1238 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

Cheviot wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Then why does the Catalyst even drag you up there? If there's only one option that goes directly against his goals, as you say, then why give Shepard the chance to choose it?

It doesn't drag him up there. Seems he hit the right button before he collapsed. It angrily asks him, "what are you doing here?"

He didn't hit any buttons before his collapse.

His hand obviously close enough cause Starboy didn't bring him up there.

[The Twilight God]

ShepnTali wrote...

Does this speculation include the notion of mandatory 'true' ending DLC on the way, or that is what the ending is and that's that?

The endings (Control, synthesi, Destroy and even Refusal) are all true and all equally legitimate.

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

for the reapers there are other, more potent options available for them to access Shepard for their goal/programing perimiters, there is no logic to indoctrinating him "after" he/she creats so many problems for the reapers.

And yet they want his body after he dies and then keep him alive after Object Rho renders him unconscious.

[The Twilight God]

ShepnTali wrote...

I'm just wondering, because if the theory is that this is the ingenious plan of Bioware to eventually surprise everyone that didn't choose destroy, 'you're indoctrinated!' with DLC, we have two problems. People insulted that their reasoned thinking was for nothing, and people upset about having to pay more for an unforeseen complete game. If the DLC was free I suppose one problem is mostly solved. But then we got IT haters who will rip Bioware for making stuff up to make ITers happy.


This all sounds like a new firestorm.

Never going to happen. It would defeat the purpose of the endings to publically announce this.

The Twilight God wrote...

If Control and Synthesis ended like the Refusal Ending or had a Critical Failure message at the end it would invalidate them for the player. The player must believe in them or else everyone would simply reload and pick Destroy. Shepard falling prey to indoctrination, although not the ideal conclusion, is still a narratively sound outcome. And in this way the writers keep those endings valid by having the epilogue continue from the indoctrinated perspective. Who would pick an indoctrinated ending otherwise? Not many.

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

control or synthesis. It doesn't need to seem neutral, impartial or without self-interest.

The Catalyst doesn't try to sweet talk you into control. :|

It flat out says it does not look forward to being replaced by Shepard but it would be forced to accept it.

That's a load of BS to make it seem more appealing if you choose a response that is anti-control.

The Twilight God wrote...

7. The Catalyst claims that it is not looking forward to be controlled by Shepard. This leads to another claim that is shown false. If Shepard's comments on Control are negatively slanted the Catalyst makes on last gesture to convey the impression that attempting to replace the Catalyst is something it finds distasteful. But we know this is not the case.

Shepard says, "I didn't fight this war to give up everything I have."
The Catalyst replies, "And I do not look forward to being replaced by you, but I would be forced to accept it"

No, it would not be forced to accept. It is the Catalyst who powers on the Control console. When you first lay eyes upon it, it is deactivated. It is not until you approach it that the Catalyst powers it on right before your eyes. If the Catalyst can turn it on and off at will how is he "forced to accept it"?

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

doesn't matter, the ideals surrounding the missing evidence of indoctrination canon is overpowering, that is it is inescapable by the sheer force of IT'er belief system. Everything in the game, for them, points at indoctrination, everything else does too. .

This is a blatant lie and has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you want to debeat with the "it was all a dream" crowd go find one of those threads.

[The Twilight God]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
 

The Twilight God wrote....

Everything except actually stopping the Reapers, when the means to do so is right in front of you. The means to choose your own fate was right there.  Instead, Shepard let the Reapers choose his and every organics' fate. Shepard is definitely indoctrinated here. No questions about it.

This is no fact. This is an interpretation of Shepard's motivation behind refusing.

Nope, it's a fact. Shepards statement completely contradicts the situations. He did NOT do EVERYTHING he could to stop them. If he did do EVERYTHING he would have attempted Destroy. Hell, even trying control or synthesis (albiet indoctrinated choices) would be trying SOMETHING. In refusal Shepard simple gives up.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It would be no different if I were to alledge that destroying the Collector Base makes you indoctrinated because Shepard is throwing away a weapon to be used against the Reapers, because he/she wants them to win.

