4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Ageless Face]

KingZayd wrote...


Yes I believe that Destroy is the "right" choice. But that doesn't necessarily mean the others doom you in your quest to save the galaxy. I think Destroy is what you're meant to do, and Control and Synthesis are options that are presented to lead you astray (through good intentions, or ego [or alternatively human bias like TIM... who also has the ego thing].
To me it feels as if Control was meant to appeal to your ego, and Synthesis was meant to appeal to your being unwilling to sacrifice the Geth. Obviously as we see in these threads, people's reasoning is more complex than that. But then with 3 choices you're never going to be able to satisfyingly deal with everybody's personal motives)

I have no problem that you believe that destroy is right. As long as you don't mean that it's only the correct one. Like I said, that is one of my main problems of IT. And that is why I think that if the IT will take place in the EC, it should not mean that what I did is wrong. If all choices will lead to indoctrination, then I won't dislike the IT as I am now.

And just for the record, I didn't choose control because of any egoistical means. In fact, the way I saw it is control is the means to sacrifice Shepard to save everyone else. My Shep will not go with TIM's ways.If the question would have been "let TIM control the reapers or let Anderson destroy the reapers" I will choose destroy every time. Only after I chose to pick control I began to understand that having reaper army by your side will be usefull. And even if my Shepard will have them, she won't you the reapers to advance humanity, but to advance all races. That, and all the reaper technology will be saved. 

Modifié par HagarIshay, 14 juin 2012 - 12:27 .

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...


I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

estebanus! Nice to see you again :happy:. Kind of missed you.

I don't think that your idea is bad. I like it. Something like a charm or indimidate option will be a better idea than just complete indoctrination my opinion. Will be kind of sad if there won't be any drawbacks to destroy (yeah, I'm hard to please), but  A LOT of my dislike for IT will be dumbed down, I admit.

The problem is, that the base idea of IT is talking about that only destroy is the right option. The breath scene is talking about that Shepard is only alive there, and in the other endings, Shepard is indoc.

Nice to see you too.

Actually, it wasn't totally my idea. I kinda thought of that script I presented to you a while ago, so I thought of another way to do it. I still think that there will be drawbacks to destroy no matter what, like your friends maybe sacrificing themselves to save you or something like that, but the only real drawback I see about control and synthesis is that you may die in the ending, and if your EMS is too low or you didn't do the requirements (like helping Eve or saving the rachni queen) you may be indoctrinated.

Personally, I think that destroy is the only right option, but that's just my opinion. I think Shepard being indoctrinated in the end makes him/her seem way more like a true tragic hero than destroy does, because even while indoctrinated, Shepard does the impossible and saves the galaxy.

Again, that's only my opinion. And I respect yours, so I hope you do the same.

[estebanus]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.

the choices would be a mental thing, not a physical thing. It's not against IT, as there is indoctrination going on. And can you prove it's against the main ending's concepts? Prove that Bioware didn't have indoctrination in mind when they wrote the ending we saw.

False. I'm an ITer, and i literally don't want to convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. (But can you prove the Bioware team doesn't?)

Until you or the EC can prove these things, IT is an option and will always remain an option.

I agree with the bolded text. I've been an indoctrinationist for a long time, so I guess you could call me a veteran, and I also wouldn't like control and synthesis both being chosen as critical mission failures.

It's so nice when people paint all indoctrinationists with the same brush, isn't it?

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.

the choices would be a mental thing, not a physical thing. It's not against IT, as there is indoctrination going on. And can you prove it's against the main ending's concepts? Prove that Bioware didn't have indoctrination in mind when they wrote the ending we saw.

False. I'm an ITer, and i literally don't want to convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. (But can you prove the Bioware team doesn't?)

Until you or the EC can prove these things, IT is an option and will always remain an option.

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while - this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obvious that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...

Modifié par Seival, 14 juin 2012 - 01:20 .

[DJBare]

HagarIshay wrote...

I didn't create the phone. Does it mean that I should not use it until I will learn how to create it?

Could not read the rest after that line, bad analogy is bad, technologically minded you are at the level to learn how to create a phone if you so wish, the worst that will happen if you do not follow your lessons closely is the phone does not work, but a phone is not millions of years in advance of you when it comes to technology, like I said else where, give your cell phone to a stone age man and the first thing he is likely to do is attempt to eat it, we are in the stone age compared to the reapers.

