Ce sujet est fermé
Wow that was awesome. Great read. I was always a believer in IT, and this only enforces it but I'm sure it has convinced some non-believers. Some people forget that the whole ending doesn't have to be a hallucination for the ending to be an indoctrination attempt (even though there is alot of evidence that supports that).
However I think this kind of evidence and type of thinking is far stronger than finding inconsistencies and plot holes to try and prove Shepard is dreaming. Kudos to you sir.
Deception Theory: The "Catalyst" Con
Débuté par
The Twilight God
, juil. 30 2012 11:31
Retour en haut
#377
Posté 05 août 2012 - 07:30
megamacka
-
- Members
- 433 messages
Beastpwnguy7 wrote...
Wow that was awesome. Great read. I was always a believer in IT, and this only enforces it but I'm sure it has convinced some non-believers. Some people forget that the whole ending doesn't have to be a hallucination for the ending to be an indoctrination attempt (even though there is alot of evidence that supports that).
However I think this kind of evidence and type of thinking is far stronger than finding inconsistencies and plot holes to try and prove Shepard is dreaming. Kudos to you sir.
Indeed. Indocrination is such a MASSIVE part of the Mass effect universe. And considering what Shepard has gone through over the course of the years. It's silly to believe that he would not fight the indocrination at all, he is '' just '' a man or a woman.
But Bioware also stated that they do not want to affect how people interpret the ending, and I take that as a '' whatever you consider canon = canon. I believe it was Mike Gamble whom said it in the EC panel. And someone else whom I dunno the name of too in the comic con 2012 Panel.
#378
Posté 05 août 2012 - 07:47
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 064 messages
I do not think that organics designed the Crucible. It is merely a crude power source, adaptive and effective in its design. Just like the civilizations were trapped by the reapers' dropping of knowledge and technology to make them develop along the paths the reapers desired and point the governments to the Citadel, they did the same with the Crucible. The brat also mentioned that it knew about the Crucible and thought that the plans were lost. However, it could have lied, because the three platforms are part of the Citadel and not part of the Crucible - both are required in combination with the mass relays using reaper technology to perform one of three functions. It was never meant as a weapon, because a weapon does not require the victim's consent to be fired. So, the brat does not dream up three new options for his hypothetical problem, it planned them all along. Each one furthers the brat's agenda one way or another - even the destroy option exterminates the hypothetical threat of the synthetics.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 août 2012 - 07:51 .
#379
Posté 05 août 2012 - 07:55
Beastpwnguy7
-
- Members
- 96 messages
megamacka wrote...
Beastpwnguy7 wrote...
Wow that was awesome. Great read. I was always a believer in IT, and this only enforces it but I'm sure it has convinced some non-believers. Some people forget that the whole ending doesn't have to be a hallucination for the ending to be an indoctrination attempt (even though there is alot of evidence that supports that).
However I think this kind of evidence and type of thinking is far stronger than finding inconsistencies and plot holes to try and prove Shepard is dreaming. Kudos to you sir.
Indeed. Indocrination is such a MASSIVE part of the Mass effect universe. And considering what Shepard has gone through over the course of the years. It's silly to believe that he would not fight the indocrination at all, he is '' just '' a man or a woman.
But Bioware also stated that they do not want to affect how people interpret the ending, and I take that as a '' whatever you consider canon = canon. I believe it was Mike Gamble whom said it in the EC panel. And someone else whom I dunno the name of too in the comic con 2012 Panel.
Yea thats what i hate though, theyre pretty much telling us to make up our own endings. I hope that the ending was indeed shepard hallucinating just so that it could be confirmed with a dlc or something.
#380
Posté 05 août 2012 - 08:06
megamacka
-
- Members
- 433 messages
Beastpwnguy7 wrote...
megamacka wrote...
Beastpwnguy7 wrote...
Wow that was awesome. Great read. I was always a believer in IT, and this only enforces it but I'm sure it has convinced some non-believers. Some people forget that the whole ending doesn't have to be a hallucination for the ending to be an indoctrination attempt (even though there is alot of evidence that supports that).
However I think this kind of evidence and type of thinking is far stronger than finding inconsistencies and plot holes to try and prove Shepard is dreaming. Kudos to you sir.
Indeed. Indocrination is such a MASSIVE part of the Mass effect universe. And considering what Shepard has gone through over the course of the years. It's silly to believe that he would not fight the indocrination at all, he is '' just '' a man or a woman.
But Bioware also stated that they do not want to affect how people interpret the ending, and I take that as a '' whatever you consider canon = canon. I believe it was Mike Gamble whom said it in the EC panel. And someone else whom I dunno the name of too in the comic con 2012 Panel.
Yea thats what i hate though, theyre pretty much telling us to make up our own endings. I hope that the ending was indeed shepard hallucinating just so that it could be confirmed with a dlc or something.
I hated the ending pre EC. But now post EC I absolutely love it and it makes me go all teary eyes everytime I play it. I only wish for a post ending DLC, it doesn't have to involve gameplay just extra dialogue and perhaps cinematics! BLUE BABIES AND HOUSE ON RANNOCH GIEF ! The EC added much needed dialogue and goodbyes, especially the ones with the starkiddo, the new dialogues made me question his agenda even more.
But in the end of the day, this is a story that we all INCLUDING THE DEVELOPERS has been in love with for many many years. The characters, atmosphere and the entire world created by the team and with the feedback of us the fans is a masterpiece in itself and I think that the problem is that none of us wants to say goodbye. I think that this very fact clouds the judgment of a lot of people, still ... I am sure that some people just don't like the ending but hey that is completely fine too. You can't please everyone.
But in the end of the day we are all fans and it's incredible difficult to say goodbye to the series. Even if they do make another game set in the mass effect universe. it will NEVER be the same, atleast not for me. No game, movie, book, story or whatever will ever touch me as deeply as the ME series and its characters have over the course of these years.
I just wish that Bioware will indeed give us even more closure, not today and probably not tomorrw either. But in the future perhaps ? :innocent:
But untill then, Keelah se'lai and please give us more cool space magic !
#381
Posté 05 août 2012 - 08:15
I_eat_unicorns
-
- Members
- 396 messages
I thought refusal was put in because people wanted a scenario where the reapers won and felt that the catalyst was too forced upon them. Not indoctrination, just relying on conventional victory, which Bioware doesn't want as they clearly said the crucilbe is needed to win.
#382
Posté 05 août 2012 - 08:22
megamacka
-
- Members
- 433 messages
I_eat_unicorns wrote...
I thought refusal was put in because people wanted a scenario where the reapers won and felt that the catalyst was too forced upon them. Not indoctrination, just relying on conventional victory, which Bioware doesn't want as they clearly said the crucilbe is needed to win.
People QQed about not being able to tell the starchild aka Mr reaper to go F himself. So they put in the option to do just that, and now people claim that it was Bioware mocking the fans..... The logic...
The reapers could not be defeated by just normal military force, remember. It's Cycle after cycle after cycle after cycle and so on harvested. They are too vastly superior to anything that can be gathered by a single cycle.
Why the hell would you even go through with all of this and then decide NOT to use the crucible in the end? It just seems very pointless xD. You have the means to destroy the reapers right infront of you but then you listen to some random reaper appearing claiming that he speaks the truth about you being able to control them or synthesis which was what they wanted '' final evolution '' anyway. Or you just sit there like a spoiled brat with your arms crossed saying NO, I want an entire new ending and I will just sit here untill Bioware gives it to me!
