55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Golferguy758]

You know, guys. This is a win-win situation for IT theorists. Regardless of Bioware proving or debunking the theory.
A. IT is correct and Bioware isn't full of jackasses who can't complete a story. happy days.

or B. IT is debunked, Bioware did go full retard on the endings, but somehow people came together to make a way for those retarded endings to actually make sense.

Either way, you guys win.

[BatmanTurian]

thisisme8 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

thisisme8

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it.  Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard?  Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time?  The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not.  Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard.  But still, the cycle is over.

Well the line of thinking for an ITer is this as a general statement. (At least it applies to me anyway) 

First and Foremost, if the Catalyst is as he says he is a Catalyst, he cannot say for example the Crucible changed him and opened up new possiblities because thats not how a Catalyst works. He defies the very nature of what  a Catalyst is. How can he as an AI or even as intellect make that statement unless he lied about being the Catalyst in the first place?

Secondly the wording he chooses to describe himself. He keeps saying after "I am the Catalyst", we, us and constantly refers to his kind as the answer to the problem of organic life. This is strikingly similar to a reapers line of thinking. To be more exact, it's Harbinger's line of thinking. He sees himself as a god like entity and the solution and final evolution of all organic life. 

Third, he is trying to convince us within the last ten minutes that the Reapers serve some kind of noble purpose in life, and that they need to exist. The reapers entire goal is nothing but self preservation, their existence and adding to their numbers is all they care about. We have for the past three games continued along the logic of the Reapers needing to be destroyed and wiped out. Hell it's been Shepards driving motivation regardless of Paragon or Renegade options you take. Now all of a sudden this new offer is made by a suspicious entity claiming to be the Catalyst and trying to argue that your goal that has been the focus of the entire saga is wrong.

The conclusion we have reached from the IT stand point is that this final ten minutes is actually a battle at the center of the mind and that the final boss is Harbinger trying to indoctrinate Shepard. Rather then it being an actual battle in the physical world like th human reaper Bioware took the route of seeing how well you remembered everything up to this point and tested your resolve as Commander Shepard.

Asfor the Catalyst himself, the reason why he would act this way is that he is not the Catalyst but actually Harbinger posing as this god like AI that claims to be the creator of the Reapers, lying to you that there are better ways. He's trying to turn you the player as Shepard to the reapers line of thinking. That they need to exist. Two out of three options allow the Reapers to live.

I would argue that:

A)  He calls himself the catalyst because he was named by the organics as the catalyst.
  I believe (and this is probably the root of our differences) that the reaper's entire purpose is the continuation of the cycle, not their individual self preservation.
C)  If the reason behind the final 10 minutes of the game is to try and indoctrinate Shepard into believing the goal of the reapers is a noble one, then one of the options would have been to continue the cycle, which there isn't.  Even control ends the cycle.  The reapers live, but they aren't harvesting species and wiping everything else out. . . anymore.

Other notes:  My personal opinion is that deep down Shepard knows that completely defeating the reapers is probably impossible.  Finding a way to end the cycle is the best he or she can hope for.  Now, I think the reapers are not as smart as they think they are, and that the Catalyst, while being a part of the system that controls the cycle, is actually a part of, yet seperate from the reapers.  This allows the Catalyst to see the end of the cycle, while a reaper would simply continue on.  The Catalyst can therefore propose the three possible solutions in its power to end the cycle.  They may not be the best solutions, but that are the three that the Catalyst can accomplish.  Should Harbinger have been in the Catalyst's place, or if he was the Catalyst in Shep's indoctrination dream, he would never have given Shepard the choice to destroy the only thing the reapers live for: the Cycle.

A) He could be lying when he calls himself the Catalyst because a Catalyst isn't changed in a chemical reaction.

EDI disagrees with you. The suicide mission where humans are turned into slurpees to feed a human proto reaper disagrees with you. Their entire MO disagrees with you.

