55528 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

Legion but if that was the case, then a lot of gamers would have noticed that Shepard was binging Indoctrinated. So if it was just Synthesis, then like I said would mean Shepard is being Indoctrinated.

I would also like to point out that Bioware could have let the Players decide if Shepard was going to be Indoctrinated, because he listened to the Catalyst like Sanders did when she was talking to the Reapers and nod, and say okay.

[jgibson14352]

is anybody going to rebut the very obvious flaws with the legions statements?
ill do it if i have to, but i just feel like im repeating myself over and over.

Modifié par jgibson14352, 07 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[CoolioThane]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Hallucinations tend to be less real-looking. Here there are no fuzzy images, no apparitions, no suggestive whispering, no confusion - everything looks real, looks as it should look. You can clearly see what is going on. The Catalyst is not a hallucination - it is attempting to influence you with a child hollogram, you can see this if you chose Refuse, where it's voice suddenly turns deep and sinister. 

Most of all though, EC shows us what happens aftewards. Not only that, but through the viewpoint of another character. It even shows us what other characters do afterwards. Are we supposed to believe all those events were made up? To what end? If IT were true then picking Destroy should snap Shepard out of it - but he doesn't "wake up" from anything.

And your experience with hallucinations is what, exactly? Last time I checked, my schizophrenic aunt has hallucinations that appear perfectly real to her. That's why they frighten her so. And even then, even if we accept your ideas. Fuzzy images/apparitions: Starbrat, London's background. Suggestive whispering: dreams. Confusion, hell yes we were confused.

Your schizophrenic aunt has no weight on this arguement; this is the internet, you cannot prove/disprove ideas on personnal experience because you and I have no idea what each other have actually seen, nor will we ever know because it is not possible to know whether the other person is lying or not.

I will explain the Catalyst in the next response. The dreams Shepard has are due to emotional trauma - the Reapers cannot cause them because he is not near them.

As for the child. Explain to us how it could have acquired this image of the child and know that it was emotionially significant for Shepard? Exactly. IT or no, something weird is going on in Shepard's head in the finale and the Starbrat's image is proof positive of that.

Since the Catalyst is the Reaper's "director" so to speak, it would make sense that he can read your midn to an extent - Sovereign did this when you talked to him. But reading your mind does not equal indoctrination - indoctrination takes time, time the Catalyst would not have. He reads Shepard's mind because he needs a way to persuade Shepard to enact Synthesis. He needs to appear as something emotionally attaching, comforting, something not intimidating, something that will not alarm or concern him. The kid is perfect.

"If IT were true then picking Destroy should snap Shepard out of it - but he doesn't "wake up" from anything." What do you think we think the breath scene is, then?

As for the epilogues, they are till a matter of debate here. By no means is IT a complete theory*. A lot of folks think that the epilogue is a hallucination that reflects how Saren and TIM kept banging on about the glorious futures they were striving towards. Other folks such as myself think that it's not part of the hallucination, but that Control and Synthesis suggest things that are worrying (Shepard change of character in control, the way EDI's monologue sounds like typical indoctrinated propaganda).

I agree. Control  allows the Reapers to stick around - it is possible for them to corrupt Shepard's thoughts. Synthesis is basically the result the Catalyst wanted. 

Also, please get it out of your head that IT is all about whether Bioware intended it to be canon. Yes there are discussions here about that but ultimately IT is about an interpretation of ME3's storyline. If "IT is not true, period" then there would be no reason for Bioware to not go ahead and strike it down in an official statement. Instead, Bioware has said that the endings are left for interpretation and that some elements are meant to be non-literal. Someone find the link where they said that, because I know for a fact they said that. They even linked us when they said it.

That's not to say IT is capital-C canon. As the series stands right now it isn't. But don't make bold proclamations you don't have any real authority to proclamate.

