1238 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

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

[Batnat]

Arian Dynas wrote...

We don't like or want to hurt people.

Really, this just kills me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QFW

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

[clennon8]

yogibbear87 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Without metagaming, you really have no reason to trust the Catalyst, and certainly have no reason to choose control or synthesis. But I suppose this is for another topic.

zambot wrote...

This is exactly why it is a good thing to finish the game with a low EMS and destroy the reaper base in ME2. If you actually accomplish very little, the StarKid only gives you the option to win the game.

Wait, what?

Yeah, this is what really baffled me about IT after metagaming. Considering that the Catalyst can turn off the Crucible if he deems that you are unwilling to make a choice, I really don't know what the Catalyst's motive is. It just doesn't make much sense. IT doesn't quite explain it, but taking it face value also seems rather ridiculous.

Because if you got to the end with low EMS you didn't spend an extra 10 hrs collecting all those war assets giving the reapers plenty of extra time to get their indoctrination working. So when you confront the catalyst he knows his words won't ring true with you and you're just left with destroy.

See, as a guy who wants IT to be true, even I find this explanation pretty unsatisfactory.

[Wayning_Star]

ShepnTali wrote...

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

don't know about it, but guess it may have to do with user feedback. EA will either 'leave it lay', continue with online stuff till that runs dry, or extend the trilogy with killer DLC's.. to head canon that, I'd advise to just 'follow the money'.

[Wayning_Star]

clennon8 wrote...

yogibbear87 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Without metagaming, you really have no reason to trust the Catalyst, and certainly have no reason to choose control or synthesis. But I suppose this is for another topic.

zambot wrote...

This is exactly why it is a good thing to finish the game with a low EMS and destroy the reaper base in ME2. If you actually accomplish very little, the StarKid only gives you the option to win the game.

Wait, what?

Yeah, this is what really baffled me about IT after metagaming. Considering that the Catalyst can turn off the Crucible if he deems that you are unwilling to make a choice, I really don't know what the Catalyst's motive is. It just doesn't make much sense. IT doesn't quite explain it, but taking it face value also seems rather ridiculous.

Because if you got to the end with low EMS you didn't spend an extra 10 hrs collecting all those war assets giving the reapers plenty of extra time to get their indoctrination working. So when you confront the catalyst he knows his words won't ring true with you and you're just left with destroy.

See, as a guy who wants IT to be true, even I find this explanation pretty unsatisfactory.

OR, want's someone who can, explain all the stuff the IT folks have found that makes their headcanon superior to anyone elses..of which is actually an integral part of the aforementioned head canon.

[clennon8]

The Twilight God wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Just saying, *your* Shepard might have said that. My Shepard didn't because I used the Renegade option. Using the Renegade option, Shepard instead challenges TIM to do it and end this once and for all, but of course TIM can't because the Reapers won't let him.

Shepard issues that challenge because he knows TIM can't. It's entire purpose is to make TIM realize that he's not in control. Not as an endorsement of The Illusive Reaper King. And you know this. Or is your Shepard so stupid (or indoctrinated) as to trust TIM with freakin reaper crap all over his face? Come on now.

Ieldra2 wrote...

It is perfectly possible to play a Shepard who ends up choosing Control, totally in-character and without indoctrination.

No it isn't. And you can't come up with a single reason to trust the reapers. Not one. And you know it.

Yeah, I agree with these remarks.  It is NOT "perfectly possible to play a Shepard who ends up choosing Control, totally in-character and without indoctrination."  Some people may want to be able to play that Shepard, but the fact is that that Shepard never existed in the games, at any point whatsoever, no matter how many renegade choices you selected.  That Shepard exists only in headcanons.

Modifié par clennon8, 31 juillet 2012 - 08:03 .

[v TricKy v]

ManUnderMask wrote...

La li lu le lo.

Snaaaaaaakkkkeee!!!

