80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Rosewind]

Arian Dynas wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Shoot I was gone a month and people were like who? Of course, I'm not Arian Dynas (commences parade and confetti)

Well. I was expecting at least a hug. So I guess I'll have to make my own. *HUG*

*Hug*

[ThisOneIsPunny]

Rosewind wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Shoot I was gone a month and people were like who? Of course, I'm not Arian Dynas (commences parade and confetti)

Well. I was expecting at least a hug. So I guess I'll have to make my own. *HUG*

*Hug*

*doublehug*

[spotlessvoid]

So if I was quoted, would that count as an arm brush Rosewind? =P

[Rosewind]

spotlessvoid wrote...

So if I was quoted, would that count as an arm brush Rosewind? =P

lol .... no .... you would be man hugging phunny though

[Salient Archer]

Hey guys! I'm back too! It's me Archer! - What's been happening? *high fives and Aston Martins for everyone*

[Rosewind]

Salient Archer wrote...

Hey guys! I'm back too! It's me Archer! - What's been happening? *high fives and Aston Martins for everyone*

*Grabs the keys to all the martins* Later all!!

[Arian Dynas]

Simon_Says wrote...

I was wondering where you went Arian.

If I recall, Doomsday found that during the black-borders shots during the TIM encounter the background noise is actually a slowed down reaper horn. TIM aint pupeteerin, a reaper is. Don't have a link on hand for it though. He also found a noise in the Normandy Evac scene that he thinks is "The child lies." through his tinfoil earphones.

Also, Zerebus found an interesting tidbit from Kaiden which could be construed as foreshadowing.

And Raistlin found that the reaper code in the geth concensus was covering... information that would debunk the Catalyst's argument. Eeyup.

TJBarty engaged troll mode. Spotless and Masster followed suit. Then some others started getting worried so while they weren't really trolling we had to engage defensive protocols. Then plfranke showed up to be an ass and insult people for no particular reason.

FFZero, Esteban and others got some info from Gamescom. As usual the community managers are being either coy or self-contradictory. And people got upset over that for some reason so some of us had to remind people the simple fact: What Bioware makes will matter. What Bioware says doesn't hold any weight any more.

Oh and 60 pages ago I made a Wall of Text to remind people that IT doesn't make the ending superfluous.

Also I'd hug you, but I'm Canadian. Unless you have fur and hibernate for half the year, you wouldn't survive.

*gasp* how did you know!?

And yes, thanks for the welcome back and the info.

ALso, I'll see your Aston Martins and raise you some Billy Martins, Dean Martins and a Martini

[FreddyCast]

So whatsup guys? Anything new? Anything exciting? Anything mind blowing? Anything Blah Blah Blah? etc.

[Dusen]

I'm certain this has been brought up multiple times in the past couple thousand pages that this thread and it's successors have been open, but I've always had problems with the presentation of the child in the vent on Earth. Beyond the fact that the room he was in was just blasted by a Reaper, the child acts nothing like a child. Instead of crying he seems oddly calm. Also, his response is rather strange, for a child that is. "You can't save me" is not a line that you would expect to hear most children saying, kids just don't talk like that. . . not to mention he dissappears rather quickly.

[Simon_Says]

@Dusen, it's always good to see people reaching the same conclusions independently.

Also, there was a debate some sixty pages back. Spotless, Doomsday, Banshee and myself got into a little argument after I posted this wall of text followed by this post. I said I'd share the findings if we ever got to a conclusion, and we have. I'll post links to the relevant posts.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Spotless and I continued in PMs.

spotlessvoid wrote...


Indoctrination Theories, as their starting point, must be based on the assertion that the Reaper tool of Indoctrination is used. How, when, and to what extent is clearly still being debated. What isn't debatable is that Reaper indoctrination is an actual demonstrable phenomenon. Starchilds attempts at influencing Shepard through deception is propaganda, which, in the real world, can be described as indoctrination. However, your claim that this constitutes indoctrination as defined within the confines of the Mass Effect Universe is misleading as the connotations of the word indoctrination is wildly different in each respective use. Influencing a person into making a decision detrimental to themselves through confusion and intimidation is most aptly defined as simply a deception.

