55528 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenEyry]

Mr. Sparkle's logic does have the possible defense that HE at least believes it. That doesn't excuse Shepard having no choice but to agree with him though.

[spotlessvoid]

RavenEyry wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Why would starchilds programmers have it throw away it's millions of years old agenda because one little organic threatened it by getting too close? And is Shepard really the first organic to pull that off? Really? Killing him and resetting the cycle just can't work?

Because many reapers have been killed in this war and the fact that very little progress was made on the human-reaper using several colonies of people implying that less than a dozen new ones will be made post cycle, perhaps the catalyst was worried about conventional defeat? I don't necessarilly mean in this cycle but overall perhaps the reaper numbers have been in decline. Perhaps Mr. Sparkle had been considering changing the solution (for several cycles, I assume he has long term thinking due to the 50000 year thing) and Shepard being there provided the opportunity for it.

First: this was a specific argument about starchild being bound by it's programming, not necessarily it's thought process being logical if it is functioning of it's own free will.


Second: Why risk defeat when you can just accept defeat right now? That logic doesn't make sense...

Three: Starchild can build the options but can't enact them?
A. Shoot the tube itself.
B. Choose to continue controlling the Reapers but make them leave/help/destroy themselves as Shepard would have done.
C. Grab some human and toss him in the synthesis pit.

NOT including Shepard in this would have given starchild the option to determine the must beneficial outcome from it's perspective, instead of letting an organic make the call.


No, only IT can make sense of it all

[HellishFiend]

RavenEyry wrote...

Mr. Sparkle's logic does have the possible defense that HE at least believes it. That doesn't excuse Shepard having no choice but to agree with him though.

Even if we assume starbrat is telling the truth in his dialog (Illogical assumption - he has likely ulterior motivations to lie), in order to believe it, he would have to interpret statistical probabilities as definite eventualities, and unfounded suppositions as facts.

That would make starbrat, logically, an uneducated idiot. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 18 mai 2012 - 11:00 .

[RavenEyry]

spotlessvoid wrote...

First: this was a specific argument about starchild being bound by it's programming, not necessarily it's thought process being logical if it is functioning of it's own free will.


Second: Why risk defeat when you can just accept defeat right now? That logic doesn't make sense...

Three: Starchild can build the options but can't enact them?
A. Shoot the tube itself.
B. Choose to continue controlling the Reapers but make them leave/help/destroy themselves as Shepard would have done.
C. Grab some human and toss him in the synthesis pit.

NOT including Shepard in this would have given starchild the option to determine the must beneficial outcome from it's perspective, instead of letting an organic make the call.


No, only IT can make sense of it all

Could've been programmed to reach this conclusion if reaper numbers where in clear decline and the catalyst plans were left so it could change the solution if needed. But that's a really bad plan so I don't beleive it myself, just putting ideas out there.

EDIT: That last line can go at hellishfiend too.

Modifié par RavenEyry, 18 mai 2012 - 11:04 .

[spotlessvoid]

@ hellishfiend

I can agree that it's gotten old, and directs the discussion away from current events. Although there isn't nearly as much to discuss these days. Like, does Lance know English...

Just saying it's not "off topic" in the this thread will get locked down again.

But okay, I will drop the issue.

[JasonSic]

DJBare wrote...

if I.T is real, then the writers and developers did a damn good job.

This.

And the sad thing is that many people believe Bioware is not capable of writing something related to the IT. People think that if IT ends up being fact, it just means Bioware took ideas out of all the threads about IT. Then people will just hate Bioware more because of it, it's not fair, really.

Modifié par JasonSic, 18 mai 2012 - 11:05 .

[Rifneno]

JasonSic wrote...

This.

And the sad thing is that many people believe Bioware is not capable of writing something related to the IT. People think that if IT ends up being fact, it just means Bioware took ideas out of all the threads about IT.

I agree with all of that except the part that says people who will accuse BW of ripping off the idea from fans actually thought something.

[JasonSic]

Rifneno wrote...

JasonSic wrote...

This.

And the sad thing is that many people believe Bioware is not capable of writing something related to the IT. People think that if IT ends up being fact, it just means Bioware took ideas out of all the threads about IT.

I agree with all of that except the part that says people who will accuse BW of ripping off the idea from fans actually thought something.

So you're saying people who think Bioware ripped off IT are incapable of thinking? If so... lol...

[HellishFiend]

To me, the very title "Indoctrination Theory" implies that it was Bioware's intention. If it wasn't, this topic should be titled "Indoctrination Interpretation".

Modifié par HellishFiend, 18 mai 2012 - 11:10 .

[spotlessvoid]

JasonSic wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

JasonSic wrote...