[ShepnTali]

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


This all sounds like a new firestorm.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The Twilight God wrote...

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

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

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

[Wayning_Star]

Batnat wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

We don't like or want to hurt people.

Really, this just kills me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QFW

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

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

[BrotherCorvid]

This is fantastic.

This is what I have been saying since I first beat ME3, only you present the same points in a much more well-thought out and organized manner. All I could ever get out was, "SYNTHESIS = SAREN, CONTROL = THE ILLUSIVE MAN, DESTROY = ANDERSON-- WHO DO YOU CHOOSE, ONE OF TWO WELL-MEANING BAD EVIL GUYS OR THE BEST BEST GOOD GUY???" which, while concise, lacks some of the persuasion of your thesis.

The best way I can sum up your thesis, and to sum up the endings, is to borrow the old proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Wayning_Star]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

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

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

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

doesn't matter, the ideals surrounding the missing evidence of indoctrination canon is overpowering, that is it is inescapable by the sheer force of IT'er belief system. Everything in the game, for them, points at indoctrination, everything else does too. Its went beyond fasination to obsession. Everything is a plot hole, everything is controlled by reapers and the catalyst is only a prop to facilitate that control. Shepard isn't there, he's only another prop installed by the reapers to harvest everything...that the reapers already control. We're harvested before we even begun to fight, and that fighting is the illusion that promotes our harvest. . and so on so forth, so beit..the cycle will continue.
 
 or already done, next game, too late, next game, too late,next game, too late,.....it's a reaper loop.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 31 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

My new theory:

Shepard never awoke after the Eden Prime Beacon incident. He/she's been dreaming all this time. The reapers don't even exist. It's just all part of Saren's plan to prevent Humanity from dominating Galactic Politics.

The Eden Prime beacon was just the latest attempt to sabotage human induction into the spectres.

Pretty soon, Bioware will release a new game where Shepard wakes up and must defeat Saren and his anti human army hell bent on weaking Humanity's position in the Galaxy.

I shall call it the Eden Prime Theory of ET for short.

Mark my words. It will be confirmed soon.

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:02 .

[Wayning_Star]

ShepnTali wrote...

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


This all sounds like a new firestorm.

Bioware won't make any DLC that pronounces their game is based on indoctrination theorists, because it's not. It's just a head canon that has gotten way too much attention from the fan base as an explanation for misunderstood and underdeveloped story lines. It's all the IT'ers have to fuel their theory is misinformation and user impatience with tools at hand. You can see the excuses for different rejections of other choices.

I doubt anyone has yet played the perfect game throughout the trilogy, as the varibles are too generalized as flags to permit fluidity in the game to that 'perfect game' realization. Heck, maybe there isn't one?

The IT concept is just a head canon. Just like any other, nothing special about it other than the general confusion it permits for players of the games.

[masster blaster]

Hey stop picking on Twilight God. If you want to pick on ITers then come by the new thread. He is only trying to say that IT is the only why to explain that the endings are as they are. And saying it's all bad writing, is like saying the Reapers are a myth, well in real life yes but in ME, hell no. IT is in ME, but in really life it's not, and just to make it clear that it's not a head canon, WHERE IS YOUR PROF. BIOWARE DID NOT SAY IT's a head canon, and by they way I remember they said IT has a valid possibility, towards the endings.

I am not saying it's going to be IT, but at lest they give a damn about It, and I can't believe you, and all of the people that play ME, just because Bioware made the endings as they are does not mean they have something plaind. Am I right. And the EC was not what Bioware wanted, but to calm the fans down, inorder to continue their plans with out the fans backlasing them more, as it was before the EC.

Modifié par masster blaster, 31 juillet 2012 - 10:39 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Twilight God wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Cool headcanon OP.

You clearly don't know what "headcanon" means. Liara and Shep having blue babies; that's headcanon. Admiral Hackett becomeing the King of all Humans; that's headcanon. Control Shepard making a terminator body and reuniting with LI; That's headcanon.