The act of indoctrination, in it's full context in the game world, is not an attempt to persuade or guide simply through dialogue or mere psychological manipulation, it is a physiological attack on the entire nervous system. That is the reason why indoctrination cannot be fully reversed by convincing an indoctrinated subject of their plight, this is clearly demonstrated in Sarens and Benezias cases.

With what defines indoctrination now established, let's move on to the next part of your argument:

From a narrative standpoint, the entire meaning and resulting consequences of the ending sequence are fundamentally dependent on whether or not what we see occurs as presented. I even posit that accepting what is on screen, even if one claims the Reapers are using an indoctrination signal throughout, is ultimately contrary to what Indoctrination Theory represents. In that situation, the player is not effected by indoctrination directly, rendering it irrelevant to the decision making process and therefore irrelevant to the narrative as well.

The essence of what Indoctrination Theory means is that the ending, whatever the particulars, is not happening literally. (Again, when, how and to what extent the on screen reality is warped or entirely false is why this thread exists.) The impact of this theory on what the ending means and it's subsequent impact on the entire ending narrative cannot be overstated. It is irreconcilable with your theory that the ending is meant to be taken at face value. In fact, it specifically rejects that as it's starting premise. "Was the ending a hallucination" remains unresolved. Therefore, the thread continues.

The debate whether the end choices *unfotunately his post cut off here*

spotlessvoid wrote...

I reread your post. Very well written, I just disagree that IT is, boiled down, about choice. IT, as first defined, is about hallucination and the ending not occurring. I do agree that it could very likely be wrong, but I stress that the hallucination aspect changing the meaning of what's displayed is the central, defining feature. It is the plot device that counts in this theory. Any deviation from that means it is not IT, therefore false reality is the core aspect of IT, not refusal to submit to Reaper influence. If there is not a direct impact on the player manifested on screen, than any indoctrination is irrelevant to the game experience. Again, that on screen indoctrination is the central tenet of IT. As such, that Bioware did this intentionally is necessary

Simon_Says wrote...

"out of respect for the considerable effort you have put into IT since the early days , I will agree to refrain any further debate. No hard feelings"

Actually I was hoping we could discuss it further after I had a chance to sleep on it. I’ve read through your posts again and I think we should clarify our current positions, since I think it’s in our best interests to come to a common understanding.

If haven’t already, please check out Red Letter Media’s review of The Phantom Menace. Pay particular attention to the section where the reviewers ask people to describe characters from Episodes I and IV to highlight the difference in narrative strength between them. He asks them to describe those characters without going into their appearance, profession, or actions within the narratives. Basically, he’s asking them to tell us what the characters are -about-, not what they do.

This focus on what things are about is what I was going for. And it works not only on characters but entire works or series. For instance, consider Macbeth. What happens is Macbeth commits regicide, assumes the throne and then is violently deposed. But what it’s -about- involves betrayal, guilt, and vengeance among other things. Yes, these ideas aren’t unique to Macbeth. They could just as easily apply to The Godfather or The Count of Monte Cristo, but they are still what Macbeth is about as well.

Core, primal ideas here. Themes, not events, facts or assertions. I was trying to get at the core of what Indoctrination Theory is about, not what happens in it. I agree an indoctrination attempt is happening on Shepard, and that it’s a cornerstone of the theory. But the themes give us a reason to care about -why- the indoctrination is occurring, and to know the stakes involved. The themes are what make or break the coherence of the ending with the rest of the narrative. The themes are what set IT apart from the pack.

You may want to take a peek at this odd theory I found some time ago. It’s an interpretation that actually involves hallucinations occurring in the crucible chamber scene (though not indoctrination). The author asserts that the crucible having a mind-machine interface derived from prothean technology, and that the choice is a hallucination. The mechanism of ‘perception is unreal’ is central to that theory, and yet it’s obviously not IT. In fact it’s still a literalist interpretation.
Compare the core principles.
-IT: Shepard is battling for their soul. They are being duped and if they fail they damn themselves and become a villain.
-Literalism: Shepard has already won. The Crucible choices are all victory conditions to one degree or another. Shepard is a hero regardless.