!!! WHAT, THE REAPERS HARVEST US IF I DON'T USE THE CRUCIBLE!? Clearly this is Bioware mocking us and NOT what we asked for!
#383
Posté 05 août 2012 - 08:43
I_eat_unicorns
-
- Members
- 396 messages
megamacka wrote...
I_eat_unicorns wrote...
I thought refusal was put in because people wanted a scenario where the reapers won and felt that the catalyst was too forced upon them. Not indoctrination, just relying on conventional victory, which Bioware doesn't want as they clearly said the crucilbe is needed to win.
People QQed about not being able to tell the starchild aka Mr reaper to go F himself. So they put in the option to do just that, and now people claim that it was Bioware mocking the fans..... The logic...
The reapers could not be defeated by just normal military force, remember. It's Cycle after cycle after cycle after cycle and so on harvested. They are too vastly superior to anything that can be gathered by a single cycle.
Why the hell would you even go through with all of this and then decide NOT to use the crucible in the end? It just seems very pointless xD. You have the means to destroy the reapers right infront of you but then you listen to some random reaper appearing claiming that he speaks the truth about you being able to control them or synthesis which was what they wanted '' final evolution '' anyway. Or you just sit there like a spoiled brat with your arms crossed saying NO, I want an entire new ending and I will just sit here untill Bioware gives it to me!
Synthesis is the worst ending. It goes against everything in the me lore. But it's still a choice. Control is actually a good ending. You basically become a god that is a peacekeeper (paragon) or a strong hard leader (renegade).
It's all choice. Poor or good, it's still choice, and IT takes that away, which makes the endings worse than they were.
#384
Posté 05 août 2012 - 08:45
zigamortis
-
- Members
- 543 messages
This is IT...... all this is is an explanation built upon the theory. An explanation OF the theory. this is exactly what IT is about.AlanC9 wrote...
Like I said before, this is pretty good. IT with about 70% less crazy
#385
Posté 05 août 2012 - 09:14
megamacka
-
- Members
- 433 messages
I_eat_unicorns wrote...
megamacka wrote...
I_eat_unicorns wrote...
I thought refusal was put in because people wanted a scenario where the reapers won and felt that the catalyst was too forced upon them. Not indoctrination, just relying on conventional victory, which Bioware doesn't want as they clearly said the crucilbe is needed to win.
People QQed about not being able to tell the starchild aka Mr reaper to go F himself. So they put in the option to do just that, and now people claim that it was Bioware mocking the fans..... The logic...
The reapers could not be defeated by just normal military force, remember. It's Cycle after cycle after cycle after cycle and so on harvested. They are too vastly superior to anything that can be gathered by a single cycle.
Why the hell would you even go through with all of this and then decide NOT to use the crucible in the end? It just seems very pointless xD. You have the means to destroy the reapers right infront of you but then you listen to some random reaper appearing claiming that he speaks the truth about you being able to control them or synthesis which was what they wanted '' final evolution '' anyway. Or you just sit there like a spoiled brat with your arms crossed saying NO, I want an entire new ending and I will just sit here untill Bioware gives it to me!
Synthesis is the worst ending. It goes against everything in the me lore. But it's still a choice. Control is actually a good ending. You basically become a god that is a peacekeeper (paragon) or a strong hard leader (renegade).
It's all choice. Poor or good, it's still choice, and IT takes that away, which makes the endings worse than they were.
Imo, you never know if what you see is actually what happens. If you got a '' critical failure '' screen when you choose control then people would just reload and choose another ending. It's all part of the indocrination. But that's how I interpret the ending
. I belive that Bioware did this on purpouse. Some of us question the star child ( cough mr reaper cough ) and some choose to believe him. I just doubt that the reapers would just let shepy controll them just like that, but hey that's just my view.We all knew that it was going to end sooner or later, and I felt like the entire purpouse of the story was to destroy the reapers and that's what I set my mind for and I did not fight all the way just to let some reaper make me change my mind and take my chances in believing him. I don't wish Bioware to confirm anything, because that is not what the ending should be about. It should be about choice you are right, choosing what YOU believe. And them coming out saying '' yep, control / synthesis was all indocrination '' would just ruin it to a lot of people. We have to be able to think a bit for ourselves too and not demand Bioware to hold our hands the entire way
.
#386
Posté 05 août 2012 - 09:21
Lord Goose
-
- Members
- 865 messages
IT (all forms of it) are always Destroy biased.
I actually consider it is because most people have played as Paragons (or Paragades), and turned out that result they wanted is only possible via Renegade solution.
Naturally, they were pissed and created theories, which takes weight from their shoulders. Naturally, where was no other way to win the game other than destroy.
I actually consider it is because most people have played as Paragons (or Paragades), and turned out that result they wanted is only possible via Renegade solution.
Naturally, they were pissed and created theories, which takes weight from their shoulders. Naturally, where was no other way to win the game other than destroy.
#387
Posté 05 août 2012 - 10:12
teh DRUMPf!!
-
- Members
- 9 142 messages
[quote]The Twilight God wrote...
[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
He didn't forget the Destroy button, he's deliberately choosing not to use it.
Don't act like you don't know that, for MANY people who play, the eradication of synthetic life in Destroy is a severely immoral action that results from choosing it. For some, it's reason enough to disqualify it even if it destroys the Reapers.[/quote]
So you destroy everyone; Organics and synthetics? In order to not kill the synthetics who get killed because you stood by and did nothing. Has Shepard been taking logic lessons from the Star Child?
Yes, yes. The Stupid Shepard Theory. I gotcha loud and clear. [/quote]
Stop strawmanning.
The decision is simply an out for those who believe the cost of using the Crucible is too high (not me, but still).
And Shepard doesn't know that the galaxy will all die either, not for fact. That comes after choosing it.
But many people here are even convinced that the Reapers could be beaten conventionally too despite whatever the game tells them. So, they aren't just choosing to give up by rejecting the Crucible (there goes that). The fact they're wrong doesn't change that, they cannot know for certain whether or not rejecting the Crucible means they lose the war, not without metagaming.
[quote]Right
[/quote]
And yet, Vega can punch him in the gut and leave him in obvious pain. Some super-cyborg he is.
[quote][quote]What he was doing was undeniably a form of control. There's no question about it. OTOH, the case for the Catalyst being the player's indoctrination is a shoddy claim at best.[/quote]
Yeah, Shepard can use Dominate too. So I guess he should have used that on the reaper destroyer instead of Kalros, the quarian fleet or a scrap load of thanix missiles. It is a form of control afterall. [/quote]
Strawman.
[quote]Yeah, Shepard suiciding himself because a Reaper says it will save the day iis shoddy evidence for indoctrination. Went right ahead and suicided himself to advance their agenda. Riiight I guess Dr. Kenson wasn't indoctrinated and genuinely wanted to see the reaper utopia. Because that kind of behavior is shoddy evidence at best. My mistake.
[/quote]
Headcanon.
[quote]And he's going to control all the hundreds or thousands of robot reaper bodies all throughout the galaxy using that technique? Last I cheecked Dominate only works on organics and requires line of sight. And I presume he will never eat or sleep ever against using that technique else he lose control or simply get angry and slip up. Note he could not control the reaper force attacking Sanctuary. No, he'll use the Crucible, right? If he's going to use the Star Kids' control console then his technique is irrelevant and a collosal waste of his time and effort and therefore has no real bearing on the issue of rather or not controlling the Reapers is possible seeing as he has no credible reason to believe the Crucible can Control the reapers other than the reapers putting the idea in his head.[/quote]
What on God's green earth are you babbling?