Everything I've posted else is based on in-game events and dialog.

The only thing that can be remotely considered close to headcannon is the indoctrinated epilogues. But even that is interpreation based on evidence. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that Control and Synthesis are not in our best interest.

ORLY??

Refusal
Shepard says, "No, I'm going to end this war on my terms." 
The Catalyst replies, "Then you will die knowing you have failed to save everything you have fought for."
Shepard retorts, "I fight for freedom. Mine and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I die knowing I did everything I could to stop you."
 
Everything except actually stopping the Reapers, when the means to do so is right in front of you. The means to choose your own fate was right there.  Instead, Shepard let the Reapers choose his and every organics' fate. Shepard is definitely indoctrinated here. No questions about it.

 

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

It would be no different if I were to alledge that destroying the Collector Base makes you indoctrinated because Shepard is throwing away a weapon to be used against the Reapers, because he/she wants them to win. And saying "I'm not going to let fear compromise who I am" sounds little different than this line in Refuse. But, in the end, it would be ridiculous.

u headcanon'd. Deal with it. And I'm sure the same could be said for about 95% of the rest of this thread, I just didn't read anything else past this which caught my eye.

It's all the same stuff from this site's militant Destroy-only faction. Keep your headcanon to yourself.

[masster blaster]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Cool headcanon OP.

You clearly don't know what "headcanon" means. Liara and Shep having blue babies; that's headcanon. Admiral Hackett becomeing the King of all Humans; that's headcanon. Control Shepard making a terminator body and reuniting with LI; That's headcanon.

Everything I've posted else is based on in-game events and dialog.

The only thing that can be remotely considered close to headcannon is the indoctrinated epilogues. But even that is interpreation based on evidence. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that Control and Synthesis are not in our best interest.

ORLY??

Refusal
Shepard says, "No, I'm going to end this war on my terms." 
The Catalyst replies, "Then you will die knowing you have failed to save everything you have fought for."
Shepard retorts, "I fight for freedom. Mine and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I die knowing I did everything I could to stop you."
 
Everything except actually stopping the Reapers, when the means to do so is right in front of you. The means to choose your own fate was right there.  Instead, Shepard let the Reapers choose his and every organics' fate. Shepard is definitely indoctrinated here. No questions about it.

 

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

It would be no different if I were to alledge that destroying the Collector Base makes you indoctrinated because Shepard is throwing away a weapon to be used against the Reapers, because he/she wants them to win. And saying "I'm not going to let fear compromise who I am" sounds little different than this line in Refuse. But, in the end, it would be ridiculous.

u headcanon'd. Deal with it. And I'm sure the same could be said for about 95% of the rest of this thread, I just didn't read anything else past this which caught my eye.

It's all the same stuff from this site's militant Destroy-only faction. Keep your headcanon to yourself.

If you played the game, for it's story then yes it is. If you play it for the action, then you don't understand, and if you really want to go further into this, then read the comics. They support IT to.

Modifié par masster blaster, 31 juillet 2012 - 10:55 .

[masster blaster]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Cool headcanon OP.

You clearly don't know what "headcanon" means. Liara and Shep having blue babies; that's headcanon. Admiral Hackett becomeing the King of all Humans; that's headcanon. Control Shepard making a terminator body and reuniting with LI; That's headcanon.

Everything I've posted else is based on in-game events and dialog.

The only thing that can be remotely considered close to headcannon is the indoctrinated epilogues. But even that is interpreation based on evidence. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that Control and Synthesis are not in our best interest.

ORLY??

Refusal
Shepard says, "No, I'm going to end this war on my terms." 
The Catalyst replies, "Then you will die knowing you have failed to save everything you have fought for."
Shepard retorts, "I fight for freedom. Mine and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I die knowing I did everything I could to stop you."
 