What weapon?

Modifié par The Twilight God, 01 août 2012 - 01:59 .

[zambot]

The Twilight God wrote...

I don't care about intent. I only care about what was written.

How can you try to make a serious interpretation of what a story means without trying to understand the intent of the author?

 

zambot wrote...

Synthesis does end with a sacrifice: the life of Shepard.  Shepard (the great unifier of the galaxy if you're a paragon) finally has the chance to complete the ultimate act of unification, by brokering peace between the reapers and everyone else.  In order to do that (s)he has to sacrifice him/herself completely. 

 

Yeah, and he sacrifices himself in Destroy as well. So that cancels out. And it's just one guy vs an entire species. Sorry, but control and synthesis Shepard don't make the hard choice. They take the easy way. The indoctrinated way.

I picked destroy expecting to die. And for all intents and purposes I did. Shepard's story ends in the Catalyst Chamber for ALL endings. So I got no "reward" for destroy. I had to kill a friend and wipe out an entire race. You didn't have to make any hard decision.

zambot wrote...

Silly in execution?  Yes.  But it is thematically consistent with what Shepard has been doing all along.  

Agreed. The possibility of falling victim to indoctrination is consistent with what shepard has been through.

a. you cannot "cancel out" a sacrifice.  A sacrifice is still a sacrifice.
b. plenty of people here wrestle with the moral implications of synthesis and what it means to alter all life in the galaxy.  This is hardly an easy choice.  You are trivializineg it.
c. Don't twist my words please.  Synthesis, allowing Shepard to unify all species in the galaxy is completely consistent with the entire story from ME1.  You don't need any sort of indocrination for that to be true.

And I still don't buy your explanation of why the reapers decide to only give you the option to destroy them in some endings if you truly are being indoctrinated.  Sorry, but kudos to you for coming up with an interesting take on IT.

Modifié par zambot, 01 août 2012 - 02:08 .

[The Twilight God]

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...


[quote]The Crucible never needed the Star Child to do anything[/quote]
And how do you know that? You don't, and you cannot. You're inventing facts to support your argument. [/quote]

No CSD and the Crucible would have armed as soon as it docked. Shepard never turns it on or interacts with it directly to initiate destroy. If the Reapers never built that think to keep it from working Destroy would have occured automatically.

If you disagree please explain how what we ALL saw isn't true.

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

Yes. They also make sense in the "the writing just sucks" scenario. Your conclusion (it must be indoctrination) is privileging the hypothesis. [/quote]

Simply calling everything you dislike and doesn't conform to your ideas "bad writing" isn't goin to cut in a discussion envolving narrative/plot analysis. If your going to chalk everything that doesn't fit your desired interpretation as "just bad writting" then you might as well walk away as you have nothing to add to this discussion.

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

[quote]In other words, it has to hope indoctrination succeeds.[/quote]
No. This is simply not true. It is perfectly sufficient to outwit Shepard - there is a difference between Star Child deceiving Shepard, and Star Child assuming Direct Control TM of Shepard. [/quote]

Outwit him into commiting suicide to furhter the agenda of the enemy he has been fighting for 3-4 years? Riiiiight. The fact that I can't just shove the kid aside and shoot the damn CSD as soon as he points it out without even letting him talk about alternatives is what??? A curtesy?  

Shepard got this far because he's just plain stupid. Interesting theory.

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

[quote]Never mind the fact that Shepard is not an organic-synthetic hybrid himself. I believe EDI, Liara (if romanced) and Doctor Chakwas dismiss this notion[/quote]
Their opinion is completely irrelevant. [/quote]

Yeah, I guess you're right. It's just their "opinion". I even forgot that part where all syntheitcs understood all organics because of Shepards mere existences as a true synthesized being.  

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

No. You have shown that synthesis is somewhat similar to Saren's philosophy of submission, but this does not mean it's identical. [/quote]

Sarens philosophy was reaper induced (indoctrinated and all).
The Kid is the Reapers.
Get where I'm going with this?

