80611 réponses à ce sujet

[plfranke]

I wish everyone would just drop the whole religious zealot thing because the truth is, it is in no way a valid analogy on either side.

[BleedingUranium]

plfranke wrote...

I wish everyone would just drop the whole religious zealot thing because the truth is, it is in no way a valid analogy on either side.

I agree. While metaphors can be good, if that's all that's used then you're not really debating the issue at hand anymore.

[Iconoclaste]

Shepard could be seen as a potential "asset" for the Reapers (first buyer : Harbinger), but they do not wish to "spoil" him because he's the one that can side with the "villains" when everybody else disagrees (ex : Rachni Queen, Morinth). In some way, Shepard goes above common perceptions "for the greater good", thus making him one of the very, very few potential candidates to take the Reaper's point of view into serious consideration if they are cornered at some point. From Sovereign or any other self-imbued Reaper, such expectation to "win" Shepard to their cause without indoctrination could be a reasonable assumption, since Shepard has a chance to "get their point" which they believe is the "right" point, the "only thruth".

Indoctrination attempt by object Rho was done by a remotely "intelligent" Reaper machinery, that may not have such sophisticated agenda as a fully grown Harbinger, and this may explain why this attempt left no trace, or almost no trace. Just a tiny scar. The same applies to every other instance where Shepard is close to "Reaper tech", that by itself has only the physiological "brain chemistry" effects of indoctrination, and no "philosophy" to touch the soul. If Shepard's beliefs are strong, then affecting only the "limbic system" is not going to do anything than tiring him to the edge. It will not affect his "resolve", only his humor.

When the game nears conclusion, it has become clear for the Reapers that Shepard is still highly motivated to destroy them by whatever means possible. In any other moment of the game, the Reapers might see they have no real advantage to try to "force indoctrinate" him, since he's the only one who can make a decision "against all odds" that could engage the other species and get it through. If he takes the Reaper's side on his own free will, then all allies might not "question" his judgment. I'm not saying the Reapers are all sound logic and deep intelligence, but they sure have motivations and stick to them. At the end of the game, they can't afford to loose him, so they might give their "best shot" at that time. The "Reaper tech / devices" Shepard encountered all along the series were not specifically placed on his route by Reapers to indoctrinate him, Shepard was the one moving around too much. The fact that all explanations on the cycles and stuff are thrown at him in the last minutes by the Catalyst (while Shepard could have been left dying in front of the control panel) is just to take him offguard, and force him to decide in a very short time. Using the kid's image sweetens the pill.

I guess the Reapers, just like any other living sentient, might wish for some kind of "redemption". They are the "bad guys", but they are not morons to the point of missing an opportunity that presents itself only once in all the cycles: Leviathan told Shepard the "intelligence" was looking for something, and would continue the "reaping solution" until it has found this "something" (new solution?). Reapers do not mind "forcing solutions" upon entire species, might it be turning them into grey goo or "synthesis party", and if they knew anything about the Crucible (the Leviathan did), they may just want to wait to see what the thing will do. If they are not "satisfied", they can still destroy it ("refuse" ending) and continue as if nothing happened. "Control" isn't a bad thing, since the Reaper police is still in full force, and destroy is not an option the Catalyst wishes for, but it's there. If Shepard makes any choice except Destroy on his "free will", the Reapers survive. If Shepard makes any choice except Destroy while being indoctrinated, the Reapers survive. So, what is the difference, really?

[spotlessvoid]

BleedingUranium wrote...

plfranke wrote...

I wish everyone would just drop the whole religious zealot thing because the truth is, it is in no way a valid analogy on either side.

I agree. While metaphors can be good, if that's all that's used then you're not really debating the issue at hand anymore.

I think what arashi was saying was that literalist who are rude and mocking provoke us then they turn around and say look they cany accept debate. Def agree that its a stupid comparison and its provocative

[BleedingUranium]

Iconoclaste wrote...

*snipy snip*

That's very well said. The only real difference between this and IT is whether the end is all in Shepard's mind or not.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 17 septembre 2012 - 06:00 .

[Arashi08]

Maybe the problem is that this argument of IT vs non IT sometimes devolves into which side is right and which is wrong. Some people want to be right and try to use whatever means to illustrate their point when there isn't incontrovertible evidence for one over the other, even condescending remarks. Of course, I not seen that many postere here who are trying to push for IT being real. Yes they support it, but it isn't like they are trying to "convert" anyone. it always seems more like the people who disagree tend to be the ones who like to say that they are right and IT is wrong. There are apparently people who support IT who try to get others to agree with them on other threads, but I haven't seen anyone like that on here, although to be fair I don't visit many other threads lol.

