55528 réponses à ce sujet

[MACharlie1]

Lord Goose wrote...

t means one of those statements isn't true.
Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the
ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of
indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT.

Can you name any instance of indoctrination with complex visions with many different actors, and actual choices, one of which allows you to break indoctrination attempt?

Also, name all those, who were managed to break indoctrination without suicide.

Shiala. 

Though I'm sure thats not what you meant considering her situation. 

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

If the CE book states Shepard becomes a Reaper and in-game Shepard becomes the Catalyst who is not a Reaper, we have a contradiction. It means one of those statements isn't true. Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT. 

I have the CE book and it doesn't state that Shepard becomes a Reaper as far as I know. On which page is it supposed to say that Shepard becomes a Reaper?

Also, keep in mind that book was made BEFORE Mass Effect 3 went gold. The original leaked scripts also said Shepard becomes a Reaper, but this is obviously changed in the final release of Mass Effect. Well, at least since the Extended Cut, which makes it very clear Shepard is not just a Reaper (which wouldn't make sense anyway), but instead he is the new Catalyst (which does make sense).

So the answer is obvious: Shepard is the new Catalyst in the Control ending, not a reaper. The CE book is wrong and so is the IT.

Becoming a Reaper would make equal sense as becoming the Catalyst. Shepard's mind would just supersede Harbinger's.

No it doesn't. There is a huge difference between the Catalyst and a single Reaper as far as I understand. The Catalyst is an A.I. housed in the Citadel and was created by organics billions of years ago. A Reaper is a synthetic/organic hybrid build into a ship, the legacy of an entire species.

Guess what? Shepard is not the legacy of an entire species. And guess what? Shepard does not actually become the Catalyst, he simply uploads his mind and personality print into the Catalyst, changing the Catalyst into a Shepard doubleganger so to speak. You could see it as an operating system upgrade. The Catalyst just got upgraded from 'Windows Vista: Starbrat Edition' (crap) to 'Windows 7: Shepard Edition' (awesome). 

[paxxton]

Lord Goose wrote...

t means one of those statements isn't true.
Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the
ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of
indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT.

Can you name any instance of indoctrination with complex visions with many different actors, and actual choices, one of which allows you to break indoctrination attempt?

Also, name all those, who were managed to break indoctrination without suicide.

My new theory will explain the bolded part perfectly.

As for the underlined part, Shepard isn't indoctrinated. He is being indoctrinated (in the process of).

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

t means one of those statements isn't true.
Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the
ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of
indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT.

Can you name any instance of indoctrination with complex visions with many different actors, and actual choices, one of which allows you to break indoctrination attempt?

Also, name all those, who were managed to break indoctrination without suicide.

Shiala. 

Though I'm sure thats not what you meant considering her situation. 

Shiala and the Rachni Queen both exhibited symptoms of Indoctrination but were able to block them out Indicating a hive mind like function more reistant (I say resistant as it is almost dead certain the Rachni were Indoctrinated to some degree during the Rahcni wars)

[Cyberfrog81]

paxxton wrote...

Actually, the Catalyst is not a Reaper per se. It's a metabeing (collective intelligence).

Also, Shepard isn't becoming a Reaper (despite what the enums in game files say). His thoughts are just made a blueprint for the new Catalyst (which is NOT a Reaper).

Oh yes, the "Catalyst" is a Reaper. It always was. For Shepard to become the next "Catalyst", replacing the last, s/he also becomes a Reaper.

Very simple, and doesn't even require belief in IT.

And the reason it's a trick, is because Shepard will go bad . They all do.

[Lord Goose]

Shiala. Though I'm sure thats not what you meant considering her
situation.

I mean, that if we assume ending as indoctrination attempt, it would be considerably different from other instances of indoctrination.

[HellishFiend]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


I asked you how control and synthesis signs offend you. You didn't answer but instead asked a question in return. I asked you the same question again, and again you avoided answering it and gave me a question back instead.

So, once more: Why and how do control and synthesis signatures offend you?

That doesnt really answer my question, though. How is it relevant, exactly?

[masster blaster]

Heritac if Shepard does that, then why does the brat smirk. Also it's possible to Shepard to become a Reaper because Shepard is not seen as an AI, but as a Reaper. Although it looks like Shepard is an AI he/she is not. There is now way that Shepard can become an AI, but as a Reaper Shepard still can Control the Reapers. Yet you missed my point Shepard should be on the Citadel not inside a Reaper.

[Lord Goose]

And the reason it's a trick, is because Shepard will go bad . They all do.

It doesn't have to be trick to go bad. I would rather say that Catalyst intentions are irrelevant. Whenever Shepard will become ME analogue to Optimus Prime, or HAL-9000 depends on Shepard him/herself.