[quote]What he is isn't known. He could be an AI on the Citadel. He could be Harbinger playing mind games.[/quote]
It is known. He tells us what he is, and was foreshadowed earlier by a neutral party. And, The only reason people are suspicious that he's lying about himself is because of this crackpot theory that dictates "Destroy is the ONLY way!" and to validate that choice.
It's such phony suspicion. If people really had this mentality, no one would recruit Garrus in ME1. Afterall, his race is something of an enemy to humanity. The whole scene with Dr. Michel could just be a set-up by Saren to get one of his thugs on your ship and sabotage the mission! Of course, that's nonsense. That's the whole point though. And besides, how do you prove it wrong? By what comes after making the decision. It's the same damn thing with Control and Synthesis. But no, this militant faction of Destroy-only fans insist on forcing their interpretation on the rest of us. Ein decision! Ein opinion! Heil!
[quote]But you brought up the topic of voices being evidence of indoctrination. And I'm reminding you that there were other voices during that conversation.[/quote]
Except for the part where it sounds nothing like the indoctrination from moments ago.
But you know what it does sound like? The rachni queen's communication, through dead bodies. A creature with a hive-mind. Many voices speaking at once. Which would make sense, given what the Catalyst is. And even given what the Reapers are.
Besides which, I wouldn't be too proud if Bioware deliberately tried to throw a bone in there for IT. They're keeping it alive for money. Going out of their way to squash IT just means losing fans.
It's quite ironic, if true: manipulating fans into believing their largely-unproven theory of manipulation, to keep them loyal.
[quote][quote]It IS indoctrination. That's why Shepard is hearing voices. Indoctrination can control your body too by compelling you to do things, only Shepard was not completely indoctrinated so he could fight it a little bit - physically and mentally. [/quote]
No, it isn't. Controlling motor functions, in and of itself, is not indoctrination. There is no precedence in the entire series for instant motor control indoctrination. You shot yourself in the foot and just refuse to admit it. What TIM does is either dominate or something completely new. If that was indoctrination then Soveriegn could have simply made Shep and company attack themselves on the Citadel at the end of ME1. The Derelict Reaper could have just forced them to stand still while the husks tore Shepard apart. Again, there is nothing whatsoever supporting this new instant super indoctrination idea you've made up.[/quote]
And, indoctrination does control your movement... by influencing your mind and what you want to think. Notice how Shepard only moves when he/she hears the voices and gets that funky vision? That's indoctrination leading him to do those things: point his gun, shoot it...
It's no different than when an indoctrinated Cerberus thrall on the Derelict Reaper impales himself/herself on Dragon's Teeth. The Reapers aren't controlling their every movement as they walk to the giant spike, they simply make you choose to do it. Like TIM is making Shepard choose to sabotage his own efforts to stop the Reapers, which the Reapers are simply doing through him.
[quote][quote]No he can't. The catalyst is the one who raises the platform to Destroy and/or Control. Even if he does, you're assuming that Shepard can/will know that shooting the tube will Desroy the Reapers without the Catalyst prompting it to him.[/quote]
He'd figure it out. He still has radio contact with EDI, HAckett and the scientist. Also, guns have more range that point blank. Not a thing the Star Kid can do about it. walking up to it is part of the chosing process and facilitates the cutscene.[/quote]
Assuming you're right and the catalyst is willfully trying to stop it, why is the catalyst telling Shepard exactly what the Destroy tube does? If he's a liar, well, that would be the time to lie. Again, that's the glaring hole in IT in general, the fact you're given the option to Destroy in most circumstances. If there were no Destroy, ever, then it would be fishy. As is, phony suspicion is phony.
But the assumption fails. We don't know that Shepard can still contact anyone. The Citadel beam (the one that transports him onto the Citadel) caused too much interference for missiles to hit it. Now, Shepard is a stone's throw away from another similar-looking beam, in a completely unknown area of the Citadel. It's quite possible he can't contact anyone in the catalyst's chamber. Also, he's in very poor condition. Weak, barely conscious, probably feeling ditzy, and likely to bleed out. That he could get up and figure it all out by himself just by looking at things is a pretty far-fetched notion when it comes down to it.
[quote][quote]Another hole in your argument is that the Crucible is fubar'd in Low EMS + Base. You're wrong, because the Base improves the Crucible. It's worth more EMS. And in Control, Earth doesn't suffer like Low EMS Destroy.[/quote]
It's fubar'd if it can't initiate a proper Destroy. That is what it is for. That is the only thing it was desgined to do.[/quote]
"Not sure what it's gonna do exactly, but it's gonna be big." - Kasumi.
Nobody knows what it was really going to do. Destroy, most assumed. Control, TIM believed it could do as well ("Huh. So the Illusive Man was right afterall"). It was anyone's guess. For all they knew, it was a glorified christmas ornament that was useless. Liara assumes as much after one picks Refuse. Bottom line: nobody knew.
[quote]Syhthesis and control are based in the Citadel, not the Crucible. They need the Crucible's to power them.[/quote]
True, and same with Destroy.
[quote]Yeah, Control doesn't seem to really need the alot of Crucible energy as I've mention before. The low and high ems difference are just relay explosion and normady damage. Control doesn't seem to really need the Crucible as much and is less power dependent than synthesis which is understandable seeing as synthesis is making matter out of energy[/quote]
They all need power to send the energy to the Charon relay, and out to all other relays.
[quote][quote]Bioware portraying him differently (I assume you mean the fact he does not approve of Control) doesn't matter. You know why? Because people are still going to be utterly convinced by his actions and words, whatever they may be, being clearly signs that he's manipulating Shepard. If he acted differently, you'd cite it as proof. Since he's not, you cite it as proof because it's actually proving that it's Bioware behind it, trying to trick the player whilst also not being "obvious" about it and giving it away. See how that works?[/quote]
Yup. Nice how that works, eh?[/quote]
I wouldn't be too proud of circular-logic. This is practically a textbook example.
[quote][quote]Nice try.
This is clearly the unanswerable question for your IT.[/quote]
And what question would that be? I've answered everything.[/quote]
LOL! No.
[quote][quote]Normandy narrowly pulls it off without the Thanix, and one squadmate dies. Hardly a "raping."[/quote]
It's a frigate and the collector ship is a cruiser. The Normandy raped it and gave the collectors a bag of it's underwear to wash.[/quote]
So the ending of ME2 doesn't make sense? Time for another Indoctrination Theory!
Oh wait, we approve of how ME2 ended, so it's safe from that nonsense. Carry on.
[quote][quote]The Collectors are augmented by Reaper tech. For all intents and purproses, they are Reaper tech in themselves.[/quote]
If collector tech was representative of reaper tech a conventional victory wouldn't be so crazy.[/quote]
The Collectors were just a proxy of the Reapers. Their aim wasn't full-scale war, just covert harvesting. They relied on being covert because they weren't strong enough to take on organized resistance, so they avoided it altogether. The Reapers could not be more different in strength, or tactics/strategy.
[quote][quote]And yet, when Cerberus salvaged everything they could get out of it, they were outgunning Alliance marines.
The Collector Base tech was extremely potent.[/quote]
Reaper nanites exist in husks and dragon's teeth. There aren't any special nanites only found on the collector base. Read the books. The difference is Grayson is infected while still alive. Husks are not.[/quote]
The nanites were a seperate study altogether, how to make indoctrination work. Their military strength came from Reaper tech upgrades.
