1238 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

Oh, HYR, you poor fellow. I do admire how hard you try. Straw men! Headcanon!

No, see, that's the fun part! I'm not "trying hard" at all. I'm literally just sitting back here and calling out the fallacies for what they clearly are.

That takes me... what, a couple seconds? And the rest of the post... somewhere under 30 minutes (and only that much time because the post itself is that long).

And your buddy here actually said that he started his last post a day before posting it. Which I respect, at least he's trying. But who's "trying hard" here now, exactly?

Ah, the shame this heaps on the biased and blind supporters.

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.

Great. Another guy who thinks his headcanon is fact.

There's no evidence of indoctrination in synthesis, my friend. If you're interpreting it that way, good for you, but that interpretation of yours is exactly what defines what headcanon is.

And so....

.... get ready for it! ....

....

....... Headcanon!

(Wooh, boy. I tried so hard I tell you)!

Now, back to reality. The presentation of synthesis in its epilogue is canon/fact. And until and unless anyone can prove their crackpot theory on it all being a dream (while Destroy's two epilogues inexplicably are not dreams but to be) it is to be treated as presented at face value. Nobody ever plays a video game and reasons "this is a dream/not actually happening" - you, and everyone else, take it all for face value until proven to be otherwise.

I'm not insecure about my ending. It was awesome. But I'm on this site and have a right to engage in any/all discussion that I choose to do. Any self-respecting individual would be more than willing to put their opinions to the test to see if they hold up true, to strengthen their own positions or discard those that are flawed. You aren't helping anyone here, not me or the other guy, by trying to ****** on this discussion.

Afterall, you admitted you want people who enjoy their ending to suffer because you didn't get the ending you wanted. So, respectfully, don't project your fretfulness onto me. It's clear you can't handle my cross-examination of this headcanon you want to believe.

But since I tend to be merciless in this regard, let me point out another flaw. IIRC, you said Bioware obviously favors synthesis, hence its positive epilogue. Now, you're saying it's trickery to make it feel like those who choose it didn't loose. Those directly contradict each other. Now, which one is it?

Knowing you, though, you won't respond to this. Your affinity for running when you're in over your head would put Kai Leng to shame. Probably by dismissing this post as "not worth" responding to for ~some~ arbitrary reason of your own and bow out.

[Wayning_Star]

The Twilight God wrote...

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.

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

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.

How are any of the ending choices renegade? Or paragon for that matter?

Renegade and Paragon are the blue and red no-need-to-think auto-win options in conversations.

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 06 août 2012 - 06:34 .

[megamacka]

The Twilight God wrote...

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.

I never said that he fell down to earth after firing the crucible. I take it that his still on the citadel OR he went down the beam back to earth and then perhaps fell unconcious or something? You must have misinterpreted me.

[Wayning_Star]

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

That's the ONLY perspective to judge 'within' the game, external stimuli is irrelavant,especially with the IT. But the players are not 'free' to decide, if they're indoctrinated by reapers in the game.As to the point of being able to distinguish what choice is available and what choices are clouded in  indoctrination. Far as I could tell, the IT has a long history in the game, and basically replaces game play with indoctrination as the end result, regardless of choices provided in the game. They are replaced by the IT'ed versions. In other words, that indoctrination is 'controlling' in all decisions in the game by players via Shepard, the victim of the IT.

[OdanUrr]

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

I think what Wayning_Star means is that if IT is true, then there's only one "true choice" which is the one that rebels against indoctrination. With the introduction of the EC I think some people now consider Refuse to be this choice (either that or Destroy). This would mean that three (out of four) choices have the same outcome rendering them meaningless.

[MegaSovereign]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

I think what Wayning_Star means is that if IT is true, then there's only one "true choice" which is the one that rebels against indoctrination. With the introduction of the EC I think some people now consider Refuse to be this choice (either that or Destroy). This would mean that three (out of four) choices have the same outcome rendering them meaningless.

Off-topic, but I visited your youtube channel.

Did you make those ME3 trailers by yourself? They're really, really well done.

[Wayning_Star]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

I think what Wayning_Star means is that if IT is true, then there's only one "true choice" which is the one that rebels against indoctrination. With the introduction of the EC I think some people now consider Refuse to be this choice (either that or Destroy). This would mean that three (out of four) choices have the same outcome rendering them meaningless.

I'm insisting that the choices given in the IT, are NOT choices, because they're controlled by the IT. With the IT, we only have one choice, follow the IT to it's end result, that being indoctrination, and getting harvested. Rendering all choices in the the game meaningless, unless Shepard is not indoctrinated. Either Shep is indoctrinated, or is not indoctrinated, free to think, make his/her own mistakes.

[OdanUrr]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Off-topic, but I visited your youtube channel.

Did you make those ME3 trailers by yourself? They're really, really well done.

I did and thank you. Naturally, some are better than others but that's mostly due to my amateurish/hit-and-miss skills.

Wayning_Star wrote...

I'm insisting that the choices given in the IT, are NOT choices, because they're controlled by the IT. With the IT, we only have one choice, follow the IT to it's end result, that being indoctrination, and getting harvested. Rendering all choices in the the game meaningless, unless Shepard is not indoctrinated. Either Shep is indoctrinated, or is not indoctrinated, free to think, make his/her own mistakes.

I'm confused. Let's start by something simple, which choices are you talking about?

[Wayning_Star]

OdanUrr wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Off-topic, but I visited your youtube channel.

Did you make those ME3 trailers by yourself? They're really, really well done.

I did and thank you. Naturally, some are better than others but that's mostly due to my amateurish/hit-and-miss skills.

Wayning_Star wrote...

I'm insisting that the choices given in the IT, are NOT choices, because they're controlled by the IT. With the IT, we only have one choice, follow the IT to it's end result, that being indoctrination, and getting harvested. Rendering all choices in the the game meaningless, unless Shepard is not indoctrinated. Either Shep is indoctrinated, or is not indoctrinated, free to think, make his/her own mistakes.

I'm confused. Let's start by something simple, which choices are you talking about?

