80611 réponses à ce sujet

[CoolioThane]

Golly. IT must be false because more people don't believe in it (whether or not that be due to lack of knowledge about it, or to an ignorance and love of whining/complaining about anything).

Those open to it but still choose to believe literal make no sense to me. Literally I'm at a loss for words.

[estebanus]

CoolioThane wrote...

Golly. IT must be false because more people don't believe in it (whether or not that be due to lack of knowledge about it, or to an ignorance and love of whining/complaining about anything).

Those open to it but still choose to believe literal make no sense to me. Literally I'm at a loss for words.

What does it matter if people like me make no sense to you? Just respect our opinion. 

That kind of thinking alienates people otherwise open to it. Simply because they're open-minded but choose not to believe in it doesn't mean that somethings wrong with them, and telling them that they make no sense will not help in the least.

As a matter of fact, believing that people muast either believe in the IT or be against it is rather close-minded.

Modifié par estebanus, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[Xilizhra]

CoolioThane wrote...

Golly. IT must be false because more people don't believe in it (whether or not that be due to lack of knowledge about it, or to an ignorance and love of whining/complaining about anything).

Those open to it but still choose to believe literal make no sense to me. Literally I'm at a loss for words.

It's actually possible to enjoy the literal endings for what they are and believe that they conclude the story better, did you know that? If you have specific questions, I'm willing to answer them.

[AresKeith]

My opinion about IT is that I'm on the fence about it still

[estebanus]

Xilizhra wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Golly. IT must be false because more people don't believe in it (whether or not that be due to lack of knowledge about it, or to an ignorance and love of whining/complaining about anything).

Those open to it but still choose to believe literal make no sense to me. Literally I'm at a loss for words.

It's actually possible to enjoy the literal endings for what they are and believe that they conclude the story better, did you know that? If you have specific questions, I'm willing to answer them.

There are also those who are open to the IT but still view the ending as literal. They do this because they simply see it as unlikely.

[Andromidius]

I'm so sick of whatever Bioware did to Geth in MP. They are officially now my most hated opponant on Silver. They just don't stop coming, they cloak, bombers, they take too much punishment and dish it back out far too much. Seriously, what were the balance team thinking? I don't even get staggered anymore, they just kill me instantly!

[lex0r11]

I'll say it again.

Indoctrination Theory is not a fact. It is not the 100% explanation for the games ending. It is not obvious. It is not self-evident. People who believe otherwise are not too simple minded to understand, they just believe in other interpretations.

Until BioWare confirms or denies IT this will stand as a theory.

You want to turn this thread into another warzone like they exist all over BSN? No?
Then don't treat objectors like silly idiots. Some of them actually explain their opinion instead of waving around their hate and cusses.

[Andromidius]

Xilizhra wrote...
Why didn't Harbinger just vaporize Shepard instead of engaging in a convoluted indoctrination battle?

Why don't Reapers just kill everyone instead of indoctrinating them and turning them into husks and more Reapers?

Answer that and you'll answer your own question.

[Xilizhra]

Andromidius wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Why didn't Harbinger just vaporize Shepard instead of engaging in a convoluted indoctrination battle?

Why don't Reapers just kill everyone instead of indoctrinating them and turning them into husks and more Reapers?

Answer that and you'll answer your own question.

The Reapers slowly indoctrinate people who aren't on the front lines of combat against them so that they can perform sabotage operations, and huskify civilians en masse to create ground troops. But they're obviously not doing the latter to Shepard, otherwise she'd be on a dragon's tooth. And they're not doing the former, either, because the hallucinations came on so quickly that it has to be a fast indoctrination, which causes tremendous neural damage anyway, so Shepard's screwed no matter what.

[Dysjong]

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

[Eryri]

I have to agree with Lexor11 and Estebanusister here. I'm 95% certain that Shepard is being indoctrinated, but I can perfectly understand those who have doubts. I'm that way with religion. I can intellectually appreciate how unlikely and even ridiculous a personal God seems, but I don't think I'll ever be able to call myself an atheist, because of that tiny little bit of Catholic guilt that will never go away. I'm a bit of a congenital fence-sitter tbh.

