucible until TIM told them about it. Otherwise, they would have used TIM's resources to find out where the crucible was being constructed.

As a reward for giving them such valuable info, they spared his life until further notice. TIM still has command of cerberus, even though his base is somewhat useless to him. He's still an asset.

LOL!! OK ok.... the notion of the reapers "rewarding" anyone is just ridiculous.

So basically...

TIM doesn't want the reapers destroyed because he want to control reaper tech to ascend humanity to the highest limits.

Sound like saren, who didn't want to destroy the reapers because he thought they they were a means of combining organics with synthetics to reach an evolutionary pinnacle.

If you think that the reapers "rewarded" TIM with anything but indoctrination, I'll have to take a break...

Modifié par balance5050, 07 mai 2012 - 12:02 .

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?

Accepting and liking are not both required.

[savionen]

CavScout wrote...

savionen wrote...

@CavScout

How does Shepard survive the Citadel explosion and land back on Earth?

How does his surviving prove indoctrination?

It doesn't, but it lends to the idea that Shepard never left London. Shepard is faceplanted, stands up, goes up to the Crucible, and is faceplanted back in London again?

What else would they be trying to say?

[LaZy i IS]

Leafs43 wrote...

Occam's razor a simple theory is better than a complex one.

So we have

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and it explains all the anomalies.

or

The endings were a result of bad writing and all the anomalies require various explanations to explain.



Occam's Razor says pick the simple theory. Which is simpler? Pick the theory that explains pretty much everything that happened or believe all evidence is one massive complex coincidence?

*hint* The answer is A.

Uh... No?

Try This:

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and each anomaly requires an individual explanation backed up by weak, often circumstial evidence and circualr logic.

or 

The endings were a result of bad writing and this causes the anomalies.

Nice try with obvious bias in favour of IT.

Modifié par LaZy i IS, 07 mai 2012 - 12:04 .

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

No, this is a false choice. You are using an either-or fallacy.

What else would they imply? I'm just leaving the only logical possibilities here.

No you're not. You're presupposing indoctrination and then assuming it to be the only likely outcome. You are not employing logic at all.

What else would they imply?  Simple question. You can't say something is wrong with out providing alternate explanations.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

savionen wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...
A few tiny bushes? Can't you find more convincing evidence for IT, or is that all?

Are you kidding? There's like... hour long videos on the subject.

A few quick examples from the first 30 minutes of the game:
Nobody see the kid but Shepard. When he gets on the shuttle nobody acknolwedges him or helps him. Anderson doesn't see him either. The kid goes through a locked door, he's also seen on a rooftop staring at Shepard. He goes into a building that explodes a few seconds later, but survives somehow. The kid also has very awkward dialogue a 6 or 8 year old would never say, and there's a growl from the vent as the kid disappears. The SFX for the growl is not used anywhere else in the game.

Doesn't really matter though. Anything anyone lists you can write off as either bad writing, or a design error. So the argument is pretty pointless unless Bioware actually states something or has more proof in EC. If they don't do anything big in the EC I'd imagine it's all just a lot of random errors. The most likely scenario IMO though is that they planned on having indoctrination be a bigger element in the story, and the changed it back in November, and forgot or didn't have time to change a lot of these little things.

There are some things people read way too much into, like someone was trying to use numerology on textures to try and prove IT, but, when I first played the game I felt indoctrination was a possibility in the story.

First off, something unexplained is not evidence of Indocrination.

A) You can't prove no one saw the kid. Anderson doesn't, but that doesn't prove indoctrination. It proves he didn't see the kid.
The shuttle doors aren't closed until the kid is aboard, this shows they waited until he was aboard. That he wasn't physically helped is not evidence he wasn't seen or noticed.
C) The door was unlocked before he entered and locked behind him or damaged by the blast. Or he has the pass code/key. It does not provide evidence of indoctrination.
D) Kid survives in the vent. Shep and company survive worse close enounters than that. Not proof of indocrination.
E) Awkward dialog? How does this prove indoctrination and not just awkward dialog?
F) There is a Reaper attack going on with a Reaper just outside. The entire chapter of the game feature Reaper growls.... and the Reaper growl scaring the kid away would be proof of indocrination how?

