55528 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

You want a serious rebuttal to your point that there is no reason to indoctrinate Shep? How about Harbingers stalker level obsession?

No, I want a serious rebuttal to my point that if indoctrination theory was true, than Refusal should be the logical decision, not destroy. yet Refusal does not lead to Shepard waking up, Destroy does.

I made a very long post explaining this argument directed to that Arian-something guy, but so far he just ignored it and only focussed on my other posts.

Odd, I saw a couple of posts answering that, one was in quite a lot of detal but you didn't respond to any.

[Lord Goose]

Oh god you did not just say that! - Do they not teach physics and the law of thermodynamics wherever the hell you come from?

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

-Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.

If some people can survive explosion of the Citadel due to kinetic barriers in emergency shelters, why Shepard cannot?

I also think, what if blast was really more powerful than exploding supernova, Earth and the whole Solar System should have been obliterated too.

The Citadel is clearly not all that damaged. The point where Crucible was docked is not obliterated.

http://tinypic.com/r/35nbr4g/6

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

You want a serious rebuttal to your point that there is no reason to indoctrinate Shep? How about Harbingers stalker level obsession?

No, I want a serious rebuttal to my point that if indoctrination theory was true, than Refusal should be the logical decision, not destroy. yet Refusal does not lead to Shepard waking up, Destroy does.

I made a very long post explaining this argument directed to that Arian-something guy, but so far he just ignored it and only focussed on my other posts.

Odd, I saw a couple of posts answering that, one was in quite a lot of detal but you didn't respond to any.

Not even mentioning he demands we answer a question which has been brought up (and answered) before in this thread but dosent bother to look for it on his own.

[RavenEyry]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
Not even mentioning he demands we answer a question which has been brought up (and answered) before in this thread but dosent bother to look for it on his own.

I've only just come back to this thread but I'm guessing it was amongst the first things discussed about EC?

[Rifneno]

Engaging literalists in a battle of logic and reason is like challenging Joker to a kickboxing match. C'mon, set your sights a little higher guys.

[The Heretic of Time]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Eryri wrote...

And so what if we are? For what it's worth I think IT is a brilliant interpretation, even if it wasn't Bioware's original intention. But at least we're trying to find something positive about it rather than constantly bashing Bioware for what on face value are incredibly bizarre endings.

Your grasping at straws man. You try to make something good out of something that was just not that good to begin with. I would have more sympathy for the IT movement if it was indeed only the ending of ME3 that is bizarre. But it isn't. The entire plot of ME3 is just mediocre at best. Why don't we just all admit that ME3 just isn't a good game when it comes to story and plot? Why don't we just all admit that ME3's plot is retarded and full with plot holes, not just the ending?

Ah the good old Anti-IT argument of claiming that there was alot of plot holes but never mentioning even a single one. A classic.

You want me to point out the plot holes and inconsistencies in ME3? Okay, how about for startes, that the entire ME3 plot makes the whole ME1 plot completely obsolete? What was the point of Sovereign, Saren and the Conduit if the Citadel belongs to the Catalyst? Why could he not have simply activated the relay.

And on Earth, it seems the Reapers themselves made their own conduit linked to the Citadel. Why could Sovereign not make such a Conduit himself and deliver that conduit to Dark Space, so the Reapers could zap to to the Citadel regardless of the whole Keeper deal?

And what about the Crucible being hidden in the Mars archives, the most important archive in human history that's already in our posession for what.. more than 50 years? Is humanity retarded in ME3? How could such a thing be hidden in our most important archives for more than 50 years, only to be discovered CONVENIENTLY at the moment the Reapers are at our doorstep?

Or how about the quality of ME3's writing is just not that very good to begin with. For example, introducing a 2nd plot point AFTER the climax? That's just silly and goes against all the rules of basic fiction writing. You always introduce your 1st and (if you have one) 2n plot point BEFORE the climax, NOT AFTER.


I could go on and on like this, but I won't, because I'll make a seperate thread about this later today.

