1238 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

Lokiwithrope wrote...

Uh-uh. If Control, Synthesis and Refusal are all indoctrinated endings, what tells you Destroy isn't an indoctrinated ending? Sure the Reapers blow up with red explosions; but what the hell tells you that you weren't brainwashed in Destroy? You can't call out some endings. Just because it doesn't result in the destruction of the Reapers, doesn't make it an indoctrinated ending.

The destruction of the Reapers is not what makes Destroy a non-indoctrinated ending. The mere survival of the Reapers is not what makes Control, Synthesis and Refusal indoctrinated endings.

Read the entire thesis. Then reply.

[The Twilight God]

clennon8 wrote...

.

Hehe, I saw what you wrote. LOL!

[Fedi.St]

twilight god. It may seems that we were both wrong.

http://dl.dropbox.co...ation_small.png 

Modifié par Fedi.St, 14 août 2012 - 11:58 .

[The Twilight God]

Fedi.St wrote...

twilight god. It may seems that we were both wrong.

http://dl.dropbox.co...ation_small.png

 
Doesn't seem that way to me.
 
Couple of problems:

1. Whatever it is it is small enough to fit within the "grasp" of the Crucible dock fingers. There is no possible way all that stuff could fit into a shape that thin. My guess is that it eventually breaks off like those other parts we see.
2. Those contraptions have cables running into the Citadel. It isn't something that just laying on top of the Citadel. Follow the cables on both the Control and Power Junction and see where they lead.
3. There are no bendable parts. All the canitlevers are solid steel or finished concrete. No joints.
4. If you look to your right past the power junction you'll notice some of the parts that would be the extended "legs" of this proposed nubbin extend underneath parts that are definitively the Citadel (looks like a walkway for 2 addtional future endings). Which means it would have to slide in vs. extending over and setting down on top.
5. The rings of solar panel looking parts on the inside of the cantilevers have no breaks for folding even if it was possible for the rest of the contraption to fold.
6. Pic #6 in the photo doesn't even match up with the actual contraption on the Citadel or the nubbin. Somebody pulled that model out of their ass. It completely ignores entire sections of the thing and look nothing like it is presented in pic #1 (which is clearly a cylinder).
7. There is still the issue of the walkway that forks into three paths (I think this is more Bioware presenting a conversation wheel so I'm willing to ignore it)

Conclusion: It is physically impossible for that object to to be the contraption in question.  

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 août 2012 - 02:57 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The Twilight God wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The game makes it quite clear that all 3 choices are 'good' choices. But of course, the game itself is lying right? Anything that contradicts your theory is just lies right?

The story, events an dialog make it clear that Shepard is indoctrinated in 3 out of 4 endings and it's no surpirse that the indoctrinated perspective continues into the endings. Endings that are mostly what the narrator hopes will happen in the future from their current perspective; be that the perspective of a Reaper AI, indoctrinated AI or Alliance Admiral.

No the game outright tells you at the end with a blurb that the Reaper threat is over. So telll me, is the game itself lying?

[clennon8]

Yes. The game is "lying." Because the ending isn't just about the indoctrination of Shepard, it's about the indoctrination of the player.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

So the game is lying even when it says the exact same thing? It's only telling the truth in your favourite ending?

That's all I needed to hear.

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The game makes it quite clear that all 3 choices are 'good' choices. But of course, the game itself is lying right? Anything that contradicts your theory is just lies right?

The story, events an dialog make it clear that Shepard is indoctrinated in 3 out of 4 endings and it's no surpirse that the indoctrinated perspective continues into the endings. Endings that are mostly what the narrator hopes will happen in the future from their current perspective; be that the perspective of a Reaper AI, indoctrinated AI or Alliance Admiral.

No the game outright tells you at the end with a blurb that the Reaper threat is over. So telll me, is the game itself lying?

It says the same thing in Refusal too. The ending in which Shepard allows the Reapers to win. So what?

You are, as usual, ignoring the entire premise. If they blatantly told you that Control, Synthesis and Refusal were indoctrinated endings and made overt gestures to that effect (you know, like removing that "blurb" from all endings save Destroy) nobody would ever pick them. It would completely defeat the entire concept of indoctrinating the player. The endings would be considered fail endings, nobody would ever pick them, they would be rendered a complete waste of time to create and everyone would be up in arms about how there is only one "win ending". How difficult is this to understand? I don't expect you to accept this, but I would expect you to have a level of intelligence capable of comprehending the idea. Clearly it is over your head.   