It's easy  Shepard not indoctrinated: Can make choices Shepard indoctrinated: Choices made by indoctrinator.

the IT seems to infer that all choices are resultant from Shep being under the spell of the catalyst,with variations of game stats controlling the results of destroy. That of which I'm kind of confused about myself, as the choices are inconvenienced by the catalysts' indoctrination. It wouldn't need to provide 'choices' if Shep were under control at that level in any event, Shep would do anything it pointed to. So the unindoctrinated reality doesn't exist in the IT. ie, freedom of choice is replaced by indoctrination. So.. if you cannot control your own mind, how can you tell if you've any 'real' choices. Everything 'seems' OK from your POV. Reality leaves, reapers harvest..again.

The "choices" are the advertized options the game permits Shepard to accomplish his/her goal, ending the cycle. We'll have to pretend that the IT is on mute for that moment to access them though. The IT replaces those with indoctrinated versions of the game set reality of "choices". They don't exist in the IT.

So I'm talking about all the choices in the non-IT MEU. I guesstimate was real just before Shep was introduced to that first Beacon. Things got kind of IT'd after that?

[Factor P]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

I think what Wayning_Star means is that if IT is true, then there's only one "true choice" which is the one that rebels against indoctrination. With the introduction of the EC I think some people now consider Refuse to be this choice (either that or Destroy). This would mean that three (out of four) choices have the same outcome rendering them meaningless.

I think that's the primary problem with "IT" and why there's so much resistance to it. It implies that in only one ending does Shepard truly "succeed" against the Reapers. A lot of people aren't going to like that, particularly pure Paragon players, because Destroy sacrifices the few (EDI and the Geth) to save the many (advanced organics). I don't have any problems with sacrificing EDI and the Geth because I believe the original design of the Crucible was to destroy REAPERS and both EDI and the GETH have Reaper tech in them, but I can see a fully Paragon player having SERIOUS problems with it. I just can't see a pure Paragon Shepard being happy with Destroy when a choice of sacrificing onself for everyone else is available (Control).

So yes, I believe indoctrination has occurred, but only when applied to SYNTHESIS. I am not so convinced with Control or Refuse. Control and Refuse ARE in favor of the Reapers agenda, but that still doesn't prove to me that Shepard or the player is indoctinated.

Another obvious issue with "IT" being Destroy-centric is that the ending choices can be classified as Paragon (Control) or Renegade (Destroy), even though their outcomes are morally gray. Destroy is Renegade only because shooting the panel makes Shepard sacrifice the few to save the many, and Control is Paragon only because it makes Shepard sacrifice himself but no one else to save everyone. Regardless of whether the outcomes are what they're promised to be, the decisions themselves do have obvious moral alignment.

The decisions in Refuse and Synthesis however, are more morally gray and appear to be what a more neutral Shepard might make, with Shepard doing nothing & leaving victory to the next cycle in Refuse (unless future DLC changes this, it was already made clear that conventional victory was not possible) and Shepard making a choice for everyone & being indoctrinated (along with the player) in the "perfect" ending Synthesis.

Even though I've always played a mostly Renegade Shepard and there was no question to me about Destroy being the right choice, I can see Paragon/Control supporters saying that Destroy is not viable long term because the threat of war will return. I can also equally see Destroy supporters saying that a Shepard AI in Control will eventually become morally corrupted, or that the Reaper-Child may not really relinquish full control of the Reapers to a Reaper-Shepard AI (because these are my own views). So maybe "IT" would have been more accepted if it only applied to Synthesis?

Modifié par Factor P, 06 août 2012 - 08:32 .

[Wayning_Star]

Factor P wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

I think what Wayning_Star means is that if IT is true, then there's only one "true choice" which is the one that rebels against indoctrination. With the introduction of the EC I think some people now consider Refuse to be this choice (either that or Destroy). This would mean that three (out of four) choices have the same outcome rendering them meaningless.

I think that's the primary problem with "IT" and why there's so much resistance to it. It implies that in only one ending does Shepard truly "succeed" against the Reapers. A lot of people aren't going to like that, particularly pure Paragon players, because Destroy sacrifices the few (EDI and the Geth) to save the many (advanced organics). I don't have any problems with sacrificing EDI and the Geth because I believe the original design of the Crucible was to destroy REAPERS and both EDI and the GETH have Reaper tech in them, but I can see a fully Paragon player having SERIOUS problems with it. I just can't see a pure Paragon Shepard being happy with Destroy when a choice of sacrificing onself for everyone else is available (Control).

So yes, I believe indoctrination has occurred, but only when applied to SYNTHESIS. I am not so convinced with Control or Refuse. Control and Refuse ARE in favor of the Reapers agenda, but that still doesn't prove to me that Shepard or the player is indoctinated.

Another obvious issue with "IT" being Destroy-centric is that the ending choices can be classified as Paragon (Control) or Renegade (Destroy), even though their outcomes are morally gray. Destroy is Renegade only because shooting the panel makes Shepard sacrifice the few to save the many, and Control is Paragon only because it makes Shepard sacrifice himself but no one else to save everyone. Regardless of whether the outcomes are what they're promised to be, the decisions themselves do have obvious moral alignment.

The decisions in Refuse and Synthesis however, are more morally gray and appear to be what a more neutral Shepard might make, with Shepard doing nothing & leaving victory to the next cycle in Refuse (unless future DLC changes this, it was already made clear that conventional victory was not possible) and Shepard making a choice for everyone & being indoctrinated (along with the player) in the "perfect" ending Synthesis.

Even though I've always played a mostly Renegade Shepard and there was no question to me about Destroy being the right choice, I can see Paragon/Control supporters saying that Destroy is not viable long term because the threat of war will return. I can also equally see Destroy supporters saying that a Shepard AI in Control is unrealiable and will eventually become morally corrupted, or that the Reaper-Child may not really relinquish full control of the Reapers to a Reaper-Shepard AI (because these are my own views). So maybe "IT" would have been more accepted if it only applied to Synthesis?

It's funny I played as pure renegade and still went with synthesis, just because others 'got down' on synthesis..lol

same effect in the game. Didn't choose the others as they were too 'strict' in terms of old human hangups and prejudice. The run away choice just confused me..so I ignored it..every time,so far.. outraged catalyst in reapervoice proclaims let the harvest continue...eeewwwwwe!! lol

[The Twilight God]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Stop strawmanning.[/quote]

Learn what a strawman is before tossing words back at people out of frustration.

You're saying Shepard is stupid "at that moment". You can try to word it anyway you want, but you are indeed stating Shepard is a ****** at least "at that particular moment in time".