This.

And the sad thing is that many people believe Bioware is not capable of writing something related to the IT. People think that if IT ends up being fact, it just means Bioware took ideas out of all the threads about IT.

I agree with all of that except the part that says people who will accuse BW of ripping off the idea from fans actually thought something.

So you're saying people who think Bioware ripped off IT are incapable of thinking? If so... lol...

It's Rif, there's no doubt that's what he meant!

[RavenEyry]

JasonSic wrote...

So you're saying people who think Bioware ripped off IT are incapable of thinking? If so... lol...

Some of them do seem to not think and instead just point themselves in a random direction, open their mouths and make angry noises.

[Sero303]

JasonSic wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

JasonSic wrote...

This.

And the sad thing is that many people believe Bioware is not capable of writing something related to the IT. People think that if IT ends up being fact, it just means Bioware took ideas out of all the threads about IT.

I agree with all of that except the part that says people who will accuse BW of ripping off the idea from fans actually thought something.

So you're saying people who think Bioware ripped off IT are incapable of thinking? If so... lol...

I honestly could not care any less who gets the credit for it, as long as it is amazing, anything less and they are all held accountable in my book...
IF...and I stress the IF part, but IF they manage to pull this off and give us something truly remarkable, I will be one of the first to admit I was wrong and apologize for all my negativity. Something tells me I won't have too though

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

The catalyst controls the reapers.
The goal of the mass effect storyline is to stop the reaper threat.
Therefore, supplanting the catalyst will satisfy the goal of the mass effect storyline.

The logic is sound, but one of the premises is NOT A CONFIRMED FACT. False logic. End of story, not up for debate. 

Which statement isn't confirmed? If the Catalyst doesn't control the Reapers, is that a confirmed fact? Your logic is strange. If you want to use implication, please supply statements for it. You present 2 statements and then form an implication from 2 different ones. Without presenting any relationship between those pairs.

Modifié par paxxton, 18 mai 2012 - 11:17 .

[estebanus]

Has anyone taken part in this vote about the IT? If not, then you probably should!

Link: http://social.biowar...9194/1#12121371

[Flyprdu]

HellishFiend wrote...

To me, the very title "Indoctrination Theory" implies that it was Bioware's intention. If it wasn't, this topic should be titled "Indoctrination Interpretation".

Indoctrination Recovery Theory

[MaximizedAction]

TSA_383 wrote...

More citadel speculation:

Do you think the "unnatural calmness" that almost all the characters seem to be referring to could be an effect of the citadel itself?

That is, the desire is that particularly in times of crisis it is seen as a refuge, somewhere for all the species of the universe to take shelter, conveniently providing the required genetic material for producing a reaper capital ship?

I very much support this hypothesis.
I did notice -- besides the hair rejuvenilizating effects(WTF?) -- how Bailey and especially Udina seemed quite calm when you spoke to them in private, i.e. in their offices. Might be the invasion of course, but still even the atmosphere when standing at the Embassies, everything seemed so...hypnotized.

I now, it all might be a subjective placebo effect, but might also be of intentional design.

The Citadel would be the perfect Venus Organicstrap.

[RavenEyry]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

The catalyst controls the reapers.
The goal of the mass effect storyline is to stop the reaper threat.
Therefore, supplanting the catalyst will satisfy the goal of the mass effect storyline.

The logic is sound, but one of the premises is NOT A CONFIRMED FACT. False logic. End of story, not up for debate. 

Which statement isn't confirmed? If the Catalyst doesn't control the Reapers, is that a confirmed fact? Your logic is strange. If you want to use implication, please supply statements for it. You present 2 statements and then form an implication from 2 different ones. Without presenting any relationship between those pairs.

Both that Mr. Sparkle controls the rapers and that you can supplant him are unconfirmed.

[HellishFiend]

RavenEyry wrote...


Could've been programmed to reach this conclusion if reaper numbers where in clear decline and the catalyst plans were left so it could change the solution if needed. But that's a really bad plan so I don't beleive it myself, just putting ideas out there.

EDIT: That last line can go at hellishfiend too.

Ideas are good, but unfortunately any idea that stems from the possibility that starbrat is not just a tool of indoctrination (or harbinger himself) raises "debates" over starbrat's logic. <_<

I just think it's pointless to keep debating his logic, for multiple reasons. 

[RavenEyry]

estebanus wrote...

Has anyone taken part in this vote about the IT? If not, then you probably should!

Link: http://social.biowar...9194/1#12121371

It was linked earlier and as I said then, you probably shouldn't link it here without also linking it in an anti-IT thread or we'll get accused of flooding polls again.

