4520 réponses à ce sujet

[mass perfection]

HellishFiend wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
How do the Rachni help Shepard fight indoctrination?Weren't the Rachni all indoctrinated in the Rachni wars?

It's all speculation, but the Rachni queen is the only entity we know of that is immune to indoctrination, so that plus her powerful telepathic abilities, plus the fact that she ominously claims she will "add her voice to yours when the time comes", lends credence to the possibility that she could help Shepard resist indoctrination. 

And like I mentioned above, only the queen's children were indoctrinated, because the Reapers were able to hijack the telephathic connection the Queen used to communicate with them. But they tried and failed to indoctrinate her directly, which is why they had to resort to physically restraining her and stealing away her young to use them for their purposes. 

What about Zhu's Hope colonists?They appear to be immune to indoctrination aswell due to the Thorian spores in their heads.

[HellishFiend]

mass perfection wrote...
What about Zhu's Hope colonists?They appear to be immune to indoctrination aswell due to the Thorian spores in their heads.

Hmm, good point. There is that too, but I'm not sure how they would be able to assist Shepard. I suppose it's possible that BW could come up with something for that, though. 

[mass perfection]

HellishFiend wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
What about Zhu's Hope colonists?They appear to be immune to indoctrination aswell due to the Thorian spores in their heads.

Hmm, good point. There is that too, but I'm not sure how they would be able to assist Shepard. I suppose it's possible that BW could come up with something for that, though. 

Perhaps a few of those spores managed to get in Shepards head,but not enough to have him get all of those headaches.

Modifié par mass perfection, 15 juin 2012 - 04:36 .

[HellishFiend]

mass perfection wrote...
Perhaps a few of those spores managed to get in Shepards head,but not enough to have him get all of those headaches.

Could be, though wouldnt that give him at least a minor psychic connection to the other colonists? Sounds possible, in any case. 

[mass perfection]

HellishFiend wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
Perhaps a few of those spores managed to get in Shepards head,but not enough to have him get all of those headaches.

Could be, though wouldnt that give him at least a minor psychic connection to the other colonists? Sounds possible, in any case. 

True.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

[KingZayd]

HellishFiend wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
Rachni to fight indoctrination?What's Eve's crystal?

The Rachni queen is immune to indoctrination. It has something to do with her extraordinary telepathic abilities. What the Reapers do is hijack her telepathic connection with her "children" in order to manipulate them. But the queen herself is immune, as we see in ME3, and explained by her in ME1 dialog. If you assist her, she promises to "add her voice to yours" when the time comes. 

Here is the dialog where you receive Eve's crystal:


Some have speculated that it could play a role in resisting indoctrination. It's a reminder that "In the darkest hour, there is always a way out".

Oh.. that's a very interesting idea. Which would mean the choice to save the Rachni queen would have real consequences.

[KingZayd]

mass perfection wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
How do the Rachni help Shepard fight indoctrination?Weren't the Rachni all indoctrinated in the Rachni wars?

It's all speculation, but the Rachni queen is the only entity we know of that is immune to indoctrination, so that plus her powerful telepathic abilities, plus the fact that she ominously claims she will "add her voice to yours when the time comes", lends credence to the possibility that she could help Shepard resist indoctrination. 

And like I mentioned above, only the queen's children were indoctrinated, because the Reapers were able to hijack the telephathic connection the Queen used to communicate with them. But they tried and failed to indoctrinate her directly, which is why they had to resort to physically restraining her and stealing away her young to use them for their purposes. 

What about Zhu's Hope colonists?They appear to be immune to indoctrination aswell due to the Thorian spores in their heads.

Well, they don't seem to be IMMUNE, as Shiala is still indoctrinated. She is certainly more resistant as a result, although we have no way of knowing if her condition worsens with time.

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juin 2012 - 05:23 .

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.

1) False. Indoctrinated Shepard does not imply that the Crucible will not fire. There is no reason to suspect it won't work perfectly once Shepard or someone else REALLY opens the Citadel arms. So it isn't against the current endings. Just YOUR interpretation of the current endings.

2) Crucible can fire because either someone else opens the Citadel arms, or Shepard does after they wake up. Not against IT.