But in regards to the reapers wanting to Indoctrianted Shepard how about this little line from rival, the dlc supposed to tie heavily into ME3? "Struggle as you will Shepard, your mind will be mine." This is heard during the fight around Object Rho.

Because at that point Object Rho is trying to indoctrinate Shepard, but fails. This is completely unrelated to the whole ME3 ending fiasco. Again, you're grasping at straws.

This one seems pretty clear, dosent it?

Pretty clear that Object Rho is trying to indoctrinate Shepard at that point and time, yes. But it failed.

Also this little quote from the Indoctriation codex entry:

"Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the
resulting chaos can bring down nations."

Shepard is a political or military leader... how? Shepard doesn't command anyone else but his own squad. It's Admiral Hackett and Admiral Anderson who are pulling all the strings within the Alliance and the whole Crucible project. Shepard is just a hero.

Again, you're grasping at straws. There is no reason to believe this codex entry is in fact a clue about Shepard's possible indoctrination.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 11:39 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Lord Goose wrote...

Oh god you did not just say that! - Do they not teach physics and the law of thermodynamics wherever the hell you come from?

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

-Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.

If some people can survive explosion of the Citadel due to kinetic barriers in emergency shelters, why Shepard cannot?

I also think, what if blast was really more powerful than exploding supernova, Earth and the whole Solar System should have been obliterated too.

The Citadel is clearly not all that damaged. The point where Crucible was docked is not obliterated.

http://tinypic.com/r/35nbr4g/6

Emergency shelters are probably closed of to prevent heat and such from getting in in addition to beeing kinetically shielded. Also they are probably on the watrds or on the inside of the Presidium ring.

Shepard however is standing in the open on the outside of the station with only a few hundred meters (if even that much) from ground zero of an 8 kilometer wide fireball.

For him to even get into the station he would have to use an elevator which was operated while he was uncounsicious and which in the place he wakes up has no visible controls. But before that he even has to get back to the elevator after taking a rather large explosion to the face and he barely have 2 minutes to reach it.

And even if he somehyow got down with that elevator he would not be in a safety bunker and he woudl still be only a few hundred meters from ground zero.

He would be vaporized as has been pointed out Kinetic Barriers do not work against heat.

The Hiroshima nuclear bomb vaporized anything within 400 meters of ground zero and that was not even the explosion itself. This explosion many, many thousand times more powerful and completely englufes the area Shepard is seen standing completely exposed to heat and what not.

[The Heretic of Time]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

You want a serious rebuttal to your point that there is no reason to indoctrinate Shep? How about Harbingers stalker level obsession?

No, I want a serious rebuttal to my point that if indoctrination theory was true, than Refusal should be the logical decision, not destroy. yet Refusal does not lead to Shepard waking up, Destroy does.

I made a very long post explaining this argument directed to that Arian-something guy, but so far he just ignored it and only focussed on my other posts.

Odd, I saw a couple of posts answering that, one was in quite a lot of detal but you didn't respond to any.

How about you hook this bad boy up with a nice link to that elusive post of yours? Because I cannot find it.

[RavenEyry]

Harbinger says 'your mind will be mine' at the end of arrival just before Shepard leaves the asteroid. Object Rho knocking Shepard out was much earlier. Why would he say that at the very end of the indoctrination attempt?

[Lord Goose]

Shepard however is standing in the open on the outside of the station with only a few hundred meters (if even that much) from ground zero of an 8 kilometer wide fireball.

We do not know how much protection decision room has. So I do not think it would be a huge stretch to assume that it is protected well enough for Shepard to survive. If the blast was what powerful, place where Crucible was docked should have been destroyed too, but it seems less damaged in comparison.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You want me to point out the plot holes and inconsistencies in ME3? Okay, how about for startes, that the entire ME3 plot makes the whole ME1 plot completely obsolete? What was the point of Sovereign, Saren and the Conduit if the Citadel belongs to the Catalyst? Why could he not have simply activated the relay.