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...


[quote]It’s quite the gamble considering the option to destroy the Reapers and guarantee victory is right there.[/quote]
Incorrect. You have to assume that Star Child's instructions are accurate (i.e. that shooting the tube triggers Destruction, jumping into the beam triggers Synthesis, etc). This is because they had bet everything on the Crucible fixing things and would have lost without Star Child's intervention. Shepard is bleeding to death and everyone is dying. If Star Child is lying about the mechanism, your dead anyway, so you might just as well assume that he's not. [/quote]

Yeah, and if shooting that CSD didn't work I'd be able to figure something else out. I wouldn't have killed myself, leaving nobody else to save the galaxy, like Synthesis and Control would require. And killing yourself because a reaper says so? Give me a break.  Me? I'd have shoot or warped the entire contraption if shooting the tubes failed. I would have done that even if the Catalyst never showed up at all after looking around first.
 
The only outcome is the Crucible simply does not arm no matter what, is being stopped by something on some other part of the Citadel that I can't get to or the Crucible is being stopped from arming itself by something there at eh docking point. I can only handle the third option.

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

No. Indoctrination has nothing to do with it per se - you don't have to convince Shepard to not destroy the Reapers if he was indoctrinated.[/quote]

Never said he is indoctrineated at this point. I've said he is in the process of being indoctrinated. I said if you pick control or Synthesis you lost out to the affects of indoctrination at the very end. A Destroy shepard resisted long enough to stop the reapers.

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

Sorry, but that's just speculation (and a bit of sophistry)[/quote]

It's all fact. Prove me wrong.

[clennon8]

This probably is the strongest presentation in favor of "Shep is being indoctrinated" that I've seen, OP. One question, though. What about the low EMS scenario where Shep only gets the Control option? Do you interpret that as an auto-lose?

[The Twilight God]

zambot wrote...

I read IT watched the videos and questioned the fact that it did not provide an adequate ending to the trilogy.  I was called a troll and a bunch of other names, but no one has yet to explain how ME3 can be "over" in the context of IT.  

All the endings happened. ME3 is done. The trilogy is concluded. The nature of what you are witnessing is what is up for discussion. Not rather or not they happened at all.

This is not an "it's all a dream" thread. If you want to argue against the "hallucinationist" you're in the wrong thread.

[The Twilight God]

alienatedflea wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

destroy was the only option we had in the beginning...crucible changed that...and No, I am not indoctrinated...you damn ITers...that $h!t isnt real...

Yeah, it was real. You really were indoctrinated at that last moment. It's a perfectly understandable ending and believable given the ME lore. There is nothing inconsistent with an indoctrinated endings. It's actually pretty clever as the indoctrinated endings are satisfying regardless of the circumstances.

lol Yet EC disproves your assertion...the powerpoints that show Mass Effect Galaxy post reapers nullifies IT...in whatever ending you choose the galaxy is in a better place for the decision you make...no indoctrination required to see that we all get a happier ending...

No, it doesn't. Why do people insist on posting before they read the subject matter of the thread?

The Twilight God wrote...

A typical counter to this is, "But the Extended Cut disproves anything and everything involving indoctrination. Everything turns out great. In fact, things turn out better in the Control and Synthesis endings than they do in Destroy. All Praise the Reaper for his truth and honesty!”

But do things turn out better in Control and Synthesis?

Control
The EC narrator is speaking about what it plans to do. What it wants to do. The epilogue photos present an envisioned future. Not a future set in stone. If, in fact, the mind of one individual human could not contend with the trillions of minds making up the reaper super consciousness or even the collective inteligence of the reapers (as embodied by the Catalyst) the possibility that the epilogue narration being a delusion is not off the table. The reapers leaving to repair the relays may have been a temporary setback and "Shepard's legacy" ultimately lost out to the Reapers. The harvest may very well continue with Shepard's mind, broken within the greater Reaper super consciousness, hallucinating that it is in control. Where the Shepard AI sees "help" and "defense of organics and synthetics" the reality is ascension to reaper form and the continuation of the cycles. Just as TIM saw humanities salvation in informing the Reapers of the Crucible and its need of the Citadel. Broken minds see what they will. In this ending the writers continue from the perception of a broken and delusional perversion of Shepard's thoughts and memories. Maintaining the indoctrination effect on the player beyond the credits.

