739 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

So apparently Full Reaper Control does not equal Indoctrination. That's just plain silly. How else do Reapers assume direct control?

I guess the Devil was "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" of those Collectors and was calling himself Harbinger. Silly me, thinking the Reapers could do that...

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.

Which is?

If you're referring to the "no it's not the only means of control, even though I haven't provided evidence even though you have given me evidence" statement, then I surely hope you can do better.

The claim was, "the only means of full reaper control is indoctrination and it says so in the Codex". That was challenged and no evidence has been offered to support it.

I can't stop you from pretending otherwise.

How many other forms of 'reaper control' are mentioned in the codex?
Books?
Games?
Comics?
Still waiting for that answer.

The claim was the Codex/Wiki proved that "full reaper control" means only indoctrination. It has yet to be shown to be correct. Asking a deflecting question doesn't add merit to ones claim.

You might as well explain, "I love lamp!" At least that would be humorous.

Your ignoring the fact it shown in the game, too.
Vermiri.
The derlict reaper
The progect in arrival.
Sactuary.
The cerberus base.

[Lookout1390]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.

Which is?

If you're referring to the "no it's not the only means of control, even though I haven't provided evidence even though you have given me evidence" statement, then I surely hope you can do better.

The claim was, "the only means of full reaper control is indoctrination and it says so in the Codex". That was challenged and no evidence has been offered to support it.

I can't stop you from pretending otherwise.

How many other forms of 'reaper control' are mentioned in the codex?
Books?
Games?
Comics?
Still waiting for that answer.

The claim was the Codex/Wiki proved that "full reaper control" means only indoctrination. It has yet to be shown to be correct. Asking a deflecting question doesn't add merit to ones claim.

You might as well explain, "I love lamp!" At least that would be humorous.

How many people have you met break indoctrination?

None

Because they are under control

Why would they need another form of control, when indoctrination works very efficiently?

What other forms of control have the Reapere exerted in the series?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
I'll get you on this one alone.

If indoc is "subtle" then there is no point in pretending Shepard is "indoctrinated" by a laser beam at the base of the conduit.

Sigh, obviously it was still subtle because he/you were still fooled.

Iconoclaste you've discovered the most insidious part of Indoctrination Theory. Anything that can be used against Indoctrination theory is in fact part of Indoctrination Theory. Nothing can be negative to Indoctrination Theory.

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.

Which is?

If you're referring to the "no it's not the only means of control, even though I haven't provided evidence even though you have given me evidence" statement, then I surely hope you can do better.

The claim was, "the only means of full reaper control is indoctrination and it says so in the Codex". That was challenged and no evidence has been offered to support it.

I can't stop you from pretending otherwise.

How many other forms of 'reaper control' are mentioned in the codex?
Books?
Games?
Comics?
Still waiting for that answer.

The claim was the Codex/Wiki proved that "full reaper control" means only indoctrination. It has yet to be shown to be correct. Asking a deflecting question doesn't add merit to ones claim.

You might as well explain, "I love lamp!" At least that would be humorous.

Explain how a Reaper could take full control of another person other than what the lore says. This is the flaw in your argument, assuming there is some other deus ex machina that would allow the reapers to control husks, TIM, Saren, and Kai Leng.

[Sisterofshane]

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

WHO HERE THINKS THAT "FULL REAPER CONTROL" = INDOCTRINATION?

-KevShep
-Batman Turian
-balance5050
-ohupthis
-Sisterofshane
-Dreman9999
-Lookout1390

I have the whole list if you intend to call upon all of them. But I remind you that a number of supporters has nothing to do with the solidity of an argument. That is just literal bullying, proving your worth.

Argumentum ad populum. The fallacies just flow from IT supporters.

I prefer "read and understand the codex" as a more appropriate title.

Course I would love a citation from where you guys are getting your news, because it sure as hell isn't the codex..

It's a natural inference based upon the evidence presented to us within the game (through the story itself and the codices).  Indoctrination is viewed as the only way Reapers can have any amount of "control" over a person, because there has never been an instance (in all of the media that was presented) in which the Reapers ever controlled someone that they hadn't first exposed to Reaper Tech.

The absence of evidence argument works both ways.

[Iconoclaste]

BatmanTurian wrote...

...except that Shepard has been exposed to more reaper artifacts than anyone else alive other than TIM. The ending is just a ramping up of the process. Shepard is only indoctrinated if he gives in to the Reaper's view of the world. Otherwise he still has full free will until that moment.