And on Earth, it seems the Reapers themselves made their own conduit linked to the Citadel. Why could Sovereign not make such a Conduit himself and deliver that conduit to Dark Space, so the Reapers could zap to to the Citadel regardless of the whole Keeper deal?

And what about the Crucible being hidden in the Mars archives, the most important archive in human history that's already in our posession for what.. more than 50 years? Is humanity retarded in ME3? How could such a thing be hidden in our most important archives for more than 50 years, only to be discovered CONVENIENTLY at the moment the Reapers are at our doorstep?

Or how about the quality of ME3's writing is just not that very good to begin with. For example, introducing a 2nd plot point AFTER the climax? That's just silly and goes against all the rules of basic fiction writing. You always introduce your 1st and (if you have one) 2n plot point BEFORE the climax, NOT AFTER.


I could go on and on like this, but I won't, because I'll make a seperate thread about this later today.

Funny how 3 of those plot holes are completely answered with the Indoctrination Theory, shows how much you know about it.

But let me enlighten you. As the Indotrination Theory theorizes the evnts at the end froma round the time Shepard is hit by the beam are simply in his head and a representation of Shepard´s battle against Indoctrination (bear in mind there are varius interpratations of this, some using a more waking dream scenario)

So the Catalyst is never real or in control of the Citadel, it is projection of Shepards mind or of the Reapers influence on Shepards mind and is meant to trick him into making a choice taht results in Indoctrination. This is why it takes the shape of a child which by all logic the catalyst shoudl not know of.

The beam leading to the Citadel can just as easily be a trap as we dont have certain knowledge it leads to the Citadel. Also even if it does lead to the Ciatdel the loading screen with Shepard seemingly going up the beam seem to suggest it is not instantanoius movement (unlike the Mass relays) and we have no idea how long range the device even has making the idea of the reapers using it for long range trval possibly too slow or just not possible. Essentially we dont know enough of the beam to call it a plothole.

Finally concerning the Mars Archive, yes it is convenient that it is discovered at that time, but one has to remember the entire Archive is far from translated (as the Illusive Man says) and the plans were only found when Liara, an expert on Protheans, used half a year searching through the Archives with the specific goal of looking for anything that might help them against the Reapers.

But it is still convenient whih is why another part of the Indoctrination theory speculates the Crucible is a trap planted by the Reapers.

Finally in regard to Shepard. No he is not an Admiral like Hackett, but he is the symbol of the fight against the Reapers and he might as well be the leader. Think about this, did hacket give the order to attack Cerberus HQ (and by extension start the assult on earth?) no it was Shepard, did Hacket give the order to attack in the battle for Earth? No it was Shepard. And on Earth Anderson waits for Shepards approval before starting the push for the beam.

Shepard is a hero to not just humanity, but to every species in the galaxy. I doubt there are many secrets he could not access if he needed it and he woudl have no problem reaching the Council either. If he argued a certain cause of action Hacket would probably follow it along with the rest of the fleets.

Shepard might not the official highest rank, but his actions and his relationship to the different species gives him an immense pull with every major figure in the galaxy. It would not be hard for an Indoctrinated Shepard tp push certain actions through with everyone in a way no one else could.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 13 juillet 2012 - 11:58 .

[UltimateTobi]

Lord Goose wrote...

Shepard however is standing in the open on the outside of the station with only a few hundred meters (if even that much) from ground zero of an 8 kilometer wide fireball.

We do not know how much protection decision room has. So I do not think it would be a huge stretch to assume that it is protected well enough for Shepard to survive. If the blast was what powerful, place where Crucible was docked should have been destroyed too, but it seems less damaged in comparison.

From the looks alone the decision chamber has no protection at all.
Shepard falls/stumbles infront of the tube he shot. And getting out of range from that mega blast in such a short time is, I guess, impossible.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Lord Goose wrote...

Shepard however is standing in the open on the outside of the station with only a few hundred meters (if even that much) from ground zero of an 8 kilometer wide fireball.