Synthesis
The EC narrator, EDI, is speaking in terms of how she perceives the changes. What she envisions the result of these changes to bring from her perspective; a perspective that is the result of direct Reaper influence. Dr. Kenson also envisioned this Reaper ushered utopia while she was indoctrinated. Saren also envisioned a grand destiny for organics while under the influence of indoctrination. The epilogue photos present an envisioned future. Not a future set in stone. Once again the writers continue from the perspective of a newly reaper influenced personality; maintaining the indoctrination effect on the player themselves unto the credits and beyond.

Conclusion:

If Control and Synthesis ended like the Refusal Ending or had a Critical Failure message at the end it would invalidate them for the player. The player must believe in them or else everyone would simply reload and pick Destroy. Shepard falling prey to indoctrination, although not the ideal conclusion, is still a narratively sound outcome. And in this way the writers keep those endings valid by having the epilogue continue from the indoctrinated perspective. Who would pick an indoctrinated ending otherwise? Not many.

[Arian Dynas]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Batnat wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

We don't like or want to hurt people.

Really, this just kills me.

We're not a cult, we're not a religion, we aren't some bunch of crazy conspiracy fanatics who think the government is putting mind control drugs into the water.

We're a bunch of people who looked at some weird **** going on in a videogame and thought "Hey, something ain't right here. I wonder why. Maybe it's like Inception?"

Everything in the OP is exactly what Indoctrination THEORY (Yes, THEORY, as in something that is not proven, but is based upon a hypothesis and supported by observation and logical deduction.) bases itself on. We aren't just taking a bunch of little things that could just as easily be little glitches and claiming "OFMGWTF MUST BE INDOTRINATONZ!" there's a bit of that, but it's mostly going; "Hey, that's really weird, and clearly intentional. Do you think it might be that they're trying to tell us something is not right here? What's the best explanation for that? Indoctrination? Does he have all the symptoms Bioware clearly laid out for us from past experience?"

People say we're based soley in wanting to deny reality and comfirmation bias this, logical fallacy that.

The fact is, I am a pretty big stickler for logic, I don't ascribe to conspiracy theories, I'm not paticularly religious, and I'm a big ol fan of the scientific method. If there was no logical reason to follow IT, I for one,(can't speak for everyone of course) would not. When we look at our evidence, we are pretty much the people who rip it apart the most. We consider things first before we throw them out, but if it looks pretty shaky, there's no reason to enter it into the data.

If we only wanted to deny reality, we'd stop playing the ending, not subject ourselves to it multiple times searching for weird little inconsistencies. If we wanted to deny that the ending really is WYSIWYG just because we didn't like it, we would have already written our fanfiction endings, or headcannoned it the way we wanted to, or just given up on the franchise entirely and gotten over it by now.

I would like to be happy with the Extended Cut as it is, really I would. I would love the whole issue settled, the matter done, everyone can go on being happy with the epic conclusion to Shepard's story.

But the thing is, that's not what happened.

Control, proven wrong not minutes before. In fact, do it right and you can prove TIM so wrong he shoots himself in the head for it. Why would you do a 180 on that, based solely on the word of a being who basically admits he is a Reaper? A being who basically says; "Oh yeah, that whole war of extinction thing? Yeah, that was on me, sorry guys."

As much as people say it's beautiful and wonderful, Synthesis spits in the face of Mass Effect. We saw through three games the myriad ways in which Saren and Synthesis are so dramatically wrong. We see throughout most of ME3, and both of the other games where the Reapers are, plainly and simply pure evil. They don't care for others, in fact, they're disdainful and hateful of us.