[spotlessvoid]

I think the biggest difference is whether or not the war is over. Thematically they are the same. Great post

[prettz]

estebanus wrote...

magnetite wrote...

Saw it last night and I agree.

He's got such a great sense of humor, and a real knack for editing!

Domanese wrote...

I had to pause every now and then to laugh my ass off. Thank you Zell.

:)that's a relief, it's hard to till if the jokes will be funny sometimes. Thou even I still laugh at the joke after the credits.

[Arashi08]

apologiez if anything I post seems...nonsensical...im apparently too tired for my brain to be working properly lol...

[spotlessvoid]

Arashi08 wrote...

Maybe the problem is that this argument of IT vs non IT sometimes devolves into which side is right and which is wrong. Some people want to be right and try to use whatever means to illustrate their point when there isn't incontrovertible evidence for one over the other, even condescending remarks. Of course, I not seen that many postere here who are trying to push for IT being real. Yes they support it, but it isn't like they are trying to "convert" anyone. it always seems more like the people who disagree tend to be the ones who like to say that they are right and IT is wrong. There are apparently people who support IT who try to get others to agree with them on other threads, but I haven't seen anyone like that on here, although to be fair I don't visit many other threads lol.

Its like they want to be the one who talks us out of it.  As oppossed to iconoclaste, epyon, subastris, and othets who will openly debate both sides and seem genuinely intrigued by the discussion. 

[spotlessvoid]

Sloooooow Moooooooo-

btw the ilos/iff pattern prettz pointed out is also the one on the prothean pyramids in ME1. 

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 17 septembre 2012 - 06:13 .

[liggy002]

See this thread... the mod was pretty quick about locking it down, because they don't want people knowing the truth....

http://social.biowar.../index/14134121


Or at least... this is what I have been told.

Modifié par liggy002, 17 septembre 2012 - 06:16 .

[BleedingUranium]

prettz wrote...

*snip*

Prettz! I just finally got time to watch your latest IT vid, and it was very well done

spotlessvoid wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...

Maybe the problem is that this argument of IT vs non IT sometimes devolves into which side is right and which is wrong. Some people want to be right and try to use whatever means to illustrate their point when there isn't incontrovertible evidence for one over the other, even condescending remarks. Of course, I not seen that many postere here who are trying to push for IT being real. Yes they support it, but it isn't like they are trying to "convert" anyone. it always seems more like the people who disagree tend to be the ones who like to say that they are right and IT is wrong. There are apparently people who support IT who try to get others to agree with them on other threads, but I haven't seen anyone like that on here, although to be fair I don't visit many other threads lol.

Its like they want to be the one who talks us out of it. As oppossed to iconoclaste, epyon, subastris, and othets who will openly debate both sides and seem genuinely intrigued by the discussion.

That's why I like them

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 17 septembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[Arashi08]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...

Maybe the problem is that this argument of IT vs non IT sometimes devolves into which side is right and which is wrong. Some people want to be right and try to use whatever means to illustrate their point when there isn't incontrovertible evidence for one over the other, even condescending remarks. Of course, I not seen that many postere here who are trying to push for IT being real. Yes they support it, but it isn't like they are trying to "convert" anyone. it always seems more like the people who disagree tend to be the ones who like to say that they are right and IT is wrong. There are apparently people who support IT who try to get others to agree with them on other threads, but I haven't seen anyone like that on here, although to be fair I don't visit many other threads lol.

Its like they want to be the one who talks us out of it.  As oppossed to iconoclaste, epyon, subastris, and othets who will openly debate both sides and seem genuinely intrigued by the discussion. 

I personally welcome opposing opinions, as long as they can be civil about their discussions.  If someone has to resort to insults then they likely don't have anything worth arguing anymore, maybe just some regurgitated points mixed in with some name-calling...

[spotlessvoid]

liggy002 wrote...

See this thread... the mod was pretty quick about locking it down, because they don't want people knowing the truth....

http://social.biowar.../index/14134121


Or at least... this is what I have been told.

lol maybe, but you kinda set yourself up
for it with that one liggy. Im certainly not calling you a liar in any way, but I know a guy never cuts it...what your friend said would be awesome though

[BleedingUranium]

Arashi08 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...