Everything except actually stopping the Reapers, when the means to do so is right in front of you. The means to choose your own fate was right there.  Instead, Shepard let the Reapers choose his and every organics' fate. Shepard is definitely indoctrinated here. No questions about it.

 

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

It would be no different if I were to alledge that destroying the Collector Base makes you indoctrinated because Shepard is throwing away a weapon to be used against the Reapers, because he/she wants them to win. And saying "I'm not going to let fear compromise who I am" sounds little different than this line in Refuse. But, in the end, it would be ridiculous.

u headcanon'd. Deal with it. And I'm sure the same could be said for about 95% of the rest of this thread, I just didn't read anything else past this which caught my eye.

It's all the same stuff from this site's militant Destroy-only faction. Keep your headcanon to yourself.

But that's just it if you pick refuse you give up. Shepard just tells the Catalyst no, and Harbinger kills Shepard.

[SubAstris]

masster blaster wrote...

I am not saying it's going to be IT

There's not really a "going to be" about it, BW have said that's it, no more ending DLC. So if you believe in IT, you don't get an ending. Rather simple (I know people so desperately don't want this to happen but the evidence is not in ya favour)

[zambot]

masster blaster wrote...

But that's just it if you pick refuse you give up. Shepard just tells the Catalyst no, and Harbinger kills Shepard.

Sorry man, but this not a very strong explanation of how Refusal squares with IT

[RenegonSQ]

IT is real.

Destroy wins again.

[masster blaster]

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

I am not saying it's going to be IT

There's not really a "going to be" about it, BW have said that's it, no more ending DLC. So if you believe in IT, you don't get an ending. Rather simple (I know people so desperately don't want this to happen but the evidence is not in ya favour)

Oh will you just stop. Bioware has said a lot of things, but they plan out f****** lie Subartris. That's what they paid to do. And for the last time I asked, and so many of us asked Bioware please tell us it's right or wrong, but no they say speculate. And that's what the hell we are doing, instead of saying it's not going to happen, and it's bad writing. Lame *** speculations if you ask me why the hell are you still here? I know why, but do you. If you know they will not go with IT, then why do you go to the IT thread, why do any of the things you have done on for IT, and for the people who call ME3 bad writing.

[AlexMBrennan]

[quote]The Crucible never needed the Star Child to do anything[/quote]
And how do you know that? You don't, and you cannot. You're inventing facts to support your argument.
[quote] Shepard is forced to accept this assertion. However, this is the least of Shepard's trust problems as will be covered in later segments of this thesis. Shepard's lethargic tendency to accept the Catalyst's assertions actually make sense in an indoctrination scenario. [/quote]
Yes. They also make sense in the "the writing just sucks" scenario. Your conclusion (it must be indoctrination) is privileging the hypothesis.
[quote] In other words, it has to hope indoctrination succeeds.[/quote]
No. This is simply not true. It is perfectly sufficient to outwit Shepard - there is a difference between Star Child deceiving Shepard, and Star Child assuming Direct Control TM of Shepard.
[quote]The Reaper forces at Earth alone outnumber the entire allied fleet assembled by Shepard and even that is merely a fraction of their forces. What we are talking about here is controlling possibly trillions of minds.[/quote]
Where are you going with this? Unless you're assuming a lot of stuff about the details of how Control works, this is meaningless.
[quote]Control - The Illusive Man's Folly
[...][/quote]
Sorry, what? What are you trying to say here, exactly? Your argument, if any seems rather dubious.
[quote]Never mind the fact that Shepard is not an organic-synthetic hybrid himself. I believe EDI, Liara (if romanced) and Doctor Chakwas dismiss this notion[/quote]
Their opinion is completely irrelevant.
[quote]Synthesis is submission to the Reapers[/quote]
No. You have shown that synthesis is somewhat similar to Saren's philosophy of submission, but this does not mean it's identical.
[quote] It’s quite the gamble considering the option to destroy the Reapers and guarantee victory is right there.[/quote]
Incorrect. You have to assume that Star Child's instructions are accurate (i.e. that shooting the tube triggers Destruction, jumping into the beam triggers Synthesis, etc). This is because they had bet everything on the Crucible fixing things and would have lost without Star Child's intervention. Shepard is bleeding to death and everyone is dying. If Star Child is lying about the mechanism, your dead anyway, so you might just as well assume that he's not.