[quote][quote]Bringing down Reaper ships is not the only way to fight them. Especially not when we lack the conventional means to do that as it is. One has to find other ways.
- Rewriting the keepers is fighting them.
- Destroying the alpha-relay is fighting them.
- Preserving/using the Collector Base to develop tech is fighting them.[/quote]
Yeah, and none of that is the subject matter. The issue brought up is prothean tech winning us the war which is simply not true. And the fact that you are diverting the subject tells me you recognize your folly.[/quote]
Never meant to say/imply prothean tech won us the war. More like Reaper tech (which is the same as Collector tech too). I made a whole thread of examples: http://social.biowar.../index/12320051
Besides which, only a fool wouldn't actually use prothean tech to their advantage if it could help them anyway.
[quote]It didn't go from concept to mass prodction in the last couple months.[/quote]
Nah, pure coincidence they made this long soght-after breakthrough in the months after they horde Reaper tech.
[quote][quote]The Reapers attacked Sanctuary before they got far enough to make that kind of breakthrough.[/quote]
Um, no. Henry Lawson says they succeeded and that they can maintain control of reaper forces indefinitely as long as they are in close proximity. They couldn't control the reapers themselves however.[/quote]
Which, again, is because the Reapers got involved before they could make that breakthrough. The Reapers were afraid they would, however, and so they got in and took out the facility. Lawson says it himself, something down the lines of "they are aware of our experiments/they have a weakness."
[quote]So really they never really made much of a breakthrough, before or after. What they did do was make their own husks, but there is never any evidence given that they could actually take control from the reapers or their forces. In fact, the videos on Cronos station hint that the reapers were in the process of taking control of even TIM's specially made soldiers.[/quote]
Controlling their own husks would not have been much of a threat to warrant direction action from the Reapers. Certainly not enough for Mr. Lawson to conclude "they have a weakness."
The Cronos log was of the indoctrination thing in its primative stages. If that were a real problem, why did we not see Cereberus troops themselves trying to sabotage Sanctuary rather than trying to leave and fighting the Reapers on their way out?
[quote][quote]It largely was working for them. Their operatives could outgun Alliance marines.[/quote]
Their combat effectiveness isn't the issue. They were indoctrinated grunts. The reaper tech makes them submissive.[/quote]
They are submissive to fighting for Cerberus. Just like the husks from Sanctuary.
[quote][quote]And consider this. The Reapers were on Tuchanka and Rannoch. They were aware of Shepard's efforts to unite galactic forces to go fight the Reapers, but Shepard was never actively being sought after by the Reapers. OTOH, Sanctuary warranted direct action from the Reapers to stop it, because it was that threatening to them.[/quote]
Shepard didn't exactly stand around in one fixed place for extended amounts of time for them to come after him. And he wasn't dealing with what can be considered "reaper tracking devices" which is how they knew about sanctuary? Because of the reaper tech being implanted in people. If Sanctuary was such a threat why not send a dreadnaught to obliterate it from orbit or even a destroyer? Didn't seem like it was that high on their threat list.[/quote]
Salarian STG could figure out when he got to Tuchanka. The Reapers use largely the same methods of tracking, per Legion in ME2, when he says "we watch you."
If Shepard really was going to stop them, they could easily prioritize his ship and take him out. They didn't think he would. Harbinger dismisses his efforts as "dust struggling against cosmic winds" in Arrival. They are not threatened by him. They just want his body, as he is an exceptional soldier, but nothing more.
[quote]And they did come after Shepard. They actively sought him on the galaxy map.
[/quote]
That's not active search, that's passive. It's like, "Oh hey, Shep's here! Let's get him! ... oh he got away for the 20th time, oh well!"
[quote][quote]Not the same thing and you know it. You're deliberately trying to downplay it.[/quote]
It is exactly the same thing. Irrelevent stuff that doesn'tt really matter in the end. It can have the core or brain. Both interchangeable which makes both ultimately unimportant. It works fine without or without the core. It works fine with or without the brain. Only if the Crucible is jacked up do they come into play and at that point it's a lose-lose situation anyway. It'll either allow the Crucible to destory all life or leave the crucible incapable of defeating the reapers.[/quote]
My ass it's the same thing.
Next you'll be telling me electicity is no more important to a lamp than steel.
[quote]-- All endings require the players sacrifice.[/quote]
No they don't. Shepard survives Destroy.
[quote]-- Shepard living on is headcannon. I get no payoff whatsoever from a breathe scene. For all intents and purposes Shepard ends at the docking chamber for all endings.There is no reunion, no nothing. The End. I can say Shepard made a cylon body and reurned to his friends with control or hatched out of a ctbernetic pof in syntheis. Control, if take at face value, presents a more believable reunion than Destroy.[/quote]
I knew you'd try to downplay it, as I predicted. And maybe it doesn't mean anything to you, but for many other people, it does. A number of people cite Shepard surviving as a plus in Destroy.
[quote]-- Control and Synthesis are rainbows and butterflies. There are no downsides other than the ones you make up.[/quote]
I made up nothing. They are morally questionable, fans and critics of the two paths alike will acknowledge this.
[quote]-- Still raindows and butterflies with no downside compared to Destroy. No sacrifice other than the one all endings share.[/quote]
They don't all share a sacrifice. Shepard lives in Destroy. The leaked ME3 script even labels the scene as "Shepard lives" not "Shepard breathes" or "Shepard takes a dying breath." Of course they're not saying definitively if he lives or dies, depending on what fans want, like they're not saying anything definitive about IT.
[quote][quote]Except you never see stuff like IT being done anywhere else. Why? Because the premise of "it's all just a front" is ridiculous until and unless one can soundly prove it. Failing that, everything you see is to be taken at face value.[/quote]
At face value it is nothing. It's a narrator talking about what if's. Nothing in those epiliques actually plays out. Not even Destroy.[/quote]
At face value, everything is exactly as it's presented, as fact. To say otherwise is headcanon. It all goes back to that.
[quote]You claiming solid evidence is fallacy and wild speculation doesn't make it so. The evidence is there. You do not have to accept it. Your belief is not required. It is what it is regardless.[/quote]
There evidence is not there. All this OP or IT in general ever comes up with as "evidence" are leaps of logic, straws, and non-facts.
[quote]Shepard is either indoctrinated or TIM infected him with retardation. Take your pick.[/quote]
I pick face-value presentation. Shepard is not indoctrinated and is given options from the catalyst to activate the Crucible.
[quote]There is not a single reason for any person in their right mind to trust the Reapers. Nothing you say will ever change that. You cannot rationalize the irrational.[/quote]
The Catalyst is not the Reapers, he is a Reaper proxy. Myself saying otherwise previously was just using your own argument for the sake of analyzing it.
And there is plenty of reason to trust it, I did a whole thread on this: http://social.biowar.../index/12975245
[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
He didn't forget the Destroy button, he's deliberately choosing not to use it.
Don't act like you don't know that, for MANY people who play, the eradication of synthetic life in Destroy is a severely immoral action that results from choosing it. For some, it's reason enough to disqualify it even if it destroys the Reapers.[/quote]
So you destroy everyone; Organics and synthetics? In order to not kill the synthetics who get killed because you stood by and did nothing. Has Shepard been taking logic lessons from the Star Child?
Yes, yes. The Stupid Shepard Theory. I gotcha loud and clear. [/quote]
Stop strawmanning.