We do not know how much protection decision room has. So I do not think it would be a huge stretch to assume that it is protected well enough for Shepard to survive. If the blast was what powerful, place where Crucible was docked should have been destroyed too, but it seems less damaged in comparison.

We can see into open space! That leaves only barriers (or glass) for possible defense and those do not block heat!

[UltimateTobi]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Shepard however is standing in the open on the outside of the station with only a few hundred meters (if even that much) from ground zero of an 8 kilometer wide fireball.

We do not know how much protection decision room has. So I do not think it would be a huge stretch to assume that it is protected well enough for Shepard to survive. If the blast was what powerful, place where Crucible was docked should have been destroyed too, but it seems less damaged in comparison.

We can see into open space! That leaves only barriers (or glass) for possible defense and those do not block heat!

And because I am an ITer, I say there's nothing, and it's a dream.
I never saw something like a force field, or a glass dome anywhere in the ME series.

Thus, Shepard surviving in vaccum only possible in-dream.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ah, I finally found your reply to my rebuttal Arian. Sorry, I must have overlooked it. Here we go:

[quote]Arian Dynas wrote...

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

[quote]Arian Dynas wrote...

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.
[/quote]

This is just plain not true. There are plenty of moments in Mass Effect where a Paragon or Renegade decision is equal do doing nothing, or lets say: NOT doing something.

In ME1, you could choose to NOT save the council (neutral or renegade).
In ME2, you could choose to NOT save the workers during Zaeed's mission (renegade).
In ME3, you could choose to NOT stop Legion from uploading the Reaper code (paragon).

These are just 3 different examples from all 3 games, there are many more.
[/quote]

You are misunderstanding.

ME1, neutral is choosing to do nothing, and judging by the "Neutral Shepard is a Jerk" meme, it always turns out badly.
[/quote]

This is not even remotely true. The neutral action is "focus on sovereign". The Renegade action is to "let the council die" (e.g. do nothing).

[quote]
In ME1 choosing NOT to save the council is choosing to focus on Sovereign, it's not a choice to do nothing, it's that each is mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

This is only true for neutral. If you pick renegade, Shepard says "let the council die".

And choosing NOT to use the Crucible is choosing to fight this war conventionally. It's not a choice to do noething, it's that each is mutually exclusive. Choosing to fight the war conventionally is stupid, but it's a valid decision there in the game nonetheless.

[quote]
in ME3 choosing to let Legion go on what he is doing is NOT inaction, it is making the choice to give him time to do what he needs to while you negotiate with the Quarians.
[/quote]

Not true. Watch the scene again. The option even literally says [Let Legion Upload the Code]. The negotiation takes place BEFORE that decision.


[quote]
No, you merely give him this line about certain things you will not do, basically making the claim that "even if it is necessary, I am not going to be the one to pull the trigger."
[/quote]

That's not the way I saw it. Choosing Refuse is to choose to fight the war conventionally, because you do not believe in the Catalyst and his trickery.

Besides, whether Refuse is or isn't an action is besides the point. It's still the only valid choice if you do not believe in what the Catalyst says.

[quote]
I think Javik had something to say about that; "You think you can leave this war with your honor intact? Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask if honor matters. The Silence is your answer."
[/quote]

And Javik is right. That's why Refuse leads to losing the cycle. But how does this support the IT? We're kind of drifting away from the actual topic here. How does any of this actualy proof the IT?

[quote]
Shepard, as a character, if offered the choice between living (using the Crucible, even in Destroy, the majority live, even if some die.) or letting everyone die because he didn't want to be the one to commit "genocide",
[/quote]

Shepard does not say anything about genocide in Refusal. He says he doesn't believe the Catalyst and doesn't want to make these decisions. Shepard bets on fighting the Reapers conventionally because he rejects the Catalyst's and his "solutions". Refusal is all about self-determination.

[quote]
would choose to save everyone, because as Bioware themselves have stated, whether Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is a hero, he saves people and has humanity's best interests at heart. A Renegade may kick a merc through a plate glass window to his death, but he still is interested in stopping the Reapers and saving human kind.
[/quote]

I agree, but this is not the point and this does not have anything to do with IT.