Maybe the problem is that this argument of IT vs non IT sometimes devolves into which side is right and which is wrong. Some people want to be right and try to use whatever means to illustrate their point when there isn't incontrovertible evidence for one over the other, even condescending remarks. Of course, I not seen that many postere here who are trying to push for IT being real. Yes they support it, but it isn't like they are trying to "convert" anyone. it always seems more like the people who disagree tend to be the ones who like to say that they are right and IT is wrong. There are apparently people who support IT who try to get others to agree with them on other threads, but I haven't seen anyone like that on here, although to be fair I don't visit many other threads lol.

Its like they want to be the one who talks us out of it.  As oppossed to iconoclaste, epyon, subastris, and othets who will openly debate both sides and seem genuinely intrigued by the discussion. 

I personally welcome opposing opinions, as long as they can be civil about their discussions.  If someone has to resort to insults then they likely don't have anything worth arguing anymore, maybe just some regurgitated points mixed in with some name-calling...

Exactly, we need debate or this just becomes like a fanfic. If something is untrue or similar, we need to find out and get rid of it, for example.

[Iconoclaste]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

*snipy snip*

That's very well said. The only real difference between this and IT is whether the end is all in Shepard's mind or not.

Thanks.

The most irritating point, in the non-IT view, is that "the end never happened" if it only happened in Shepard's mind. Fortunately, there are ways out of this that can fit with IT. The endings happen, they are the result of the player-Shepard, which is lying unconscious somewhere. He even gets to "breathe" after the Crucible rocks the place.

The Reapers can have TIM seemingly act on his "free will", while in fact he's indoctrinated. Simply said, they use him as a puppet. They have this ability, and can use it on any indoctrinated minion.

So, what could have happened?

Shepard never went to the Citadel, so says the IT? Very well. Then, someone else went there, and was "puppetted" to execute Shepard's decision. Would that be feasible?

[liggy002]

spotlessvoid wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

See this thread... the mod was pretty quick about locking it down, because they don't want people knowing the truth....

http://social.biowar.../index/14134121


Or at least... this is what I have been told.

lol maybe, but you kinda set yourself up
for it with that one liggy. Im certainly not calling you a liar in any way, but I know a guy never cuts it...what your friend said would be awesome though

Yeah, but I thought that some of you should know this.  I can't say the person's name because that would obviously get them in a lot of trouble.

[BleedingUranium]

Slow thread is sloooooooow

[LeCavalier]

I read somewhere that there are multiple IT mainly a "Dream" and "Nightmare" what is the difference between the two? I'm interested in knowing this.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Iconoclaste wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

*snipy snip*

That's very well said. The only real difference between this and IT is whether the end is all in Shepard's mind or not.

Thanks.

The most irritating point, in the non-IT view, is that "the end never happened" if it only happened in Shepard's mind. Fortunately, there are ways out of this that can fit with IT. The endings happen, they are the result of the player-Shepard, which is lying unconscious somewhere. He even gets to "breathe" after the Crucible rocks the place.

The Reapers can have TIM seemingly act on his "free will", while in fact he's indoctrinated. Simply said, they use him as a puppet. They have this ability, and can use it on any indoctrinated minion.

So, what could have happened?

Shepard never went to the Citadel, so says the IT? Very well. Then, someone else went there, and was "puppetted" to execute Shepard's decision. Would that be feasible?

Possibly, but I think a problem is that the Indoctrination Theory has spawned so many subset ideas and theories, mostly the idea that the Crucible and Catalyst are not what we are told.

It is not a far stretch to think that the Catalyst if it is trying to manipulate Shepard is also not what is needed to activate the Crucible.

Off course this was mostly spawned from how unreal the endings presented are, Synthesis mostly, as they go against what we have learned over the cause of the games. Someone still executing these endings would not change the main problem of the ending if you ask me, only the problem of where Shepard is.

This obviusly leads to the problem of what the Crucible then does and how the game had to be ended...which is purely speculation from our side.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 17 septembre 2012 - 06:53 .

[Iconoclaste]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Possibly, but I think a problem is that the Indoctrination Theory has spawned so many subset ideas and theories, mostly the idea that the Crucible and Catalyst are not what we are told.

It is not a far stretch to think that the Catalyst if it is trying to manipulate Shepard is also not what is needed to activate the Crucible.

Off course this was mostly spawned from how unreal the endings presented are, Synthesis mostly, as they go against what we have learned over the cause of the games. Someone still executing these endings would not change the main problem of the ending if you ask me, only the problem of where Shepard is.