Scepticism is healthy, and if people with a literal view of the endings are civil and respectful, then I see no reason why we shouldn't return the favour if they visit this thread.

[Xilizhra]

Dysjong wrote...

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

It would, if it weren't a waste of time already because the Reapers are in the process of obtaining ultimate victory right here in this battle.

[lex0r11]

Andromidius wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Why didn't Harbinger just vaporize Shepard instead of engaging in a convoluted indoctrination battle?

Why don't Reapers just kill everyone instead of indoctrinating them and turning them into husks and more Reapers?

Answer that and you'll answer your own question.

Indoctrinating VIP's is part of their war strategy. They did it with the protheans and that war lasted for 100's of years.

They seem to have all the time in the galaxy. They can and have to work slow. Isolating people from one another and doing the same with planets.

Now imagine what would be worse. A Shepard killed in action. Or A Shepard who turns against his/her own? The galactic alliance would crumble if even their strongest soldiers succumbs to the reapers. How could they hope to stand a chance?

[Eryri]

Ashep123 wrote...

One last time,
What does Shepard see in his dream after the kids burns (that the audience does not see) before he wakes up?

I'm afraid I've never thought about it. Do you have any theories you'd like to share? I'm genuinely interested.

[Andromidius]

Dysjong wrote...

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

Exactly.

Xil doesn't get it.

[Andromidius]

lex0r11 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Why didn't Harbinger just vaporize Shepard instead of engaging in a convoluted indoctrination battle?

Why don't Reapers just kill everyone instead of indoctrinating them and turning them into husks and more Reapers?

Answer that and you'll answer your own question.

Indoctrinating VIP's is part of their war strategy. They did it with the protheans and that war lasted for 100's of years.

They seem to have all the time in the galaxy. They can and have to work slow. Isolating people from one another and doing the same with planets.

Now imagine what would be worse. A Shepard killed in action. Or A Shepard who turns against his/her own? The galactic alliance would crumble if even their strongest soldiers succumbs to the reapers. How could they hope to stand a chance?

Again, exactly.

[Andromidius]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

It would, if it weren't a waste of time already because the Reapers are in the process of obtaining ultimate victory right here in this battle.

/sigh

I give up on you.

[Xilizhra]

Now imagine what would be worse. A Shepard killed in action. Or A Shepard who turns against his/her own? The galactic alliance would crumble if even their strongest soldiers succumbs to the reapers. How could they hope to stand a chance?

The Reapers have never shown any compunction about killing Shepard outright before; they know that Shepard is a huge potential threat if left alive in any capacity. And the Reapers here are about to win completely; they don't need any alleged morale damage from indoctrinating one soldier, not if it comes at the risk of crashing defeat somehow.

/sigh

I give up on you.

Stop arguing if you wish, but feigned disdain doesn't make you look any smarter.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:38 .

[Eryri]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

It would, if it weren't a waste of time already because the Reapers are in the process of obtaining ultimate victory right here in this battle.

I'm not sure we have all the facts here. Harbinger had a great deal of interest in Shepard in ME2. He may have plans that require Shepard, that haven't been spelled out explicitly yet. This is my own personal headcanon at the moment, but Shepard may posess some quality that Harbinger wants to "assimilate" into the next generation of reapers. For that, he may prefer him alive.

[Xilizhra]

Eryri wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

It would, if it weren't a waste of time already because the Reapers are in the process of obtaining ultimate victory right here in this battle.

I'm not sure we have all the facts here. Harbinger had a great deal of interest in Shepard in ME2. He may have plans that require Shepard, that haven't been spelled out explicitly yet. This is my own personal headcanon at the moment, but Shepard may posess some quality that Harbinger wants to "assimilate" into the next generation of reapers. For that, he may prefer him alive.

"Preserve Shepard's body if possible."
Killing Shepard was the priority. There were things that could be done with Shepard's body, but they weren't as important as ensuring that Shepard was dead.