[quote]
Reject still requires one thing that Destroy does not. Destroy is completely unattractive, you could do everything Destroy does with less consequences and even still sort of live with Control, and Synthesis is supposedly a paradise. Even in Reject, Shepard is, by the nature of his argument, accepting the Guardian's premisis that Destroy will kill all synthetic life.
[/quote]

Again, that's now how I saw it.

[quote]
Destroy as an option is only ONLY attractive if you assume you are being lied to.
[/quote]

Can you back this up?

[quote]
And what reason would you have to listen to, let alone believe a creature indirectly responsible for the deaths of uncounted quintillions of sapient beings, something that by it's own admission murdered and betrayed it's creators? 

Could you really believe in the good intentions of a being that advocated the use of the Collectors? Or Dragon's Teeth? Husks? The Reapers themselves? Slaughter ships? Banshees? This is the kind of **** that makes Hitler look like a nice guy by comparison and you choose to TRUST this thing? 
[/quote]

You don't, which is exactly my point. Why would you even believe that Destroy does even remotely what he says? What if shooting that red tube just ends up in killing yourself and nothing happens?

Either you believe the Catalyst and you accept all 3 options as valid options, or you don't believe the Catalyst and all 3 options are invalid options, in which case Refuse is the only thing you can do.

So what is it? Do you believe the Catalyst and accept all 3 options? Or do you think the Catalyst is just lying and deny all 3 options, including the Destroy option? These are the only 2 logically sound possibilities.

[quote]
Notice that the Guardian actually actively tries to drive you completely away from Destroy, going "Yeah, you could do what you came here to do, but there's alot of things about it that suck that you didn't consider. Here, try one of my far better options instead."
[/quote]

Why would the Catalyst even present the Destroy option in the first place if he was trying to indoctrinate you? Why not simply tell nothing about the Destroy option at all?

If the Catalyst is indeed lying, he's a terrible liar.

If the Catalyst is being sincere, than he's the most retarded A.I. I have ever seen.


Judging on how poor and mediocre the plot of ME3 is, I guess it's a save bet to say the Catalyst is just not that smart and his logic is just not that logically sound.

[quote]
Also. Learn logic. I can see False Dichotomy and Argumentum ad Logicam here alone.
[/quote]

How about instead of pulling an Argumentum ad Hominem at me, you try to point of how and why you think you see a False Dichotomy and an Argumentum ad Logicam here?


[quote]
Synthesis requires understanding by it's very nature. Shepard welcomes understanding between Reapers and Organics (since we've already likely achived understanding with synthetics by this point if you've been doing things right.)
[/quote]

Synthesis also stops the Reaper cycle.

[quote]
As does Control. Shepard chooses to understand the Reapers by becoming them.
[/quote]

No, Shepard tries to control their asses and use them. Big difference. BIG DIFFERENCE. 
It also STOPS the Reapers cycle. 
My Shepard was a Renegade who chose Control, He didn't give 2 sh!ts about "understanding" the Reapers, he just wanted to control their asses and use them to his own benefits.

[quote]
Refuse still requires Shepard accepting the Guardian's premises.
[/quote]

*facepalm* No it doesn't.  Refuse is rejecting the Catalyst and everything he says outright. The REASON why you Refuse him is up to the player. I'm my own Commander Shepard, not you. You don't get to decide why my Shepard does or doesn't do something. My Renegade Control Shepard doesn't give a crap about understanding the Reapers and my ****** Refuse Shepard doesn't believe a single word the Catalyst says. Is that clear? Yes? Good.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:10 .

[zigamortis]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Eryri wrote...

And so what if we are? For what it's worth I think IT is a brilliant interpretation, even if it wasn't Bioware's original intention. But at least we're trying to find something positive about it rather than constantly bashing Bioware for what on face value are incredibly bizarre endings.