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

The decision is simply an out for those who believe the cost of using the Crucible is too high (not me, but still).[/quote]

Exactly. Pure idiocy on Shepard's part. Crucible might kill geth so let the geth and EVERYONE ELSE die.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

And Shepard doesn't know that the galaxy will all die either, not for fact. That comes after choosing it.[/quote]

No, it comes throughout the whole game and it the very plot of the whole game. Only a stupid idiot Shepard or an indoctinated Shepard thinks he can beat the Reapers in a conventional fight.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

Many people are willfully ignorant because they can't get the ending they want. They know it's not possible and actually hoped Bioware was going to completely recon the entire series because some crybabies wanted to beat the freaking reapers in a fist fight with no collateral. boo-hoo.

You cannot rationalize the irrational. It is the Stupid Shepard Theory and nothing you say can change that. I will not be discussing this subject further. It's the Stupid Shepard Theory. Deal with it. End of line.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

And yet, Vega can punch him in the gut and leave him in obvious pain. Some super-cyborg he is.[/quote]

Yeah, being able to bleed or feel pain completely negates his super strength. Shepard has super strength (FACT) and could have broke Grunt's pin. Deal with it.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...




[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]

Again, learn the meaning of strawman before you use it. I would have to be assigning the comment to you and it would have to be something you didn't bring to the table. And let's face it, you made the blanket statement:




[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]You opened the floodgates.


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

It is known. He tells us what he is, and was foreshadowed earlier by a neutral party. [/quote]

Who cares what it says it is. I've already established it lies and the very basis of this thread is that the Star Child is not trustworthy.

The Star Child is never foreshadowed. Vendetta says the patttern, evolution and extinction, itself is caused by some other force "out there". Note he says the proptheans believed the pattern existed before the Reapers. How the protheans would know when the reapers began their cycles and what cycles existed before the reapers isn't explained. But he says this "force" wants galactic annihilation which is not the reaper goal. The Reapers are therefore a psychopath's band-aid to the problem presented by this "unknown force". If anything it is a foreshadowing of a future enemy in future games. Vendetta is supporting the Star Child reasons for the reaper cycles, however the Star Child himself doesn't seem to view the problem in the sam way as the protheans (or organics in general). Vendetta "takes it on faith" after seeing patterns. In the same ay people might believe in God because of patterns. Star Child just sees the raw data and acts on it at face value.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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...[/quote]

Indoctrination is not instant. You admitted this yourself. Indoctrination takes time. More willfull ignorance on yout part. It's becoming tiresome. If instant bodily control was possible Soveriegn would have killed Shep on the Citadel at the end of ME1.  Therefore, you are wrong. Deal with it. I'm not going to sit here and debate with a wall that simply argues for the sake of arguing even when it knows it's wrong. End of line on this subject.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.[/quote]

All explained in my original posts as you are ALREADY aware. Not going down this road for the 50th time.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

"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]

Hackett and the scientists disagree.

Bottom line:  You're wrong yet again. Big surprise.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

I wouldn't be too proud of circular-logic. This is practically a textbook example.[/quote]

Learn what circular logic means. You're using too many words you don't comprehend.

Circular logic. A is true. A is true because B says so. B says so, so A is true.

What you discribed was simply your inability to counter my argument. It wasn't an argument put forth by me but rather your being pissed that you cannot find a hole in my argument.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

This is clearly the unanswerable question for your IT.





[quote]And what question would that be? I've answered everything.[/quote]

LOL! No.[/quote]

And yet you don't say what exactly it is I haven't answered.... LOL! Ooo-k

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

Why doesn't it make sense?

Now see, you you did IS a strawman because you DID attribuite that position to me. You assert that the ending doesn't make sense, that I agree it doesn't make sense (didn;t wait for my counter) and am therefore OK that it doesn't make sense. This is not a argument from my.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

What does this have to do with the fact that collector tech is not representative of reaper tech. Another redirect?

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

The nanites were a seperate study altogether, how to make indoctrination work. Their military strength came from Reaper tech upgrades.[/quote]

Yes. Reaper tech that is readily available on husks from Eden Prime or anywhere else husks have ever been. You seem to be insisting it came from some special never before seen tech only found on the Collector Base. I'm saying it's not. You can't prove otherwise. The books confirm this so End of Line. If you don't believe what you saw or heard in-gam or in books I'm certainly not going to convince you. If you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, same difference. End of line.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Nah, pure coincidence they made this long soght-after breakthrough in the months after they horde Reaper tech.[/quote]

The speculator who shouts speculation at everyone else and who obviously hasn't played ME1. They've been studying this stuff for years. You can believe that husk tech never existed before ME2 if you like. Or make up what reasons you need to argue for the sake of arguing. End of line

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

The assumer who shouts assumption at everyone else. I'm really loving this. Oh, and OMG "HEADCANON"!!!!

Lawson claims they can control reapers forces. They can't. When it comes to conmtrolling the reapers he says that is a bigger challenge unoptimisitcally. Sorry if I don't take his word on their progress or assume some breakthrough was coming. There is no evidence that they would ever find a way. They were even losing control of the ones they made themselves.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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."[/quote]

If there was a weakness he definitely didn't find it and lawson never says anything about any weakness anyway. Youtube link? And since when does something have to be a grave threat for Reapers to attack? They attack all pockets of resistance, strong or weak, as well as non-threatening populations. The Reapers completely destroyed Bekenstien from orbit so I guess luxury goods were a greater threat than Cerberus.

Mr. Lawson was a liar or incompetent. Given what I know of him I'm going with liar. The fact that Cerberus turned tail and ran immediately demonstrates that he lied about them being able to control reaper forces.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

Because indoctrination is not instant. It's not switch they just pull and and gain control. Furthermore we don't know how new or old those troopers were. The newer the implantation the less time the reapers have to gain control. It's not like a dead body husk. When a living person is huskified they still have to be indoctrinated. Cerberus doped Grayson with red sand because the implants were taking too long as he was resisting the reapers control.

For all we know some Cerberus forces did get turned. The harvester shoots down a shuttle then just stares at it for awhile and then leaves it be. The occupants then get out and attack Shepard. ????? *shrug* maybe, but there is no way to know as both sides would attack Shepard anyway.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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."[/quote]

Yeah and they had a Destroyer wating for Shepard at the Shroud. Didn't bother to bring one for Sanctuary. I still disagree that they know where he is at all moments, but if we are assuming they do then they threw more firepower Sheparad's anyway.