[quote]Hallelujah!!! What a wonderfully packaged Deus Ex Machina. Obviously this better that destroying the reapers, right? And if this is too much for you there is always Control. They are both better choices than destroy after all. It’s no brainer, right? [/quote]
Yes, it's quite possible that Star Child is trying to deceive us. I certainly think so.
[quote]Yeah, because your brain has been rotted by indoctrination.[/quote]
No. Indoctrination has nothing to do with it per se - you don't have to convince Shepard to not destroy the Reapers if he was indoctrinated.

I am starting to wonder if you have a hidden agenda...

[quote]The Catalyst is a Deceiver and a Manipulator[/quote]
Sorry, but that's just speculation (and a bit of sophistry)

[quote]The Catalyst is quick to point out the negatives of using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers. It then goes on to paint a picture of roses and butterflies to describe an attempt to control the reapers or synthesize all life in the galaxy. The Reapers clearly want Synthesis over Control and states they wouldn't look forward to Shepard taking control to give the impression it's something they don't want Shepard to attempt. The previous encounter with an indoctrinated TIM shows they did want Shepard to consider it. But boy do they want Synthesis, the Grand Deus Ex Machina. And of course the player, now focusing more on doing the reaper's social studies assignment instead of destroying a terribly gruesome heartless sadistic enemy, is seeing things through reaper goggles. Now the focus is fixing some asserted galactic crisis that isn't evident while the only real crisis is right in front of you. The writer's intent is that the player will lose sight of the ball.[/quote]
Yes, I can agree with that. I am not entirely sure how it actually *follows* from the preceding posts, but never mind that.
[quote]If Control and Synthesis ended like the Refusal Ending or had a Critical Failure message at the end it would invalidate them for the player[/quote]
Oh dear. And you were doing so well.

That is a meta concern. It has no place in this discussion. Regardless of the motivation, you get an epilogue and a "Buy more DLC" message - that is clearly not Shepard's view any more but the (very overused) omniscient viewpoint. Arguing that this is, in fact, a Matrix-esque simulation in a scenario where the Reapers actually won and everyone's dead is just silly.

And yet again, your privileging the hypothesis - you're checking that it's consistent with what you observed (if Shepard was indoctrinated, then the Reapers would fake a "Buy more DLC" message - check) and conclude that Shepard must therefore be indoctrinated.

[masster blaster]

zambot wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

But that's just it if you pick refuse you give up. Shepard just tells the Catalyst no, and Harbinger kills Shepard.

Sorry man, but this not a very strong explanation of how Refusal squares with IT

Well let me say this. Why the hell does the Catalyst turn off the Crucible. Why the hell does Liara not mention Shepard at all to the next cycle. You would think she would tell the next cycle about Shepard. And don't say it's bad writing. because we have evidence to back up this.

Also Shepard does sh**. He lets teh Catalyst roll all over him/her, and Shepard shuts up after the Catalyst tells Shepard So BE IT in a Reaper voice. So in refuse Shepard is not willing to go the extra mile to wake up, hence Destroy with high EMS, higher than Synthesis he/she wakes up.

Also not once did Hackett mention Shepard, not once did he say thanks to Commander Shepard we have a future, but in Control, and Synthesis they do.

The way I see it. In Synthesis you give the Reapers self being like the catalyst said. " Everything you are will be sent out...."

Well I think it's a reaper uprade, to use Shepards personality to complete them as one.

[Grub Killer8016]

Sometimes I think I'm indoctrinated.