C. Control and Synthesis indoctrinate Shepard because what's happening isn't real. It's the Reapers trying to sway you, the player, and Shepard, to thier way of thinking.

As for the rest, I'll let someone else tackle it.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 24 juin 2012 - 03:09 .

[Makrys]

I'm just going to throw this out in the middle of everything...

The IT is the only way the form the Catalyst takes on makes any sense. The IT explains that that scene was a dream, and so the Catalyst was really Harbinger in Shepard's mind. This can be inferred by playing the game and keeping IT in mind.

However, from the literal stand point, it makes no sense for the Catalyst to be the boy. It would force us to make up some scenario in which it could be explained. Basically, simply by playing that scene, it would be impossible to know how and why the Catalyst took the form of the child from Shepard's dreams. However, the IT explains it. Literal interpretation does not.

So what was Bioware expecting us to do? How do we make sense of the Catalyst's form if they do not hint or tell us why it took that form? There is NO indication in the game that would seemingly explain why he would takes the form of the child... other than the IT.

So if the IT isn't true, what the hell Bioware? How were we supposed to understand that?

It only makes sense within the context of the IT. As is the way with many aspects of the endings.

Modifié par Makrys, 24 juin 2012 - 03:11 .

[BatmanTurian]

Iconoclaste wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

..................... Should Harbinger have been in the Catalyst's place, or if he was the Catalyst in Shep's indoctrination dream, he would never have given Shepard the choice to destroy the only thing the reapers live for: the Cycle.

Good point.

Allowing Shepard to get any hint of a possible "destroy" ending is puzzling in that regard.

In the mind. Destroy is Shepard's way out, which his mind would still have. It's the last bit of Shepard's core personality left.

[BatmanTurian]

Golferguy758 wrote...

You know, guys. This is a win-win situation for IT theorists. Regardless of Bioware proving or debunking the theory.
A. IT is correct and Bioware isn't full of jackasses who can't complete a story. happy days.

or B. IT is debunked, Bioware did go full retard on the endings, but somehow people came together to make a way for those retarded endings to actually make sense.

Either way, you guys win.

technically, yeah. But B is no fun.

[Bill Casey]

Iconoclaste wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

..................... Should Harbinger have been in the Catalyst's place, or if he was the Catalyst in Shep's indoctrination dream, he would never have given Shepard the choice to destroy the only thing the reapers live for: the Cycle.

Good point.

Allowing Shepard to get any hint of a possible "destroy" ending is puzzling in that regard.

The entire point is to influence Shepard away from wanting to destroy the reapers...

[MegaSovereign]

BatmanTurian wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

How does the Catalyst win?

Control:  Reapers go off into deep space never to be seen again.  Loss.
Synthesis:  Organics and Synthetics merge, ending their constant war with each other, ending the cycle and no longer requiring reapers to exist.  Loss.
Destruction:  All Synthetics are destroyed, including the reapers, for now.  Loss.

Dude.

For ****s sake.

Read the thread title. "Was the Ending a Hallucination"

It's all a goddamn dream. That's what the IT proposes. If you choose Control/Synthesis, then you have failed to stop the Reapers. The cycle continues. The game at its current state doesn't show you that, because the real ending isn't on disc. That's the basic premise of the Indoctrination Theory. I don't believe it, but before you debate on it you should know and understand your opponents arguments.

Battle in the mind, not a dream,  though I have a theory that it might be that Shepard's mind is connected to the Reaper Concensus through "wifi " and Harbinger is manipulating the space Shepard is in, similar to when Shep was in the Geth concensus.

I don't believe  the Reapers are a networked intelligence like the geth.

They're each independent nations, according to Sovereign. Then again Bioware doesn't give a **** about ME1.

They are partially networked. The Rannoch Reaper says Harbinger speaks of Shepard. This means they communicate with each other.

By Concensus, I meant something like virtual reality, such as the Matrix. Geth concensus is basic. A Reaper Concensus would be vastly more technologically advanced and indistinguishable from reality.

That makes sense.