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...


Nice to see you too.

Actually, it wasn't totally my idea. I kinda thought of that script I presented to you a while ago, so I thought of another way to do it. I still think that there will be drawbacks to destroy no matter what, like your friends maybe sacrificing themselves to save you or something like that, but the only real drawback I see about control and synthesis is that you may die in the ending, and if your EMS is too low or you didn't do the requirements (like helping Eve or saving the rachni queen) you may be indoctrinated.

Personally, I think that destroy is the only right option, but that's just my opinion. I think Shepard being indoctrinated in the end makes him/her seem way more like a true tragic hero than destroy does, because even while indoctrinated, Shepard does the impossible and saves the galaxy.

Again, that's only my opinion. And I respect yours, so I hope you do the same.

I meant the idea you presented. If BioWare will adopt the IT, or planned it from the start, I hope that Shepard will win in all three choices, but every choice will have it's consequences.

And I must say, that it's interesting that you see Shepard being indoctrinated as heroic. If it will go according to the script you showed me, then yes, it will be. At least in control.

And yes, I respect your opinion And I'm happy you respect mine.

[estebanus]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.

the choices would be a mental thing, not a physical thing. It's not against IT, as there is indoctrination going on. And can you prove it's against the main ending's concepts? Prove that Bioware didn't have indoctrination in mind when they wrote the ending we saw.

False. I'm an ITer, and i literally don't want to convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. (But can you prove the Bioware team doesn't?)

Until you or the EC can prove these things, IT is an option and will always remain an option.

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obveous that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...

who are you to claim who's an indoctrinationist and who isn't? Who are you to think that we want to get rid of the synthesis and control endings? you're not even an indoctrinationist! You don't research things, you just bring up points without any supporting evidence! This is a perfect example of what a conversation with you would look like.

Bah, Why am I even bothering? I was trying to have an intelligent discussion, and then crap like this comes up!

You know what? I won't bother you anymore. Go ahead and continue with your baseless assumptions. I don't care anymore.

[Ageless Face]

DJBare wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

I didn't create the phone. Does it mean that I should not use it until I will learn how to create it?

Could not read the rest after that line,t bad analogy is bad, technologically minded you are at the level to learn how to create a phone if you so wish, the worst that will happen if you do not follow your lessons closely is the phone does not work, but a phone is not millions of years in advance of you when it comes to technology, like I said else where, give your cell phone to a stone age man and the first thing he is likely to do is attempt to eat it, we are in the stone age compared to the reapers.

Already been scold becauae of this analogy. Yet still, the organics were able to use the relays. It means that organics, humans are inteligrnt enough to use the reaper technology, that is different than a man in the stone age which cant use a phone. I am intelligent enough to use the phone, why shouldnt I use it? If organics are intelligents enougj to use reaper technology, why shouldn't they use it?

Modifié par HagarIshay, 14 juin 2012 - 01:26 .

[Seival]

estebanus wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.

the choices would be a mental thing, not a physical thing. It's not against IT, as there is indoctrination going on. And can you prove it's against the main ending's concepts? Prove that Bioware didn't have indoctrination in mind when they wrote the ending we saw.

False. I'm an ITer, and i literally don't want to convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. (But can you prove the Bioware team doesn't?)

Until you or the EC can prove these things, IT is an option and will always remain an option.

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obveous that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...

who are you to claim who's an indoctrinationist and who isn't? Who are you to think that we want to get rid of the synthesis and control endings? you're not even an indoctrinationist! You don't research things, you just bring up points without any supporting evidence! This is a perfect example of what a conversation with you would look like.

Bah, Why am I even bothering? I was trying to have an intelligent discussion, and then crap like this comes up!

You know what? I won't bother you anymore. Go ahead and continue with your baseless assumptions. I don't care anymore.

The game clearly states that the Catalist isn't lieing, and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. I read everything about "IT" carefull enough. All that "IT"ers want is to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. If they just wanted the conversation to be mental, then all they had to do is to watch current endings more carefull. The conversation was mental from the beginning. It's a part of the current endings' concept.