This obviously leads to the problem of what the Crucible then does and how the game had to be ended...which is purely speculation from our side.

I wrote some time ago that in order to manage every player's feelings towards their own "personal" interpretation of the endings, Indoctrination should not need to rely on anything else than "Destroy". Trying to make IT the only "valid" ending by portraying it over Control and Synthesis is a tough hill to climb by itself, while in the Destroy ending, Shepard is de facto rejecting the other options. In other games, making a final choice is irrelevant to what can be seen happening in the "other endings". There are a few exceptions to this, but since IT has the "breath scene" only in "destroy" maybe it would be easier to have it apply only to the Destroy ending. A player wishing to be part of the Reaper Police doesn't need to be "indoctrinated", and his decision should not be viewed to "contradict" the "IT-Destroy choice".

While the desire for a clearer "canon" ending is legitimate for all who do not wish to speculate until doomsday, IT has to settle somewhere in the realm of "fanfiction". What would be the best option : have IT fail to tell the end of the story in a credible, satisfying and logical way because it undertook to cover all ending themes and provided no closure, or have IT stick to the "Destroy agenda" and fit its scenario perfectly with the "Destroy" game content?

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 17 septembre 2012 - 07:00 .

[BleedingUranium]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Possibly, but I think a problem is that the Indoctrination Theory has spawned so many subset ideas and theories, mostly the idea that the Crucible and Catalyst are not what we are told.

It is not a far stretch to think that the Catalyst if it is trying to manipulate Shepard is also not what is needed to activate the Crucible.

Off course this was mostly spawned from how unreal the endings presented are, Synthesis mostly, as they go against what we have learned over the cause of the games. Someone still executing these endings would not change the main problem of the ending if you ask me, only the problem of where Shepard is.

This obviously leads to the problem of what the Crucible then does and how the game had to be ended...which is purely speculation from our side.

I wrote some time ago that in order to manage every player's feelings towards their own "personal" interpretation of the endings, Indoctrination should not need to rely on anything else than "Destroy". Trying to make IT the only "valid" ending by portraying it over Control and Synthesis is a tough hill to climb by itself, while in the Destroy ending, Shepard is de facto rejecting the other options. In other games, making a final choice is irrelevant to what can be seen happening in the "other endings". There are a few exceptions to this, but since IT has the "breath scene" only in "destroy" maybe it would be easier to have it apply only to the Destroy ending. A player wishing to be part of the Reaper Police doesn't need to be "indoctrinated", and his decision should not be viewed to "contradict" the "IT-Destroy choice".

While the desire for a clearer "canon" ending is legitimate for all who do not wish to speculate until doomsday, IT has to settle somewhere in the realm of "fanfiction". What would be the best option : have IT fail to tell the end of the story in a credible, satisfying and logical way because it undertook to cover all ending themes and provided no closure, or have IT stick to the "Destroy agenda" and fit its scenario perfectly with the "Destroy" game content?

I'm not sure I follow. Most of the point of IT is that it fits the lore and themes. Choosing Control or Synthesis breaks it, literal or not. Literal or not, you're siding with the antangonists and making the trilogy pointless. Hell, even Control/Synthesis just existing as options breaks the themes and lore, even if you choose Destroy.

Also, it's 00:05, so happy birthday to me!

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 17 septembre 2012 - 07:09 .

[Iconoclaste]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I'm not sure I follow. Most of the point of IT is that it fits the lore. Choosing Control or Synthesis breaks it, literal or not. Literal or not, you're siding with the antangonists and making the trilogy pointless.

The lore does not apply after the Crucible has docked, because it  changes what "Control" and "Synthesis" would have been in the past. Those are now "new" solutions, and the Reapers are not enemies anymore, at face value. The machine has been fixed. Peace. Happiness. Security.

In Destroy, the player sees nothing of that and simply goes on with his original plan. In "refuse", the Catalyst says "Your belief is not required" before proceeding with his plan. Nothing more is shown.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 17 septembre 2012 - 07:14 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

(snip)

BleedingUranium wrote...

I'm not sure I follow. Most of the point of IT is that it fits the lore. Choosing Control or Synthesis breaks it, literal or not. Literal or not, you're siding with the antangonists and making the trilogy pointless.

Also, it's 00:05, so happy birthday to me!

Happy Birthday

But yeah I will agree I am not sure I follow. Synthesis and Control is against the themes we have established across the series and even worse is the solutions advertised by the antagonists now beeing presented as right.