Congratulations, you've proved that the kid at the beginning could be a real child.

Why does the catalyst look like the kid though?

Typical conspiracy theorist antics. Throw up "facts" that prove you're right and when they get demolished throw more "facts" that prove you're right and when they get demolished..... and repeat.

Maybe the Catalyst took the form from Shep's mind. Doesn't prove indocrintation in anycase.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Occam's razor a simple theory is better than a complex one.

So we have

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and it explains all the anomalies.

or

The endings were a result of bad writing and all the anomalies require various explanations to explain.



Occam's Razor says pick the simple theory. Which is simpler? Pick the theory that explains pretty much everything that happened or believe all evidence is one massive complex coincidence?

*hint* The answer is A.

Uh... No?

Try This:

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and each anomaly requires an individual explanation backed up by weak, often circumstial evidence and circualr logic.

or 

The endings were a result of bad writing and this causes the anomalies.

ALL of the anomolies apply to the ending only. Yes they can be explained as "bad writing" but thast doesn't explain why they are so heavily condensed in the ending alone.

[Leafs43]

LaZy i IS wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Occam's razor a simple theory is better than a complex one.

So we have

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and it explains all the anomalies.

or

The endings were a result of bad writing and all the anomalies require various explanations to explain.



Occam's Razor says pick the simple theory. Which is simpler? Pick the theory that explains pretty much everything that happened or believe all evidence is one massive complex coincidence?

*hint* The answer is A.

Uh... No?

Try This:

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and each anomaly requires an individual explanation backed up by weak, often circumstial evidence and circualr logic.

or 

The endings were a result of bad writing and this causes the anomalies.

Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.

The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.

Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion?  Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.

[LaZy i IS]

CavScout wrote...

Typical conspiracy theorist antics. Throw up "facts" that prove you're right and when they get demolished throw more "facts" that prove you're right and when they get demolished..... and repeat.

I believe it's called fast talking, they do it until people think that theres SO much evidence it must be right...

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?

Accepting and liking are not both required.

If you accept the end you must accept "LOT'S OF SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYONE!!"

[CavScout]

savionen wrote...

CavScout wrote...
First off, something unexplained is not evidence of Indocrination.

A) You can't prove no one saw the kid. Anderson doesn't, but that doesn't prove indoctrination. It proves he didn't see the kid.
The shuttle doors aren't closed until the kid is aboard, this shows they waited until he was aboard. That he wasn't physically helped is not evidence he wasn't seen or noticed.
C) The door was unlocked before he entered and locked behind him or damaged by the blast. Or he has the pass code/key. It does not provide evidence of indoctrination.
D) Kid survives in the vent. Shep and company survive worse close enounters than that. Not proof of indocrination.
E) Awkward dialog? How does this prove indoctrination and not just awkward dialog?
F) There is a Reaper attack going on with a Reaper just outside. The entire chapter of the game feature Reaper growls.... and the Reaper growl scaring the kid away would be proof of indocrination how?

It's not a Reaper horn. It sounds more like an animal.

It points to the IDEA that the kid doesn't actually exist. If the kid doesn't actually exist, then he's in Shepard's head. So either Shepard is insane, or is indoctrinated. Considering that the God-Kid Catalyst is also the kid at the beginning of the game, it's at least an interesting theory.

Anderson should have been able to see the kid. The people at the shuttle should have assisted the child. It's pretty basic logic, they helped up 2 people, but don't help the kid? There's either something to notice there, or it's bad storytelling.

It's the same noise we hear in the entire chapter. It's doesn't point to indoctrination at all. It points the sound startled the kid into leaving. That's all.

You have to presume indoctrination from the start of the game to presume it is an indication of indoctrination. It is obvious circular logic.

Anderson would only see the kid if he looked into the vent with Shep. The people at the shuttle didn't have to help the kid, he did just fine on his own. It's almost like your ignore the running battle going on there.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


The motive behind TIM warning the reapers is that if the crucible docked, Shepard would destroy the reapers, foiling his plan. The reapers didn't even know about the crucible until TIM told them about it. Otherwise, they would have used TIM's resources to find out where the crucible was being constructed.

As a reward for giving them such valuable info, they spared his life until further notice. TIM still has command of cerberus, even though his base is somewhat useless to him. He's still an asset.