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

If Shepard really was going to stop them, they could easily prioritize his ship and take him out. [/quote]
 
Could they now? Yeah, they just abandon their entire invasion plans and spend all their resources chasing the Normandy across the galaxy. LOL!

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

They didn't think he would. Harbinger dismisses his efforts as "dust struggling against cosmic winds" in Arrival.[/quote]
 
That's why they took the Citadel and protected it?  They so unworried that the Crucible could dock they made a back-up plan B in the Control and Synthesis options and a device to keep the Crucible from auto-firing just incase the Crucible ever did reach the Citadel. This isn't the act of a thoughtless careless adversary. They can talk all they want, but they do not dismiss threats. The Collectors came after the original Normandy for a reason and not because Shepard is just insignificant dust in the wind. 

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

They are not threatened by him. They just want his body, as he is an exceptional soldier, but nothing more.[/quote]

James is a good solider. Kaidan is a good solider. Javik is a good soldier.

Shepard? He's a household name amoung the reapers. I really love how you're trying to belittling Shepard to make Cerberus seem so great. Although on some level I have to agree. They did kinda underestimate Shep. They should have sent Dreadnaughts instead of destroyers, but then it wouldn't be much of a game if he faced impossible fights.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

My ass it's the same thing.

Next you'll be telling me electicity is no more important to a lamp than steel.[/quote]

Electricity is needed to power an electric lamp. Te Core or brain aren;t necessary components at all. In the case of the Crucible those steel beams actually ARe more important than the core/brain. You need those materials to make it. You don't need the core/brain.

They basically just find these parts and are like, "Hey, toss that junk in there too! Why not?" Same as every other piece of tech you scavenge.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

No they don't. Shepard survives Destroy.[/quote]

He is alive in a pile of rubble when I last see him... taking his last breathe? His thrid from last? Dying?  If he actually made it out of the situation and lived on past that day is unknown. Claiming he definitely survives is headcanon (with a side of metagamming).  When I picked destroy I assumed all choices resulted in death. 

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

If they like the headcanon survival options of Destroy better that's the headcanon survival options in Control or Synthesis that is their business. Headcanon and speculation for all!!!

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

I made up nothing. They are morally questionable, fans and critics of the two paths alike will acknowledge this.[/quote]

Moral = personal.

I don't care about your subjective sense of morality. All I care about is the objective outcome if taken at face value. Rainbows and butterflies. Don't even try to deny it.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

Do not care. No reunion = no payoff. It's no different that Control or Destroy. Headcanon is not canon.

If you want to go that route he lives in Control too. "Hey, guys!! I'm back in a new and improved avatar body."

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

At face value, everything is exactly as it's presented, as fact. To say otherwise is headcanon. It all goes back to that.[/quote]

Go on youtube and play them. The EC slideshow epilogues are all what the narrator wants to happen or foresees willl happen. None of that stuff actually takes place in real-time. None of it is set in stone. To say otherwise is headcanon that contradicts to context of the narrative.  

The only think that plays out are the CG scenes and the ones using in-game grahics (Crucible fiing, normandy on jungle world, fleet cruising around (destroy). reapers fixing relays, memorial scene, etc.).

Hackett says, "...imagine what we could acheive if...", "it will take time, but we can rebuild..."
EDI says, "Taking our first steps into a new and wonderful future..", "we will reclaim.." 
Shepard AI says, "I will rebuild...", "I will create a future...", "And throughout it all, I will never forget..."

Each one is about what the narrator says they will do, wants to do or sees happening. EDI's is the only one that speaks in present tense at any point. And only then to say the Reapers are rebuilding stuff.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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]

Point out one "leap of logic".
Demonstrate how even one of the Star Childs lies is not actually a lie.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...





[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]

Retardation it is then. OK, if that's what you pick as that is the face value reality of trusting the Reapers enough to suicide yourself based solely on their say so. and please cry "strawman", but this time explain how Shepard could be anything but stupid or indoctrinated to trust the star kid. Otherwise, it's not a strawman.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.[/quote]

The Star Child says he is the "Collective Intelligence of the Reapers". It's is his "solution". What is before you is supposedly controling them. So it's safe to say he respresent the Reaper's interests. Ergo, he is, for all intents and purposes, The Reapers.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
And there is plenty of reason to trust it, I did a whole thread on this: http://social.biowar.../index/12975245 
[/quote]

http://social.biowar...5245/5#13553923

Modifié par The Twilight God, 07 août 2012 - 02:58 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

[quote]The Twilight God wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Stop strawmanning.[/quote]

Learn what a strawman is before tossing words back at people out of frustration.[/quote]

I know what it means.


[quote]Exactly. Pure idiocy on Shepard's part. Crucible might kill geth so let the geth and EVERYONE ELSE die.[/quote]

Does all idiocy stem from indoctrination?



[quote]No, it comes throughout the whole game and it the very plot of the whole game. Only a stupid idiot Shepard or an indoctinated Shepard thinks he can beat the Reapers in a conventional fight. [/quote]

So, they are not one-in-the-same. Glad we can finally agree on this.


[quote]You cannot rationalize the irrational. It is the Stupid Shepard Theory and nothing you say can change that. I will not be discussing this subject further. It's the Stupid Shepard Theory. Deal with it. End of line.[/quote]

If you insist, but I think we can lay the Stupid = Indoctrination leap to rest.


[quote]Yeah, being able to bleed or feel pain completely negates his super strength. Shepard has super strength (FACT) and could have broke Grunt's pin. Deal with it.[/quote]

If your abs are strong enough, a punch to the gut is not that crippling.


[quote]Again, learn the meaning of strawman before you use it. I would have to be assigning the comment to you and it would have to be something you didn't bring to the table. And let's face it, you made the blanket statement:
[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]You opened the floodgates.[/quote]

My usage of the term was correct. You took my words to insinuate something I never said or suggested.


[quote]Who cares what it says it is. I've already established it lies and the very basis of this thread is that the Star Child is not trustworthy.[/quote]

Even if you think it lies (which, no, we have not established... I dispute it) we were told there is *something* out there that controls the Reapers.

It does add up.

[quote]The Star Child is never foreshadowed. Vendetta says the patttern, evolution and extinction, itself is caused by some other force "out there".[/quote]

That didn't have to do with the Catalyst. He was noting patterns that repeat themselves every cycle, such as Prothean traitors/splinter-groups then and Cerberus now.