[FellishBeast]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

If the CE book states Shepard becomes a Reaper and in-game Shepard becomes the Catalyst who is not a Reaper, we have a contradiction. It means one of those statements isn't true. Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT. 

I have the CE book and it doesn't state that Shepard becomes a Reaper as far as I know. On which page is it supposed to say that Shepard becomes a Reaper?

Also, keep in mind that book was made BEFORE Mass Effect 3 went gold. The original leaked scripts also said Shepard becomes a Reaper, but this is obviously changed in the final release of Mass Effect. Well, at least since the Extended Cut, which makes it very clear Shepard is not just a Reaper (which wouldn't make sense anyway), but instead he is the new Catalyst (which does make sense).

So the answer is obvious: Shepard is the new Catalyst in the Control ending, not a reaper. The CE book is wrong and so is the IT.

Becoming a Reaper would make equal sense as becoming the Catalyst. Shepard's mind would just supersede Harbinger's.

No it doesn't. There is a huge difference between the Catalyst and a single Reaper as far as I understand. The Catalyst is an A.I. housed in the Citadel and was created by organics billions of years ago. A Reaper is a synthetic/organic hybrid build into a ship, the legacy of an entire species.

Guess what? Shepard is not the legacy of an entire species. And guess what? Shepard does not actually become the Catalyst, he simply uploads his mind and personality print into the Catalyst, changing the Catalyst into a Shepard doubleganger so to speak. You could see it as an operating system upgrade. The Catalyst just got upgraded from 'Windows Vista: Starbrat Edition' (crap) to 'Windows 7: Shepard Edition' (awesome). 

Yeah but Indoctrination Theory is true.

[Rifneno]

Lord Goose wrote...

Can you name any instance of indoctrination with complex visions with many different actors, and actual choices, one of which allows you to break indoctrination attempt?

Also, name all those, who were managed to break indoctrination without suicide.

Name any instance of the player seeing things through the eyes of a character undergoing indoctrination.  After that, let's hear how a video game writer could trick the player into becoming indoctrinated without giving the impression that the choices are real by, say, a fake ending.  Remember all those complaints on the DA boards because while for every other character resisting demonic possession was harder than hell, all the PC had to do was pick the "no thanks, I'd rather not be possessed" dialogue option?

Besides the fact that both the (original) rachni queen and Shaila both fought off indoctrination, you do realize that the hero of the story tends to be able to do things the average Joe can't, right?

[Andromidius]

FellishBeast wrote...

Yeah but Indoctrination Theory is true.

Its not 'true'.  It just fits with known facts, and works extremely well.

If Bioware releases something different which explains what happened properly then I'll be fine with it.  I just don't see it being able to be anything that doesn't involve the attempted indoctrination of Shepard.

[Lord Goose]

There is now way
that Shepard can become an AI, but as a Reaper Shepard still
can Control the Reapers. Yet you missed my point Shepard should be on the Citadel not inside a Reaper.

Maybe he decided to change place of living. Citadel is seat of political power and home of many different species, who may not like idea living next to embodiment of Reaper consiciousness. So Shepard placed itself into different Reaper.

Although, its more likely that EC simply retconned whatever it was said in CE artbook.

[masster blaster]

Oh and do you think it's funny Heritac that the Normandy crew knows that Anderson is dead, yet in Destroy your LI does not put Shepards name up on there. If they know that Shepard is alive, then why have the scene at all. Plus there was know way that they knew Anderson was dead. Yet they do. And if you say " oh Hackett radio them" bull****.

Then he must know that Shepard is dead, or Anderson is alive. Wrong no he does not.

[The Heretic of Time]

masster blaster wrote...

Or Heretic it does not and the catayst is meesing around with Shepard and making him/her believe Shepard picked the right choice and now Controls Shepard.

I have no reason to believe that.

Hence why we think he smiles when Shepard picks Control, and remember. The Catalyst is alive in Control, and Synthesis so makes you wonder.

He is not alive in Control. You see that as soon as Shepard takes over Control, the Catalyst fanishes. In the epilogue, it's clear that the Catalyst got upgraded and now runs a Shepard personality imprint, instead of a Starbrat personality imprint.

Control does not really do anything else than simply changing the Catalyst in a fundamental way, a software uprgade so to speak. Like Synthesis fundamentally changes and upgrades all organic life, Control just fundamentally changes and upgrades the Catalyst.

Why does the Catalyst even let Shepard Control the Reapers, and and in Synthesis.

Who knows? Maybe because it realizes his cycle is not the best solution? I don't know and neither do you. All we can do is speculate on this part.