Either way IT is not out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about... No offense.

Modifié par KingZayd, 15 juin 2012 - 05:23 .

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.

1) False. Indoctrinated Shepard does not imply that the Crucible will not fire. There is no reason to suspect it won't work perfectly once Shepard or someone else REALLY opens the Citadel arms. So it isn't against the current endings. Just YOUR interpretation of the current endings.

2) Crucible can fire because either someone else opens the Citadel arms, or Shepard does after they wake up. Not against IT.

Either way IT is not out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about... No offense.

Disagree. I just think that you and some other players misunderstood "IT" ideas, or invent something that is not an "IT" but prefer to call it "IT" no matter what.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.

1) False. Indoctrinated Shepard does not imply that the Crucible will not fire. There is no reason to suspect it won't work perfectly once Shepard or someone else REALLY opens the Citadel arms. So it isn't against the current endings. Just YOUR interpretation of the current endings.

2) Crucible can fire because either someone else opens the Citadel arms, or Shepard does after they wake up. Not against IT.

Either way IT is not out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about... No offense.

Disagree. I just think that you and some other players misunderstood "IT" ideas, or invent something that is not an "IT" but prefer to call it "IT" no matter what.

Like I said, IT is the theory that Shepard is in the process of indoctrination when he meets the Starchild, and that the Crucible that Shepard sees is only the Crucible that he dreams. That is IT. It sounds to me like you're the one misunderstanding.

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.

1) False. Indoctrinated Shepard does not imply that the Crucible will not fire. There is no reason to suspect it won't work perfectly once Shepard or someone else REALLY opens the Citadel arms. So it isn't against the current endings. Just YOUR interpretation of the current endings.

2) Crucible can fire because either someone else opens the Citadel arms, or Shepard does after they wake up. Not against IT.

Either way IT is not out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about... No offense.

Disagree. I just think that you and some other players misunderstood "IT" ideas, or invent something that is not an "IT" but prefer to call it "IT" no matter what.

Like I said, IT is the theory that Shepard is in the process of indoctrination when he meets the Starchild, and that the Crucible that Shepard sees is only the Crucible that he dreams. That is IT. It sounds to me like you're the one misunderstanding.

No, I think your words just prove that you're the one misunderstanding. "IT" is not like that.

Who posted the idea? Ask him, if you don't believe me.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juin 2012 - 05:40 .

[KingZayd]

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]HellishFiend wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.[/quote]

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

[/quote]

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.[/quote]

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.
[/quote]

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.
[/quote]

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

[/quote]

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.
[/quote]

1) False. Indoctrinated Shepard does not imply that the Crucible will not fire. There is no reason to suspect it won't work perfectly once Shepard or someone else REALLY opens the Citadel arms. So it isn't against the current endings. Just YOUR interpretation of the current endings.

2) Crucible can fire because either someone else opens the Citadel arms, or Shepard does after they wake up. Not against IT.

Either way IT is not out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about... No offense.

[/quote]

Disagree. I just think that you and some other players misunderstood "IT" ideas, or invent something that is not an "IT" but prefer to call it "IT" no matter what.

[/quote]

Like I said, IT is the theory that Shepard is in the process of indoctrination when he meets the Starchild, and that the Crucible that Shepard sees is only the Crucible that he dreams. That is IT. It sounds to me like you're the one misunderstanding.

[/quote]

No, I think your words just prove that you're the one misunderstanding. "IT" is not like that.

Who posted the idea? Ask him, if you don't believe me.
[/quote]

IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

[Seival]

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]HellishFiend wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.[/quote]

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

[/quote]

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.[/quote]

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.
[/quote]

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.
[/quote]

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

[/quote]

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.
[/quote]

1) False. Indoctrinated Shepard does not imply that the Crucible will not fire. There is no reason to suspect it won't work perfectly once Shepard or someone else REALLY opens the Citadel arms. So it isn't against the current endings. Just YOUR interpretation of the current endings.

2) Crucible can fire because either someone else opens the Citadel arms, or Shepard does after they wake up. Not against IT.

Either way IT is not out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about... No offense.

