295 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

dreamgazer wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Surely a full-on hallucination of the boy would count as manipulation against his will?

No, in the context of indoctrination, I'd consider it a whisper.

"Rana Thanoptis, an asari neuroscientist on Virmire, goes into more detail. She describes indoctrination as a subtle whisper you can't ignore, that compels you to do things without knowing why. Over days, perhaps a week of exposure to Sovereign's signal, the subject stops thinking for themselves and just obeys, eventually becoming a mindless servant."

Yes, the Reapers are manipulating your mind to see things which aren't there.

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the IT is true, then that means that ME is just full of bad writing. Compare the writing of KotOR where subtly throughout the entire game the writers leave clever hints which are finally revealed and you see the whole picture come together revealing Revan's true nature.

Now compare this to the IT where three times the Prothean VIs confirm that Shepard is not indoctrinated. The last time being at Cronos Station right on the brink of the last mission. If the IT is true, then writers aren't using clever and subtle hints to reveal that Shepard's indoctrinated. They are abusing the power of the writer over the storyline to literally lead you away from this conclusion three times, and then just suddenly throw it on you. Nonsense.

You either accept the endings, horrible though they may be, or you accept the Indoctrination Delusion with all this bad writing included.

Indoctrination is a process. Shepard isn't fully indoctrinated until making choices at the end. Therefore, of course the VI's wouldn't sense it Seriously, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Also, red herrings are used in stories all the time. In Game of Thrones, (spoilers) one would believe that Ned Stark is the primary protagonist of the series. Then he gets offed in the very first book. Clearly writers and film-makers fool their audiences all the time.

Those Prothean VIs must be rubbish if they can only detect indoctrinated beings and not those who are just about to be fully indoctrinated like Shepard is meant to be.

They are. Javik says so. It's how his people were infiltrated by traitors working for the Reapers.

You have no idea how available the Prothean VIs with their indoctrination detection technology were, therefore you can't comment on it. And logic dictates that they didn't have this technology just sitting around before they were betrayed by indoctrinated. They had to create it after indoctrinated agents attacked them.

However, the VIs we encounter are well established to be able to detect indoctrination, and they do not detect it in Shepard, but do detect it in Saren, Kai Leng, and Cerberus.

You're going to keep on chewing at that bone, but this point has been refuted since day one. It's not the kryptonite you think it is. The VI's were created after, but still did not detect those in the process which is how sleepers got into Prothean ranks. It's in the game. That's not speculation, that is facts given by the story and writers.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

M920CAIN wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

 First things first, I don't believe that IT was originally planned by BW, but that doesn't matter. I think what BW wants to do is release an ending that can please everyone, therefore if they release EC and it cointains the IT theory completely the Anti-IT people and people that for whatever reason liked the original ending will be mad. If they release EC and doesn't have to do anything with IT, IT theorist will be mad. So I doubt they're going to made the ending completely to deal with IT, or not deal with IT at all. What I believe is that they're going to implement IT in some way to please the IT theorist and maybe explain some plotholes, how they will pull it off i don't know, but I doubt the whole thing will be based on Indoctrination. Also, I think the new EC DLC will be big, not just a few "clarification" cutscenes, because it wouldn't be taking this long, they want to take they're time and release something that will please us. Also, Them taking a long time I believe can be seen as proof itself about the IT being actually used, I think they were gathering ideas and now they're finishing it up.

Listen to Jzargo. He is most powerful Mage of Winterhold! Future archmage material!

(=

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the IT is true, then that means that ME is just full of bad writing. Compare the writing of KotOR where subtly throughout the entire game the writers leave clever hints which are finally revealed and you see the whole picture come together revealing Revan's true nature.

Now compare this to the IT where three times the Prothean VIs confirm that Shepard is not indoctrinated. The last time being at Cronos Station right on the brink of the last mission. If the IT is true, then writers aren't using clever and subtle hints to reveal that Shepard's indoctrinated. They are abusing the power of the writer over the storyline to literally lead you away from this conclusion three times, and then just suddenly throw it on you. Nonsense.