Claiming that they do what they do for some altruistic reason does not excuse what they have done; war crimes capable of making Hitler (to invoke Godwin's Law here.) and his cronies look like playground bullies by comparison.

But, maybe the reason I give Synthesis the queer eye, is simply because I don't believe in utopias.

But I suppose, either way, thanks to the OP for this "Indoctrination Theory Lite"

QFW

...now get out of my head please!...

fortunately, none of that has to do with synthesis as an option or action. Saren is indoctrinated to become fully controlled. Synthesis is over rated on it's detractors side, to justify other 'best case' senerio. The 'war crimes' attribute reflects the extreme nature of player disagreement, not viable considerations of what composes synthesis, as nobody even knows what it is, muchless what to think of it, other than trusty "Saren Factor", which is unequiviqually incorrect. But it's the only "bad" thing they can actually think of that's quick'n dirty justification for other choices, that the game basically describes as non functional. But yet, that beat goes on...Bioware, maybe should've given player more choices..some of the present ones are just out of reach of user information/understanding.

Indoctrination.

It's right there in the name. Indoctrination is not mind control, it's not evil because it forces you to do things you don't want to do, or causes things to suddenly become evil because you are indoctrinated.

Indoctrination means; to convert one or induct an individual into a way of belief or doctrine.

Synthesis is the same, whether it be touted by Saren, Kai Leng, The "Catalyst" or Shepard himself.

It is a fundamentally flawed belief. It requires one to believe that beings that are physically and mentally different from one another will always come into destructive conflict, that there can be no such thing as peace or co-existence, unless you remove their differing and unique qualities and homogenize them.

That's like saying that white people and black people are incapable of understanding or being friends with one another, and are doomed to conflict unless we start painting everyone grey.

Does that seem logical to you? Why would anyone start acting differently now that they have circuts in them? Only one way, if they were forced to.

So... you don't want to commit genocide or enslave a race and turn the galaxy into a police state, but suddenly we're ok with forced homogenization, mental domination and invasion of personal autonomy of every being in the galaxy in ways that would make Big Brother blush?

[Arian Dynas]

SMichelle wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

destroy was the only option we had in the beginning...crucible changed that...and No, I am not indoctrinated...you damn ITers...that $h!t isnt real...

Shh....shh...it will be okay.  The ITers can't hurt you here.  This is a safe place. 

We don't like or want to hurt people.

Really, this just kills me.

We're not a cult, we're not a religion, we aren't some bunch of crazy conspiracy fanatics who think the government is putting mind control drugs into the water.

We're a bunch of people who looked at some weird **** going on in a videogame and thought "Hey, something ain't right here. I wonder why. Maybe it's like Inception?"

I think you missed my . I was joking as alienatedflea seemed so upset over ITers. I really don't care what other people believe or their ending choice. If you believe in IT or not, if you chose destroy or not - it doesn't affect me or my choices.

Furthermore, who cares if other people disagree with you? How does that affect your ME experience?

Seriously, you may need to lighten up a little.

Sorry. But considering the usual reaction we get is "TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS! LET'S RUN THEM OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL! TAR AND FEATHER THEM!" you should hopefully understand why plenty of us tend to be a bit thin-skinned.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Twilight God wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
 

The Twilight God wrote....

Everything except actually stopping the Reapers, when the means to do so is right in front of you. The means to choose your own fate was right there.  Instead, Shepard let the Reapers choose his and every organics' fate. Shepard is definitely indoctrinated here. No questions about it.

This is no fact. This is an interpretation of Shepard's motivation behind refusing.

Nope, it's a fact. Shepards statement completely contradicts the situations. He did NOT do EVERYTHING he could to stop them. If he did do EVERYTHING he would have attempted Destroy. Hell, even trying control or synthesis (albiet indoctrinated choices) would be trying SOMETHING. In refusal Shepard simple gives up.

It's a compelling argument for Shepard being stupid, I'll give you that. But it's not nearly as compelling to say he/she is indoctrinated.