If the beings of light are real, then they will most likly kill everything in Synthesis because Shepard has tiped the balace of the galaxy over. And now the beings of light have to fix Shepard mistake.

Beings of light? WHAT? What are you talking about? Have I missed something? 

Also if they want to continue to go in deep with the Mass Effect trilogy. They have to include Shepard's choice because that will determine of how things will be in the next cycle.

If BioWare indeed plans to continue Mass Effect post-ME3. If they do then we'll simply have to wait and see which ending BioWare chooses as the canon ending, or perhaps BioWare makes up an entirely new ending to base the sequels on. We'll see.

Oh and the weirdest of all in the EC other than the Breath scence, is the Stargzer.

That part has always been weird. But I guess they left it in the EC simply out of respect for Buzz Aldrin. He is after all a nice cameo, even though his voice-acting is kinda creepy.

One more Story has we know is about Shepard, and makes you think Shepards stroy is not over just yet.

The Mass Effect trilogy did not cover Shepard's entire life and every single minute of it. I think that line is more referring towards possible future singleplayer DLC. BioWare can easily add extra content (through DLC or entirely new games) that take place before the ending of ME3, and that would indeed be a new story.

[Lord Goose]

Name any instance of the player seeing things through the
eyes of a character undergoing indoctrination.

Well. Paul Grayson?
Not exactly the same thing, but the closest which I can remember. He is the protagonist of the novel, and reader see things through his eyes.

Paul Grayson never had visions and complex hallucinations. He simply heard voices and was able to resist by ignoring them. When he failed, he simply became prisoner in his own body. He actually managed to temporally beat Reapers control, but in the end it didn't helped him at all.

[The Heretic of Time]

masster blaster wrote...

Oh and do you think it's funny Heritac that the Normandy crew knows that Anderson is dead, yet in Destroy your LI does not put Shepards name up on there. If they know that Shepard is alive, then why have the scene at all. Plus there was know way that they knew Anderson was dead. Yet they do. And if you say " oh Hackett radio them" bull****.

Then he must know that Shepard is dead, or Anderson is alive. Wrong no he does not.

Well, first of all, I have to ask you, please do not try to force your speculation on me as fact. Everything you just said in this comment is pure speculation on your part, which is fine, but don't try to act as if it's a fact, because it isn't.


I think Hackett indeed did radio the Normandy when they were still fixing their ship. It's easy to assume this scene takes place several weeks after the events of Shepard using the Crucible.

The reason why your LI does not place Shepard's name tag on the memorial wall is simply her gut feeling telling her that Shepard is still alive. Perhaps Anderson's body was found but Shepard's body not? Perhaps neither body was found, so they assumed they were both death, but your LI refused to believe Shepard is indeed death. Then we see the Shepard breahting scene, confirming your LI's suspision.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:49 .

[MaximizedAction]

Andromidius wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

Yeah but Indoctrination Theory is true.

Its not 'true'.  It just fits with known facts, and works extremely well.

If Bioware releases something different which explains what happened properly then I'll be fine with it.  I just don't see it being able to be anything that doesn't involve the attempted indoctrination of Shepard.

Yep, and it's very likely that IT, in its current state, is false. IT surely hasn't covered everything in the exact way Bioware intended it (IF they intended it in that direction). IT just sufficiently goes in the right direction, or it seems so to me.

But IT is definitely not true and Bioware don't have to comment on the theory... just release content that approves with the theory

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:51 .

[byne]

Lord Goose wrote...

Name any instance of the player seeing things through the
eyes of a character undergoing indoctrination.

Well. Paul Grayson?
Not exactly the same thing, but the closest which I can remember. He is the protagonist of the novel, and reader see things through his eyes.

Paul Grayson never had visions and complex hallucinations. He simply heard voices and was able to resist by ignoring them. When he failed, he simply became prisoner in his own body. He actually managed to temporally beat Reapers control, but in the end it didn't helped him at all.

Grayson actually had Reaper tech in him though. Shepard doesnt.

Also, you asking us to name someone who has overcome indoctrination through means other than suicide is a pointless request, as we arent saying that Shepard is indoctrinated, we're saying the Reapers are trying to indoctrinate her.

Theres a very big difference between the two.





Also: yay, I have an internet connection!

[CoolioThane]

It's come full circle. You're asking the same questions again Heretic. It's like you've become an even more annoying SubAstris. At least he didn't go around insulting us all the time.

Control/Synthesis banners would make people angry because they spent three games fighting against Saren and TIM...if you were a good guy, which most were, and for people to pick C/S is disgusting to them. It's opinion, blad.

Also, the IT thread is not the best place to continually spout your drivel about how the IT is wrong.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Lord Goose wrote...