You either accept the endings, horrible though they may be, or you accept the Indoctrination Delusion with all this bad writing included.

Indoctrination is a process. Shepard isn't fully indoctrinated until making choices at the end. Therefore, of course the VI's wouldn't sense it Seriously, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Also, red herrings are used in stories all the time. In Game of Thrones, (spoilers) one would believe that Ned Stark is the primary protagonist of the series. Then he gets offed in the very first book. Clearly writers and film-makers fool their audiences and readers all the time.

Do you not see how that is being misleading? I've used this analogy before. It's like a doctor telling his patient that he doesn't have diabetes, while not telling him that he will likely become diabetic within the next few months. That's deceptive writing, and not the good kind either.

Additionally, you are speculating on the VI's ability to detect differing levels of indoctrination or the process of indoctrination. You have no idea how much of the "taint" of indoctrination the VIs could detect. 

Furthermore, it becomes increasingly unlikely that Shepard is indoctrinated, when he literally only has a 1 mission span within which he can become indoctrinated.

Finally, to the vast majority of players, being told that Shepard is not indoctrinated, would have dismissed any thought of idea from them completely.

Now compare this to KotOR where the writers cleverly lead you towards the Revan's role, and then completely, with dramatic cutscenes actually confirm it. In ME3 we have a horde of fans confused and pissed off and unable to understand what the hell happen.

Ugh, you are misinformed, sir.

1. Deceptive writing is used all the time. Whether it's moral or not is not the issue. An unreliable character or narrator is common enough.

2. I am not speculating. The proof comes from Javik himself, who says, paraphrasing, " the VI's did not work because my people were infiltrated by the enemy anyway ". Now whether the infiltrators hacked the VI's like TIM did or were being slowly indoctrinated like the scientists on the derelict reaper and at object Rho is speculation. However, for an agent to keep their sanity and be effective, the process has to be slow or the indoctrinee becomes a gibbering animal.

3. He does not have " literally one mission" . There are multiple times Shepard is exposed to Reapertech, Object Rho aside. Shepard has been exposed since ME1. Shepard has been in the vicinity of multiple Reaper capital ships and many Reaper destroyers, whom you fight in ME3. Shepard has had a lot of exposure.

4. Whether players dismiss it or not, does not make it untrue. The writer decides what is true and can trick the reader, revealing a surprise later. Some people like surprises. It keeps a story from being dull.

1. Javik does not say that the VIs didn't work. He says the Protheans were infiltrated by indoctrinated. If you have any evidence regarding the VIs not working, provide it.

2.Unreliable narrators/characters can be good "deceptive" writing, which I did suggest exists. However, when this same information comes from two different characters, who happen to have valid, reliable information over the course of the series, happen to be virtual intelligences, without any real motivation for themselves, and consistenly confirm the information again and again, the chances of them being unreliable is close to nil.

3. My statement was that Shepard is not indoctrinated at Cronos Station, and therefore only has one mission Priority: Earth, in which he can become "fully" indoctrinated, making it even more unlikely.

4. Surprises can be good, such as in KotOR. That was a very well done twist, and although it may seem sudden, it was built up throughout the whole game, and confirmed in the same game. With the IT, we have repeated denials of Shepard's indoctrinated up until the 11th hour of the game, and then suddenly he is indoctrinated. That's just bad writing.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 10 juin 2012 - 07:01 .

[Baa Baa]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

They could easily make a multiple ending DLC that pleases everyone, lets just hope they do and not just ignore everyone.

But I think theres hope, on HTL forums Chris Priestly started a topic to see how many ppl believed in the IT- http://www.holdtheline.com/threads/do-you-believe-in-the-indoctrination-theory.1909/

Hmm, this looks promising...
I hope they do something cool like that. I'm sure BioWare is aware that many people like IT (whether they believe in it or not) and making endings with IT/ and without cool be a good way to please Pro Enders and Anti Enders.