That "Reaper artefact exposure" brings up the following question : how come no other squadmate is affected by these "artefacts", since the Reaper IFF is on board the Normandy since the end of ME2? Shepard isn't even on the Normandy for a good amount of time, this would give the "regular" Normandy staff time to "level up" to some point into indoctrination. They surely do not have Shepard's resistance. And if Shepard is "dreaming" the end sequence, or literally under "reaper control", then what is the point of this whole argument with TIM, and Anderson? Or even having the Reapers "offer the kill switch" to Shepard?

I am not asking for a precise explanation on each of these points, I've read all versions of IT's answers to that. I just want to point out that, since IT's goal is to "explain" or "interpret" the endings, so many questions arise from only so few points that it can hardly be seen as a solution. I would think it's easy to understand, since this has been given as opinion by many on various similar threads. Random people get one or two posts in a furious debate, and get forgotten. They just come in to point out that IT gives birth to even more questions than the "original" endings. I would believe that to be sufficient to get the IT "troops" in line with some better structured way to present it, or even to "defend" it. It's still a "viable" interpretation on some level of what's happening in the end, but not at the extent proposed by many.

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Please show us where the term indoctrinated is used. The image has been posted many times. If it is there, please post it.

Here.

To Quote the Specific Passage:

On Deciding the End of the Game said:

The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still
much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various
ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for
Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the end
of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man,
originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the
writers would have more time to finesse the ending.

And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

Indoctrination is not used in that passage. Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact. And you expect us to take the rest of IT seriously when facts can't be agreed on.

[jules_vern18]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

DJBare wrote...

First off my apologies for yet another IT thread.

Why am I making another?, it's an attempt to clear up some confusion I see quite often.

I see question like "If IT then how do the choices matter?"; they don't, at least not in the way you think they do.

IT states that Shepard never leaves earth, Shepard never made it to the citadel, so everything after Harbingers beam(or maybe after the personnel vehicle carrying Shepard crashes) is hallucination influenced by indoctrination attempts.

This is where the choices come in, they are representations of Shepard's fight against indoctrination taking place in his own mind, control is a fools errand, TIM as much proves this, synthesis is accepting reaper indoctrination, you are now one of the many in reaper form, destroy is Shepard defying attempts at indoctrination, high ems is Shepard's will to survive while under a pile of rubble which is where s/he has been all along.

This thread is not an attempt to convince others to believe IT, it's purpose is to get people to understand that with IT everything after London is not real, not the reapers being destroyed, not the relays being destroyed, nothing is real after London.

Yeah, um, I get it...I just don't think IT would be any better than taking the endings at face value.  Introducing an "it was all a dream!!!!1" twist in the last 10 minutes of a game is no better than introducing a new character and plot point in the last 10 minutes of a game.

I would like a well-structured, narratively coherent, choice-contingent variety of endings that fit in with the story's established lore, foreshadowing, logical footing, and overarching themes.  IT and Starbrat are equally bad in terms of those criteria.

But indoctrination is narritively coherent. It's been explain in ME1 and ME2. Say indoctrination doesn't fit is like saying thinking the end of inception is a dream makes no sense when you slept during the first part of the movie.
And don't say because it has no sign of it in the plot.....It subtle, meaning for the writer to put it in it has to be subtle and the dreams Shep has are great cover for the reaper to subtly indoctrinate Shepard. The dreams have two sugns of indoctriantion in it.

Just because something has been mentioned in the series doesn't mean that having it in the ending is narratively coherent. 

Let me ask you something - you say that there are subtle signs of IT within the plot.  Can you or anyone else honestly say that you picked up on these while playing before you got to the final mission?  Honestly?

No.  And that's because those "signs" are only there if you are looking for them.  I'll never forget the picture in the original IT thread that showed a screenshot of an overturned mako's wheels in london and then another of 4 circular objects under one of the ramps in the ending sequence.  Because apparently two scenes sharing the same shape as part of the level design was evidence that Shepard was being indoctrinated.

If this ending were being set up from the beginning, there would have been more easily recognizable "signs" throughout the story.  Subtle, yes, but not so ridiculously elaborate and minute as to require an entire conspirancy theory to be understood.  Storytelling and foreshadowing rarely work that way.

I'm curious - do you honestly believe that Bioware intended this from the beginning, has been watching game and stock prices drop, has received unprecedented fan backlash, and has stumbled through PR blunder after PR blunder just so that they could reveal it was "all a dreamz the whole tiem!" this summer? 