[/quote]

Disagree. I just think that you and some other players misunderstood "IT" ideas, or invent something that is not an "IT" but prefer to call it "IT" no matter what.

[/quote]

Like I said, IT is the theory that Shepard is in the process of indoctrination when he meets the Starchild, and that the Crucible that Shepard sees is only the Crucible that he dreams. That is IT. It sounds to me like you're the one misunderstanding.

[/quote]

No, I think your words just prove that you're the one misunderstanding. "IT" is not like that.

Who posted the idea? Ask him, if you don't believe me.
[/quote]

IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.
[/quote]

Yes, I know. And I already told that it will eventually lead us to this: http://social.biowar.../index/12593947

[Seival]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

Yes, I know. And I already told that it will eventually lead us to this: http://social.biowar.../index/12593947

Good thing, I created that thread. KingZayd, HellishFiend here is the proof that it was not me, who misunderstood "IT". "IT" main idea involves Control and Synthesis removal. Just read Byne's comments.

Please, don't get me wrong, I really respect your opinion. But please, don't try to prove me that "IT" isn't suggesting Control/Synthesis removal anymore.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juin 2012 - 10:05 .

[KingZayd]

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]HellishFiend wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.[/quote]

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

[/quote]

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.[/quote]

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.
[/quote]

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.
[/quote]

Indoctrination doesn't necessarily imply critical mission failure. Obviously you don't think death counts as critical mission failure at the end (since apparently this happens in the face value interpretation of the endings), it's the galaxy being doomed. Shepard being indoctrinated is not necessarily the end of the galaxy. He wouldn't be the first to resist, and if it came to it, he could paragon interrrupt suicide.

It's you who's adding things that you don't like about this sig. Even if it did lead to critical mission failure in his opinion, then that doesn't consitute "removing/changing control or synthesis" since according to his interpretation that would be EXACTLY how control or synthesis IS.

[/quote]

Let me say it very simple:

(1) Idoctrinated Shepard = Crucible will not fire, because Shepard "changed her mind". Crucible will not fire = Catalist and the Reapers win, and harvest was not stopped... And this is against current endings concept.

(2) If Shepard was indoctrinated, and Crucible still fires, then indoctrination fails, because noone controls Shepard now... And this is against "IT".

...Either way "IT" is out place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that your theory will remain just a theory... No offense.
[/quote]

1) False. Indoctrinated Shepard does not imply that the Crucible will not fire. There is no reason to suspect it won't work perfectly once Shepard or someone else REALLY opens the Citadel arms. So it isn't against the current endings. Just YOUR interpretation of the current endings.

2) Crucible can fire because either someone else opens the Citadel arms, or Shepard does after they wake up. Not against IT.

Either way IT is not out of place. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about... No offense.

[/quote]

Disagree. I just think that you and some other players misunderstood "IT" ideas, or invent something that is not an "IT" but prefer to call it "IT" no matter what.

[/quote]

Like I said, IT is the theory that Shepard is in the process of indoctrination when he meets the Starchild, and that the Crucible that Shepard sees is only the Crucible that he dreams. That is IT. It sounds to me like you're the one misunderstanding.

[/quote]

No, I think your words just prove that you're the one misunderstanding. "IT" is not like that.

Who posted the idea? Ask him, if you don't believe me.
[/quote]

IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.
[/quote]

Yes, I know. And I already told that it will eventually lead us to this: http://social.biowar.../index/12593947[/quote]

And like I said, that's entirely possible. The whole point of what Joker says is that you can't know for sure.

I personally don't think that's what happened, but it's not impossible, which is exactly why Joker says it.

Modifié par KingZayd, 15 juin 2012 - 11:26 .

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

Yes, I know. And I already told that it will eventually lead us to this: http://social.biowar.../index/12593947

Good thing, I created that thread. KingZayd, HellishFiend here is the proof that it was not me, who misunderstood "IT". "IT" main idea involves Control and Synthesis removal. Just read Byne's comments.

Please, don't get me wrong, I really respect your opinion. But please, don't try to prove me that "IT" isn't suggesting Control/Synthesis removal anymore.

Like I said.
IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

If Byne and I both believe that Shepard is indoctrinated at the end, then I'm pretty sure we're both ITers. Maybe you should ask Byne to read what I've said and ask if they believe I'm an ITer.