[BatmanTurian]

jla0644 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

None of those people were controlled like TIM was controlling Shepard. Not one of them. They were not puppets whose bodily movements were being actively controlled. They were in effect brainwashed. That's really all Indoctrination is, being convinced that what the Reapers want you to do is what YOU want to do.

And you're misreading that definition. There is nothing in that definition about direct bodily control. "Physical" doesn't mean what you think it means in this case. "Physiological" would probably be a better word to use. Read it again. Here's a hint: the bit about "reprogramming the brain" is what you want to pay attention to.

And I would politely ask, what do you think TIM is using that has no precedent beyond biotics? I don't believe TIM was ever a biotic, but I could be wrong. If he had any potential, then implants might magnify that potential, but I believe his implants from the research on Sanctuary were to control husks. What do you think?

I have no idea. All we know is that Lawson found a way to copy the Reaper signal. We don't know what that allows them to do beyond controlling husks. We don't know if that is the extent of it, or if it does more.

Why would TIM need to be a biotic?

What do I think? Honestly I don't think the writers themselves know what is going on. I think they showed us a few clues -- the Reaper signal, TiM implanting himself -- and we're supposed to deduce that that is where this power came from. If they want to make up some fake facts to give it some more detail, I'm sure they could.

And I would ask, if all that signal does is give TIM the power to control husks, why do you assume he has the power to indoctrinate Shepard and Anderson?

I don't. I just think it has no good explanation. I was just wondering if you had an idea of how TIM could do it. The only viable explanation is a biotic power Morinth has that it seems unlikely TIM would be able to gain, master, and use in a short period of time.

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the IT is true, then that means that ME is just full of bad writing. Compare the writing of KotOR where subtly throughout the entire game the writers leave clever hints which are finally revealed and you see the whole picture come together revealing Revan's true nature.

Now compare this to the IT where three times the Prothean VIs confirm that Shepard is not indoctrinated. The last time being at Cronos Station right on the brink of the last mission. If the IT is true, then writers aren't using clever and subtle hints to reveal that Shepard's indoctrinated. They are abusing the power of the writer over the storyline to literally lead you away from this conclusion three times, and then just suddenly throw it on you. Nonsense.

You either accept the endings, horrible though they may be, or you accept the Indoctrination Delusion with all this bad writing included.

Indoctrination is a process. Shepard isn't fully indoctrinated until making choices at the end. Therefore, of course the VI's wouldn't sense it Seriously, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Also, red herrings are used in stories all the time. In Game of Thrones, (spoilers) one would believe that Ned Stark is the primary protagonist of the series. Then he gets offed in the very first book. Clearly writers and film-makers fool their audiences all the time.

Those Prothean VIs must be rubbish if they can only detect indoctrinated beings and not those who are just about to be fully indoctrinated like Shepard is meant to be.

They are. Javik says so. It's how his people were infiltrated by traitors working for the Reapers.

You have no idea how available the Prothean VIs with their indoctrination detection technology were, therefore you can't comment on it. And logic dictates that they didn't have this technology just sitting around before they were betrayed by indoctrinated. They had to create it after indoctrinated agents attacked them.

However, the VIs we encounter are well established to be able to detect indoctrination, and they do not detect it in Shepard, but do detect it in Saren, Kai Leng, and Cerberus.

You're going to keep on chewing at that bone, but this point has been refuted since day one. It's not the kryptonite you think it is. The VI's were created after, but still did not detect those in the process which is how sleepers got into Prothean ranks. It's in the game. That's not speculation, that is facts given by the story and writers.

The proof you have for this is? Oh wait! None.

You have no idea about the ability of the VIs to detect differing levels of indoctrination. So you can't say that they can't.

Additionally, Vigil says he does not trace the "taint" of indoctrination on Shepard, which suggests that they can detect trace amounts of indoctrination because that is what taint means.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the IT is true, then that means that ME is just full of bad writing. Compare the writing of KotOR where subtly throughout the entire game the writers leave clever hints which are finally revealed and you see the whole picture come together revealing Revan's true nature.