The thing is though IT still has a lot of issues. Like why Harbinger wants to indoctrinate Shepard instead of just killing him. Or how Shepard is able to fight indoctrination. Others who can resist it can only do it momentarily. 

[EpyonX3]

Bill Casey wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

synthetics were reprogrammed technically...

Wait a second...
If face value interpretation...
If Catalyst is an AI...

the definition of Indoctrination is based on the context here. Garrus is referring to religious indoctrination, which is different than reaper or any other form of indoctrination.

[thisisme8]

FellishBeast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Control: surrendering and becoming a tool that is Indoctrinated to think like TIM
Synthesis: surrendering and becoming a tool that is indoctrinated to think like Saren
Destroy: Shepard's true goal and the only way to break the indoctrination attempt, rejecting the Reaper values entirely.

This. Yes. This.

I disagree.  While thematically, yes, you have the TIM, Saren, and Anderson endings, I think they are just themes and not submissions.

My point on the endings is that if the reapers aren't controlling the evolution, techinical progress, and eventrual destruction/harvest of species, then the cycle is over.  In all 3 endings, the reapers are done.  Finished.  Gone.  How you come to that conclusion is based on the reoccuring themes above.

I don't understand why anyone would think that the cycle actually continues in any of the endings.

[Vaya]

Makrys wrote...

I'm just going to throw this out in the middle of everything...

The IT is the only way the form the Catalyst takes on makes any sense. The IT explains that that scene was a dream, and so the Catalyst was really Harbinger in Shepard's mind. This can be inferred by playing the game and keeping IT in mind.

However, from the literal stand point, it makes no sense for the Catalyst to be the boy. It would force us to make up some scenario in which it could be explained. Basically, simply by playing that scene, it would be impossible to know how and why the Catalyst took the form of the child from Shepard's dreams. However, the IT explains it. Literal interpretation does not.

So what was Bioware expecting us to do? How do we make sense of the Catalyst's form if they do not hint or tell us why it took that form? There is NO indication in the game that would seemingly explain why he would takes the form of the child... other than the IT.

So if the IT isn't true, what the hell Bioware? How were we supposed to understand that?

It only makes sense within the context of the IT. As is the way with many aspects of the endings.

Right. Either someone put the image of the child in Shepard's head or somebody pulled it out of Shepard's memories. Either way, somebody's gotten into your mind.

[masster blaster]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

..................... Should Harbinger have been in the Catalyst's place, or if he was the Catalyst in Shep's indoctrination dream, he would never have given Shepard the choice to destroy the only thing the reapers live for: the Cycle.

Good point.

Allowing Shepard to get any hint of a possible "destroy" ending is puzzling in that regard.

In the mind. Destroy is Shepard's way out, which his mind would still have. It's the last bit of Shepard's core personality left.

Y if the Catalyst was smart it would have just given Shepard Control or Synthesis so that the Reapers can live and maybe fake Shepard controling the REapers and turn on Shepard. Then the cycle begains again.

[Bill Casey]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

synthetics were reprogrammed technically...

Wait a second...
If face value interpretation...
If Catalyst is an AI...

the definition of Indoctrination is based on the context here. Garrus is referring to religious indoctrination, which is different than reaper or any other form of indoctrination.

No, he's reffering to rewriting the heretics being dangerously close to Reaper indoctrination from an ethical standpoint...
But that's beside the point, since I'm pointing out the second sentence here...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 24 juin 2012 - 03:18 .

[BatmanTurian]

masster blaster wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

How does the Catalyst win?

Control:  Reapers go off into deep space never to be seen again.  Loss.
Synthesis:  Organics and Synthetics merge, ending their constant war with each other, ending the cycle and no longer requiring reapers to exist.  Loss.
Destruction:  All Synthetics are destroyed, including the reapers, for now.  Loss.

Dude.

For ****s sake.