Another hole in this argument: the Reapers have to actually plant an inception in Shepard's head about letting them win through refusal for him to have made the choice under the influence of indoctrination. But Shepard clearly comes to this conclusion on his own, before the Catalyst (the collective intelligence of all Reapers) ever suggests it as a possibility.

And then there's the fact that he never does. The Catalyst receives this idea, which came from Shepard and Shepard alone, and tells him very clearly that it'll mean the galaxy will lose the war against the Reapers. So he's literally telling him not to make that choice, but Shepard insists on it anyway against all of the Reapers.

Sorry, friend. Shepard is not indoctrinated in any state of the union.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It would be no different if I were to alledge that destroying the Collector Base makes you indoctrinated because Shepard is throwing away a weapon to be used against the Reapers, because he/she wants them to win.

What weapon?

The Base.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 01 août 2012 - 03:03 .

[The Twilight God]

zambot wrote...

How can you try to make a serious interpretation of what a story means without trying to understand the intent of the author?

 

First, I don't know what they intended. I only know what they wrote.

Second, if they intended A, then they would or should write A. They wrote B, but you claim they mean A. Whatever, dude. 

We're discussing B. You can go elsewhere and discuss what's not present; what you think was meant to be present. We'll continue to discuss what IS present.

zambot wrote...

a. you cannot "cancel out" a sacrifice. A sacrifice is still a sacrifice.

We'll they ALL have the same outcome as far as that particular sacrifice so yeah, it can be said to cancel out.

zambot wrote...
b. plenty of people here wrestle with the moral implications of synthesis and what it means to alter all life in the galaxy. This is hardly an easy choice. You are trivializineg it.

c. Don't twist my words please. Synthesis, allowing Shepard to unify all species in the galaxy is completely consistent with the entire story from ME1. You don't need any sort of indocrination for that to be true.

Moral implications? Shepard needs to worried about what the hell it will actually do. It is the Reapers advocating it after all. Shepard needs to be asking himself why should he believe it isven  possible in the first place. And why he believes in the word of the Reapers with so much conviction that he is willing to suicide to advance the reaper's agenda. That's textbook indoctrination, my friend.

I'm not viewing this from a player perspective.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 01 août 2012 - 03:10 .

[Wayning_Star]

The Twilight God wrote...

zambot wrote...

I read IT watched the videos and questioned the fact that it did not provide an adequate ending to the trilogy.  I was called a troll and a bunch of other names, but no one has yet to explain how ME3 can be "over" in the context of IT.  

All the endings happened. ME3 is done. The trilogy is concluded. The nature of what you are witnessing is what is up for discussion. Not rather or not they happened at all.

This is not an "it's all a dream" thread. If you want to argue against the "hallucinationist" you're in the wrong thread.

either it is or it isn't, there is no evidence that the game revolves around indoctrination, only the 'theory' of total indoctrination that leaves Shepard not where and for who hes supposed to be, proposed by you TTG.

What "IT" is is definitely what is in discussion. No matter what the arguements that detract the IT experience, the retorts are generally 'other' things that happened in the game that plainly don't relate to indoctrination. Indoctrination is plainly too simple and can be resisted for a time, if the indoctrination lasts most of the game, Sheps brain would be mush, so it has to happen in time that he is still 'viable' to serve the purposes of indoctrination. 

As other posters complain, the theory actually cancels out eveything but indoctrination and leaves the game in a loop of never win from any choices. There is NO choice but indoctrination for Shepard that controls to the point of being harvested. End of game...endlessly throughout the cycles...that can NEVER end. Basic circular reasoning.

[The Twilight God]

clennon8 wrote...

This probably is the strongest presentation in favor of "Shep is being indoctrinated" that I've seen, OP. One question, though. What about the low EMS scenario where Shep only gets the Control option? Do you interpret that as an auto-lose?

Yeah, the Crucible is fubar.

Low EMS is auto-lose with destory or control.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 01 août 2012 - 03:41 .