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 août 2012 - 03:15 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Of course it would say the same thing in refuse too. The Reaper threat is over. The next cycle saw to that. That blurb comes after the Stargazer scene. But you're saying that it's false.

So we go back to the whole "Everything except what I choose to believe is lies" theory.

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Of course it would say the same thing in refuse too. The Reaper threat is over. The next cycle saw to that. That blurb comes after the Stargazer scene. But you're saying that it's false.

Yes, it's false for more reasons than player indoctrination. If you bothered to read it you would know it says, "Congratulations on bringing an end to the Reaper threat". Neither Shepard or any action on the part of the player brings an end to the Reaper threat in Refusal. As you said, the next cycle defeated the reapers off screen by unspecifiec means at an unspcified time. The most logical assumption would be they used the Crucible and didn't succumb to indoctrination like Shepard. This would mean Shepard got his whole cycle wiped out for nothing as the Crucible was used in the end anyway. Not that it wouldn't still be for nothing even if the next cyce could win another way. And since Bioware has made that outcome their refusal headcanon I presume you must, on priniciple and to not paint yourself a hypocrite, make it yours too.

Disagree with my thesis? Fine. Give me one good reason why Shepard would trust the Reapers. Just one reason. Just one teenie tiny itsy bitsy teenie weenie lil reason.

*room in absolute silence*

*cough*

Should we order pizza while we wait?

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 août 2012 - 04:48 .

[Headhunter128]

The Twilight God wrote...

How difficult is this to understand? I don't expect you to accept this, but I would expect you to have a level of intelligence capable of comprehending the idea. Clearly it is over your head.   

You know... This sounds very familiar. Not that differrent to what the Reapers have been telling us ever since Mass Effect 1.

"This is beoynd your comprehension.. bla bla bla."

You IT'ers seem quite fond of Reaper philosphy(For the lack of a better word) despite your claims to be the only ones that are not "indoctrinated".

"Don't belive in IT theory? Well, it's beyond your comprehension then." 

Modifié par Headhunter128, 15 août 2012 - 05:22 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Destroy is also trusting the reapers. Trusting the reapers to tell you how to activate any option. Consider that the Catalyst doesn't survive any of the endings. Citadel Presidium Ring explodes in Destroy, blows up In Synthesis (recoloured Destroy footage) and over written in Control. Clearly, self preservation isn't it's goal. It only survives in Refuse but it so upset if you refuse that it changes it voice. Yet not once does it try to stop you when you head towards the pipe.

So why would the Catalyst tell you how to destroy the reapers? And don't say you say it's trying to trick you. No enemy would hand you the means to defeat him. The child just points you to the pipe and tells you to shoot it to win. If it was trying to trick you, there's a lot more it could have done. It doesn't. That doesn't mean you should automatically trust him but it is enough to sink the theory that he istrying to trick you.

And the epilouge narrations themselves are about their hopes for the future but the slides themselves are scenes from the future. Bioware has gone on record saying the scenes in the epilouge do happen. But ofcourse, everyone is lying right.

And I agree with headhunter128. For someone who claims to be one who resisted indoctrination, you sure use a lot of reaper phrases.

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 15 août 2012 - 08:07 .

[clennon8]

Q: How many times will a troglodyte ask a question that has already been answered?
A: Still counting...

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The more important question is when you will stop using petty insults(the exact same ones, I might add) as means of debate. Atleast the OP debates seriously even if his debates are based on a headcanon device. You however just hang around trying to make those who disagree look bad not realizing just how amusing you are.

[clennon8]

I should go over to the Synthesis thread and do my best RJW impersonation. I'll ask them "Doesn't Synthesis make everyone the same?" Then when someone answers, I'll just ignore the answer and ask the question again. Over and over and over.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

You go do that. Like I said, those guys welcome questions. And if they don't answer satisfactorily, ask again like I do. But hey, if you're too afraid or something...

[clennon8]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

You go do that. Like I said, those guys welcome questions. And if they don't answer satisfactorily, ask again like I do. But hey, if you're too afraid or something...

I am afraid.  I'm afraid they'll abduct me and turn me green while telling me "It's for your own good.  You'll thank us later."

But now we're off topic.  Back to your trolling...

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I'm pretty sure that the guy who throws around insults hoping to get the other person to respond angrily is the troll. Now I'm no expert b ut I'm quite positive that you would be the troll in this case.

[megamacka]

Why can't people just get over it and let us whom believe in this theory believe in it? I don't see what th big deal is. If you don't, then just ignore it?