[quote]But he says this "force" wants galactic annihilation which is not the reaper goal.[/quote]

Nobody actually knows what their true goal is, not until Shepard at the Catalyst's chamber when it's being told to him. But I thought you didn't believe the things he said, so why believe that?

To the observer, it is an easy (false) assumption to make about them.

[quote]In the same ay people might believe in God because of patterns. Star Child just sees the raw data and acts on it at face value.[/quote]

That's what machines like AI/VIs do.


[quote]Indoctrination is not instant. You admitted this yourself. Indoctrination takes time. More willfull ignorance on yout part.[/quote]

It isn't instant, which is why TIM is not controlling Shepard/Anderson fully. They are still able to fight him with their thoughts. Over time, however, TIM would have control of both of them.


[quote]All explained in my original posts as you are ALREADY aware. Not going down this road for the 50th time.[/quote]

The only thing you've said to remotely explain this is to not act fishy, but this argument is sketchy. For one, he has Shepard in a position where if he doesn't choose something, he'll condemn the galaxy all to death. For that reason alone, the Catalyst doesn't have to even worry about how Shepard perceives him.

An exchange in EC, can't remember where:

Shep: "I don't believe that"
Cat: "Your trust is not required"

He's not playing to human elements here. Adding to that, he personally does not approve of Destroy either. So even if he were seriously Shepard were to miraculously figure out that shooting the tube is how to do it, why inform him about it when he can leave it to long-shot odds?



[quote][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]

Hackett and the scientists disagree.

Bottom line:  You're wrong yet again. Big surprise.[/quote]

As I said, they assumed it. They still weren't really sure about the details. Destroy, vs. Control or Synthesis, is a detail.

And again, there's the thing with Liara after Refuse. If she *knew* it would work towards destroying the Reapers, she'd probably attribute the failure to something else. But nope, she tells the next cycle that the Crucible didn't work.


[quote]Learn what circular logic means. You're using too many words you don't comprehend.

Circular logic. A is true. A is true because B says so. B says so, so A is true.[/quote]

Well that's exactly what's going on here.

To use the statement you brought up.

A: IT.
B: Bioware.

Bioware denying OR not denying IT plays right into IT's own hands, because either way, it "confirms" they are tricking players. Not denying it means leaving things open to interpretation, facilitating their trickery. Denying it is part of their trickery.

^ So basically: IT is true; Bioware denies it; therefore it is true. Alternatively, IT is true; Bioware does not deny it; therefore it is true.

The obvious fallacy here being the assumption that Bioware is tricking players either way, instead of maybe just denying/not denying IT (assuming we're being manipulated, sound familiar?).


[quote]And yet you don't say what exactly it is I haven't answered....[/quote]

Many answers don't feel satisfactory. The glaring one being, why is Destroy presented? ...among others.


[quote]Why doesn't it make sense?[/quote]

Well, you were the one saying that it was a single frigate taking out a cruiser, even with weak pew-pew guns. Doesn't make much sense to me that Collectors, working with Reapers, wouldn't have a stronger ship. It didn't seem to make sense to you either.


[quote]This is not a argument from me.[/quote]

Actually no, I didn't mean to imply that. I was speaking more to the general phenomenon within the fanbase - people accepting holes/flaws if they are happy with the ending overall. On the contrary, people act like it's the first time they've seen those holes when they are not happy with something in the story. And in the midst of it, theories like IT are born, but you don't see an IT theory about ME2's ending.

... Which goes back to the same thing I said below. There's a reason you don't see things like IT propping up at the end of every other game, or most of them. Because the premise of "if was only just a dream" is, well....

[quote][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]

What does this have to do with the fact that collector tech is not representative of reaper tech. Another redirect?[/quote]

Kinda hard to know without seeing what I was responding to. 'Too lazy to go back and look right now.


[quote][quote]The nanites were a seperate study altogether, how to make indoctrination work. Their military strength came from Reaper tech upgrades.[/quote]

Yes. Reaper tech that is readily available on husks from Eden Prime or anywhere else husks have ever been. You seem to be insisting it came from some special never before seen tech only found on the Collector Base. I'm saying it's not. You can't prove otherwise. The books confirm this so End of Line. If you don't believe what you saw or heard in-gam or in books I'm certainly not going to convince you. If you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, same difference. End of line.[/quote]

The question still stands, if they had this tech all along and all the keys to understanding it, why didn't they do so sooner?


[quote][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]

The assumer who shouts assumption at everyone else. I'm really loving this. Oh, and OMG "HEADCANON"!!!![/quote]

Is it an assumption if I'm drawing the conclusion from an in-game quote?

It's pretty cut-and-dried: "they have a weakness" ... Reapers attack it. Not a lot of room for interpretation.


[quote]If there was a weakness he definitely didn't find it and lawson never says anything about any weakness anyway. Youtube link?[/quote]

http://youtu.be/Jgk4id0wHm0?t=15m56s

[quote]And since when does something have to be a grave threat for Reapers to attack? They attack all pockets of resistance, strong or weak, as well as non-threatening populations. The Reapers completely destroyed Bekenstien from orbit so I guess luxury goods were a greater threat than Cerberus.[/quote]

Why do they leave Annos Bassin (Sur'Kesh planetary system) untouched for the length of the game, do they think a major council race will do nothing to them?

The Reapers' tactics are largely hard to properly read, but it is clear they deal with different threats in different ways.


[quote]Mr. Lawson was a liar or incompetent. Given what I know of him I'm going with liar.[/quote]

See, that's what I have a problem with. Saying "he/she/it is just LYING!" to me is largely just an easy way out of things. Catalyst is lying, Bioware is lying, Mr. Lawson is lying....

Considering the fact he's stating this in his personal logs, I don't think he makes a habit of lying to himself.

[quote]The fact that Cerberus turned tail and ran immediately demonstrates
that he lied about them being able to control reaper forces.[/quote]

WTF? They ran because they were under attack by an overwhelming force.

They could only control their own homemade Reaper forces. They hadn't yet gotten far enough to test a proof-of-concept on the Reaper ships.

Whatever data they did gather from those experiments were still valuable enough to warrant TIM sending Kai Leng to go retrieve it for him.