What I believe is Shepard is indoctrinated, therefore I'm an ITer. I'm not suggesting removing the choices for control/synthesis. The choice can be made. It just doesn't happen in reality. The same thing applies to destroy.

Therefore by your logic, I'm trying to remove destroy too.

Modifié par KingZayd, 15 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[TheCrimsonSpire]

OMG, can we please cut back on the quote pyramids here! Are you all so lazy? you, people deserve bans...

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

Yes, I know. And I already told that it will eventually lead us to this: http://social.biowar.../index/12593947

Good thing, I created that thread. KingZayd, HellishFiend here is the proof that it was not me, who misunderstood "IT". "IT" main idea involves Control and Synthesis removal. Just read Byne's comments.

Please, don't get me wrong, I really respect your opinion. But please, don't try to prove me that "IT" isn't suggesting Control/Synthesis removal anymore.

Like I said.
IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

If Byne and I both believe that Shepard is indoctrinated at the end, then I'm pretty sure we're both ITers. Maybe you should ask Byne to read what I've said and ask if they believe I'm an ITer.

What I believe is Shepard is indoctrinated, therefore I'm an ITer. I'm not suggesting removing the choices for control/synthesis. The choice can be made. It just doesn't happen in reality. The same thing applies to destroy.

Therefore by your logic, I'm trying to remove destroy too.

We really should use that new thread for such debate instead of this one. Because this thread is about Control Ending Support, not about "IT".

Modifié par Seival, 15 juin 2012 - 11:42 .

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

Yes, I know. And I already told that it will eventually lead us to this: http://social.biowar.../index/12593947

Good thing, I created that thread. KingZayd, HellishFiend here is the proof that it was not me, who misunderstood "IT". "IT" main idea involves Control and Synthesis removal. Just read Byne's comments.

Please, don't get me wrong, I really respect your opinion. But please, don't try to prove me that "IT" isn't suggesting Control/Synthesis removal anymore.

Like I said.
IT= indoctrination theory=The theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated.

If Byne and I both believe that Shepard is indoctrinated at the end, then I'm pretty sure we're both ITers. Maybe you should ask Byne to read what I've said and ask if they believe I'm an ITer.

What I believe is Shepard is indoctrinated, therefore I'm an ITer. I'm not suggesting removing the choices for control/synthesis. The choice can be made. It just doesn't happen in reality. The same thing applies to destroy.

Therefore by your logic, I'm trying to remove destroy too.

We really should use that new thread for it instead of this one. Because this thread is about Control Ending Support, not about "IT".

Hey, in my defence, when i came into this thread, you were discussing IT so that's not my fault

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

OMG, can we please cut back on the quote pyramids here! Are you all so lazy? you, people deserve bans...

 
Sorry, how much quote is too much quote?

[Shepard Wins]

1) Awesome quote pyramid;
2) A question: What if you can't control them?;
3) Please answer the latter with "BUT I CAN!!!"

Modifié par Shepard Wins, 16 juin 2012 - 12:04 .

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Hey, in my defence, when i came into this thread, you were discussing IT so that's not my fault

True. But I was provoked by another "IT"er

...So, I resolved the situation by creating that new thread.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Hey, in my defence, when i came into this thread, you were discussing IT so that's not my fault

True. But I was provoked by another "IT"er

...So, I resolved the situation by creating that new thread.

but.. that's about the Geth Consensus theory.. that would be off-topic!

Also, since you apparently don't consider me an ITer, maybe you should have typed ""IT"er"?

Modifié par KingZayd, 16 juin 2012 - 12:08 .

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Hey, in my defence, when i came into this thread, you were discussing IT so that's not my fault

True. But I was provoked by another "IT"er

...So, I resolved the situation by creating that new thread.

but.. that's about the Geth Consensus theory.. that would be off-topic!

Also, since you apparently don't consider me an ITer, maybe you should have typed ""IT"er"?

That new thread is actually a good neutral ground for anti-"IT"ers and pro-"IT"ers to meet and discuss their opinions. And threads like this one will not be full of unneeded "holy wars".