Your grasping at straws man. You try to make something good out of something that was just not that good to begin with. I would have more sympathy for the IT movement if it was indeed only the ending of ME3 that is bizarre. But it isn't. The entire plot of ME3 is just mediocre at best. Why don't we just all admit that ME3 just isn't a good game when it comes to story and plot? Why don't we just all admit that ME3's plot is retarded and full with plot holes, not just the ending?

Ah the good old Anti-IT argument of claiming that there was alot of plot holes but never mentioning even a single one. A classic.

You want me to point out the plot holes and inconsistencies in ME3? Okay, how about for startes, that the entire ME3 plot makes the whole ME1 plot completely obsolete? What was the point of Sovereign, Saren and the Conduit if the Citadel belongs to the Catalyst? Why could he not have simply activated the relay.

And on Earth, it seems the Reapers themselves made their own conduit linked to the Citadel. Why could Sovereign not make such a Conduit himself and deliver that conduit to Dark Space, so the Reapers could zap to to the Citadel regardless of the whole Keeper deal?

And what about the Crucible being hidden in the Mars archives, the most important archive in human history that's already in our posession for what.. more than 50 years? Is humanity retarded in ME3? How could such a thing be hidden in our most important archives for more than 50 years, only to be discovered CONVENIENTLY at the moment the Reapers are at our doorstep?

Or how about the quality of ME3's writing is just not that very good to begin with. For example, introducing a 2nd plot point AFTER the climax? That's just silly and goes against all the rules of basic fiction writing. You always introduce your 1st and (if you have one) 2n plot point BEFORE the climax, NOT AFTER.


I could go on and on like this, but I won't, because I'll make a seperate thread about this later today.

But in regards to the reapers wanting to Indoctrianted Shepard how about this little line from rival, the dlc supposed to tie heavily into ME3? "Struggle as you will Shepard, your mind will be mine." This is heard during the fight around Object Rho.

Because at that point Object Rho is trying to indoctrinate Shepard, but fails. This is completely unrelated to the whole ME3 ending fiasco. Again, you're grasping at straws.

This one seems pretty clear, dosent it?

Pretty clear that Object Rho is trying to indoctrinate Shepard at that point and time, yes. But it failed.

Also this little quote from the Indoctriation codex entry:

"Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the
resulting chaos can bring down nations."

Shepard is a political or military leader... how? Shepard doesn't command anyone else but his own squad. It's Admiral Hackett and Admiral Anderson who are pulling all the strings within the Alliance and the whole Crucible project. Shepard is just a hero.

Again, you're grasping at straws. There is no reason to believe this codex entry is in fact a clue about Shepard's possible indoctrination.

Who says the object didnt succeed? and how is shepard not an important military leader? just because he doesnt command the army does not mean he is not a leader. the fact that he brought the entire galaxy together shows that he is an amazing leader.

[Dam0299]

There was a group of protheans who attempted to control the reapers, They were indoctrinated. That was their downfall all those in the past who have tried to control the reapers have always ended up being controlled themselves, Cerberus was simply their latest victims, and potentially Shepard.

[Lord Goose]

We can see into open space! That leaves only barriers (or glass) for possible defense and those do not block heat!

I'm not sure if it was normal glass. Because people would have seen that some part of citadel is protected by glass. The place is supposed to be secret and well-hidden, because no one before Shepard was where in millions of years. This also makes me think, that it should have some defences which could allow Shepard to live.

[Lord Goose]

Who says the object didnt succeed?

All indoctrinated so far were trying to aid/protect the Reapers. Saren submitted to them, Amanda Kenson worshipped them, TIM was trying to protect them. Shepard clearly doesn't express that desire, especially in Refuse.

[The Heretic of Time]

Dam0299 wrote...

There was a group of protheans who attempted to control the reapers, They were indoctrinated. That was their downfall all those in the past who have tried to control the reapers have always ended up being controlled themselves, Cerberus was simply their latest victims, and potentially Shepard.