[quote]Yeah and they had a Destroyer wating for Shepard at the Shroud. Didn't bother to bring one for Sanctuary. I still disagree that they know where he is at all moments, but if we are assuming they do then they threw more firepower Sheparad's anyway.[/quote]

The Reapers were already there. Wrex/Wreav says so himself. They were "scouting" apparently, and later it is revealed that they are using the Shroud to poison Tuchanka. It's safe to say they were there to figure out a way to deal with the krogan (without taking them head-on).


[quote][quote]If Shepard really was going to stop them, they could easily prioritize his ship and take him out. [/quote]
 
Could they now? Yeah, they just abandon their entire invasion plans and spend all their resources chasing the Normandy across the galaxy. LOL![/quote]

Remember that.

[quote][quote]Harbinger dismisses his efforts as "dust struggling against cosmic winds" in Arrival.[/quote]
 
That's why they took the Citadel and protected it?[/quote]

They only did that after finding out through TIM that Shepard's plans involved utilizing the Crucible, which they did not know before.

[quote]They so unworried that the Crucible could dock they made a back-up plan B in the Control and Synthesis options and a device to keep the Crucible from auto-firing just incase the Crucible ever did reach the Citadel.[/quote]

Not so fast John Kerry.

[quote]This isn't the act of a thoughtless careless adversary. They can talk all they want, but they do not dismiss threats. The Collectors came after the original Normandy for a reason and not because Shepard is just insignificant dust in the wind.[/quote]

Well, the IFF tipped them off. Also, it is more likely they want his body because he was an exceptional solider, a specimen that would warrant obvious interest from the Collectors/Reapers seeing how strong they can make their indoctrinated minions and simple husks.


[quote]Shepard? He's a household name amoung the reapers. I really love how you're trying to belittling Shepard to make Cerberus seem so great. Although on some level I have to agree. They did kinda underestimate Shep. They should have sent Dreadnaughts instead of destroyers, but then it wouldn't be much of a game if he faced impossible fights.[/quote]

Now remember what I told you to. On one hand, they would be foolish to chase him across the galaxy to stop him. On the other, he is just as important as anything that could legitimately neutralize the Reapers. If the latter were true, why would they not want to chase him across the galaxy and make sure they get him right away? Harvesting is a long enough process anyway, it can wait quite easily.


[quote]Electricity is needed to power an electric lamp.[/quote]

And it was said by someone (forget who) after Cerberus HQ mission that the Reaper heart/brain was used as a power-source!

It's not a far-fetched assumption to think that it would lend similar help to the Crucible.


[quote]He is alive in a pile of rubble when I last see him... taking his last breathe? His thrid from last? Dying?  If he actually made it out of the situation and lived on past that day is unknown. Claiming he definitely survives is headcanon (with a side of metagamming).  When I picked destroy I assumed all choices resulted in death.[/quote]

Doesn't matter. The point stands. That Shepard survives Destroy is a plus to many people! Per this poll: http://social.biowar...58/polls/37887/ ... Shepard being alive is an important factor to 65% of all voters.

It's not really metagaming either when the Catalyst says clearly that Shepard will die in Control/Synthesis, but merely suggests he would *maybe* die from Destroy (which is correct, seeing as his survival depends on EMS). The player doesn't know that the Citadel will explode either, so he can shoot the tube and get out for all they know.


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

If they like the headcanon survival options of Destroy better that's the headcanon survival options in Control or Synthesis that is their business. Headcanon and speculation for all!!![/quote]

It isn't headcanon, he IS alive in that scene. That he survives or dies afterwards is the headcanon part. Still more to go off of than Control/Synthesis.


[quote]Moral = personal.[/quote]

Yeah right. Try to sell people on this site that morality is not a real issue to the vast majority of players' endings and see how much support you get for it.

[quote]I don't care about your subjective sense of morality. All I care about is the objective outcome if taken at face value. Rainbows and butterflies. Don't even try to deny it.[/quote]

Except I'm not... while IT actually is.


[quote]Go on youtube and play them. The EC slideshow epilogues are all what the narrator wants to happen or foresees willl happen. None of that stuff actually takes place in real-time. None of it is set in stone. To say otherwise is headcanon that contradicts to context of the narrative.[/quote]

No, EC provides a proper denouement to the story when it otherwise lacked one. It ties up loose ends with the story and foreshadows future events to some extent.

All (at least half-way decent) stories do this.


[quote]Point out one "leap of logic".
Demonstrate how even one of the Star Childs lies is not actually a lie.

Go ahead, I'll wait.[/quote]

One?

The Reapers win in Refusal. Therefore, choosing Refusal = indoctrination!

A leap, because it doesn't consider other factors. Such as, the person choosing it is an (unindoctrinated)


[quote][quote]I pick face-value presentation. Shepard is not indoctrinated and is given options from the catalyst to activate the Crucible.[/quote]

Retardation it is then. OK, if that's what you pick as that is the face value reality of trusting the Reapers enough to suicide yourself based solely on their say so. and please cry "strawman", but this time explain how Shepard could be anything but stupid or indoctrinated to trust the star kid. Otherwise, it's not a strawman.[/quote]

I already did, I made a whole thread. And apart from that, it was the right decision at face value as well. Nothing terribad results from the "indoctrinated" paths Control/Synthesis.

So can I call you on your strawman now? Because it is one, and it's pretty clear you yourself know it. I don't care whether or not you agree if my reasons are good enough, they're my reasons, and you attributing your opinion onto me is what clearly defines one.


[quote]The Star Child says he is the "Collective Intelligence of the Reapers". It's is his "solution". What is before you is supposedly controling them. So it's safe to say he respresent the Reaper's interests. Ergo, he is, for all intents and purposes, The Reapers.[/quote]

That is a false assumption, and one can easily prove it wrong by pointing out the fact he was around before the first Reaper was even created.

Knowing what we know - that the Reapers have access to all thoughts of their indoctrinated subjects - it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Catalyst can still be the "Collective Intelligence" of all Reapers seeing as Reapers themselves are just many harvested individuals who's minds are uploaded into Reaper form.

Also, it's a little questionable to cite evidence from a source you've been calling a liar. It's clear, then, that you're picking and choosing what you want to believe. That is basically the crux of my criticism with IT: that it exists because people just don't want to believe the ending of ME3.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 août 2012 - 06:29 .

[The Twilight God]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

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.