[Eryri]

Xilizhra wrote...

Eryri wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

It would, if it weren't a waste of time already because the Reapers are in the process of obtaining ultimate victory right here in this battle.

I'm not sure we have all the facts here. Harbinger had a great deal of interest in Shepard in ME2. He may have plans that require Shepard, that haven't been spelled out explicitly yet. This is my own personal headcanon at the moment, but Shepard may posess some quality that Harbinger wants to "assimilate" into the next generation of reapers. For that, he may prefer him alive.

"Preserve Shepard's body if possible."
Killing Shepard was the priority. There were things that could be done with Shepard's body, but they weren't as important as ensuring that Shepard was dead.

Ah, but that was before Shepard proved himself to be so exceptionally resourceful by destroying the collector base and the Alpha Relay. That may have increased Harby's interest from mild curiosity to burning obsession. If so he may have decided that he would prefer a live Shepard to truly understand what makes him such an "anomaly" (Leviathan's words). But again, this is just theorising - I admit, I have no strong evidence to back it up.

[Xilizhra]

Ah, but that was before Shepard proved himself to be so exceptionally resourceful by destroying the collector base and the Alpha Relay. That may have increased Harby's interest from mild curiosity to burning obsession. If so he may have decided that he would prefer a live Shepard to truly understand what makes him such an "anomaly" (Leviathan's words). But again, this is just theorising - I admit, I have no strong evidence to back it up.

Destroying the Alpha Relay apparently wasn't it, because it doesn't change Harbinger's lines. And I don't know why destroying the Collector base would, because it doesn't seem as difficult as destroying a Reaper. And in ME3, the Reapers never seem to hold back with Shepard, nor does Harbinger, if attempting to incinerate her with that main gun is any indication.

[lex0r11]

Xilizhra wrote...

Eryri wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Andromidius.

Wouldnt it be smarter to take control over your enemy and turn against there allies? Try and think like a mind specialist ala wizard, turn your enemies against the enemy. By doing that, you save your own ressources for the future.

It would, if it weren't a waste of time already because the Reapers are in the process of obtaining ultimate victory right here in this battle.

I'm not sure we have all the facts here. Harbinger had a great deal of interest in Shepard in ME2. He may have plans that require Shepard, that haven't been spelled out explicitly yet. This is my own personal headcanon at the moment, but Shepard may posess some quality that Harbinger wants to "assimilate" into the next generation of reapers. For that, he may prefer him alive.

"Preserve Shepard's body if possible."
Killing Shepard was the priority. There were things that could be done with Shepard's body, but they weren't as important as ensuring that Shepard was dead.

Sure. ME2 was kill or capture.

But still, you see no strategic value in controlling VIP's of the races? They should just go on without indoctrinating people?

I imagine them studying the races as they evolve during their cycle. Indoctrinated agents would help to gather information. And in knowing even the simple basics of organic behavior and moral they would consider psychological warfare.

Modifié par lex0r11, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[estebanus]

Can't you just agree to disagree and leave it at that? Your arguing isn't going anywhere. Nobody's going to be convinced that they're wrong. 

EDIT: Top! If only banshee were here...

Modifié par estebanus, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[Eryri]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, but that was before Shepard proved himself to be so exceptionally resourceful by destroying the collector base and the Alpha Relay. That may have increased Harby's interest from mild curiosity to burning obsession. If so he may have decided that he would prefer a live Shepard to truly understand what makes him such an "anomaly" (Leviathan's words). But again, this is just theorising - I admit, I have no strong evidence to back it up.

Destroying the Alpha Relay apparently wasn't it, because it doesn't change Harbinger's lines. And I don't know why destroying the Collector base would, because it doesn't seem as difficult as destroying a Reaper. And in ME3, the Reapers never seem to hold back with Shepard, nor does Harbinger, if attempting to incinerate her with that main gun is any indication.

But that gun can cut dreadnoughts in half. Yet Shepard is merely singed.