Final thought: EC still doesn't indicate in anyway that Shepard was indocrinated. We do not see him whole-heartedly agree with the Catalyst, and indeed, he can defy the Catalyst and simply blow them all to hell (Destroy). If he were indocrinated, especially to the point that the vision seemed real, he would not have any choice, he would have picked Synthesis.

*That's right. It's not complete. This thread is more than just us congratulating ourselves. We're still unsure of several things. There are multiple possibilities, and few definite answers.

LOL

1) But how do you know anyone's point of view is theres or they're just lying. That is pure ****** what you have just tried to argue there. His perfectly valid point is invalid as you haven't witnessed it! 

2) "indoctrination takes time" Christ, this our argument. It's taken 3 games and nigh on 3 years.

3) Yes, kinda positive for the IT

4) If you'd read the thread, the common concensus is that this is their attempt at indoctrination, and Shep is not indoctrinated. Therefore your point there is not in keeping with arguing the IT.

[Rifneno]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

I'm not the one complaining about people reading my posts.

It was a suggestion for her benefit because she's gotten her panties in a twist two days in a row over nothing.  Which, counting you, means there's two of you that need to have everything spelled out.  Lovely.  Don't you have some rants to write about your N'Sync albums being full of infrasound or how black eyes on an asari means they're under Reaper control?  I miss when your nonsense wasn't directed so I didn't have to bother with it personally.

[Iucounou]

I think legion's comments here:

http://social.biowar...016313#13016589

tend to be a most compelling reason not to waste further time on him.

Modifié par Iucounou, 07 juillet 2012 - 08:54 .

[Priss Blackburne]

Final hours documentary has bioware saying that they had intended for the player to lose control of Shepard with him becoming fully controlled by the reapers. They removed this "sequence" since it was problematic to work with dialogue options. Keyword there is "sequence" meaning just that part of the idea, or step in the process.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 07 juillet 2012 - 08:56 .

[Simon_Says]

Rif... simmer down. Megumi was right. You can't write posts and expect people not to reply to them. I'm pretty sure she wasn't attacking you by saying that. Your response was uncalled for.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 07 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[masster blaster]

Can the both of you stop. Look we are here to specualte on IT not fight each other because one rants and the other rants to.

[jgibson14352]

@legion when did sovereign read shepards mind? nobody has done that except Liara and Javik, and neither did the catalyst, if he could read shepards mind, why wouldnt he alter it? they could do it, its called indoctrination.
and plus, i was right, you ignored my post regarding shepard during arrival

[Legion of 1337]

Up until the very, very end, where Shepard meets the Catalyst, he has no thoughts whatsoever of controlling or working with the Reapers. He goes there with the specific intention of Destroying the Reapers. So he cannot have been affected by any indoctrination up until that point. That means that any kind of persuasion had to come from the Catalyst himself, and since indoctrination takes too long, the Catalyst was trying to persuade Shepard conventionally while manipulating him with a familiar and comforting form.

If Shepard chooses anything other than Destroy, then the Reapers have have either completely succeeded (Synthesis), partially succeeded (Control), or nothing has changed (Refuse). That would be a testament to the manipulative prowess of the Catalyst, but it cannot be indoctrination.

This is my final word on the subject. Good debate, though I suspect many of you probably think I'm an idiot anyway.

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 07 juillet 2012 - 08:58 .

[jgibson14352]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Up until the very, very end, where Shepard meets the Catalyst, he has no thoughts whatsoever of controlling or working with the Reapers. He goes there with the specific intention of Destroying the Reapers. So he cannot have been affected by any indoctrination up until that point. That means that any kind of persuasion had to come from the Catalyst himself, and since indoctrination takes too long, the Catalyst was trying to persuade Shepard conventionally while manipulating him with a familiar and comforting form.

If Shepard chooses anything other than Destroy, then the Reapers have have either completely succeeded (Synthesis), partially succeeded (Control), or nothing has changed (Refuse). That would be a testament to the manipulative prowess of the Catalyst, but it cannot be indoctrination.