Because you are seeing what you want to see.

Go on youtube and play them. The EC slideshow epilogues are all what the narrator wants to happen or foresees will happen. None of that stuff actually takes place in real-time. None of it is set in stone. To say otherwise is headcanon that contradicts to context of the narrative.

The only think that plays out are the CG scenes and the ones using in-game grahics (Crucible fiing, normandy on jungle world, fleet cruising around (destroy). reapers fixing relays, memorial scene, etc.).  Some of thes stuff isn't even possible with Destroy, like Grunt returning to Tuchanka soon enough that he still has undeveloped plates. With no reapers to fix stuff the are gonna have to FTL huff it to each relay to repair them. That will take a century or two.

Hackett says, "...imagine what we could acheive if...", "it will take time, but we can rebuild..."
EDI says, "Taking our first steps into a new and wonderful future..", "we will reclaim.."
Shepard AI says, "I will rebuild...", "I will create a future...", "And throughout it all, I will never forget..."

Each one is about what the narrator says they will do, wants to do or sees happening. EDI's is the only one that speaks in present tense about anything. And only at the start to say the Reapers are rebuilding stuff.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Do you guys not know that only the true Catalyst will deny being the Catalyst? Only the true Messiah will deny being the Messiah. Only the indoctrinated will deny being indoctrinated.

Hence "I am the Catalyst" is NOT the Catalyst. He's just a very naughty boy.

So who does that leave to be the real Catalyst? Hmmmm?

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

That's the ONLY perspective to judge 'within' the game, external stimuli is irrelavant,especially with the IT. But the players are not 'free' to decide, if they're indoctrinated by reapers in the game.As to the point of being able to distinguish what choice is available and what choices are clouded in  indoctrination. Far as I could tell, the IT has a long history in the game, and basically replaces game play with indoctrination as the end result, regardless of choices provided in the game. They are replaced by the IT'ed versions. In other words, that indoctrination is 'controlling' in all decisions in the game by players via Shepard, the victim of the IT.

Why do you think you have to have a wide choice? I doubt you were making your way to the citadel thinking, Boy, I wish I could make buddies with Harbinger. Then he can shoot rainbows into of molten tungsten at me." you went in there thinking, "I'm gonna take these fu*kers out". I don't anyone honest ran in there thinking they were gonna be offered control or synthesis nor that these reaper agendas would be presented as objectively better than your original objective. And if the game ended with Destroy automatically and no Star Child and Shepard reunited with crew and LI and they showed blue babies, houses of rannoch, garrus in a speedo, or whatever floats your boat. I wonder if we would be having this conversation?

Shepard was never free to decide. His mission is to destroy the Reapers. To prevent Saren and Dr. Kenson's indoctrination induced utopia. To prevent TIM's foolhard pride in thinking a single man can dominate a trillion minds like all of the past cycles' Control Parties who were always indoctrinated reaper agents. The indoctrinated endings are simply there to give you, the player, choice. It's not the choices any of us expected, but there you have it.

The only real choice they could provide is various means of Destroy. Each involving the reapers demise but in different ways and each having a different sacrifice (i.e pros and cons). No "what if" slideshow that may never actually come to pass, but real-time CG or ingame cutscenes. There is no reason synthesis can't occur AND the reapers die, but have consequences. There is no reason control cannot occur and the reapers die and have consequences. I have some other completely unique ending ideas as well which I will go into in another threat. But I must reiterate that ALL the endings must be a hard choice if that is truly the theme they have been claiming they want to portray. Not just Destroy = sacrifice and everything else = paradise. But as they stand you have 2 ending that are rainbows and butterflies brought to you by the benevolent reapers (praise them), 1 that requires a sacrifice and leaves the galaxy in a sticky situation and 1 that is a glorified critical failure. How do you justify this? How can 2 have no downside and 1 carry all the burden of sacrifice?

It doesn't add up.

If Destroy is the only win option, then so be it. That's out of my hands. You'd have to complain to Bioware's writers about that. But quite frankly, if I were to take all the endings at face value I can conclude that synthesis is the only ending choice. You'd have to be an idiot to not metagame it. Make up all the personal moral arguments you want, but it doesn't matter what you think because everyone is happy and OK with it and peace and discovery and knowledge!!! hallelujah!!! It makes Destroy and Control selfish, petty and obsolete endings.

[The Twilight God]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Do you guys not know that only the true Catalyst will deny being the Catalyst? Only the true Messiah will deny being the Messiah. Only the indoctrinated will deny being indoctrinated.

Hence "I am the Catalyst" is NOT the Catalyst. He's just a very naughty boy.

So who does that leave to be the real Catalyst? Hmmmm?

The Church of The Shepard.

[illyaillya]

i'm not going to read all that.

[The Twilight God]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

I think what Wayning_Star means is that if IT is true, then there's only one "true choice" which is the one that rebels against indoctrination. With the introduction of the EC I think some people now consider Refuse to be this choice (either that or Destroy). This would mean that three (out of four) choices have the same outcome rendering them meaningless.

There is only one choice for victory over the Reapers. Yes.

There is also only one choice for a "utopia". I'm not convinced the Reapers continue the harvest in Synthesis. I just don't believe the people of the galaxy have free will as some nanites alone can't stop our nature. If it can then we aren't the same people we were and are under reaper influence (i.e. indoctrinated). It's Saren's sovereign induced vision of the future fo organics. Do I think that is a good ending? Not personally. Some might disagree. Stupid and happy is still happy, right?
 
There are two choices for galactic space-faring extinction however.

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Off-topic, but I visited your youtube channel.

Did you make those ME3 trailers by yourself? They're really, really well done.

I did and thank you. Naturally, some are better than others but that's mostly due to my amateurish/hit-and-miss skills.

Wayning_Star wrote...

I'm insisting that the choices given in the IT, are NOT choices, because they're controlled by the IT. With the IT, we only have one choice, follow the IT to it's end result, that being indoctrination, and getting harvested. Rendering all choices in the the game meaningless, unless Shepard is not indoctrinated. Either Shep is indoctrinated, or is not indoctrinated, free to think, make his/her own mistakes.

I'm confused. Let's start by something simple, which choices are you talking about?