LOL!! OK ok.... the notion of the reapers "rewarding" anyone is just ridiculous.

So basically...

TIM doesn't want the reapers destroyed because he want to control reaper tech to ascend humanity to the highest limits.

Sound like saren, who didn't want to destroy the reapers because he thought they they were a means of combining organics with synthetics to reach an evolutionary pinnacle.

If you think that the reapers "rewarded" TIM with anything but indoctrination, I'll have to take a break...

It's a twisted reward, but a reward none the less. They could have just taken out his base instead of Sanctuary, but they didn't did they?

They could have just taken over his body like a collector at any point, but they didn't. Why?

He's useful. He's been proven useful to reaper all throughout ME3. So keep him alive to use him some more. He thinks the reapers aren't all bad and the reapers keep an asset.

I'm sure Saren believed he was being rewarded for his hard work by getting implants and become superior to everyone else.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

savionen wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...
A few tiny bushes? Can't you find more convincing evidence for IT, or is that all?

Are you kidding? There's like... hour long videos on the subject.

A few quick examples from the first 30 minutes of the game:
Nobody see the kid but Shepard. When he gets on the shuttle nobody acknolwedges him or helps him. Anderson doesn't see him either. The kid goes through a locked door, he's also seen on a rooftop staring at Shepard. He goes into a building that explodes a few seconds later, but survives somehow. The kid also has very awkward dialogue a 6 or 8 year old would never say, and there's a growl from the vent as the kid disappears. The SFX for the growl is not used anywhere else in the game.

Doesn't really matter though. Anything anyone lists you can write off as either bad writing, or a design error. So the argument is pretty pointless unless Bioware actually states something or has more proof in EC. If they don't do anything big in the EC I'd imagine it's all just a lot of random errors. The most likely scenario IMO though is that they planned on having indoctrination be a bigger element in the story, and the changed it back in November, and forgot or didn't have time to change a lot of these little things.

There are some things people read way too much into, like someone was trying to use numerology on textures to try and prove IT, but, when I first played the game I felt indoctrination was a possibility in the story.

First off, something unexplained is not evidence of Indocrination.

A) You can't prove no one saw the kid. Anderson doesn't, but that doesn't prove indoctrination. It proves he didn't see the kid.
The shuttle doors aren't closed until the kid is aboard, this shows they waited until he was aboard. That he wasn't physically helped is not evidence he wasn't seen or noticed.
C) The door was unlocked before he entered and locked behind him or damaged by the blast. Or he has the pass code/key. It does not provide evidence of indoctrination.
D) Kid survives in the vent. Shep and company survive worse close enounters than that. Not proof of indocrination.
E) Awkward dialog? How does this prove indoctrination and not just awkward dialog?
F) There is a Reaper attack going on with a Reaper just outside. The entire chapter of the game feature Reaper growls.... and the Reaper growl scaring the kid away would be proof of indocrination how?

Congratulations, you've proved that the kid at the beginning could be a real child.

Why does the catalyst look like the kid though?

Typical conspiracy theorist antics. Throw up "facts" that prove you're right and when they get demolished throw more "facts" that prove you're right and when they get demolished..... and repeat.

Maybe the Catalyst took the form from Shep's mind. Doesn't prove indocrintation in anycase.

"Maybe the Catalyst took the form from Shep's mind."  THANK YOU!

[jijeebo]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Occam's razor a simple theory is better than a complex one.

So we have

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and it explains all the anomalies.

or

The endings were a result of bad writing and all the anomalies require various explanations to explain.



Occam's Razor says pick the simple theory. Which is simpler? Pick the theory that explains pretty much everything that happened or believe all evidence is one massive complex coincidence?

*hint* The answer is A.

Uh... No?

Try This:

A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and each anomaly requires an individual explanation backed up by weak, often circumstial evidence and circualr logic.

or 

The endings were a result of bad writing and this causes the anomalies.

ALL of the anomolies apply to the ending only. Yes they can be explained as "bad writing" but thast doesn't explain why they are so heavily condensed in the ending alone.

Nope, but the part where Casey Hudson and Mac Walters locked themselves away from the rest of the writing team and wrote the ending by themselves certainly makes it a serious possibility.