IT CAN BE AND IS INDOCTRINATION. quit ignoring evidence, how do you explain what happens during arrival when shepard is passed out and around not only a reaper artifact with the ability to implant thoughts in his mind, but also around indoctrinated scientists. the kid is also not comforting, shepard has had recurring nightmares about that kid being burned alive. i dont find that comforting.

[Rifneno]

Simon_Says wrote...

Rif... simmer down. Megumi was right. You can't write posts and expect people not to reply to them. I'm pretty sure she wasn't attacking you by saying that. Your response was uncalled for.

Try looking into the topic before jumping in.  Yesterday Rosewind got on my case for replying to an 8 hour old post (wha?).  Today she called me a drama queen for making a joke.  So I told her if I bother her to stop reading my damn posts.  Megumi, likely still pouty at having been called on her trash about HellishFiend's infrasound video, started... bah, maybe she really did think that was the context.  Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time she was so far off a mark.

[Either.Ardrey]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Hallucinations tend to be less real-looking. Here there are no fuzzy images, no apparitions, no suggestive whispering, no confusion - everything looks real, looks as it should look. You can clearly see what is going on. The Catalyst is not a hallucination - it is attempting to influence you with a child hollogram, you can see this if you chose Refuse, where it's voice suddenly turns deep and sinister. 

Most of all though, EC shows us what happens aftewards. Not only that, but through the viewpoint of another character. It even shows us what other characters do afterwards. Are we supposed to believe all those events were made up? To what end? If IT were true then picking Destroy should snap Shepard out of it - but he doesn't "wake up" from anything.

And your experience with hallucinations is what, exactly? Last time I checked, my schizophrenic aunt has hallucinations that appear perfectly real to her. That's why they frighten her so. And even then, even if we accept your ideas. Fuzzy images/apparitions: Starbrat, London's background. Suggestive whispering: dreams. Confusion, hell yes we were confused.

Your schizophrenic aunt has no weight on this arguement; this is the internet, you cannot prove/disprove ideas on personnal experience because you and I have no idea what each other have actually seen, nor will we ever know because it is not possible to know whether the other person is lying or not.

I will explain the Catalyst in the next response. The dreams Shepard has are due to emotional trauma - the Reapers cannot cause them because he is not near them.

As for the child. Explain to us how it could have acquired this image of the child and know that it was emotionially significant for Shepard? Exactly. IT or no, something weird is going on in Shepard's head in the finale and the Starbrat's image is proof positive of that.

Since the Catalyst is the Reaper's "director" so to speak, it would make sense that he can read your midn to an extent - Sovereign did this when you talked to him. But reading your mind does not equal indoctrination - indoctrination takes time, time the Catalyst would not have. He reads Shepard's mind because he needs a way to persuade Shepard to enact Synthesis. He needs to appear as something emotionally attaching, comforting, something not intimidating, something that will not alarm or concern him. The kid is perfect.

"If IT were true then picking Destroy should snap Shepard out of it - but he doesn't "wake up" from anything." What do you think we think the breath scene is, then?

As for the epilogues, they are till a matter of debate here. By no means is IT a complete theory*. A lot of folks think that the epilogue is a hallucination that reflects how Saren and TIM kept banging on about the glorious futures they were striving towards. Other folks such as myself think that it's not part of the hallucination, but that Control and Synthesis suggest things that are worrying (Shepard change of character in control, the way EDI's monologue sounds like typical indoctrinated propaganda).

I agree. Control  allows the Reapers to stick around - it is possible for them to corrupt Shepard's thoughts. Synthesis is basically the result the Catalyst wanted. 

Also, please get it out of your head that IT is all about whether Bioware intended it to be canon. Yes there are discussions here about that but ultimately IT is about an interpretation of ME3's storyline. If "IT is not true, period" then there would be no reason for Bioware to not go ahead and strike it down in an official statement. Instead, Bioware has said that the endings are left for interpretation and that some elements are meant to be non-literal. Someone find the link where they said that, because I know for a fact they said that. They even linked us when they said it.