The decision is simply an out for those who believe the cost of using the Crucible is too high (not me, but still).
And Shepard doesn't know that the galaxy will all die either, not for fact. That comes after choosing it.
But many people here are even convinced that the Reapers could be beaten conventionally too despite whatever the game tells them. So, they aren't just choosing to give up by rejecting the Crucible (there goes that). The fact they're wrong doesn't change that, they cannot know for certain whether or not rejecting the Crucible means they lose the war, not without metagaming.
[quote]Right
[/quote]And yet, Vega can punch him in the gut and leave him in obvious pain. Some super-cyborg he is.
[quote][quote]What he was doing was undeniably a form of control. There's no question about it. OTOH, the case for the Catalyst being the player's indoctrination is a shoddy claim at best.[/quote]
Yeah, Shepard can use Dominate too. So I guess he should have used that on the reaper destroyer instead of Kalros, the quarian fleet or a scrap load of thanix missiles. It is a form of control afterall. [/quote]
Strawman.
[quote]Yeah, Shepard suiciding himself because a Reaper says it will save the day iis shoddy evidence for indoctrination. Went right ahead and suicided himself to advance their agenda. Riiight I guess Dr. Kenson wasn't indoctrinated and genuinely wanted to see the reaper utopia. Because that kind of behavior is shoddy evidence at best. My mistake.
[/quote]Headcanon.
[quote]And he's going to control all the hundreds or thousands of robot reaper bodies all throughout the galaxy using that technique? Last I cheecked Dominate only works on organics and requires line of sight. And I presume he will never eat or sleep ever against using that technique else he lose control or simply get angry and slip up. Note he could not control the reaper force attacking Sanctuary. No, he'll use the Crucible, right? If he's going to use the Star Kids' control console then his technique is irrelevant and a collosal waste of his time and effort and therefore has no real bearing on the issue of rather or not controlling the Reapers is possible seeing as he has no credible reason to believe the Crucible can Control the reapers other than the reapers putting the idea in his head.[/quote]
What on God's green earth are you babbling?
[quote]What he is isn't known. He could be an AI on the Citadel. He could be Harbinger playing mind games.[/quote]
It is known. He tells us what he is, and was foreshadowed earlier by a neutral party. And, The only reason people are suspicious that he's lying about himself is because of this crackpot theory that dictates "Destroy is the ONLY way!" and to validate that choice.
It's such phony suspicion. If people really had this mentality, no one would recruit Garrus in ME1. Afterall, his race is something of an enemy to humanity. The whole scene with Dr. Michel could just be a set-up by Saren to get one of his thugs on your ship and sabotage the mission! Of course, that's nonsense. That's the whole point though. And besides, how do you prove it wrong? By what comes after making the decision. It's the same damn thing with Control and Synthesis. But no, this militant faction of Destroy-only fans insist on forcing their interpretation on the rest of us. Ein decision! Ein opinion! Heil!
[quote]But you brought up the topic of voices being evidence of indoctrination. And I'm reminding you that there were other voices during that conversation.[/quote]
Except for the part where it sounds nothing like the indoctrination from moments ago.
But you know what it does sound like? The rachni queen's communication, through dead bodies. A creature with a hive-mind. Many voices speaking at once. Which would make sense, given what the Catalyst is. And even given what the Reapers are.
Besides which, I wouldn't be too proud if Bioware deliberately tried to throw a bone in there for IT. They're keeping it alive for money. Going out of their way to squash IT just means losing fans.
It's quite ironic, if true: manipulating fans into believing their largely-unproven theory of manipulation, to keep them loyal.
[quote][quote]It IS indoctrination. That's why Shepard is hearing voices. Indoctrination can control your body too by compelling you to do things, only Shepard was not completely indoctrinated so he could fight it a little bit - physically and mentally. [/quote]
No, it isn't. Controlling motor functions, in and of itself, is not indoctrination. There is no precedence in the entire series for instant motor control indoctrination. You shot yourself in the foot and just refuse to admit it. What TIM does is either dominate or something completely new. If that was indoctrination then Soveriegn could have simply made Shep and company attack themselves on the Citadel at the end of ME1. The Derelict Reaper could have just forced them to stand still while the husks tore Shepard apart. Again, there is nothing whatsoever supporting this new instant super indoctrination idea you've made up.[/quote]
And, indoctrination does control your movement... by influencing your mind and what you want to think. Notice how Shepard only moves when he/she hears the voices and gets that funky vision? That's indoctrination leading him to do those things: point his gun, shoot it...
It's no different than when an indoctrinated Cerberus thrall on the Derelict Reaper impales himself/herself on Dragon's Teeth. The Reapers aren't controlling their every movement as they walk to the giant spike, they simply make you choose to do it. Like TIM is making Shepard choose to sabotage his own efforts to stop the Reapers, which the Reapers are simply doing through him.
[quote][quote]No he can't. The catalyst is the one who raises the platform to Destroy and/or Control. Even if he does, you're assuming that Shepard can/will know that shooting the tube will Desroy the Reapers without the Catalyst prompting it to him.[/quote]
He'd figure it out. He still has radio contact with EDI, HAckett and the scientist. Also, guns have more range that point blank. Not a thing the Star Kid can do about it. walking up to it is part of the chosing process and facilitates the cutscene.[/quote]
Assuming you're right and the catalyst is willfully trying to stop it, why is the catalyst telling Shepard exactly what the Destroy tube does? If he's a liar, well, that would be the time to lie. Again, that's the glaring hole in IT in general, the fact you're given the option to Destroy in most circumstances. If there were no Destroy, ever, then it would be fishy. As is, phony suspicion is phony.
But the assumption fails. We don't know that Shepard can still contact anyone. The Citadel beam (the one that transports him onto the Citadel) caused too much interference for missiles to hit it. Now, Shepard is a stone's throw away from another similar-looking beam, in a completely unknown area of the Citadel. It's quite possible he can't contact anyone in the catalyst's chamber. Also, he's in very poor condition. Weak, barely conscious, probably feeling ditzy, and likely to bleed out. That he could get up and figure it all out by himself just by looking at things is a pretty far-fetched notion when it comes down to it.
[quote][quote]Another hole in your argument is that the Crucible is fubar'd in Low EMS + Base. You're wrong, because the Base improves the Crucible. It's worth more EMS. And in Control, Earth doesn't suffer like Low EMS Destroy.[/quote]
It's fubar'd if it can't initiate a proper Destroy. That is what it is for. That is the only thing it was desgined to do.[/quote]
"Not sure what it's gonna do exactly, but it's gonna be big." - Kasumi.
Nobody knows what it was really going to do. Destroy, most assumed. Control, TIM believed it could do as well ("Huh. So the Illusive Man was right afterall"). It was anyone's guess. For all they knew, it was a glorified christmas ornament that was useless. Liara assumes as much after one picks Refuse. Bottom line: nobody knew.
[quote]Syhthesis and control are based in the Citadel, not the Crucible. They need the Crucible's to power them.[/quote]
True, and same with Destroy.
[quote]Yeah, Control doesn't seem to really need the alot of Crucible energy as I've mention before. The low and high ems difference are just relay explosion and normady damage. Control doesn't seem to really need the Crucible as much and is less power dependent than synthesis which is understandable seeing as synthesis is making matter out of energy[/quote]
They all need power to send the energy to the Charon relay, and out to all other relays.