-That- is the distinction. -That- is what changes the meaning of what we see transpiring. Not the reality or unreality of the ending. So I must respectfully disagree with how you appraised my post as being “merely variation on a literal interpretation that merely posits that only one choice is correct.”

So yes, strictly speaking you can in fact develop variations of IT where Shepard is on the Citadel and was only ‘indoctrinated’ by falling for the Catalyst’s BS. The mental/moral battle is still there. The indoctrination is still there. But of course they would be there weakly. By not leveraging the tools readily available in that they would still leave the ending broken and incomplete.

This is when the plot devices of ‘spooky-action-indoctrination’ (the processes established in the series) and skewed perceptions of reality (dreams/visions/hallucinations/etc.) come into play. They can bring the coherence, the depth and the answers needed. They’re just what were called for to give substance to the core theme. Indoctrination and hallucination are like meat on bone. Without them the core themes of the theory (the bones) would be, in an understatement, ineffective. But without those bones the meat just flops around without structure or direction. You need both to have something with actual functionality and opportunity.

The bones could be from Macbeth, the Godfather or the Count of Monte Cristo. It’s only with the meat that they are given substance and identity. But the bones are still there under the meat. Only together can they become a complete organism. Sorry if this analogy was a bit grim. Too much Super Meat Boy on the brain.

Indoctrination processes and hallucination are foundations to Indoctrination Theory, I agree. But I wrote that post because Heretic Hanar and others were confusing them as the purpose or central theme of Indoctrination Theory and not the mechanisms that feed into and are fed from the real core concepts. By assuming that they thought that the goal of IT was to just provide a reset button to the game, or that the ending of ME3 didn’t matter to the larger plot, or that we didn’t get a ‘real’ climax to the Mass Effect storyline. I think we can both agree that those conclusions are false.

So I was just trying to get the theory building back on track by going to the basics and pinpointing the source point of the theory: The common ground where -all- variations of Indoctrination Theory are grounded on. That’s not to say that it’s the starting point of the theory, or that that source point is the be-all end-all of the theory. Quite the contrary.

I had actually devoted the entire second section of my original post to paint the primary assertions of IT I was aware of in broad strokes, and I started by discussing how the Catalyst must have been directing Shepard’s perception of reality to some degree. That’s a starting point, though there could be others, including the logical inconsistency of the endings, the question of how Shepard could -not- be indoctrinated to some degree, what purpose indoctrination served in the series other than to make antagonists wholesale, or even your own starting point that indoctrination is a weapon in the reapers’ arsenal and as such we should ask when, where, why and how it was used in ME3. But they should all reach at some point some common ideas: the source point.

And I wasn’t trying to be arrogant or reductionist. I wasn’t trying to lay down my own interpretation of IT, since there isn’t one in that post. Just the broad strokes of how certain popular ideas were concluded. I wasn’t trying to dictate that the focus should be on narrative impact over examination of hallucination aspects, just trying to pinpoint the source point of the theory so that everyone could be on the same page. I wasn’t “implying is that this version is correct, and that discussing other variations is not essential to IT”. Well, maybe I -was- implying that my concept of the fundamental idea of IT was the correct one, but I honestly haven’t seen a single variation of IT that didn’t in some way involve what I laid down, even from the more radical interpretations. And every non-IT related interpretation (which aren’t just literalist though they represent the most prominent camp) I’ve seen hadn’t.

And I still hadn’t said that discussing variants was non-essential. I was frankly rather insulted when you said that. I don’t think I had said anything to imply that, whatever specific meaning you had in mind for it. Discussing variants of IT is vital. If the theories are to develop and become/remain solid they need to mutate, deviate and then be analysed, tested and eventually culled or superseded. I never disputed that, and never discouraged it. If you were talking about variants for what the core concept of IT is, well, the same applies. I put forward my interpretation for the core concept and so far I still haven’t been convinced it isn’t correct. But I never said I couldn’t or that if a better understanding comes along I wouldn’t.

