Okay, so I'm gone for only a few hours and several pages pop up, mostly talking about infrasonic noise (which hasn't been discredited yet, and efforts should go towards attempting to*) and the whole problem about the Catalyst's image being that of Earthkid. I'll expand
something I wrote earlier in an attempt to finally put this topic to rest.
Subastris, I hope you're reading this.
Right, we know two definite facts.
1 - The Catalyst appears as the Earthchild. (Self evident)
2 - The image of the Earthchild is a significant symbol in Shepard's psyche. (Obvious conclusion of the dreams)
Now, assuming the Earthchild was real, Shepard has had a grand total of three interactions with him. First, watching the Child in the garden from the window. Second, talking with him in the vent. And third, Shepard witnesses his death from the Normandy. If there were more events than these it was never revealed explicitly or implicitly and therefore are irrelevant to this analysis.
That means the reapers had a grand total of three opportunities to observe Shepard and the child together. The first is from orbit (when Shepard is obscured by a building), the second through walls and vents (where both Shepard and the child were obscured), and only the third being in plain sight.
Considering Shepard's multiple-choice histories, which canonically involve the death of two subordinates in ME1 (Jenkins and either Kaiden/Ashley), and potentially involve an entire crew on Akuze, members (even potentially love interests) lost during the Suicide Mission, and the psychologically significant effects of Mindoir, Torfan, Elysium, even Shepard's potential childhood on Earth, etc. How do the reapers extrapolate that Shepard would be significantly affected by the image of the Earthchild based on three encounters, two of which are long shots? If they didn't extrapolate this and the Catalyst chose to use the Earthchild's image for a different reason, what then is the reason it specifically chose the Earthchild and not something else? And to what purpose exactly?
Not to mention, if the reapers observed Shepard in any of the three events, why did they not take the opportunity to attack Shepard directly? Particularly in the third event, the only one where Shepard is in plain sight, on the Normandy (a very unique vessel the reapers must have been aware of, see: ME1/ME2), with a Destroyer standing right there already firing near the Normandy's location (the shuttles were between the Destroyer and Normandy, remember)?
So either the reapers
saw Shepard and the Earthchild and
chose not to attack Shepard, or they didn't and the image of the Earthchild must have been acquired elsewhere. But here's the kicker: from where did the reapers acquire a sample of the child's
voice? The only instance where we hear the Earthchild speak is during the vent scene. In the mire of chaos and battle can we really expect the reapers to have heard that discussion when there were literally no reapers, husks, or indoctrinated agents in the immediate vicinity?
To conclude that the reapers saw
and heard the child
and extrapolated his future signficance to Shepard from a maximum of three tenuous encounters instead of acquiring the image and voice from Shepard's mind, something that is established to be within their capabilities, would be... foolish in my honest opinion, to put it lightly.
And either way, the Catalyst chose to use
that image, specifically to appear non-threatening. Bioware confirmed that much. However, "to appear non-threatening" is not a goal. It's a means to a goal. Therefore it's obvious that the Catalyst was employing psychological manipulations on Shepard. Note that manipulation in and of itself is not a sign of antagonism or malice. If the Catalyst was genuinely trying to not be Shepard's enemy then not appearing as a terrible tentacled titan would be just common sense.
The problem is that the Catalyst, whatever it is, was associated with The Enemy right up to the point when the Crucible docked. We didn't, and still don't know for certain what the Crucible is or what it actually does for certain, and thus we can't actually ascertain whether the Catalyst's stance actually
had changed when the Crucible docked. The Catalyst also admits its associatation with The Enemy and even claims responsibility for their actions, which may I remind you, constitute heinous war crimes never once involving any extenuating circumstances whatsoever.
The Catalyst is manipulating Shepard. The Catalyst was the enemy. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here. Whatever the Catalyst said should be met with extreme skepticism. And, as has been demonstrated a thousand times before, the Catalyst's arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny. Therefore we must conclude that the Catalyst is not telling us the whole truth, and that it's still the enemy one way or another.
The only other way for the Catalyst to appear as the Starchild would be if Shepard him/herself endowed the Catalyst with that image in Shepard's own mind. The problem here of course is that that would imply that Shepard
is definitely hallucinating by definition.
Whatever the case, in that crucible chamber, Shepard (and the player) is not observing un-manipulated reality.
Some entity, either the Catalyst, the entity presenting the Catalyst, or Shepard's broken mind is directing what Shepard sees to some unknown end. And it has already been demonstrated in the series that Indoctrination involves exactly that.
From this, the rest of Indoctrination Theory follows.
Modifié par Simon_Says, 22 juillet 2012 - 12:46 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
)
Won't answer reasonable questions