You want the supporting evidence? I already said about it: EC official announcement. The endings will not be changed. They will be only explained in more details. You don't believe devs' official announcements?

[DJBare]

HagarIshay wrote...

Already been scold becauae of this analogy. Yet still, the organics were able to use the relays. It means that organics, humans are inteligrnt enough to use the reaper technology, that is different than a man in the stone age which cant use a phone. I am intelligent enough to use the phone. 

Of course organics could use the relays, the reapers designed them to be activated by us lowly organics, remember the relays are part of their trap, would be a useless trap if we could not activate it, but turning something on and knowing how it works are two completely different things, I'd guess you have no clue how your television works, but you do know where the switch is, but again, technologically speaking you are at a level where you can learn how a television actually functions internally, but lets say for example the internal technology for that television is a million years in advanced of our current understanding of technology, you would not have a clue where to start.

And don't misunderstand me, if I found a device millions of years advanced of me, you can bet I would dabble in trying to figure it out, but that's what the reapers are betting on, our curiosity and inability to say "I do not know".

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.

the choices would be a mental thing, not a physical thing. It's not against IT, as there is indoctrination going on. And can you prove it's against the main ending's concepts? Prove that Bioware didn't have indoctrination in mind when they wrote the ending we saw.

False. I'm an ITer, and i literally don't want to convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. (But can you prove the Bioware team doesn't?)

Until you or the EC can prove these things, IT is an option and will always remain an option.

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while - this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obvious that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...

Like I said, i'm an ITer and i don't literally want to remove control and synthesis from the game so only destroy remains.  I don't think they actually happen as a result of that scene. I think it is a dream (as Shepard has been knocked unconscious by Harbinger's attack) that is being influenced by his indoctrination, and that his choice can affect the amount the indoctrination increases.

In the end, I don't think the Crucible would have the synthesis function because for that to happen, I would have to believe that an earlier cycle decided that what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a synthesis option.

In fact, I believe TIM's research was leading somewhere, and eventually you'll be able to either control or destroy.

I am an ITer and you are making false assumptions about IT.

Why wouldn't the Starchild be able to speak to you without this virtual construct? Based on what we've seen in the mass effect universe, it's not that difficult.

Modifié par KingZayd, 14 juin 2012 - 02:02 .

[KingZayd]

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]HagarIshay wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.[/quote]

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

[/quote]

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.[/quote]

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

[/quote]

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.[/quote]

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

[/quote]

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.[/quote]

the choices would be a mental thing, not a physical thing. It's not against IT, as there is indoctrination going on. And can you prove it's against the main ending's concepts? Prove that Bioware didn't have indoctrination in mind when they wrote the ending we saw.

False. I'm an ITer, and i literally don't want to convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. (But can you prove the Bioware team doesn't?)

Until you or the EC can prove these things, IT is an option and will always remain an option.
[/quote]

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obveous that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...
[/quote]

who are you to claim who's an indoctrinationist and who isn't? Who are you to think that we want to get rid of the synthesis and control endings? you're not even an indoctrinationist! You don't research things, you just bring up points without any supporting evidence! This is a perfect example of what a conversation with you would look like.

Bah, Why am I even bothering? I was trying to have an intelligent discussion, and then crap like this comes up!

You know what? I won't bother you anymore. Go ahead and continue with your baseless assumptions. I don't care anymore.
[/quote]

The game clearly states that the Catalist isn't lieing, and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. I read everything about "IT" carefull enough. All that "IT"ers want is to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. If they just wanted the conversation to be mental, then all they had to do is to watch current endings more carefull. The conversation was mental from the beginning. It's a part of the current endings' concept.

You want the supporting evidence? I already said about it: EC official announcement. The endings will not be changed. They will be only explained in more details. You don't believe devs' official announcements?
[/quote]

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

[KingZayd]

HagarIshay wrote...

KingZayd wrote...