It's easy  Shepard not indoctrinated: Can make choices Shepard indoctrinated: Choices made by indoctrinator.

the IT seems to infer that all choices are resultant from Shep being under the spell of the catalyst,with variations of game stats controlling the results of destroy. That of which I'm kind of confused about myself, as the choices are inconvenienced by the catalysts' indoctrination. It wouldn't need to provide 'choices' if Shep were under control at that level in any event, Shep would do anything it pointed to. So the unindoctrinated reality doesn't exist in the IT. ie, freedom of choice is replaced by indoctrination. So.. if you cannot control your own mind, how can you tell if you've any 'real' choices. Everything 'seems' OK from your POV. Reality leaves, reapers harvest..again.

The "choices" are the advertized options the game permits Shepard to accomplish his/her goal, ending the cycle. We'll have to pretend that the IT is on mute for that moment to access them though. The IT replaces those with indoctrinated versions of the game set reality of "choices". They don't exist in the IT.

So I'm talking about all the choices in the non-IT MEU. I guesstimate was real just before Shep was introduced to that first Beacon. Things got kind of IT'd after that?

You are assuming Shepard IS indoctrinated. He is not. The attempt at indoctrination is underway, Rather or not that attempt is successful is up to the player.

[The Twilight God]

Factor P wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ok, how can you 'choose' if you're not there. If you're indoctrinated,you are in that belief that you are somewhere, but not making choices permitted those 'un' indoctrinated. It appears to be a double jepordy flaw in the IT.As stated, to insist you can make choices in 'reality' but cannot be in that reality because you've been duped by the catalyst and are indoctrinated to the point that any choice you make is in favor of the antagnist. Either you ARE indoctrinated, then the choices you make are not real. OR you aren't indoctrinated and the choices you make ARE real. Which is it?

You're speaking from Shepard's perspective, stating that being affected by indoctrination has limited his options by reinforcing the indoctrinated ones over the non-indoctrinated one. However, you are not Shepard. You are a player. You have 4 choices. You, the player, are free to choose whichever you like.

I think what Wayning_Star means is that if IT is true, then there's only one "true choice" which is the one that rebels against indoctrination. With the introduction of the EC I think some people now consider Refuse to be this choice (either that or Destroy). This would mean that three (out of four) choices have the same outcome rendering them meaningless.

I think that's the primary problem with "IT" and why there's so much resistance to it. It implies that in only one ending does Shepard truly "succeed" against the Reapers. A lot of people aren't going to like that, particularly pure Paragon players, because Destroy sacrifices the few (EDI and the Geth) to save the many (advanced organics). I don't have any problems with sacrificing EDI and the Geth because I believe the original design of the Crucible was to destroy REAPERS and both EDI and the GETH have Reaper tech in them, but I can see a fully Paragon player having SERIOUS problems with it. I just can't see a pure Paragon Shepard being happy with Destroy when a choice of sacrificing onself for everyone else is available (Control).

So yes, I believe indoctrination has occurred, but only when applied to SYNTHESIS. I am not so convinced with Control or Refuse. Control and Refuse ARE in favor of the Reapers agenda, but that still doesn't prove to me that Shepard or the player is indoctinated.

Another obvious issue with "IT" being Destroy-centric is that the ending choices can be classified as Paragon (Control) or Renegade (Destroy), even though their outcomes are morally gray. Destroy is Renegade only because shooting the panel makes Shepard sacrifice the few to save the many, and Control is Paragon only because it makes Shepard sacrifice himself but no one else to save everyone. Regardless of whether the outcomes are what they're promised to be, the decisions themselves do have obvious moral alignment.

The decisions in Refuse and Synthesis however, are more morally gray and appear to be what a more neutral Shepard might make, with Shepard doing nothing & leaving victory to the next cycle in Refuse (unless future DLC changes this, it was already made clear that conventional victory was not possible) and Shepard making a choice for everyone & being indoctrinated (along with the player) in the "perfect" ending Synthesis.

Even though I've always played a mostly Renegade Shepard and there was no question to me about Destroy being the right choice, I can see Paragon/Control supporters saying that Destroy is not viable long term because the threat of war will return. I can also equally see Destroy supporters saying that a Shepard AI in Control will eventually become morally corrupted, or that the Reaper-Child may not really relinquish full control of the Reapers to a Reaper-Shepard AI (because these are my own views). So maybe "IT" would have been more accepted if it only applied to Synthesis?

Rather or not people like it isn't relevent. I don't like it either, but that is what was written. Handwaving the plot, story and evidence away because I want to believe that suiciding myself because a Reaper said so supposedly leads to nothing but good is absurd.

It's like Arrival. You can blow up that system or the Reapers can hit everywhere right then and there simultaneously, bypassing all defenses, using the alpha relay. Sometimes there are no pleasant choices. Why people thing that should always be able to get their way is beyond me. I think that is where the opposite mainly comes from. The idea that they can't just pick the nice choice and have no real consequences like rachni queen or heretic geth, etc. There is no nice choice. Just Destruction, Enslavement and Freedom.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

All of the OPs arguements are "X is lying"

Whether it's "The Catalyst is lying" or "Bioware is lying" or even "Henry Lawson is lying" in order to take the easy way out.

[Lord Goose]

it's like Arrival

No. It would have been like Arrival if your attempt to warn batarian colonies would lead to critical mission failure.

And I think you misunderstand something. Destroy has not only major downside, but also major bonus. Basically:

Refuse.
-Everyone died.
+Next cycle won against Reapers rather easily because of your help. What's why I do not think that indoctrination theory (any incarnation of it) is correct, since where is obvious difference.

Synthesis.
+Synthetics survived.
+Where is no more difference between synthetics and organics. Just life.
-Shepard deifinitely died.
-Synthesis forcefully changed everyone (major violation of individual rights).

Control.
+Synthetics survived.
+Reapers are used for good.
-Shepard definitely died.
-Where is chance what new Control Entity will screw up. Similiarly to possible new Rachni Wars and Krogan Rebellions if you spared queen and cured genophage.

Destroy.
-Synthetics died.
+Reapers are truly dead.
-Minor technological damage.
+Shepard may have survived.

Basically, Bioware making you choose between lives of synthetic and Shepard's life. And, yes, it is ambigous if Shepard can survive this or not, but it is not set in stone what he will die.

Also, about Grunt. Krogan are long-lived species and we do not know how much time it took to rebuild relays. Catalyst states that survivors should have a little difficulties to do it, so it is not completely implausible.