   Tbh, people claim that the OP is being disrespectful but I see others being just as disrespectful and throwing mindless claims '' OMG HOW DO U EXPLAIN DIS? LULZ YOUR HEADCANON DEVICE ''. Even after his already explained the same question over and over. Get over yourself if you don't like this theory, so what if you think that the OP is a douche? It's the interwebs . The interwebs are filled with douches! 



Even if Bioware came onto this thread and said '' Nope, this is 100% false '' I wouldn't give a shizzle. It makes me sleep better at night and now I can replay the game again without tearing my eyes out. This is how it happened in my playthrough ... * see above pic *

Modifié par megamacka, 15 août 2012 - 09:26 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I don't think the OP is a douche at all.

I'm fine with letting the OP believe in his theory. But isn't fact. It relies too much on coincidinces and Author's intent. Like BW intentionally adding the blurb to all endings to trick the player. Which is funny because the OP has stated before he doesn't use Author's intent and criticised another poster for doing so.

[The Twilight God]

Headhunter128 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

How difficult is this to understand? I don't expect you to accept this, but I would expect you to have a level of intelligence capable of comprehending the idea. Clearly it is over your head.   

You know... This sounds very familiar. Not that differrent to what the Reapers have been telling us ever since Mass Effect 1.

"This is beoynd your comprehension.. bla bla bla."

You IT'ers seem quite fond of Reaper philosphy(For the lack of a better word) despite your claims to be the only ones that are not "indoctrinated".

"Don't belive in IT theory? Well, it's beyond your comprehension then." 

You used the word "know". Hitler used that word. You share the same philosophy as Hitler.

I love troglodyte logic.

Not to mention your reply has nothing to do with what we were even talking about. I keep expecting a pop-up to appear on my screen telling me I'm being punk'd.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 août 2012 - 11:21 .

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Destroy is also trusting the reapers. Trusting the reapers to tell you how to activate any option. Consider that the Catalyst doesn't survive any of the endings. Citadel Presidium Ring explodes in Destroy, blows up In Synthesis (recoloured Destroy footage) and over written in Control. Clearly, self preservation isn't it's goal. It only survives in Refuse but it so upset if you refuse that it changes it voice. Yet not once does it try to stop you when you head towards the pipe.

So why would the Catalyst tell you how to destroy the reapers? And don't say you say it's trying to trick you. No enemy would hand you the means to defeat him. The child just points you to the pipe and tells you to shoot it to win. If it was trying to trick you, there's a lot more it could have done. It doesn't. That doesn't mean you should automatically trust him but it is enough to sink the theory that he istrying to trick you.

And the epilouge narrations themselves are about their hopes for the future but the slides themselves are scenes from the future. Bioware has gone on record saying the scenes in the epilouge do happen. But ofcourse, everyone is lying right.

And I agree with headhunter128. For someone who claims to be one who resisted indoctrination, you sure use a lot of reaper phrases.

Read my thesis. All answers are there.

Now, back to my last challenge...

Disagree with my thesis? Fine. Give me one good reason why Shepard would trust the Reapers. Just one reason. Just one teenie tiny itsy bitsy teenie weenie lil reason.

*room in absolute silence*

*cough*

Should we order pizza while we wait?

*akward silence*

I'll that as a "yes". I think we'll be here for awhile.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 août 2012 - 11:26 .

[megamacka]

If y don't like the IT

[The Twilight God]

Disagree with my thesis? Fine. Give me one good reason why Shepard would trust the Reapers. Just one reason. Just one teenie tiny itsy bitsy teenie weenie lil reason.

*room in absolute silence*

*cough*

Should we order pizza while we wait?

*akward silence*

I'll that as a "yes". I think we'll be here for awhile.

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

*cricket noises*

*eats pizza*

I guess we'll be sleeping here tonight. Glad I brought my sleeping bag.

[Fat Head]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I don't think the OP is a douche at all.

I'm fine with letting the OP believe in his theory. But isn't fact. It relies too much on coincidinces and Author's intent. Like BW intentionally adding the blurb to all endings to trick the player. Which is funny because the OP has stated before he doesn't use Author's intent and criticised another poster for doing so.

If you actually read the OP's theory, you'd see that is isn't IT, but based on the actual events of the game, so it's a different theory, one that includes EC.

BTW, trolling doesn't only involve insults.  Sometimes it's asking the same questions over and over and purposefully ignoring the information that answers them.