There is a difference however. The previous generations and Cerberus did not have acces to the Crucible and the Catalyst, Shepard does. That makes Shepard's case unique and in this case, it leads to a succesful control of the Reapers, as is evident in the Extended Cut control ending, where Shepard clearly succeeded.

[UltimateTobi]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

There was a group of protheans who attempted to control the reapers, They were indoctrinated. That was their downfall all those in the past who have tried to control the reapers have always ended up being controlled themselves, Cerberus was simply their latest victims, and potentially Shepard.

There is a difference however. The previous generations and Cerberus did not have acces to the Crucible and the Catalyst, Shepard does. That makes Shepard's case unique and in this case, it leads to a succesful control of the Reapers, as is evident in the Extended Cut control ending, where Shepard clearly succeeded.

If you take the endings literally.

[The Heretic of Time]

zigamortis wrote...

Who says the object didnt succeed? and how is shepard not an important military leader? just because he doesnt command the army does not mean he is not a leader. the fact that he brought the entire galaxy together shows that he is an amazing leader.

ME3 says the object didn't succeed. Shepard clearly isn't indoctrinated through ME3.

Besides, didn't you indoctrination theorists believe Harbinger is indoctrinating Shepard during the finale? So what happened, did you change your belief all of the sudden? How about less believing and more trying to back up your belief with solid proof for a chance?

I think the "indoctrination theory" should be renamed to "indoctrination belief" or "indoctrination religion". An actual theory is based on solid proof. The IT is not based on solid proof but simply at guessing, grasping straws and desperately trying to find clues that back up your hypothesis, instead of honestly scrutinizing and trying to test how solid your hypthesis really is, like you should.

[The Heretic of Time]

UltimateTobi wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

There was a group of protheans who attempted to control the reapers, They were indoctrinated. That was their downfall all those in the past who have tried to control the reapers have always ended up being controlled themselves, Cerberus was simply their latest victims, and potentially Shepard.

There is a difference however. The previous generations and Cerberus did not have acces to the Crucible and the Catalyst, Shepard does. That makes Shepard's case unique and in this case, it leads to a succesful control of the Reapers, as is evident in the Extended Cut control ending, where Shepard clearly succeeded.

If you take the endings literally.

I have no reason not to.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:25 .

[UltimateTobi]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

zigamortis wrote...

Who says the object didnt succeed? and how is shepard not an important military leader? just because he doesnt command the army does not mean he is not a leader. the fact that he brought the entire galaxy together shows that he is an amazing leader.

ME3 says the object didn't succeed. Shepard clearly isn't indoctrinated through ME3.

Besides, didn't you indoctrination theorists believe Harbinger is indoctrinating Shepard during the finale? So what happened, did you change your belief all of the sudden? How about less believing and more trying to back up your belief with solid proof for a chance?

I think the "indoctrination theory" should be renamed to "indoctrination belief" or "indoctrination religion". An actual theory is based on solid proof. The IT is not based on solid proof but simply at guessing, grasping straws and desperately trying to find clues that back up your hypothesis, instead of honestly scrutinizing and trying to test how solid your hypthesis really is, like you should.

You don't like the IT, hence you mark all evidences as unsolid.
For us, we have many solid evidences; proof, if you want to call it that way.

And since when do theories need proof? They wouldn't be theories anymore if they got proved.

WTC was America's own work, that's a theory. If it'd have proof, then it wouldn't be a theory anymore, but fact.
BUT, this theory might have evidence. Because it's a theory.

Don't ask me what "proof", or better, evidences we have. You have a chance at looking a ton up on the very first post.

[CoolioThane]

If you hate IT so much, then get off the IT thread? You are only making yourself out to be a c**t, especially with the "religion" and "cult" comments. You say you "easily refuted" IT when actually, all you did was say something, then ignore the response, and have now only responded after the poster has left...so now he can't respond and you claim 'victory'

It's pathetic. To be honest, we get asked the questions you ask every single day and are sick of explaining the answers to people who:

a) don't care and are only trying to troll
don't ****ing listen, and continue to troll
c) are retarded.