Also I still don’t understand what you were saying about details. IT is built from details. The many, many details coalesce and form a big picture. The debate over how much of the ending shown was reality or fantasy is one of the biggest ‘details’ (the term doesn’t apply neatly here) that contributes to that picture. But I was trying to describe what that -big- picture is probably about in the most basic sense. So yes, my focus was on the big picture, but I’m not focusing on it to the detriment of the smaller pictures. But -both- need to be kept in perspective.

Holy **** I broke two pages in MS Word hammering this out. Unfortunately this -was- a tricky issue, being as huge, complex and important as it is, and frankly this was actually the most concise I could make it. Hopefully though I’ve left my stance unambiguous and easy to read.

Been an engaging debate though, great fun! Looking forward to your reply. Won’t blame you though if it’s just “TLDR”.

Simon_Says wrote...

Son of a ****. You finish a wall of text and then it hits you.*

Actually in hindsight it probably would have been better to summarize IT with “The reapers were indoctrinating Shepard. They were doing it by directing Shepard’s perception of reality. They’re doing it to compel Shepard to give up their soul to them. This provides a climax to Shepard’s arc.”

What do you think?

*[i]I wrote this in reference to myself, having been exasperated that I wrote essays and didn't boil things down to a thesis statement.

spotlessvoid wrote...

DD and I continued our discussion as well. I'm about to read your post, thanks for such an in depth reply!

spotlessvoid wrote...

First off, let me begin by simply apologizing. Clearly I came off like a jerk. I also made some unfair accusations. I apologize for insulting you.

Doomsday pointed me to your full post on page 407. I was responding to the quote pyramid atop page 408, which was only a sliver of your post. In it's entirety, and understanding the context of the response to heretic hanar, it's obvious I misrepresented your position. Even without that context, I was unfair and rude. I should have gone back a few pages before launching into you like that, and I do hope you believe me when I say that I wasn't trying to attack you personally, just what I too hastily assumed was your position.

IT is not a retcon device, as we clearly both know. In fact it's the opposite. IT provides a way to take the narrative further without trivializing what the player has already experienced. In retrospect, I find both the thematic element and the plot device to be inseparably linked, both equally fundamental to understanding the meaning of Indoctrination Theory. You and Doomsday are correct, we supporters of IT too often fail to explain what the story behind all the little details we have found actually means to the player and the series, creating confusion as to what Indoctrination Theory really is, and providing no emotional resonance to draw people in.

Simon_Says wrote...

No apology required. Sometimes things get confused, especially when multi-page essays are involved.

So hopefully that's been sorted out and we've reached consensus.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 19 août 2012 - 05:37 .

[spotlessvoid]

Holy crap Simon that's epic! I know it's a massive Wall of text, but there are some really great points made in it, worth the read if you missed the live version.

Dusen:

Yeah, totally strange scene. I think there's been so much put forth that it can be easy to forget why we started looking deeper in the first place.

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 19 août 2012 - 05:46 .

[FreddyCast]

So, I decided to make another IT vid. And it's probably the creepiest  vid I'll have ever made. Don't know when I'll finish it, but I'll do my best to make it as scary and enjoyable as possible.

Modifié par FreddyCast, 19 août 2012 - 06:29 .

[Simon_Says]

I asked earlier about Anderson mentioning the reapers planning something big in London. Specifically, when it took place. Because if it was before Thessia it would have been proof that the reapers were planning the events of Priority: Earth with the beam and such even before they could have had knowledge from Vendetta about the Crucible or the Catalyst.

I found this post from Masster. He implies it's before Thessia. The dialogue also suggests that.

"Unite And Subvert" theory confirmed I think.

Anyway I'm out for the night. Laters.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 19 août 2012 - 06:09 .

[halbert986]

Hey when is it that Kaiden mentions flashing forward?

Because when you have the VS conversation after the citadel attack on the normandy dock, Ashley asks if Udina was indoctrinated.
She then says, "How do you fight something that can worm its way into your head?"

To which shepard replies "I don't know, but we don't have a choice."
That sounds normal enough on paper, but in game the camera pushes in on shep when he says that as if to emphasize it.