Now compare this to the IT where three times the Prothean VIs confirm that Shepard is not indoctrinated. The last time being at Cronos Station right on the brink of the last mission. If the IT is true, then writers aren't using clever and subtle hints to reveal that Shepard's indoctrinated. They are abusing the power of the writer over the storyline to literally lead you away from this conclusion three times, and then just suddenly throw it on you. Nonsense.

You either accept the endings, horrible though they may be, or you accept the Indoctrination Delusion with all this bad writing included.

Indoctrination is a process. Shepard isn't fully indoctrinated until making choices at the end. Therefore, of course the VI's wouldn't sense it Seriously, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Also, red herrings are used in stories all the time. In Game of Thrones, (spoilers) one would believe that Ned Stark is the primary protagonist of the series. Then he gets offed in the very first book. Clearly writers and film-makers fool their audiences and readers all the time.

Do you not see how that is being misleading? I've used this analogy before. It's like a doctor telling his patient that he doesn't have diabetes, while not telling him that he will likely become diabetic within the next few months. That's deceptive writing, and not the good kind either.

Additionally, you are speculating on the VI's ability to detect differing levels of indoctrination or the process of indoctrination. You have no idea how much of the "taint" of indoctrination the VIs could detect. 

Furthermore, it becomes increasingly unlikely that Shepard is indoctrinated, when he literally only has a 1 mission span within which he can become indoctrinated.

Finally, to the vast majority of players, being told that Shepard is not indoctrinated, would have dismissed any thought of idea from them completely.

Now compare this to KotOR where the writers cleverly lead you towards the Revan's role, and then completely, with dramatic cutscenes actually confirm it. In ME3 we have a horde of fans confused and pissed off and unable to understand what the hell happen.

What a load of bunk.........................only one mission?

How many of the 3 games have you played, and actually payed ATTENTION to?

Are we playing ME, or some other IP?

Drop comparisons to other drivel, they aren't part of the Mass Effect Universe.

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the IT is true, then that means that ME is just full of bad writing. Compare the writing of KotOR where subtly throughout the entire game the writers leave clever hints which are finally revealed and you see the whole picture come together revealing Revan's true nature.

Now compare this to the IT where three times the Prothean VIs confirm that Shepard is not indoctrinated. The last time being at Cronos Station right on the brink of the last mission. If the IT is true, then writers aren't using clever and subtle hints to reveal that Shepard's indoctrinated. They are abusing the power of the writer over the storyline to literally lead you away from this conclusion three times, and then just suddenly throw it on you. Nonsense.

You either accept the endings, horrible though they may be, or you accept the Indoctrination Delusion with all this bad writing included.

Indoctrination is a process. Shepard isn't fully indoctrinated until making choices at the end. Therefore, of course the VI's wouldn't sense it Seriously, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Also, red herrings are used in stories all the time. In Game of Thrones, (spoilers) one would believe that Ned Stark is the primary protagonist of the series. Then he gets offed in the very first book. Clearly writers and film-makers fool their audiences and readers all the time.

Do you not see how that is being misleading? I've used this analogy before. It's like a doctor telling his patient that he doesn't have diabetes, while not telling him that he will likely become diabetic within the next few months. That's deceptive writing, and not the good kind either.

Additionally, you are speculating on the VI's ability to detect differing levels of indoctrination or the process of indoctrination. You have no idea how much of the "taint" of indoctrination the VIs could detect. 

Furthermore, it becomes increasingly unlikely that Shepard is indoctrinated, when he literally only has a 1 mission span within which he can become indoctrinated.

Finally, to the vast majority of players, being told that Shepard is not indoctrinated, would have dismissed any thought of idea from them completely.

Now compare this to KotOR where the writers cleverly lead you towards the Revan's role, and then completely, with dramatic cutscenes actually confirm it. In ME3 we have a horde of fans confused and pissed off and unable to understand what the hell happen.

Ugh, you are misinformed, sir.