Read the thread title. "Was the Ending a Hallucination"

It's all a goddamn dream. That's what the IT proposes. If you choose Control/Synthesis, then you have failed to stop the Reapers. The cycle continues. The game at its current state doesn't show you that, because the real ending isn't on disc. That's the basic premise of the Indoctrination Theory. I don't believe it, but before you debate on it you should know and understand your opponents arguments.

Battle in the mind, not a dream,  though I have a theory that it might be that Shepard's mind is connected to the Reaper Concensus through "wifi " and Harbinger is manipulating the space Shepard is in, similar to when Shep was in the Geth concensus.

Not bad but but if Shepard dies then it's kinetic barriers go down and boom we kill Harby with one shot from the Normandy's main gun.

Joker: How do you like that you sons of a B*******" ME2 line.

Harbinger has to use a mass effect field just to land on Earth, so he doesn't even have strong kinetic barriers when he's at the Conduit.

Ya and remember when Soverign took control of Saren but when you killed Saren again it's Kinetic barriers go down.

That flaw has been corrected in the other Reapers. Plus, it's kind of obvious that Sovereign is.... " special " which is because he failed to stop the Protheans from sabotaging the Citadel, failed to weaken the current cycle with a war with the Rachni, is obviously overcompensating when you have conversations with him, he couldn't stop the Protheans from creating a shortcut into the Citadel, and... well he's just stupid.

[Starbuck8]

thisisme8 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

thisisme8

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it.  Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard?  Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time?  The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not.  Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard.  But still, the cycle is over.

Well the line of thinking for an ITer is this as a general statement. (At least it applies to me anyway) 

First and Foremost, if the Catalyst is as he says he is a Catalyst, he cannot say for example the Crucible changed him and opened up new possiblities because thats not how a Catalyst works. He defies the very nature of what  a Catalyst is. How can he as an AI or even as intellect make that statement unless he lied about being the Catalyst in the first place?

Secondly the wording he chooses to describe himself. He keeps saying after "I am the Catalyst", we, us and constantly refers to his kind as the answer to the problem of organic life. This is strikingly similar to a reapers line of thinking. To be more exact, it's Harbinger's line of thinking. He sees himself as a god like entity and the solution and final evolution of all organic life. 

Third, he is trying to convince us within the last ten minutes that the Reapers serve some kind of noble purpose in life, and that they need to exist. The reapers entire goal is nothing but self preservation, their existence and adding to their numbers is all they care about. We have for the past three games continued along the logic of the Reapers needing to be destroyed and wiped out. Hell it's been Shepards driving motivation regardless of Paragon or Renegade options you take. Now all of a sudden this new offer is made by a suspicious entity claiming to be the Catalyst and trying to argue that your goal that has been the focus of the entire saga is wrong.

The conclusion we have reached from the IT stand point is that this final ten minutes is actually a battle at the center of the mind and that the final boss is Harbinger trying to indoctrinate Shepard. Rather then it being an actual battle in the physical world like th human reaper Bioware took the route of seeing how well you remembered everything up to this point and tested your resolve as Commander Shepard.

Asfor the Catalyst himself, the reason why he would act this way is that he is not the Catalyst but actually Harbinger posing as this god like AI that claims to be the creator of the Reapers, lying to you that there are better ways. He's trying to turn you the player as Shepard to the reapers line of thinking. That they need to exist. Two out of three options allow the Reapers to live.

I would argue that:

A)  He calls himself the catalyst because he was named by the organics as the catalyst.
  I believe (and this is probably the root of our differences) that the reaper's entire purpose is the continuation of the cycle, not their individual self preservation.
C)  If the reason behind the final 10 minutes of the game is to try and indoctrinate Shepard into believing the goal of the reapers is a noble one, then one of the options would have been to continue the cycle, which there isn't.  Even control ends the cycle.  The reapers live, but they aren't harvesting species and wiping everything else out. . . anymore.