Could be nothing, might be something. I figured if Kaiden made his comment during the same conversation it just might be something.

[UltimateTobi]

halbert986 wrote...

Hey when is it that Kaiden mentions flashing forward?

Because when you have the VS conversation after the citadel attack on the normandy dock, Ashley asks if Udina was indoctrinated.
She then says, "How do you fight something that can worm its way into your head?"

To which shepard replies "I don't know, but we don't have a choice."
That sounds normal enough on paper, but in game the camera pushes in on shep when he says that as if to emphasize it.

Could be nothing, might be something. I figured if Kaiden made his comment during the same conversation it just might be something.

Yes, there're subtle clues everywhere. The thing is, we don't know if they're intended or not.

Though BioWare lays hard focus on camera movement. So I guess it is something. It's stated in the artbook.

[BleedingUranium]

Hrothdane wrote...

I was thinking more about Arrival, and I was wondering if there was any discussion about a possible connection between the Alpha and Omega relays. Considering we also have the Mu relay in ME1, we can assume humans use greek letters for designating relays in general, but the fact that the Alpha and Omega relays have great story importance seems intentional.

This may have been talked about in the couple pages I skipped, but could it be the beginning and end of indoctrination? Shep gets indoctrinated by Rho, and the end result is what the Collectors are: husks.

Just throwing it out there...

[Hrothdane]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

I was thinking more about Arrival, and I was wondering if there was any discussion about a possible connection between the Alpha and Omega relays. Considering we also have the Mu relay in ME1, we can assume humans use greek letters for designating relays in general, but the fact that the Alpha and Omega relays have great story importance seems intentional.

This may have been talked about in the couple pages I skipped, but could it be the beginning and end of indoctrination? Shep gets indoctrinated by Rho, and the end result is what the Collectors are: husks.

Just throwing it out there...

You didn't miss anything. My post got buried (thank you for resurrecting it )

I was actually thinking that if the Alpha Relay is where the Reapers enter the galaxy, maybe the Omega-4 Relay is where they leave? Another possibility is that the Reapers' invasion starts at the Alpha Relay, and will be stopped at the Omega-4 Relay. That would mean the Omega DLC might actually be more important than initially thought.

I totally forgot that rho is a greek letter, too! However, why would the Project team give the object a greek letter as a designation if all other such designations are reserved for relays?

[BleedingUranium]

Simon_Says wrote...

Red Letter Media’s review of The Phantom Menace.

I watched a good bit of it, but I do very much disagree with him. The problem I have is that I always saw Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon as the protagonists and they were my favourite characters of the prequels. Actually, pretty much my favourite characters in the whole series. And yes, I never really liked TESB either.

I think this has to do with not really likely Luke as much as other protagonists, in that I didn't find him that relateable. Probably why I like Obi-Wan so much. Comparing the three main protagonists of 4/5/6 to 1/2/3, Luke seems actually more like Obi-Wan (the Paragon), and Anakin seems more like Han (the Renegade), with Leia and Padme being "the girl". I also never really liked Leia either.

Sorry for the off-topic, it's just that there's a lot of opinion that if you like the prequels you don't understand plot and such. I know you were just using the link as an example, so this is more of a rant about it, not directly at you. I have a lot of respect for you.

[BleedingUranium]

Hrothdane wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

I was thinking more about Arrival, and I was wondering if there was any discussion about a possible connection between the Alpha and Omega relays. Considering we also have the Mu relay in ME1, we can assume humans use greek letters for designating relays in general, but the fact that the Alpha and Omega relays have great story importance seems intentional.

This may have been talked about in the couple pages I skipped, but could it be the beginning and end of indoctrination? Shep gets indoctrinated by Rho, and the end result is what the Collectors are: husks.

Just throwing it out there...

You didn't miss anything. My post got buried (thank you for resurrecting it )

I was actually thinking that if the Alpha Relay is where the Reapers enter the galaxy, maybe the Omega-4 Relay is where they leave? Another possibility is that the Reapers' invasion starts at the Alpha Relay, and will be stopped at the Omega-4 Relay. That would mean the Omega DLC might actually be more important than initially thought.