1. Deceptive writing is used all the time. Whether it's moral or not is not the issue. An unreliable character or narrator is common enough.

2. I am not speculating. The proof comes from Javik himself, who says, paraphrasing, " the VI's did not work because my people were infiltrated by the enemy anyway ". Now whether the infiltrators hacked the VI's like TIM did or were being slowly indoctrinated like the scientists on the derelict reaper and at object Rho is speculation. However, for an agent to keep their sanity and be effective, the process has to be slow or the indoctrinee becomes a gibbering animal.

3. He does not have " literally one mission" . There are multiple times Shepard is exposed to Reapertech, Object Rho aside. Shepard has been exposed since ME1. Shepard has been in the vicinity of multiple Reaper capital ships and many Reaper destroyers, whom you fight in ME3. Shepard has had a lot of exposure.

4. Whether players dismiss it or not, does not make it untrue. The writer decides what is true and can trick the reader, revealing a surprise later. Some people like surprises. It keeps a story from being dull.

1. Javik does not say that the VIs didn't work. He says the Protheans were infiltrated by indoctrinated. If you have any evidence regarding the VIs not working, provide it. Javik himself says they were infiltrated after the VI's were created. That is fact. The burden of proof is on you to disprove something already in the game.

2.Unreliable narrators/characters can be good "deceptive" writing, which I did suggest exists. However, when this same information comes from two different characters, who happen to have valid, reliable information over the course of the series, happen to be virtual intelligences, without any real motivation for themselves, and consistenly confirm the information again and again, the chances of them being unreliable is close to nil. No, it's not. The flaws in the VI's are already there so it's not an issue of deceptive writing really. Just flawed technology

3. My statement was that Shepard is not indoctrinated at Cronos Station, and therefore only has one mission Priority: Earth, in which he can become indoctrinated. And you're wrong. In IT, Shepard becomes fully indoctrinated if he/she adopts their views, which is in two of the three endings. Shepard is in the process throughout the games but it's especially ramped up in ME3.

4. Surprises can be good, such as in KotOR. That was a very well done twist, and although it may seem sudden, it was built up throughout the whole game, and confirmed in the same game. With the IT, we have repeated denials of Shepard's indoctrinated up until the 11th hour of the game, and then suddenly he is indoctrinated. That's just bad writing.
No, it's a surprise mindf%^. Calling it bad writing is opinion. The indoctrination process is possibly hinted throughout ME3. It's not a story element that just appears in ME3 and in ME3 there are multiple examples of it happening to others.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The proof you have for this is? Oh wait! None.

You have no idea about the ability of the VIs to detect differing levels of indoctrination. So you can't say that they can't.

Additionally, Vigil says he does not trace the "taint" of indoctrination on Shepard, which suggests that they can detect trace amounts of indoctrination because that is what taint means.

And neither do you, so you can't say that they can.  All we have is the concrete positive.  

Assuming that the VI would go above and beyond a black-and-white determination at that point is as big of a stretch as your assertion of what the theory folks are doing.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the IT is true, then that means that ME is just full of bad writing. Compare the writing of KotOR where subtly throughout the entire game the writers leave clever hints which are finally revealed and you see the whole picture come together revealing Revan's true nature.

Now compare this to the IT where three times the Prothean VIs confirm that Shepard is not indoctrinated. The last time being at Cronos Station right on the brink of the last mission. If the IT is true, then writers aren't using clever and subtle hints to reveal that Shepard's indoctrinated. They are abusing the power of the writer over the storyline to literally lead you away from this conclusion three times, and then just suddenly throw it on you. Nonsense.

You either accept the endings, horrible though they may be, or you accept the Indoctrination Delusion with all this bad writing included.

Indoctrination is a process. Shepard isn't fully indoctrinated until making choices at the end. Therefore, of course the VI's wouldn't sense it Seriously, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Also, red herrings are used in stories all the time. In Game of Thrones, (spoilers) one would believe that Ned Stark is the primary protagonist of the series. Then he gets offed in the very first book. Clearly writers and film-makers fool their audiences all the time.

