739 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

CavScout 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...

Are collectors considered "indocrinated"? Husks?

So you're saying that they were playing with the idea of Shepard becoming a husk?

"An excavation team in the Minos Wasteland on the planet Aequitas found a Reaper artifact that creates advanced husks. This device does not resemble dragon's teeth at all, instead featuring an orb of energy that turned the excavation team into husks with what appears to be a form of indoctrination, according to logs kept by the team, before it started creating more husks." 

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Husk 

[BatmanTurian]

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...

I was making a sarcastic joke. Sorry if it went over your head. I'll try to be more obvious next time.

[KevShep]

CavScout wrote...

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?

No, but when you dont put ANY evidence into your oun reason why the game IS at face value then your opinion is means nothing!

Modifié par KevShep, 13 mai 2012 - 05:41 .

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout 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...

Are collectors considered "indocrinated"? Husks?

They're the remnants of an indoctrinated race (the protheans), mutated and cloned over 50,000 years as shock troops. You should know this if you played ME2. They have no will other than Harbinger's.

[CavScout]

Lookout1390 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.

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?

What does the ability of breaking out of indoctrination have to do with the point being argued? The claim, again, is that "total reaper control" can only mean indoctrination.

Besides, I can think of three people who broke "indocrination" maybe more.

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian 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.

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

He has a valid point.  You have decided that "reaper control" means "indoctrination" when we have seen other means of reaper control throughout the series (collectors, TIM forcing you to shoot Anderson).

If the devs meant Indoctrination, they would have said Indoctrination.

And now, a brief definition of indoctrination:

Noun1.indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
Now tell me...is indoctrination a synonym for control?

[Sisterofshane]

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 implementation of Reaper Tech is what made the "total control" of the Collectors and Saren possible (and I would argue, is the Reason why the Reapers are capable of controlling TIM in the end - his indoctrination did not occur when he first encountered the Reaper Artifact on Shanxi, but rather when he chose to implant himself with Reaper Tech).

If we are arguing this from the IT point of view, the entire ending is Shepard resisting the attempt to indoctrinate.  All the Reapers need is for him to make the conscious (or subconscious) decision to allow the Reapers into his mind. (I like here that one of TIM's lines is "I need you to believe!").  This does not mean that the Reapers are now capable of controlling Shepards' body, but he/she will now no longer be able to resist the suggestions that they make.

[hammerfan]

Wow, I have more fun reading these IH threads than I had playing the game. It's like watching a train-wreck.

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

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

The control is not "full" if the mind evades it. You have the right to make an inference, but you cannot call that a "fact". I don't expect the writers to be more or less "precise" about their intent on a scrap of paper they possibly never intended to be released.

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...
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.

TIMs control of Anderson and Shep says otherwise.

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

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?

1. Having it metion many time inhe plot, taking the player aside to explaine it, and showing it many times in the plot is 
narratively coherent.  They don't have to remind you about everything are going in detal before in the story just before they us it in the end just for you to get it.

2. You not getting the point that it's meant to trick you. This is like the kotor twist or the Jade enmoire twist. This is all about tricking the player.

3. The fact that TIM control Shepardin the end with indoctrination points to yes it's intended.

[balance5050]

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian 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.

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

He has a valid point.  You have decided that "reaper control" means "indoctrination" when we have seen other means of reaper control throughout the series (collectors, TIM forcing you to shoot Anderson).

If the devs meant Indoctrination, they would have said Indoctrination.

And now, a brief definition of indoctrination:

Noun1.indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
Now tell me...is indoctrination a synonym for control?

So you're saying that they were playing with the idea of Shepard becoming a husk?

"An excavation team in the Minos Wasteland on the planet Aequitas found a Reaper artifact that creates advanced husks. This device does not resemble dragon's teeth at all, instead featuring an orb of energy that turned the excavation team into husks with what appears to be a form of indoctrination, according to logs kept by the team, before it started creating more husks." 

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Husk 

[DJBare]

My thanks to CavScout for keeping the thread afloat, much appreciated.

I have a question for others, this thread was never about the clues for IT, it's was about the fundamental of IT in that everything that happened after London was not real, so why are people discussing the citadel exploding?, according to the fundamental of IT these things never happened.

[Had-to-say]

There were people on the forum who speculated that the child in the vent was an attempt at indoctrination or Shepard's mental decline prior to the games release. The dream sequences with the child could be and eventually were interpreted as indoctrination attempts.

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 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.

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?

What does the ability of breaking out of indoctrination have to do with the point being argued? The claim, again, is that "total reaper control" can only mean indoctrination.

Besides, I can think of three people who broke "indocrination" maybe more.

AGAIN I ask you, what is the dues ex machina that allows Reapers to control organics other than slow indoctrination, turning organics into husks, or making a species into a Reaper?

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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

The control is not "full" if the mind evades it. You have the right to make an inference, but you cannot call that a "fact". I don't expect the writers to be more or less "precise" about their intent on a scrap of paper they possibly never intended to be released.

....Do even understand the theory isthat Shepardis in the process of indoctrination? It wouldn't be full indoctrination untill he submits to the star childs offers?

Modifié par dreman9999, 13 mai 2012 - 05:45 .

[CavScout]

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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.

There is no reason to attack the poster simply when they demolish a statement you've made.

That one can be indoctrinated by exposure to Reaper items doesn't mean that everyone who is exposed is indoctrinated.

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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

The control is not "full" if the mind evades it. You have the right to make an inference, but you cannot call that a "fact". I don't expect the writers to be more or less "precise" about their intent on a scrap of paper they possibly never intended to be released.

Right, FULL reaper control is mind AND body at the same time.

Face value = Just body

IT = Just mind

[OH-UP-THIS!]

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[/quote]

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?

[/quote]

We've covered this and it follows the theory, but I'll just add it here,

NO, why would the devs let the player know, they were suffering from indoc?

Kinda, goes against the whole series, not to mention the lore.

as for the last question, the devs really screwed the pooch by not putting forth, some kind of mega-twist like this has turned out to be.

personally though, IT has covered a lot of gaping holes, that the haters can't fathom, closed minded or stubborn, is about my only explanation, and SAD really, having ZERO imagination, is a terrible waste.

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian wrote...

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...

I was making a sarcastic joke. Sorry if it went over your head. I'll try to be more obvious next time.

I was able to read through the sarcasm, thank you.  I am trying to illustrate how "reaper control" and indoctrination are not necessarily one in the same...I'm sorry that went over your head.

Would you like to address the point?

Or do you just pick and choose the posts that are easy to pick apart?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

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?

Who can't take a non-falsifiable theory seriously?

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
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.

TIMs control of Anderson and Shep says otherwise.

TIM's ambition was control  over husks and ultimately Reapers. It was never control over organics.

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...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.

It is not "semantics" when something is claimed to have been used when it has not.

Anderson and Shep.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout 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...

Are collectors considered "indocrinated"? Husks?

I would argue yes for the husks - I consider the use of dragon's teeth to be akin to the most rapid forms of indoctrination, which leave the mind completely dessicated.  Look at the way TIM starts to "transform" in the end of ME3, or the way in which Saren and Paul Grayson appear to look.  The become "husk-like" in appearance.  Given the time for a slower indoctrination to take it's full course (as it has with the husks), I think you would have one and the same.

The collectors are just damn confusing.  In ME2, they were Protheans that had been extensively modified by the Reapers over many generations.  In the Javik DLC they are revealed to be Prothean Husks.  It makes no sense, I tell you! (Lol, therefore, IT!)

[dreman9999]

x

Modifié par dreman9999, 13 mai 2012 - 05:50 .