Name any instance of the player seeing things through the
eyes of a character undergoing indoctrination.

Well. Paul Grayson?
Not exactly the same thing, but the closest which I can remember. He is the protagonist of the novel, and reader see things through his eyes.

Paul Grayson never had visions and complex hallucinations. He simply heard voices and was able to resist by ignoring them. When he failed, he simply became prisoner in his own body. He actually managed to temporally beat Reapers control, but in the end it didn't helped him at all.

The symptoms of Indoctrination are many and varied as we see throughout the games. The people near Object Rho spoke of nightmares and dreams and the ones inside the Derelict Reaper spoke of hallucinations and sharing memories.

Might have something to do with the speed of the Indoctrination now taht i think about it. The ones near Object Rho were probably undergoing a slower Indoctrination since Amanda Kenson was still herslef, just dedicated to the Reapers while the ones on the Derelict Reaper were turn striaght into husks.

How long does Graysons Indoctrination span?

[Jimmyboi]

Aint gonna happen man. All these theories are plausible. I used to hate the ending. Now that I've played through it again I realize what they were doing. But your fight is commendable.

How about the theory of it was all a dream and the ending is a midget that wakes up, looks across his bedroom and sees Ashley in a Bunny costume (you know the ones) looks at the camera and raises his eyebrow?

Just sayin...

Modifié par Jimmyboi, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:56 .

[Lord Goose]

If they know that
Shepard is alive, then why have the scene at all. Plus there
was know way that they knew Anderson was dead. Yet they
do. And if you say " oh Hackett radio them" bull****.

Well, only LI hesitates to put name on the wall. I think it might have something to do with communication devices. Both Shepard and Anderson do not respond to attempts to establish connection with them. Therefore, both declared dead. However, in Destroy Shepard omni-tool is still not destroyed, so where is a chance what he or she is alive, so LI hesitates to declare him dead. She wouldn't hesitate for Anderson, nor it would be possible if Shepards omni-tool is broken.

[The Heretic of Time]

byne wrote...

Grayson actually had Reaper tech in him though. Shepard doesnt.

You don't know that. TIM actually pulled off a miracle with Project Lazerus. Never before did anyone manage to bring back a human being to life. It's obvious that super-advanced tech was used to resurrect Shepard. It could very well be that super-advanced tech is reaper tech.

Also, you asking us to name someone who has overcome indoctrination through means other than suicide is a pointless request, as we arent saying that Shepard is indoctrinated, we're saying the Reapers are trying to indoctrinate her.

Theres a very big difference between the two.

The codex states that indoctrination has to be done very carefully over a very long period of time. During that period, the Reaper or the indoctrination device has to constantly feed the mind of the victim with suggestions.
Rapid indoctrination is possible, but it will shatter the mind of the indoctrinated person, leaving little more than a simple drone, a husk.

So, with that knowledge, how do you fit that with the IT? Do you think Shepard was already under the influence of indoctrination before the end of ME3? If that's indeed true, than who or what was feeding Shepard's mind  all the time and how?

[byne]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Oh and do you think it's funny Heritac that the Normandy crew knows that Anderson is dead, yet in Destroy your LI does not put Shepards name up on there. If they know that Shepard is alive, then why have the scene at all. Plus there was know way that they knew Anderson was dead. Yet they do. And if you say " oh Hackett radio them" bull****.

Then he must know that Shepard is dead, or Anderson is alive. Wrong no he does not.

Well, first of all, I have to ask you, please do not try to force your speculation on me as fact. Everything you just said in this comment is pure speculation on your part, which is fine, but don't try to act as if it's a fact, because it isn't.


I think Hackett indeed did radio the Normandy when they were still fixing their ship. It's easy to assume this scene takes place several weeks after the events of Shepard using the Crucible.

The reason why your LI does not place Shepard's name tag on the memorial wall is simply her gut feeling telling her that Shepard is still alive. Perhaps Anderson's body was found but Shepard's body not? Perhaps neither body was found, so they assumed they were both death, but your LI refused to believe Shepard is indeed death. Then we see the Shepard breahting scene, confirming your LI's suspision.

First off, why would their 'gut feeling' change in control or synthesis? Does space magic alter gut feelings?

Also, unless the Memorial scene and the Normandy taking off scene take place months apart, you'd think they'd have found Shepard by then in the destroy ending. Especially if they have confirmation Anderson is dead. In the literalist ending, Shepard wasnt that far away from Anderson at the end, so unless you think she really did survive reentry and is in fact on Earth, not the Citadel, she should have been found.

Hell, no matter when the memorial scene takes place, Shepard should have already been found. She was heavily bleeding and badly wounded. If she wasnt found fairly soon she would have died.