Those Prothean VIs must be rubbish if they can only detect indoctrinated beings and not those who are just about to be fully indoctrinated like Shepard is meant to be.

They are. Javik says so. It's how his people were infiltrated by traitors working for the Reapers.

You have no idea how available the Prothean VIs with their indoctrination detection technology were, therefore you can't comment on it. And logic dictates that they didn't have this technology just sitting around before they were betrayed by indoctrinated. They had to create it after indoctrinated agents attacked them.

However, the VIs we encounter are well established to be able to detect indoctrination, and they do not detect it in Shepard, but do detect it in Saren, Kai Leng, and Cerberus.

You're going to keep on chewing at that bone, but this point has been refuted since day one. It's not the kryptonite you think it is. The VI's were created after, but still did not detect those in the process which is how sleepers got into Prothean ranks. It's in the game. That's not speculation, that is facts given by the story and writers.

The proof you have for this is? Oh wait! None.

You have no idea about the ability of the VIs to detect differing levels of indoctrination. So you can't say that they can't.

Additionally, Vigil says he does not trace the "taint" of indoctrination on Shepard, which suggests that they can detect trace amounts of indoctrination because that is what taint means.

The process is slow. So it would be undetectable, otherwise the sleeper agents would not have infiltrated Prothean ranks. That logic is unassailable. Give it up.

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

[Catamantaloedis]

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The proof you have for this is? Oh wait! None.

You have no idea about the ability of the VIs to detect differing levels of indoctrination. So you can't say that they can't.

Additionally, Vigil says he does not trace the "taint" of indoctrination on Shepard, which suggests that they can detect trace amounts of indoctrination because that is what taint means.

And neither do you, so you can't say that they can.  All we have is the concrete positive.  

Assuming that the VI would go above and beyond a black-and-white determination at that point is as big of a stretch as your assertion of what the theory folks are doing.

You completely ignored the part about Vigil not detecting the taint of indoctrination, and the fact that the word taint suggests that something is not completely corrupted.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

It still requires proof. You can't just read what you want into a text, you have to extract meaning from what you are given, and the IT fails to do this sufficiently.

[BatmanTurian]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

this. Examine other works of fiction, including films, and the same tropes are used.

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

It still requires proof. You can't just read what you want into a text, you have to extract meaning from what you are given, and the IT fails to do this sufficiently.

And that is just your opinion. The evidence is given, as there will never be "proof" unless Bioware canonizes it. But yes, you can just read what you want into a text and extract meaning. That's part of the interpretive process of literature and film and games are a kind of interactive film. IT does just that, interpret meaning in the story based on story elements and themes.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 10 juin 2012 - 07:19 .

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

It still requires proof. You can't just read what you want into a text, you have to extract meaning from what you are given, and the IT fails to do this sufficiently.

And that is just your opinion. The evidence is given, as there will never bee "proof" unless Bioware canonizes it. But yes, you can just read what you want into a text and extract meaning. That's part of the interpretive process of literature. IT does just that.

No, that is not part of the interpretive process. You can't just say that The Grapes of Wrath comments on homosexuality without some proof in the text.

There is no proof in the IT which is not untenable, and contradictory to what we are presented in the game.

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

That the shadows in the dreams can be interpreted as "oily shadows".

And in the realm of interpretation, almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation.  

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 10 juin 2012 - 07:21 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

The difference is this is not  Alice of Wonderland, where the story hasn't grounded or set any boundaries on what can or can't happen. This is Mass Effect, A universe that has boundaries, rules, and logic put into the story. As Samara said "We don't have magic" meaning there are rules to the universe of Mass Effect, they're are certain things that can or can't happen. In matter of fact thats what makes the ending bad in the first place, the fact that the logic is thrown out the window when the game ends with the kid telling you to one of three choices, and each of them having plotholes and unlogical things happening like the Mass Relays being destroyed. And the IT Theory is just more unlogical things trying to replace unlogical things.

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.