[Wayning_Star]

OP loves postive posts dismisses detraction. Crucible is obsolete cause Shepard is already indoctinated. Brain dead but operating in the cause of the reapers... of course any choice within the catalyst chambers is moot, due to indoctrination..of course all the battles for the acqusition of the crucible are moot, cause of indoctrination, of course all the writers work for game devs is obsolete because of indoctrination.. Laviathan of dis DLC is canceled due to , guess what..indoctrination...

sheesh.

edit: forgot to mention, reality is moot, due to indoctrination.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 01 août 2012 - 03:20 .

[The Twilight God]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's a compelling argument for Shepard being stupid, I'll give you that. But it's not nearly as compelling to say he/she is indoctrinated.

Shepard isn't stupid. He bust his ass to get there. And then, with victory in sight - a mere squeeze of a trigger away - he decides he shoudl have let Saren win 3 years ago? OK, you keep your "stupid shepard theory". Good luck with that.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Another hole in this argument: the Reapers have to actually plant an inception in Shepard's head about letting them win through refusal for him to have made the choice under the influence of indoctrination. But Shepard clearly comes to this conclusion on his own, before the Catalyst (the collective intelligence of all Reapers) ever suggests it as a possibility.

Well, simply doing nothing is always a possibility. Shepard doesn't need any special instructions on how to give up.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to how indoctrination works. I bet you think TIM came to the conclusion to notify the reapers of the Crucible on his own too. Indoctrinated people think they come to their own conclusions. That's what make sit so insidious.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

And then there's the fact that he never does. The Catalyst receives this idea, which came from Shepard and Shepard alone, and tells him very clearly that it'll mean the galaxy will lose the war against the Reapers. So he's literally telling him not to make that choice, but Shepard insists on it anyway against all of the Reapers.

He didn't tell him not to make the choice. He just stated the obvious. Shepard already knows this because depending on your dialog choices the Kid says this prior to picking refusal. Not to mention Hackett says the same thing. This is mentioned previously to establish that it isn't trying to dissuade him from usiong the Crucible. In refusal it's the same. The kid is basically making it appear as if it's not his idea. The reapers are manipulators.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

What weapon?

The Base.

What exactly makes it a weapon?

One ship and a team of 12 people bust in, kicked ass and (possibly) left without losing anyone.  

Modifié par The Twilight God, 01 août 2012 - 03:42 .

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

either it is or it isn't, there is no evidence that the game revolves around indoctrination, only the 'theory' of total indoctrination that leaves Shepard not where and for who hes supposed to be, proposed by you TTG.

Huh?

I think you are confused. You're entire post made no sense. I think you're arguing against something or someone else.

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

OP loves postive posts dismisses detraction.

Most of my posts are addressing my detractors. In fact, I've only replied 1 or 3 times to a post from a supporter. ou seem to be angry that you aren't getting my sole attention despite the fact that I have indeed replied to you on several occasions.

Wayning_Star wrote...

Crucible is obsolete cause Shepard is already indoctinated. Brain dead but operating in the cause of the reapers... of course any choice within the catalyst chambers is moot, due to indoctrination..of course all the battles for the acqusition of the crucible are moot, cause of indoctrination, of course all the writers work for game devs is obsolete because of indoctrination.. Laviathan of dis DLC is canceled due to , guess what..indoctrination...

I don't know where you are getting any of that from. Quote me or GTFO

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Twilight God wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's a compelling argument for Shepard being stupid, I'll give you that. But it's not nearly as compelling to say he/she is indoctrinated.

Shepard isn't stupid. He bust his ass to get there. And then, with victory in sight - a mere squeeze of a trigger away - he decides he shoudl have let Saren win 3 years ago? OK, you keep your "stupid shepard theory". Good luck with that.

Oi! Obviously I meant Shepard is being stupid in that moment, not in general.

Refusal Shepard wants to stop the Reapers as he clearly states, he just doesn't want to do it through the Crucible. For what reasons? That's up for interpretation, but they're not limited to indoctrination.

Well, simply doing nothing is always a possibility. Shepard doesn't need any special instructions on how to give up.

Hold on...