Other notes:  My personal opinion is that deep down Shepard knows that completely defeating the reapers is probably impossible.  Finding a way to end the cycle is the best he or she can hope for.  Now, I think the reapers are not as smart as they think they are, and that the Catalyst, while being a part of the system that controls the cycle, is actually a part of, yet seperate from the reapers.  This allows the Catalyst to see the end of the cycle, while a reaper would simply continue on.  The Catalyst can therefore propose the three possible solutions in its power to end the cycle.  They may not be the best solutions, but that are the three that the Catalyst can accomplish.  Should Harbinger have been in the Catalyst's place, or if he was the Catalyst in Shep's indoctrination dream, he would never have given Shepard the choice to destroy the only thing the reapers live for: the Cycle.

A) How does the catalyst knows that's what organics call it? If it's able to tell whats going on around it, then how has it been oblivious to the fact that the reapers have been having some trouble getting into the galaxy since ME1 and activate the citadel as a mass relay to dark space? (i think that was a previous argument of yours)
Either way, the reapers are going to wipe out all advanced orgainc life. But statements from sovereign and harbinger indicate there is more to the reapers' motivation than simply continuing the cycle
C) First of all, what shepard in their right mind would choose to continue the cycle in the end? And if the catalyst had given shepard the choice of align with the reapers (control ala TIM) or align with the reapers (synthesis ala saren), it would be all too obvious that this was some kind of trap. And there would be no "choice". They would have forced their will on shepard and couldn't have made him/her an indoctrinated agent like TIM or Saren who actually chose and believed in their goals of control or synthesis.

[masster blaster]

MegaSovereign wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

How does the Catalyst win?

Control:  Reapers go off into deep space never to be seen again.  Loss.
Synthesis:  Organics and Synthetics merge, ending their constant war with each other, ending the cycle and no longer requiring reapers to exist.  Loss.
Destruction:  All Synthetics are destroyed, including the reapers, for now.  Loss.

Dude.

For ****s sake.

Read the thread title. "Was the Ending a Hallucination"

It's all a goddamn dream. That's what the IT proposes. If you choose Control/Synthesis, then you have failed to stop the Reapers. The cycle continues. The game at its current state doesn't show you that, because the real ending isn't on disc. That's the basic premise of the Indoctrination Theory. I don't believe it, but before you debate on it you should know and understand your opponents arguments.

Battle in the mind, not a dream,  though I have a theory that it might be that Shepard's mind is connected to the Reaper Concensus through "wifi " and Harbinger is manipulating the space Shepard is in, similar to when Shep was in the Geth concensus.

I don't believe  the Reapers are a networked intelligence like the geth.

They're each independent nations, according to Sovereign. Then again Bioware doesn't give a **** about ME1.

They are partially networked. The Rannoch Reaper says Harbinger speaks of Shepard. This means they communicate with each other.

By Concensus, I meant something like virtual reality, such as the Matrix. Geth concensus is basic. A Reaper Concensus would be vastly more technologically advanced and indistinguishable from reality.

That makes sense.

The thing is though IT still has a lot of issues. Like why Harbinger wants to indoctrinate Shepard instead of just killing him. Or how Shepard is able to fight indoctrination. Others who can resist it can only do it momentarily. 

Keep in mind Shepard is being controld by the Players in which we are Indctotrinating Shepard in a sence so we are doing the Reapers work on our own acoord.

Modifié par masster blaster, 24 juin 2012 - 03:17 .

[Iconoclaste]

Makrys wrote...
The IT is the only way the form the Catalyst takes on makes any sense. The IT explains that that scene was a dream, and so the Catalyst was really Harbinger in Shepard's mind. This can be inferred by playing the game and keeping IT in mind.

However, from the literal stand point, it makes no sense for the Catalyst to be the boy. It would force us to make up some scenario in which it could be explained. Basically, simply by playing that scene, it would be impossible to know how and why the Catalyst took the form of the child from Shepard's dreams. However, the IT explains it. Literal interpretation does not.