That's not to say IT is capital-C canon. As the series stands right now it isn't. But don't make bold proclamations you don't have any real authority to proclamate.

Final thought: EC still doesn't indicate in anyway that Shepard was indocrinated. We do not see him whole-heartedly agree with the Catalyst, and indeed, he can defy the Catalyst and simply blow them all to hell (Destroy). If he were indocrinated, especially to the point that the vision seemed real, he would not have any choice, he would have picked Synthesis.

*That's right. It's not complete. This thread is more than just us congratulating ourselves. We're still unsure of several things. There are multiple possibilities, and few definite answers.

Execpt that we haven't been saying Shepard is indoctrinatED, but undergoing the process of indoctrination, and has been so over the past games, and the final "hallucination" is Harbinger's final push before it's too late. Shep is not indoctrinated into making the final choice. The final choice is the path to indoctrination unless you fight it. Big difference. You're describing indoctrination in bits, but you keep fighting that realization.

As for the comment about the dreams, indoctrination can happen at varying degrees at varying distance once the seeds have been sown. There could even be a device on the Normandy that continues the indoctrination on a smaller scale, if comments from various squadmates, especially Vega, are taken into speculation.

[Simon_Says]

Gibson, there's no need for caps. Rule of thumb: the person who raises their voice first has already lost the debate. They may have been correct, but they still lost.

Legion, I for one don't think you're an idiot. I just think you may not be in possession of all the facts we've considered.

Basically, no, Shepard's goals and beliefs weren't twisted during the course of three games. But we believe that he was getting buttered up for it. Recall the moments of doubt, losses of self control, questioning of his own identity...

Shepard's indoctrination as we see it first involved making him vulnerable, then applying the brain twisting at an opportune moment for the reapers.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Up until the very, very end, where Shepard meets the Catalyst, he has no thoughts whatsoever of controlling or working with the Reapers. He goes there with the specific intention of Destroying the Reapers. So he cannot have been affected by any indoctrination up until that point. That means that any kind of persuasion had to come from the Catalyst himself, and since indoctrination takes too long, the Catalyst was trying to persuade Shepard conventionally while manipulating him with a familiar and comforting form.

If Shepard chooses anything other than Destroy, then the Reapers have have either completely succeeded (Synthesis), partially succeeded (Control), or nothing has changed (Refuse). That would be a testament to the manipulative prowess of the Catalyst, but it cannot be indoctrination.

This is my final word on the subject. Good debate, though I suspect many of you probably think I'm an idiot anyway.

Shepard is not Indoctrinated yet, so off course he dosent follow the Reapers way of thought yet, that is what the choices at the end are supposed to make him do.

Also an Indoctrinated agent who bables on about how the Reapers are right to everyone in sight (read anyone who is not allready Indoctrinated or knows the agent is allied to the Reapers) would be a pretty sucky agent and a telltale sign that the guy was Indoctrinated.

Quote on quote a well place agent can bring down nations, but he wont be doing so babling like a lunatic of the superioty of the Reapers. Saren wasent babling about Sovreigns superioty as he stood at the hearing at the beginning of ME1, no he played it all down and appeared as if nothing was out of the ordinary for him. It was not until he was found out he started to talk about Synthesis.

Off course all of that is moot since Shepard is not Indoctrinated yet.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:05 .

[Simon_Says]

Rifneno wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Rif... simmer down. Megumi was right. You can't write posts and expect people not to reply to them. I'm pretty sure she wasn't attacking you by saying that. Your response was uncalled for.

Try looking into the topic before jumping in.  Yesterday Rosewind got on my case for replying to an 8 hour old post (wha?).  Today she called me a drama queen for making a joke.  So I told her if I bother her to stop reading my damn posts.  Megumi, likely still pouty at having been called on her trash about HellishFiend's infrasound video, started... bah, maybe she really did think that was the context.  Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time she was so far off a mark.