You clearly haven't been paying attention to how indoctrination works. I bet you think TIM came to the conclusion to notify the reapers of the Crucible on his own too. Indoctrinated people think they come to their own conclusions. That's what make sit so insidious.

... that's because they actively plant those thoughts in your head, and convince you that those thoughts are your own. That's where we're having a problem. You have the collective intelligence of the Reapers giving you three options to stop the Reapers, and despite supposedly being under their control, you reject all of them? And, that said rejection is never brought up as a possibility, no less.

He didn't tell him not to make the choice. He just stated the obvious. Shepard already knows this because depending on your dialog choices the Kid says this prior to picking refusal. This is mentioned previously to establish that it isn't trying to dissuade him from usiong the Crucible. In refusal it's the same. The kid is basically making it appear as if it's not his idea. The reapers are manipulators.

It doesn't work like that.

What proof do we have that Shepard decides not to use the Crucible because he's indoctrinated? Zero.What proof do we have that it's the Catalyst's idea? Zero. What proof do we have that Shepard came up with the idea on his own? The fact that he did, in front of our eyes, and the fact there's no evidence of indoctrination or manipulation on part of the Catalyst.

The burden of proof is on you. You've shown none. Sorry to sound like a jerk, but all you have here is headcanon, an interpretation of his actions which holds no water.

If he's indoctrinated, why are we no longer hearing voices inside his head as we did when TIM was trying to control him?

Also, if the catalyst is there to deceive, and making you not use the Crucible is one of his goals, why does he not try to... you know... actually deceive you into doing that? Like, "the Crucible is not sufficiently powerful enough to destroy all of us. You need to find another way. Trust me." - ?

What exactly makes it a weapon?

It's laden with Collector tech you can use against them, or uncover valuable information as to how to exploit them. (TIM in ME2: "Information is my weapon, Shepard.")

And this isn't even an argument. The remnants of the Collector Base or the intact Reaper brain was used in the construction of the Crucible to defeat the Reapers. It is a canon weapon.

[hoodaticus]

Cheviot wrote...

comrade gando wrote...

lets just have you fighting reapers for 99% of the trilogy then change the goal at the last 10 minutes. if control and synthesis aren't indoctrination then idk what is.

1) There is literally no reason for them to indoctrinate Shepard.  He's already dying from bloodloss.
2) If you want to destroy the Reapers, choose Destroy, if you don't believe the Catalyst, choose Refuse.

You don't start bleeding until after TIM indoctrinates you and shoots Anderson - and besides, they mostly fixed the life-threatening blood loss in the EC.

[zambot]

The Twilight God wrote...

zambot wrote...

How can you try to make a serious interpretation of what a story means without trying to understand the intent of the author?

 

First, I don't know what they intended. I only know what they wrote.

Second, if they intended A, then they would or should write A. They wrote B, but you claim they mean A. Whatever, dude. 

We're discussing B. You can go elsewhere and discuss what's not present; what you think was meant to be present. We'll continue to discuss what IS present.

zambot wrote...

a. you cannot "cancel out" a sacrifice. A sacrifice is still a sacrifice.

We'll they ALL have the same outcome as far as that particular sacrifice so yeah, it can be said to cancel out.

zambot wrote...
b. plenty of people here wrestle with the moral implications of synthesis and what it means to alter all life in the galaxy. This is hardly an easy choice. You are trivializineg it.

c. Don't twist my words please. Synthesis, allowing Shepard to unify all species in the galaxy is completely consistent with the entire story from ME1. You don't need any sort of indocrination for that to be true.

Moral implications? Shepard needs to worried about what the hell it will actually do. It is the Reapers advocating it after all. Shepard needs to be asking himself why should he believe it isven  possible in the first place. And why he believes in the word of the Reapers with so much conviction that he is willing to suicide to advance the reaper's agenda. That's textbook indoctrination, my friend.

I'm not viewing this from a player perspective.

Whatever.  If you aren't interested in addressing the points seriously then you may discuss your awesome theory with yourself.  I'm glad it works for you.  The more happy people in the world the better.