[quote][quote]Bioware portraying him differently (I assume you mean the fact he does not approve of Control) doesn't matter. You know why? Because people are still going to be utterly convinced by his actions and words, whatever they may be, being clearly signs that he's manipulating Shepard. If he acted differently, you'd cite it as proof. Since he's not, you cite it as proof because it's actually proving that it's Bioware behind it, trying to trick the player whilst also not being "obvious" about it and giving it away. See how that works?[/quote]
Yup. Nice how that works, eh?[/quote]
I wouldn't be too proud of circular-logic. This is practically a textbook example.
[quote][quote]Nice try.
This is clearly the unanswerable question for your IT.[/quote]
And what question would that be? I've answered everything.[/quote]
LOL! No.
[quote][quote]Normandy narrowly pulls it off without the Thanix, and one squadmate dies. Hardly a "raping."[/quote]
It's a frigate and the collector ship is a cruiser. The Normandy raped it and gave the collectors a bag of it's underwear to wash.[/quote]
So the ending of ME2 doesn't make sense? Time for another Indoctrination Theory!
Oh wait, we approve of how ME2 ended, so it's safe from that nonsense. Carry on.
[quote][quote]The Collectors are augmented by Reaper tech. For all intents and purproses, they are Reaper tech in themselves.[/quote]
If collector tech was representative of reaper tech a conventional victory wouldn't be so crazy.[/quote]
The Collectors were just a proxy of the Reapers. Their aim wasn't full-scale war, just covert harvesting. They relied on being covert because they weren't strong enough to take on organized resistance, so they avoided it altogether. The Reapers could not be more different in strength, or tactics/strategy.
[quote][quote]And yet, when Cerberus salvaged everything they could get out of it, they were outgunning Alliance marines.
The Collector Base tech was extremely potent.[/quote]
Reaper nanites exist in husks and dragon's teeth. There aren't any special nanites only found on the collector base. Read the books. The difference is Grayson is infected while still alive. Husks are not.[/quote]
The nanites were a seperate study altogether, how to make indoctrination work. Their military strength came from Reaper tech upgrades.
[quote][quote]Bringing down Reaper ships is not the only way to fight them. Especially not when we lack the conventional means to do that as it is. One has to find other ways.
- Rewriting the keepers is fighting them.
- Destroying the alpha-relay is fighting them.
- Preserving/using the Collector Base to develop tech is fighting them.[/quote]
Yeah, and none of that is the subject matter. The issue brought up is prothean tech winning us the war which is simply not true. And the fact that you are diverting the subject tells me you recognize your folly.[/quote]
Never meant to say/imply prothean tech won us the war. More like Reaper tech (which is the same as Collector tech too). I made a whole thread of examples: http://social.biowar.../index/12320051
Besides which, only a fool wouldn't actually use prothean tech to their advantage if it could help them anyway.
[quote]It didn't go from concept to mass prodction in the last couple months.[/quote]
Nah, pure coincidence they made this long soght-after breakthrough in the months after they horde Reaper tech.
[quote][quote]The Reapers attacked Sanctuary before they got far enough to make that kind of breakthrough.[/quote]
Um, no. Henry Lawson says they succeeded and that they can maintain control of reaper forces indefinitely as long as they are in close proximity. They couldn't control the reapers themselves however.[/quote]
Which, again, is because the Reapers got involved before they could make that breakthrough. The Reapers were afraid they would, however, and so they got in and took out the facility. Lawson says it himself, something down the lines of "they are aware of our experiments/they have a weakness."
[quote]So really they never really made much of a breakthrough, before or after. What they did do was make their own husks, but there is never any evidence given that they could actually take control from the reapers or their forces. In fact, the videos on Cronos station hint that the reapers were in the process of taking control of even TIM's specially made soldiers.[/quote]
Controlling their own husks would not have been much of a threat to warrant direction action from the Reapers. Certainly not enough for Mr. Lawson to conclude "they have a weakness."
The Cronos log was of the indoctrination thing in its primative stages. If that were a real problem, why did we not see Cereberus troops themselves trying to sabotage Sanctuary rather than trying to leave and fighting the Reapers on their way out?
[quote][quote]It largely was working for them. Their operatives could outgun Alliance marines.[/quote]
Their combat effectiveness isn't the issue. They were indoctrinated grunts. The reaper tech makes them submissive.[/quote]
They are submissive to fighting for Cerberus. Just like the husks from Sanctuary.
[quote][quote]And consider this. The Reapers were on Tuchanka and Rannoch. They were aware of Shepard's efforts to unite galactic forces to go fight the Reapers, but Shepard was never actively being sought after by the Reapers. OTOH, Sanctuary warranted direct action from the Reapers to stop it, because it was that threatening to them.[/quote]
Shepard didn't exactly stand around in one fixed place for extended amounts of time for them to come after him. And he wasn't dealing with what can be considered "reaper tracking devices" which is how they knew about sanctuary? Because of the reaper tech being implanted in people. If Sanctuary was such a threat why not send a dreadnaught to obliterate it from orbit or even a destroyer? Didn't seem like it was that high on their threat list.[/quote]
Salarian STG could figure out when he got to Tuchanka. The Reapers use largely the same methods of tracking, per Legion in ME2, when he says "we watch you."
If Shepard really was going to stop them, they could easily prioritize his ship and take him out. They didn't think he would. Harbinger dismisses his efforts as "dust struggling against cosmic winds" in Arrival. They are not threatened by him. They just want his body, as he is an exceptional soldier, but nothing more.
[quote]And they did come after Shepard. They actively sought him on the galaxy map.
[/quote]That's not active search, that's passive. It's like, "Oh hey, Shep's here! Let's get him! ... oh he got away for the 20th time, oh well!"
[quote][quote]Not the same thing and you know it. You're deliberately trying to downplay it.[/quote]
It is exactly the same thing. Irrelevent stuff that doesn'tt really matter in the end. It can have the core or brain. Both interchangeable which makes both ultimately unimportant. It works fine without or without the core. It works fine with or without the brain. Only if the Crucible is jacked up do they come into play and at that point it's a lose-lose situation anyway. It'll either allow the Crucible to destory all life or leave the crucible incapable of defeating the reapers.[/quote]
My ass it's the same thing.
Next you'll be telling me electicity is no more important to a lamp than steel.
[quote]-- All endings require the players sacrifice.[/quote]
No they don't. Shepard survives Destroy.
[quote]-- Shepard living on is headcannon. I get no payoff whatsoever from a breathe scene. For all intents and purposes Shepard ends at the docking chamber for all endings.There is no reunion, no nothing. The End. I can say Shepard made a cylon body and reurned to his friends with control or hatched out of a ctbernetic pof in syntheis. Control, if take at face value, presents a more believable reunion than Destroy.[/quote]
I knew you'd try to downplay it, as I predicted. And maybe it doesn't mean anything to you, but for many other people, it does. A number of people cite Shepard surviving as a plus in Destroy.
[quote]-- Control and Synthesis are rainbows and butterflies. There are no downsides other than the ones you make up.[/quote]
I made up nothing. They are morally questionable, fans and critics of the two paths alike will acknowledge this.
[quote]-- Still raindows and butterflies with no downside compared to Destroy. No sacrifice other than the one all endings share.[/quote]
They don't all share a sacrifice. Shepard lives in Destroy. The leaked ME3 script even labels the scene as "Shepard lives" not "Shepard breathes" or "Shepard takes a dying breath." Of course they're not saying definitively if he lives or dies, depending on what fans want, like they're not saying anything definitive about IT.