Still?

[Lookout1390]

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
[*]I'll get you on this one alone.

[*]If indoc is "subtle" then there is no point in pretending Shepard is "indoctrinated" by a laser beam at the base of the conduit.

except that Shepard has been exposed to more reaper artifacts than anyone else alive other than TIM. The ending is just a ramping up of the process. Shepard is only indoctrinated if he gives in to the Reaper's view of the world. Otherwise he still has full free will until that moment.

[/list]You presume that any contact means indocrination. Just because one surfer has more time in the water doesn't mean he has been bitten by a shark....

...it means just that. How in the world do you think indoctrination even begins? Did you even play the first 2?

Your little surfer/shark analogy doesn't make any sense....seeing as how sharks don't bite people through brain waves and slowly 'bite' them over time.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
I'll get you on this one alone.

If indoc is "subtle" then there is no point in pretending Shepard is "indoctrinated" by a laser beam at the base of the conduit.

Sigh, obviously it was still subtle because he/you were still fooled.

Iconoclaste you've discovered the most insidious part of Indoctrination Theory. Anything that can be used against Indoctrination theory is in fact part of Indoctrination Theory. Nothing can be negative to Indoctrination Theory.

"Nothing can be negative to Indoctrination Theory." 

Because indoctrination is part of the game, why would the authors write write something that contradicts his own narrative?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Tis a beautiful thing this IT, it's canon, it's functional, it's everything we asked for............WAIT, did I just say that?

[CavScout]

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...
I don't see any rationality in IT.

Where the H*** have you been? Your saying that there is no evidence of I.T.?  here we go yet again,   

So all the talk about all opinions being equally valid only applies to IT supporters and their opinions?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

Unbiased poll done!

Does "full reaper control" = indoctrination

Yes - 7
No - 2

A non-scientific poll can not be "unbiased"....

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Please show us where the term indoctrinated is used. The image has been posted many times. If it is there, please post it.

Here.

To Quote the Specific Passage:

On Deciding the End of the Game said:

The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still
much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various
ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for
Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the end
of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man,
originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the
writers would have more time to finesse the ending.

And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

Indoctrination is not used in that passage. Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact. And you expect us to take the rest of IT seriously when facts can't be agreed on.

LOL, ok I can agree on semantics.

So, tell me which other methods of Reaper Control could Casey be talking about?  Because when you can produce one simple example in the game/other media in which the Reapers controlled an individual who was not indoctrinated, I will believe that they were not citing Indoctrination in the sentence above.

[CavScout]

UrgentArchengel wrote...
So apparently Full Reaper Control does not equal Indoctrination. That's just plain silly. How else do Reapers assume direct control?

The real question about the term "full reapoer control" is, if Shep is under "full reaper control" why does it matter if he can't make his own choices, he is under "full reaper control". Capable of making your own choices would by its nature mean you're not under "full reaper control".

This doesn't matter to IT directly, more to what the term can actually mean in the app.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Please show us where the term indoctrinated is used. The image has been posted many times. If it is there, please post it.

Here.

To Quote the Specific Passage:

On Deciding the End of the Game said:

The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still
much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various
ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for
Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the end
of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man,
originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the
writers would have more time to finesse the ending.

And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

Indoctrination is not used in that passage. Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact. And you expect us to take the rest of IT seriously when facts can't be agreed on.

LOL! Dude, they are two things that mean the same thing bro.

Just like I could say "fossil fuel consuming transport device", it just means car man.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 05:37 .

[BatmanTurian]

Iconoclaste wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

...except that Shepard has been exposed to more reaper artifacts than anyone else alive other than TIM. The ending is just a ramping up of the process. Shepard is only indoctrinated if he gives in to the Reaper's view of the world. Otherwise he still has full free will until that moment.

That "Reaper artefact exposure" brings up the following question : how come no other squadmate is affected by these "artefacts", since the Reaper IFF is on board the Normandy since the end of ME2? Shepard isn't even on the Normandy for a good amount of time, this would give the "regular" Normandy staff time to "level up" to some point into indoctrination. They surely do not have Shepard's resistance. And if Shepard is "dreaming" the end sequence, or literally under "reaper control", then what is the point of this whole argument with TIM, and Anderson? Or even having the Reapers "offer the kill switch" to Shepard?