Yes I believe that Destroy is the "right" choice. But that doesn't necessarily mean the others doom you in your quest to save the galaxy. I think Destroy is what you're meant to do, and Control and Synthesis are options that are presented to lead you astray (through good intentions, or ego [or alternatively human bias like TIM... who also has the ego thing].
To me it feels as if Control was meant to appeal to your ego, and Synthesis was meant to appeal to your being unwilling to sacrifice the Geth. Obviously as we see in these threads, people's reasoning is more complex than that. But then with 3 choices you're never going to be able to satisfyingly deal with everybody's personal motives)

I have no problem that you believe that destroy is right. As long as you don't mean that it's only the correct one. Like I said, that is one of my main problems of IT. And that is why I think that if the IT will take place in the EC, it should not mean that what I did is wrong. If all choices will lead to indoctrination, then I won't dislike the IT as I am now.

And just for the record, I didn't choose control because of any egoistical means. In fact, the way I saw it is control is the means to sacrifice Shepard to save everyone else. My Shep will not go with TIM's ways.If the question would have been "let TIM control the reapers or let Anderson destroy the reapers" I will choose destroy every time. Only after I chose to pick control I began to understand that having reaper army by your side will be usefull. And even if my Shepard will have them, she won't you the reapers to advance humanity, but to advance all races. That, and all the reaper technology will be saved. 

I believe all choices lead to indoctrination, just differing levels. I think destroy leaves you with the lowest amount as in the others you REJECT destroy in favour of other options. 

Like I said, obviously people's reasoning can be far more complex than the 3 choices can accommodate. For example, my destruction of the Collector Base wasn't a moral decision (I would see destroying it as making all those people die in vain). I destroyed it because I was afraid of indoctrination (remember the Derelict Reaper?)

That said, assuming you (your Shepard) can't be corrupted by that absolute power, could be interpretated as egotistical.

Modifié par KingZayd, 14 juin 2012 - 02:05 .

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

Modifié par Seival, 14 juin 2012 - 03:12 .

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

Modifié par KingZayd, 14 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.

It is possible. Joker does ask you about this possibility And no... you said the EC announcement said certain things about control and synthesis. It does not. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

As you said yourself, some of what we see didn't really happen. You say that the Starchild and conversation was a mental thing, and I'm sure we'd agree that TIM and Anderson didn't really activate the Crucible. Some of what we see is purely what Shepard sees.

No. Like I said, those choices are choices that stay, but they are not of the Crucible. They are of Shepard's imagination. This applies to destroy as well. IT is not an ideology (a system of ideas). It is an idea. An idea that says that this scene is not real, and that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination.

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

[MegaSovereign]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

The events of arrival aren't canon.

Some people did not buy Arrival and therefore their Shepard never went anywhere near Object Rho.

[KingZayd]

MegaSovereign wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

The events of arrival aren't canon.

Some people did not buy Arrival and therefore their Shepard never went anywhere near Object Rho.

And yet some people did. For the ones that did, it's very unlikely that those Shepards have not been indoctrinated. For the ones that didn't, they wouldn't be the only ones in the Mass Effect universe that didn't and still got indoctrinated.
Shepard dealing with the Arrival mission is at least as canon as Shepard not doing so.

[The Night Mammoth]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The events of arrival aren't canon.

Some people did not buy Arrival and therefore their Shepard never went anywhere near Object Rho.

Neither is anything else. Mass Effect does not have 'canon' like other works of fiction do, according to BioWare. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 14 juin 2012 - 06:55 .

[Ageless Face]

DJBare wrote...

Of course organics could use the relays, the reapers designed them to be activated by us lowly organics, remember the relays are part of their trap, would be a useless trap if we could not activate it, but turning something on and knowing how it works are two completely different things, I'd guess you have no clue how your television works, but you do know where the switch is, but again, technologically speaking you are at a level where you can learn how a television actually functions internally, but lets say for example the internal technology for that television is a million years in advanced of our current understanding of technology, you would not have a clue where to start.

And don't misunderstand me, if I found a device millions of years advanced of me, you can bet I would dabble in trying to figure it out, but that's what the reapers are betting on, our curiosity and inability to say "I do not know".

The relays are traps of the reapers. That doesn't mean that the relays are dangerous, only their creators.The mass relays are advanced technology that the organics learned to use. True, it WAS dangerous when the orgaics didn't know how the technology worked. But they did eventually. The organics learned how to use the relays for their benefiets, they learned how the relays work. They didn't use the relays with absolute no idea about the relays.