[quote][quote]Except you never see stuff like IT being done anywhere else. Why? Because the premise of "it's all just a front" is ridiculous until and unless one can soundly prove it. Failing that, everything you see is to be taken at face value.[/quote]
At face value it is nothing. It's a narrator talking about what if's. Nothing in those epiliques actually plays out. Not even Destroy.[/quote]
At face value, everything is exactly as it's presented, as fact. To say otherwise is headcanon. It all goes back to that.
[quote]You claiming solid evidence is fallacy and wild speculation doesn't make it so. The evidence is there. You do not have to accept it. Your belief is not required. It is what it is regardless.[/quote]
There evidence is not there. All this OP or IT in general ever comes up with as "evidence" are leaps of logic, straws, and non-facts.
[quote]Shepard is either indoctrinated or TIM infected him with retardation. Take your pick.[/quote]
I pick face-value presentation. Shepard is not indoctrinated and is given options from the catalyst to activate the Crucible.
[quote]There is not a single reason for any person in their right mind to trust the Reapers. Nothing you say will ever change that. You cannot rationalize the irrational.[/quote]
The Catalyst is not the Reapers, he is a Reaper proxy. Myself saying otherwise previously was just using your own argument for the sake of analyzing it.
And there is plenty of reason to trust it, I did a whole thread on this: http://social.biowar.../index/12975245
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 05 août 2012 - 10:15 .
#388
Posté 06 août 2012 - 02:42
Factor P
-
- Members
- 24 messages
The Twilight God wrote...
Factor P wrote...
Thought I’d share some of my own views:
Thoughts on the Device: My thinking was that subtle interference by indoctrinated sleeper agents altered the construction of the Crucible’s functionality over millions of years, tacking on Control and Synthesis as Reaper fail-safes. This suggests that the levitating platform takes Shepard into the Crucible and that Shepard is the acting Catalyst. I agree that destruction of the Reapers was the original intended function of the Crucible, and that both Synthesis and Control are of Reaper design (as certainly both benefit their goals).
The Reapers, I would presume, would have to have had some technical knowledge of the Crucible to know how to build a device to prevent it from arming, interface with the Control console or harness it's power for Synthesis. If they have the technical knowledge, the most logical conclusion is that they have indeed had eyes on it in the past. The fact that it's default action is Destroy hints that it was not their design (i.e. organics started it). Also, the fact that they resisted its docking implies Control and Synthesis are plana B and C. The StarChild informs you they were aware of it's existence, claiming the Reapers thought it was eradicated.
I still don't believe the Crucible itself can perform Synthesis or Control. The events that occur during the enactment of the endings (and refusal) clearly show that Sysnthesis beam originates with the Citadel (not the Crucible) and there is so little difference between low and high EMS Control as to wonder if the Crucible was even necessary as a power source for it. Destroy is the only one whose energy originates solely from the Crucible and has no actual user interface. Destroy simply arms and fires automatically once the reaper device on the Citadel is blown apart.
After seeing the screens/video you posted in another thread showing how the Crucible docks to the Citadel, I agree with your ideas on the device. For me there was never any question about Synthesis and Control being of Reaper origin and design, I just wasn't sure if the device was part of the Crucible or the Citadel.
Now it's pretty clear to me that it's part of the Citadel. Seems the Reapers were rather clever.
Modifié par Factor P, 06 août 2012 - 02:55 .
#389
Posté 06 août 2012 - 07:53
clennon8
-
- Members
- 2 163 messages
Oh, HYR, you poor fellow. I do admire how hard you try. Straw men! Headcanon!
You needn't fret. No one is denying you your green-hued indoctrination. Enjoy it. That's why Bioware put it there. So people who lost the game wouldn't feel like they lost the game.
You needn't fret. No one is denying you your green-hued indoctrination. Enjoy it. That's why Bioware put it there. So people who lost the game wouldn't feel like they lost the game.
Modifié par clennon8, 06 août 2012 - 07:54 .
#390
Posté 06 août 2012 - 07:53
Karma93
-
- Members
- 64 messages
I'm not indoctrinated.........OR AM I!!?!?!??!?!?
#391
Posté 06 août 2012 - 09:45
Ranger Jack Walker
-
- Members
- 1 064 messages
clennon8 wrote...
Oh, HYR, you poor fellow. I do admire how hard you try. Straw men! Headcanon!
You needn't fret. No one is denying you your green-hued indoctrination. Enjoy it. That's why Bioware put it there. So people who lost the game wouldn't feel like they lost the game.
Your condescending attitude means you can't think of any proper counter arguement and need to resort to petty insults.
#392
Posté 06 août 2012 - 05:27
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 082 messages
Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
The Twilight God wrote...
Perhaps you mean by proving something you find distasteful, I have saddened you.
Not really. Things on the internet are not worth getting upset over.
Besides you haven't proved anything. Your responses come down to "I'm right because I think I'm right"
You don't actually believe that because you know my position is based on all this evidence. Evidence you have not, will not and cannot refute. Now, just because the Star Child has been proven to be a liar, does it prove he lies about EVERYTHING? No, it doesn't prove that he lies about Synthesis or Control. However, is is reasonable, given our history with the Reapers and his proven lies, to trust that it isn't lying abut Control and Synthesis? No. shepard has no rational reason to trust it. So he's either indoctrinated or suffering some form sudden of retardation syndrome. Take your pick.
Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
The Catalyst doesn't need to indoctrinate Shepard or anything. It is the one who brings Shepard up to the Pick and Ending platform in the first place. If his agenda was to assure the Reapers victory, he could have just left Shepard there. If you want to believe it is lying go ahead. Your belief is not required.
Belief isn't required. I know he is a liar because I have pointed out the proof that he is a liar. Irrefutable proof. And guess what? You haven't even so much as attempted to refute it. You know better than to try.
There is no evidence that the Star Kid brought him up there. In low EMS endings he walks up and questions why Shepard is even there. Shepard's fingers must have gotten close enough to trigger something on that console. And with Shepard there, why would he not offer Control and Synthesis? Should he just allow Shepard to roam around with only Destroy on his mind?
Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
And Car comparison is absurd beyond belief. You're really grasping at straws here aren't yor?
How so?
It's a perfect comparison. But you already know that. You clearly don't even know what "grasping at straws" means.
#393
Posté 06 août 2012 - 05:54
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 082 messages
megamacka wrote...
Just a thought. Shepy fell all the way down from space onto a planet and Cerby was able to resurrect him again. Now we get a breathing scene and his current situation seems a lot '' better '' than the whole die in space then trololo fall all the way down onto a random planet.
So lazarus project number two? God I hated the lazarus project... Lol you are dead but we haz super science and can bring you back again lolololol. But if it gets me my blue children and my house on rannoch then fine....
Shepard is probably next to the rubble of that "Crucible Suppression Device". It's also possible he gets up and moves somewhere else within the Citadel, but it isn't shown. What gave you the idea that he fell to Earth? Nobody could survive that in a full suit of armor, much less with head and arms exposed. Shepard would be instakilled, prior to burning in reentry, when he hit vacuum.