I totally forgot that rho is a greek letter, too! However, why would the Project team give the object a greek letter as a designation if all other such designations are reserved for relays?

Oooo, that's good too!

[BleedingUranium]

Since it's slow, this.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 19 août 2012 - 10:08 .

[CoolioThane]

I wasn't being negative because of the comments, it was because we have learned NOTHING. All of this speculating in 5 months and we've got nothing out of it, just continual speculations and stuff.

Still holding the line, but if Leviathan doesn't contain some meaty clues I might be out

[CoolioThane]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Since it's slow, this.

Holy **** that's perfect! Nice Blur!

[demersel]

Simon_Says wrote...

I asked earlier about Anderson mentioning the reapers planning something big in London. Specifically, when it took place. Because if it was before Thessia it would have been proof that the reapers were planning the events of Priority: Earth with the beam and such even before they could have had knowledge from Vendetta about the Crucible or the Catalyst.

I found this post from Masster. He implies it's before Thessia. The dialogue also suggests that.

"Unite And Subvert" theory confirmed I think.

Anyway I'm out for the night. Laters.

So true! And don't forget, GLYPH is evil!

[CoolioThane]

demersel wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

I asked earlier about Anderson mentioning the reapers planning something big in London. Specifically, when it took place. Because if it was before Thessia it would have been proof that the reapers were planning the events of Priority: Earth with the beam and such even before they could have had knowledge from Vendetta about the Crucible or the Catalyst.

I found this post from Masster. He implies it's before Thessia. The dialogue also suggests that.

"Unite And Subvert" theory confirmed I think.

Anyway I'm out for the night. Laters.

So true! And don't forget, GLYPH is evil!

+1

It could also explain why the crucible plans were still in Liara's message, as Glyph was the VI in the capsule...perhaps trying to trick future cycles...? PRobably not actually

[DoomsdayDevice]

Hey Arian. =)

Link to Reaper horn is in my signature!


-----------------------------------------------------


So, in another topic I post this:

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

The choices in the ending are reversed.

Control is depicted blue, like paragon.
Destroy is depicted red, like renegade.
Synthesis is supposed to represent the neutral opt-out.

However, they reversed paragon and renegade. Why?

At the end of ME2, destroying the collector base was the paragon dialogue option; top of the dialogue wheel, you oppose TIM because the reaper is an abomination.

Keeping the collector base was the renegade dialogue option, bottom of the dialogue wheel, you go along with TIM because you're power hungry, the end justifies the means, controlling the reapers could be the answer.

At the end of ME3, if your EMS is low, and you kept the collector base, your only option is control. The kid will also say that is what you want, controlling the reapers. If your EMS was low and you destroyed the collector base, your only option is destroying the Reapers.

This means destroying the base is directly linked to destroying the reapers and keeping the base is directly linked to wanting to control them.

Why then, at the end of ME3 were the colours for these options reversed?

Because the Reaper AI is manipulating you into picking a choice that favours the Reapers.

You don't even need to believe in IT for this (in the sense that the entire ending could have been hallucinatory). It works with the literal interpretation as well.

The beauty of it is that it makes people who want to be 100% paragon think they are doing the right thing by allowing the Reapers a continued existence.

Meanwhile, they forget that moments earlier they talked TIM into shooting himself for wanting to control the Reapers. Because it was power no one should be able to wield! Because he could never be sure the Reapers would let him control them! And because he would be putting humanity's existence on the line.

5 Minutes later they go for it, because well, this Reaper AI couldn't possibly be untrustworthy!

Just my two cents. Don't hate me for it. =P

Reaction:"the choices weren't reversed, destroying collector base was red explosion, keeping collector base was blue explosion".

*facepalm of epic proportions*

People just don't read anything beyond the first line, apparently.

I wish people would stop bringing up this stupid, invalid argument about the colour of the explosions.

OF COURSE an electro-magnetic pulse is depicted blue, OF COURSE a destructive explosion is depicted red. What the hell....

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 19 août 2012 - 11:52 .