If I will see a very highly advanced device, I will never use it before I will know from what it was created and how to use it (well, I will give it to scientists to figure it out, but you know what I mean). After I will figure how it works, and I will be confirmed that the technology is not self destructive, and I can use it to advancements, I see no problem with using it. 

[Ageless Face]

KingZayd wrote...

I believe all choices lead to indoctrination, just differing levels. I think destroy leaves you with the lowest amount as in the others you REJECT destroy in favour of other options. 

Like I said, obviously people's reasoning can be far more complex than the 3 choices can accommodate. For example, my destruction of the Collector Base wasn't a moral decision (I would see destroying it as making all those people die in vain). I destroyed it because I was afraid of indoctrination (remember the Derelict Reaper?)

That said, assuming you (your Shepard) can't be corrupted by that absolute power, could be interpretated as egotistical.

And I respect that. I don't really believe that if the IT will be true destroy will have the lowest of indoctrination level, but it can be true. You don't believe it for no reason obviously. That is also why you will rarely find people that think the indoctrination of control or synthesis will be weaker, or that it won't happen there at all.  

Well, IF my headcannon is correct and Shepard becomes the new catalyst, Shepard will not really be an organic. Absolute power might not effect him/her. But if Shepard would be truly curropted by absolute power, even as an organic, s/he could always have joined TIM's cause. Yet s/he didn't. Even a renegade Shepard only wanted to destroy the reapers, not controling the reapers for selfish reasons. I'm assuming that Shepard will not be corrupted and use the power and rule the galaxy (unless the player him/herslef wants to) Because of Shepard's past actions. Even if I'm wrong, it is not egoism, but nativity.  

[KingZayd]

HagarIshay wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I believe all choices lead to indoctrination, just differing levels. I think destroy leaves you with the lowest amount as in the others you REJECT destroy in favour of other options. 

Like I said, obviously people's reasoning can be far more complex than the 3 choices can accommodate. For example, my destruction of the Collector Base wasn't a moral decision (I would see destroying it as making all those people die in vain). I destroyed it because I was afraid of indoctrination (remember the Derelict Reaper?)

That said, assuming you (your Shepard) can't be corrupted by that absolute power, could be interpretated as egotistical.

And I respect that. I don't really believe that if the IT will be true destroy will have the lowest of indoctrination level, but it can be true. You don't believe it for no reason obviously. That is also why you will rarely find people that think the indoctrination of control or synthesis will be weaker, or that it won't happen there at all.  

Well, IF my headcannon is correct and Shepard becomes the new catalyst, Shepard will not really be an organic. Absolute power might not effect him/her. But if Shepard would be truly curropted by absolute power, even as an organic, s/he could always have joined TIM's cause. Yet s/he didn't. Even a renegade Shepard only wanted to destroy the reapers, not controling the reapers for selfish reasons. I'm assuming that Shepard will not be corrupted and use the power and rule the galaxy (unless the player him/herslef wants to) Because of Shepard's past actions. Even if I'm wrong, it is not egoism, but nativity.  

Well what really attracts me to IT is the fixing of perceived plotholes induced by the Starchild's existence. I wasn't convinced by the indoctrination theme videos, but later on watching some gameplay videos (I was basically arguing about why I hated the endings) I ended up convincing myself that indoctrination was meant to be a central theme to this game. My reason for destroy being the choice of least indoctrination stems from my belief that it represents a certain stubbornness that might in other cases be a problem, but against the reapers would be an asset. That said, with a face value interpretation, I can see why control would be seen as the best. Synthesis doesn't seem to deal with the issues it sets out to, if I think about it. And even then I think that issue is a misdirect.

Here's the thing, I don't accept that synthetics are any less corruptible than organics. It depends on the synthetic and the organic in question, and assuming Shepard's personality isn't changed (which I'm sure we'd all hope, or else who knows what could happen?), then I'd expect his corruptability shouldn't change either. If i remember correctly TIM was rejected because either "TIM shouldn't have that power" or "nobody should have that power". I think having this unmatchable force in the galaxy is a very dangerous risk to take, especially since this crucible is a 1 shot deal. Shepard might not be selfish now, but people change, and Shepard has.. forever to do so.