#394
Posté 06 août 2012 - 06:07
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 082 messages
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
I do not think that organics designed the Crucible. It is merely a crude power source, adaptive and effective in its design. Just like the civilizations were trapped by the reapers' dropping of knowledge and technology to make them develop along the paths the reapers desired and point the governments to the Citadel, they did the same with the Crucible. The brat also mentioned that it knew about the Crucible and thought that the plans were lost. However, it could have lied, because the three platforms are part of the Citadel and not part of the Crucible - both are required in combination with the mass relays using reaper technology to perform one of three functions. It was never meant as a weapon, because a weapon does not require the victim's consent to be fired. So, the brat does not dream up three new options for his hypothetical problem, it planned them all along. Each one furthers the brat's agenda one way or another - even the destroy option exterminates the hypothetical threat of the synthetics.
So the Reapers made their own doomsday device to kill themselves? *cough* "interesting" idea...
Destroy supposedly killed all the current synthetics. It implies that people will create more in the future and hence "The Chaos" will return. I found it odd that he calls it chaos and then says it's a constanyl repeating and predictable outcome. And Order involves going against the supposed will of the universe, in effect, stiffling the natural evolution from organic to synthetic. Who is to say that intelligence, civilization, creativity, etc. is not an evolutionary force in itself to bring about a new form of life? Ah, I'm getting off-track and philosophical.
#395
Posté 06 août 2012 - 06:11
Wayning_Star
-
- Members
- 8 016 messages
The IT merely 'uninstalls the purchased game and reinstalls an indoctrinated version'. Personally I blame the catalyst/its creators for being just too hard to talk to for this error in perception.
well that and the 'I wanna be the best off the wall ending' syndrome.
Philosophy of perception
The philosophy of perception is concerned with the nature of sensory and perceptual experience, the status of what is given in such experience, and in particular with how beliefs or knowledge about the (physical) world can be accounted for and justified on that basis.[1]
Systematically, internalist and externalist accounts can be distinguished. Internalism assumes the objects or basis of perceptual knowledge or justified belief to be aspects of an individual's mind, e.g. mental states, which in principle the individual can have access to. In contrast, externalism states that this basis must not entail mental states or experience at all, but is constituted by aspects of the world external to the individual.[2]
A central question to the philosophy of perception concerns what constitutes the immediate objects of perception. Contrary to the position of naïve realism—which can be identified with the 'everyday' impression of physical objects constituting what is perceived—certain observations are put forward which suggest otherwise. The latter comprise perceptual illusions, hallucinations,[3] and the relativity of perceptual experience,[4] but also insights from the field of science.[5]
Depending on the kind of immediate objects and mechanism admitted to account for questions concerning perception, several internalist positions can be distinguished. Realist conceptions comprise phenomenalism, representationalism (also called representative or indirect realism) and direct realism (which has certain similarities with naïve realism, yet constitutes a thorough philosophical conception and must therefore be treated separately). Anti-realist conceptions, on the other hand, comprise idealism and skepticism.[6]
http://encyclopedia....ion (philosophy)
well that and the 'I wanna be the best off the wall ending' syndrome.
Philosophy of perception
The philosophy of perception is concerned with the nature of sensory and perceptual experience, the status of what is given in such experience, and in particular with how beliefs or knowledge about the (physical) world can be accounted for and justified on that basis.[1]
Systematically, internalist and externalist accounts can be distinguished. Internalism assumes the objects or basis of perceptual knowledge or justified belief to be aspects of an individual's mind, e.g. mental states, which in principle the individual can have access to. In contrast, externalism states that this basis must not entail mental states or experience at all, but is constituted by aspects of the world external to the individual.[2]
A central question to the philosophy of perception concerns what constitutes the immediate objects of perception. Contrary to the position of naïve realism—which can be identified with the 'everyday' impression of physical objects constituting what is perceived—certain observations are put forward which suggest otherwise. The latter comprise perceptual illusions, hallucinations,[3] and the relativity of perceptual experience,[4] but also insights from the field of science.[5]
Depending on the kind of immediate objects and mechanism admitted to account for questions concerning perception, several internalist positions can be distinguished. Realist conceptions comprise phenomenalism, representationalism (also called representative or indirect realism) and direct realism (which has certain similarities with naïve realism, yet constitutes a thorough philosophical conception and must therefore be treated separately). Anti-realist conceptions, on the other hand, comprise idealism and skepticism.[6]
http://encyclopedia....ion (philosophy)
Modifié par Wayning_Star, 06 août 2012 - 06:12 .
#396
Posté 06 août 2012 - 06:12
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 082 messages
I_eat_unicorns wrote...
Synthesis is the worst ending. It goes against everything in the me lore. But it's still a choice. Control is actually a good ending. You basically become a god that is a peacekeeper (paragon) or a strong hard leader (renegade).
It's all choice. Poor or good, it's still choice, and IT takes that away, which makes the endings worse than they were.
How does the subject matter of this thread take away the player's choice?
Your choices are Destroy, Control, Synthesis and Refusal
#397
Posté 06 août 2012 - 06:14
Wayning_Star
-
- Members
- 8 016 messages
The Twilight God wrote...
I_eat_unicorns wrote...
Synthesis is the worst ending. It goes against everything in the me lore. But it's still a choice. Control is actually a good ending. You basically become a god that is a peacekeeper (paragon) or a strong hard leader (renegade).
It's all choice. Poor or good, it's still choice, and IT takes that away, which makes the endings worse than they were.
How does the subject matter of this thread take away the player's choice?
Your choices are Destroy, Control, Synthesis and Refusal
have to dis agree there, The IT removes choices, as they don't exist through the IT. All is left is indoctrination and harvest. Make up our minds IT'ers...
#398
Posté 06 août 2012 - 06:19
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 082 messages
zigamortis wrote...
This is IT...... all this is is an explanation built upon the theory. An explanation OF the theory. this is exactly what IT is about.AlanC9 wrote...
Like I said before, this is pretty good. IT with about 70% less crazy
I thought the original It was about it all being a dream after the Harbinger blast? which has no basis in established indoctrination lore. You can;t beat indoctrination. You can resist it for a time, but you can't beat it in your sleep and be immunized to it. It causes physiological changes that supercede willpower. It woud be like saying you can sit next to a radioactive isotope and resist radiation poisoning.
I never installed the game until after theEC was released EC, so I wasn't around when that "dream theory" started. Base on what I know of it it wasn't a likely explaination even pre-EC.
#399
Posté 06 août 2012 - 06:20
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 082 messages
Wayning_Star wrote...
The Twilight God wrote...
I_eat_unicorns wrote...
Synthesis is the worst ending. It goes against everything in the me lore. But it's still a choice. Control is actually a good ending. You basically become a god that is a peacekeeper (paragon) or a strong hard leader (renegade).
It's all choice. Poor or good, it's still choice, and IT takes that away, which makes the endings worse than they were.
How does the subject matter of this thread take away the player's choice?
Your choices are Destroy, Control, Synthesis and Refusal
have to dis agree there, The IT removes choices, as they don't exist through the IT. All is left is indoctrination and harvest. Make up our minds IT'ers...
Ellaborate.
Because as far as I can tell the players choices are Destroy, Control, Synthesis and Refusal. That has not changed.
#400
Posté 06 août 2012 - 06:23
FlyingSquirrel
-
- Members
- 2 104 messages
This is an interesting theory, but while I'm not one to prioritize "authorial intent," I guess maybe I find it a bridge too far to interpret the slides of the Control and Synthesis endings as being over-optimistic hypotheticals in the minds of a deluded AI-Shepard or EDI. When I see, for example, the slide of the Krogan rebuilding the gardens on Tuchanka, I assume that they are actually doing that, not that AI-Shepard or EDI expects that they will.