That still doesn't excuse you for acting the way you're doing now. Both to Meg and to myself.

[jgibson14352]

Simon_Says wrote...

Gibson, there's no need for caps. Rule of thumb: the person who raises their voice first has already lost the debate. They may have been correct, but they still lost.

I for one don't think you're an idiot. I just think you may not be in possession of all the facts we've considered.

Basically, no, Shepard's goals and beliefs weren't twisted during the course of three games. But we believe that he was getting buttered up for it. Recall the moments of doubt, losses of self control, questioning of his own identity...

Shepard's indoctrination as we see it first involved making him vulnerable, then applying the brain twisting at an opportune moment for the reapers.

i capped becasue i forgot i could underline, it was just my way of making sure it stood out.
i lurk the crap out these forums, i like to think i have most of the evidence. did my post convey something else? i dont think i left anything out relavent to the discussion.
do i come off as an idiot? all i try to post are legitimate questions i have regarding certain themes, post information if i have it, and lately ill correct trolls. which i know, would definately have me come off as an idiot.

[Simon_Says]

I was actually addressing Legion after that first paragraph. My mistake.

[masster blaster]

Wow. One minute we are on one page. The next thing I know we have advanced 3 pages combined.

[Priss Blackburne]

I notice a trend with people arguing against IT theory. Some actually have valid points and spark very good discussions. But a lot seem to argue against a single point in IT, while at the same time ignoring another part that supports the point they are arguing about. IT theory isn't about a single spot in the endings it's about looking at the bigger picture and noticing all the smaller hints and adding them together to come up with an conclusion.

To properly imply something can't be done in a single moment ( at least not easily without being obvious) It's about a series of small events the culminate when collected together.

I loath to compare this since the last movies where obvious to me. but look at M. Night Shyamalan movies, they have a lot of small conversation and hints that by themselves would mean nothing, but put them all together and suddenly it becomes clear at the end of the movie ( or before =/ )

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:27 .

[Rifneno]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Up until the very, very end, where Shepard meets the Catalyst, he has no thoughts whatsoever of controlling or working with the Reapers. He goes there with the specific intention of Destroying the Reapers. So he cannot have been affected by any indoctrination up until that point.

Not true.  I don't know the exact conditions but there's a late game dialogue option when talking with Hackett.  Quoting two of Shepard's lines: "And if Illusive Man is right?" and this wonderful little gem, "But what if the Reapers really can be controlled?"

[MegumiAzusa]

Rifneno wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Up until the very, very end, where Shepard meets the Catalyst, he has no thoughts whatsoever of controlling or working with the Reapers. He goes there with the specific intention of Destroying the Reapers. So he cannot have been affected by any indoctrination up until that point.

Not true.  I don't know the exact conditions but there's a late game dialogue option when talking with Hackett.  Quoting two of Shepard's lines: "And if Illusive Man is right?" and this wonderful little gem, "But what if the Reapers really can be controlled?"

The conditions are: fly to the Cerberus HQ, then it calls up Hackett you can choose to wait, activate the QEC again and you have the option for that question.

[Rifneno]

Simon_Says wrote...

That still doesn't excuse you for acting the way you're doing now. Both to Meg and to myself.

"Acting the way I did" to you?  What, telling you to actually find out what's going on before taking sides?  It's the truth.  Deal with it.  I said nothing aggressive to you.

[Quackjack]

Hey, all of you, STFU
This is for IT if you wanna argue, take it somewhere else

[insomniak9]

I'm gonna repost this to remind people to keep talking about it.

Look at Destroy! It's all curvy, whereas Control is structure-like. 
Destroy is different, intentionally.

It. Looks. Like. A. Reaper.

Modifié par insomniak9, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:41 .