I am not asking for a precise explanation on each of these points, I've read all versions of IT's answers to that. I just want to point out that, since IT's goal is to "explain" or "interpret" the endings, so many questions arise from only so few points that it can hardly be seen as a solution. I would think it's easy to understand, since this has been given as opinion by many on various similar threads. Random people get one or two posts in a furious debate, and get forgotten. They just come in to point out that IT gives birth to even more questions than the "original" endings. I would believe that to be sufficient to get the IT "troops" in line with some better structured way to present it, or even to "defend" it. It's still a "viable" interpretation on some level of what's happening in the end, but not at the extent proposed by many.

Squadmates are affected. Liara feels the dead baby reaper watching her in the Cerberus base. There are other examples but it is late here and I cannot think of any, There has been some evidence to suggest that, other than EDI and Legion, Tali has been the only one to be able to resist the infrasonic sound used by the Reapers because of the sound dampeners in Quarian suits.

On your other point, no concensus has obviously been reached. This is not something that someone like me can control, obviously. Yes, there are still questions, which is why it is not a fact, but an interpretation or theory.

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

So apparently Full Reaper Control does not equal Indoctrination. That's just plain silly. How else do Reapers assume direct control?

I guess the Devil was "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" of those Collectors and was calling himself Harbinger. Silly me, thinking the Reapers could do that...

We know from the lore that indoctrination takes a long time and does not occur instantly.  Harbringer is able to take control of individual collectors immediately.

Moreover, the collectors were made specifically for the reapers' uses.  Otherwise Harbringer would have just "assumed direct control" over you and each of your squadmates until you all just killed each other off.

Come on, guys...

[CavScout]

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Argumentum ad populum. The fallacies just flow from IT supporters.

I prefer "read and understand the codex" as a more appropriate title.

Course I would love a citation from where you guys are getting your news, because it sure as hell isn't the codex..

What was claimed is not in the Codex....

[CavScout]

BatmanTurian wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...
So apparently Full Reaper Control does not equal Indoctrination. That's just plain silly. How else do Reapers assume direct control?

I guess the Devil was "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" of those Collectors and was calling himself Harbinger. Silly me, thinking the Reapers could do that...

Are collectors considered "indocrinated"? Husks?

[balance5050]

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

So apparently Full Reaper Control does not equal Indoctrination. That's just plain silly. How else do Reapers assume direct control?

I guess the Devil was "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" of those Collectors and was calling himself Harbinger. Silly me, thinking the Reapers could do that...

We know from the lore that indoctrination takes a long time and does not occur instantly.  Harbringer is able to take control of individual collectors immediately.

Moreover, the collectors were made specifically for the reapers' uses.  Otherwise Harbringer would have just "assumed direct control" over you and each of your squadmates until you all just killed each other off.

Come on, guys...

The hell, so "full reaper control", doesn't mean indoctrination?

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Please show us where the term indoctrinated is used. The image has been posted many times. If it is there, please post it.

Here.

To Quote the Specific Passage:

On Deciding the End of the Game said:

The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still
much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various
ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for
Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the end
of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man,
originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the
writers would have more time to finesse the ending.

And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

Indoctrination is not used in that passage. Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact. And you expect us to take the rest of IT seriously when facts can't be agreed on.

I can't take you seriously when you can't be intellectually honest and admit that the phrase is an obvious synonym.

[jules_vern18]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Please show us where the term indoctrinated is used. The image has been posted many times. If it is there, please post it.

Here.

To Quote the Specific Passage:

On Deciding the End of the Game said:

The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still
much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various
ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for
Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the end
of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man,
originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the
writers would have more time to finesse the ending.

And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

Indoctrination is not used in that passage. Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact. And you expect us to take the rest of IT seriously when facts can't be agreed on.

LOL! Dude, they are two things that mean the same thing bro.

Just like I could say "fossil fuel consuming transport device", it just means car man.

Yeah, but that would be like you creating a racing game and saying "fossile fuel consuming transport device" in your notes instead of simply using car.  It wouldn't make sense.

If they were talking about indoctrination, why wouldn't they say indoctrination?

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...The claim was the Codex/Wiki proved that "full reaper control" means only indoctrination. It has yet to be shown to be correct. Asking a deflecting question doesn't add merit to ones claim.

You might as well explain, "I love lamp!" At least that would be humorous.

Your ignoring the fact it shown in the game, too.
Vermiri.
The derlict reaper
The progect in arrival.
Sactuary.
The cerberus base.

I can't ignore what's simply not there. The claim is "full reaper control" only means indoctrination.