I disagree : this was addressed a few times, and did not need a far stretch of the mind to get a reasonable explanation in the "face value scenario". The Reapers can invade the mind, and I will not deny that they are playing their last cards with Shepard in the final scene. If the Reapers can play on someone's motivations, fears and desires, they surely can read some parts of his memory, and try to play the emotional card on Shepard by choosing to project themselves in the child's form. Showing themselves in the "Reaper" form would surely not have Shepard in the best state of mind towards the "Catalyst". Hence the suggestion of the "Destroy" possibility, being an honest assessment by the enemy being already "paralyzed" by the Crucible, and open to "negociate" a solution with Shepard.

[Makrys]

Vaya wrote...

Makrys wrote...

I'm just going to throw this out in the middle of everything...

The IT is the only way the form the Catalyst takes on makes any sense. The IT explains that that scene was a dream, and so the Catalyst was really Harbinger in Shepard's mind. This can be inferred by playing the game and keeping IT in mind.

However, from the literal stand point, it makes no sense for the Catalyst to be the boy. It would force us to make up some scenario in which it could be explained. Basically, simply by playing that scene, it would be impossible to know how and why the Catalyst took the form of the child from Shepard's dreams. However, the IT explains it. Literal interpretation does not.

So what was Bioware expecting us to do? How do we make sense of the Catalyst's form if they do not hint or tell us why it took that form? There is NO indication in the game that would seemingly explain why he would takes the form of the child... other than the IT.

So if the IT isn't true, what the hell Bioware? How were we supposed to understand that?

It only makes sense within the context of the IT. As is the way with many aspects of the endings.

Right. Either someone put the image of the child in Shepard's head or somebody pulled it out of Shepard's memories. Either way, somebody's gotten into your mind.

Yeah, either way. WE KNOW the Reapers have been doing SOMETHING with Shepard's mind. 

[MegaSovereign]

Screw you guys.

I'll make my own Indoctrination theory, with black jack and hookers.

[Bill Casey]

Makrys wrote...

Yeah, either way. WE KNOW the Reapers have been doing SOMETHING with Shepard's mind.

We also know the Reapers manipulate minds to achieve their goals of harvesting, even going so far as to "negotiate peace" with world leaders...

And that they brainwashed people who are espousing certain ideologies. People like Saren, Paul Grayson, The Illusive Man, The Prothean Separatists, etc...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 24 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[Dwailing]

Heh, I thought I was going to be off for the night, but I just had one more thing to share. I've just started replaying Half-Life, and that made me think, "Gee, this is how you make a game where you're going to make certain elements of the story ambiguous (Not my exact thoughts, but that's basically what I was thinking)." I mean seriously, Valve never gave us all the answers in Half-Life 1 or 2, but they did it in a way that didn't make people go bat-crap crazy. That's the way you tell a story without revealing everything, that's the way you encourage speculation. Not by making an ending that has no closure and is thematically revolting, but by making it plain from the beginning that you're never going to get ALL of the answers.

Modifié par Dwailing, 24 juin 2012 - 03:25 .

[masster blaster]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Screw you guys.

I'll make my own Indoctrination theory, with black jack and hookers.

Ouch that hurt me... you bully.

[BatmanTurian]

thisisme8 wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Control: surrendering and becoming a tool that is Indoctrinated to think like TIM
Synthesis: surrendering and becoming a tool that is indoctrinated to think like Saren
Destroy: Shepard's true goal and the only way to break the indoctrination attempt, rejecting the Reaper values entirely.

This. Yes. This.

I disagree.  While thematically, yes, you have the TIM, Saren, and Anderson endings, I think they are just themes and not submissions.

My point on the endings is that if the reapers aren't controlling the evolution, techinical progress, and eventrual destruction/harvest of species, then the cycle is over.  In all 3 endings, the reapers are done.  Finished.  Gone.  How you come to that conclusion is based on the reoccuring themes above.

I don't understand why anyone would think that the cycle actually continues in any of the endings.