[TSA_383]

So, after a prod from Megumi, I decided to go back through the subtitle logs of the Anderson/TIM convo at the end, and found one or two things that are very interesting...

1-The subtitles always show who is the speaker, and who is the listener, this is also often used in the character movements when defining who someone is looking at.
From the subtitles script, Anderson/TIM are ALWAYS talking to Shepard, never to each other.

2-Notably, when anderson says "you're indoctrinated" he's talking to Shepard, not TIM.

3-Here are some of anderson's lines which are interspersed between dialogue options for certain choices, all directed at Shepard remember:
"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us."
"Just do it, Shepard."
"Just do it, Commander."
"You're not making sense."
"Bull****. The Crucible will destroy them."
"Wiping them out is the only way to end this."
"He's lost it."

And now the same for The Illusive Man:
"Don't fight it, Shepard."
"That won't work."
"Don't waste your energy."
"Not while I'm in control."
"Still fighting it?"

More to come, may post a wall of text shortly.

[estebanus]

TSA_383 wrote...

So, after a prod from Megumi, I decided to go back through the subtitle logs of the Anderson/TIM convo at the end, and found one or two things that are very interesting...

1-The subtitles always show who is the speaker, and who is the listener, this is also often used in the character movements when defining who someone is looking at.
From the subtitles script, Anderson/TIM are ALWAYS talking to Shepard, never to each other.

2-Notably, when anderson says "you're indoctrinated" he's talking to Shepard, not TIM.

3-Here are some of anderson's lines which are interspersed between dialogue options for certain choices, all directed at Shepard remember:
"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us."
"Just do it, Shepard."
"Just do it, Commander."
"You're not making sense."
"Bull****. The Crucible will destroy them."
"Wiping them out is the only way to end this."
"He's lost it."

And now the same for The Illusive Man:
"Don't fight it, Shepard."
"That won't work."
"Don't waste your energy."
"Not while I'm in control."
"Still fighting it?"

More to come, may post a wall of text shortly.

*Prepares himself for incoming wall of text*

[HellishFiend]

RavenEyry wrote...

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

The catalyst controls the reapers.
The goal of the mass effect storyline is to stop the reaper threat.
Therefore, supplanting the catalyst will satisfy the goal of the mass effect storyline.

The logic is sound, but one of the premises is NOT A CONFIRMED FACT. False logic. End of story, not up for debate. 

Which statement isn't confirmed? If the Catalyst doesn't control the Reapers, is that a confirmed fact? Your logic is strange. If you want to use implication, please supply statements for it. You present 2 statements and then form an implication from 2 different ones. Without presenting any relationship between those pairs.

Both that Mr. Sparkle controls the rapers and that you can supplant him are unconfirmed.

Exactly, thank you.

And paxxton, oh my. I dont even know where to begin with the rest of that.  I'm just going to back out of this conversation before it becomes condescending. Take it as a victory if you want, I dont really care at this point. 

[spotlessvoid]

Edit: Redundant due to above post

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 18 mai 2012 - 11:23 .

[MegumiAzusa]

TSA_383 wrote...

So, after a prod from Megumi, I decided to go back through the subtitle logs of the Anderson/TIM convo at the end, and found one or two things that are very interesting...

1-The subtitles always show who is the speaker, and who is the listener, this is also often used in the character movements when defining who someone is looking at.
From the subtitles script, Anderson/TIM are ALWAYS talking to Shepard, never to each other.

2-Notably, when anderson says "you're indoctrinated" he's talking to Shepard, not TIM.

3-Here are some of anderson's lines which are interspersed between dialogue options for certain choices, all directed at Shepard remember:
"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us."
"Just do it, Shepard."
"Just do it, Commander."
"You're not making sense."
"Bull****. The Crucible will destroy them."
"Wiping them out is the only way to end this."
"He's lost it."

And now the same for The Illusive Man:
"Don't fight it, Shepard."
"That won't work."
"Don't waste your energy."
"Not while I'm in control."
"Still fighting it?"

More to come, may post a wall of text shortly.

Posted your first point already some pages ago
Also most of the smaller lines are used when not choosing the Reputation answers. (though some aren't)
Also still the most interesting line would be:

+-[entry #77]
| speaker: global_anderson
| listener: variable_2
| text: Shoot me.

You can see Anderson telling Shep to shoot him.

[RavenEyry]

Since it came up yesterday(?) I've considered the speech direction to be a big clue. It really adds to the idea that it's a dream and that these two are the angel and devil on Shep's shoulders. It's a subtle hint that Shep really is the center of the universe at the moment, the way it sound's like they're addressing each other but the code says they're not.