Because we believe the ending isn't actually happening, but is happening in Shepard's head. Why are you not comprehending this? The Galaxy has its back up against the wall, but Shepard has allied the Galaxy against the Reapers and is probably the first organic to successfully do so. So their goal would be to turn Shepard into a traitor to kill the morale of this cycle and end the war as fast as possible so they don't lose anymore capital ships and can get back to reaping.. If Shepard falls to the Reapers, they have access to Shepard's charisma and skills. they would have a weapon to destroy all remaining resistance.


The point is, you believe the Reapers are giving up, when they have no reason to.

We believe Shepard is in the process of giving up and has one chance to make sure he doesn't.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 24 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[EpyonX3]

Bill Casey wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

synthetics were reprogrammed technically...

*snip*










Wait a second...
If face value interpretation...
If Catalyst is an AI...

the definition of Indoctrination is based on the context here. Garrus is referring to religious indoctrination, which is different than reaper or any other form of indoctrination.

No, he's reffering to rewriting the heretics being dangerously close to Reaper indoctrination...
But that's beside what I was pointing out...

Not necessarily. The Heretics were already believing something different. Rewritting them wouldbe making them think like everyone else, indoctrination. Reaper indoctrination is its own definition because of the goals and methods. Legion neither wants to wipe out organic life or control the heretics to accomplish the task.

[Makrys]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Makrys wrote...
The IT is the only way the form the Catalyst takes on makes any sense. The IT explains that that scene was a dream, and so the Catalyst was really Harbinger in Shepard's mind. This can be inferred by playing the game and keeping IT in mind.

However, from the literal stand point, it makes no sense for the Catalyst to be the boy. It would force us to make up some scenario in which it could be explained. Basically, simply by playing that scene, it would be impossible to know how and why the Catalyst took the form of the child from Shepard's dreams. However, the IT explains it. Literal interpretation does not.

I disagree : this was addressed a few times, and did not need a far stretch of the mind to get a reasonable explanation in the "face value scenario". The Reapers can invade the mind, and I will not deny that they are playing their last cards with Shepard in the final scene. If the Reapers can play on someone's motivations, fears and desires, they surely can read some parts of his memory, and try to play the emotional card on Shepard by choosing to project themselves in the child's form. Showing themselves in the "Reaper" form would surely not have Shepard in the best state of mind towards the "Catalyst". Hence the suggestion of the "Destroy" possibility, being an honest assessment by the enemy being already "paralyzed" by the Crucible, and open to "negociate" a solution with Shepard.

The Reapers are not 'mind readers'. They don't get into someone's mind to troll them. They get into your mind to CONTROL YOU. 

Nothing you said was based on lore or the codex. Nothing like that has ever happened before. "Hallucinations of ghostly presences", is a direct symptom of indoctrination, so excuse me if I'm the only one who thought the starchild looked ghostly.

White, holographic, and wispy. Don't know how much more ghostly you can look. That's my interpretation. I just take facts from the lore and apply them to what I saw in the ending. I don't need you to agree with me.

Modifié par Makrys, 24 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[thisisme8]

BatmanTurian wrote...

A) He could be lying when he calls himself the Catalyst because a Catalyst isn't changed in a chemical reaction.

EDI disagrees with you. The suicide mission where humans are turned into slurpees to feed a human proto reaper disagrees with you. Their entire MO disagrees with you.

C. Control and Synthesis indoctrinate Shepard because what's happening isn't real. It's the Reapers trying to sway you, the player, and Shepard, to thier way of thinking.

As for the rest, I'll let someone else tackle it.

A) He could be telling the truth.

Does ME2 disagree with me?  The reapers were harvesting humans to create a reaper.  That's part of the cycle, the one thing reapers "live" for.

C) So if I choose Synthesis or Control, the entire ending sequence and Joker landing on some random planet with the rest of the crew and some old guy telling a kid about Shepard's adventures only happens in Shepard's mind?  Because if not, that points to the end of the cycle, which would make indoctrination moot.