223 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

I honestly don't know what the day-to-day is like there anymore, but I know how a decent challenger to an idea sounds.

I've tried the decent challenger route a couple of times. Sometimes it turned into a nice intellectual discussion. Most of the times it didn't. Eventually I just gave up on most of the folks in the IT thread. Only a few there seems to be willing and able to have a fair discussion with me.

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

That still leaves us with Hanlon's Razor, which does  apply to literary analysis, and it is in our favor.

Doesn't even apply.

Except it does.

Prove it.

I already did. Read this page: http://tvtropes.org/...in/HanlonsRazor

In your own words about the situation.

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

That still leaves us with Hanlon's Razor, which does  apply to literary analysis, and it is in our favor.

Doesn't even apply.

Except it does.

Prove it.

I already did. Read this page: http://tvtropes.org/...in/HanlonsRazor

In your own words about the situation.

*sigh*

A lot of the writing in ME3 doesn't make any sense. You assume malice (an indoctrination plot-twist yet to be revealed by BioWare), I assume stupidity (bad writing).

Hanlon's Razor states: Don't assume malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation.



So there you have it.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 décembre 2012 - 01:23 .

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

davishepard wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's a thread addressing IT. If you don't like IT, there are other threads you can read. No one is forcing an interpretation on anyone, merely discussing them. If you wish to disrupt discussion on a story discussion forum, you are doing it wrong.

No, its not. Point to me where in the OP the words "Indocrination Theory" can be seen.

The thread is about why indoctrinating shepard doesn't make sense. Do the math.

Do the math yourself. Talking about whether Shepard does or doesn't get indoctrinated is not directly related to the actual Indoctrination Theory. As a matter of fact, I know people who believe that the reapers indeed try to indoctrinate Shepard, but they do not believe a single thing of the IT. They accept everything that happens as it is. No hallicunations, illusions, dreams or any of that crap.

One can be a "literalist" and still believe that the reapers tried to indoctrinate Shepard. The Indoctrination Theory has nothing to do with it.

[FifthBeatle]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I honestly don't know what the day-to-day is like there anymore, but I know how a decent challenger to an idea sounds.

I've tried the decent challenger route a couple of times. Sometimes it turned into a nice intellectual discussion. Most of the times it didn't. Eventually I just gave up on most of the folks in the IT thread. Only a few there seems to be willing and able to have a fair discussion with me.

Ever consider that is because you are a bully who admittedly takes pleasure in egging people on? I don't know why you have such a hard on for people who think the ending revolves around indoctrination,(a big part of all 3 games) but after reading some of the comments you have made in this thread about them, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to have a"fair" discussion with you. These formus have no place for people like you.

To address the OP, fair points, but may I suggest rewatching the opening scene to ME2 with Miranda and TIM? It really does a good job summing up how important Shepard is to both Humanity and the galaxy itself. There are at least a dozen people who remark how people seem to follow Shepard, including the vision from the Consort in ME1. Heck, ME2 and ME3 are primarily about how Shepard can get people of different species and backgrounds come together. With Shepard under their control, the Reapers could stop the Crucible and take down the resistance without firing a laser. 

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

That still leaves us with Hanlon's Razor, which does  apply to literary analysis, and it is in our favor.

Doesn't even apply.

Except it does.

Prove it.

I already did. Read this page: http://tvtropes.org/...in/HanlonsRazor

In your own words about the situation.

*sigh*

A lot of the writing in ME3 doesn't make any sense. You assume malice (an indoctrination plot-twist yet to be revealed by BioWare), I assume stupidity (bad writing).

Hanlon's Razor states: Don't assume malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation.



So there you have it.

Fine then. I propose it goes both ways. You assume stupidity which is also a large assumption. Perhaps we are both right and wrong at the same time in different places in the story. Sound okay to just leave it at that?

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

davishepard wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's a thread addressing IT. If you don't like IT, there are other threads you can read. No one is forcing an interpretation on anyone, merely discussing them. If you wish to disrupt discussion on a story discussion forum, you are doing it wrong.

No, its not. Point to me where in the OP the words "Indocrination Theory" can be seen.

The thread is about why indoctrinating shepard doesn't make sense. Do the math.

Do the math yourself. Talking about whether Shepard does or doesn't get indoctrinated is not directly related to the actual Indoctrination Theory. As a matter of fact, I know people who believe that the reapers indeed try to indoctrinate Shepard, but they do not believe a single thing of the IT. They accept everything that happens as it is. No hallicunations, illusions, dreams or any of that crap.

One can be a "literalist" and still believe that the reapers tried to indoctrinate Shepard. The Indoctrination Theory has nothing to do with it.

It's the same thing in a different wrapper. Don't kid yourself.

[DoomsdayDevice]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

It makes sense to Garrus.

Soldier: But converting other life forms into Reapers... I can't wrap my head around that.
Garrus: Makes sense to me. It ensures you never run out of cannon fodder. Eliminates any local resistance. And for every soldier you add, your enemy loses two: the one you converted, and his buddy on the other side who can't pull the trigger on a friend. (...)
Soldier: But the Reapers want to destroy us.
Garrus: And I have no intention of letting them. But If you don't respect your enemy's capabilities, you're in for one nasty surprise after another.

Bumpity.

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

davishepard wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's a thread addressing IT. If you don't like IT, there are other threads you can read. No one is forcing an interpretation on anyone, merely discussing them. If you wish to disrupt discussion on a story discussion forum, you are doing it wrong.

No, its not. Point to me where in the OP the words "Indocrination Theory" can be seen.

The thread is about why indoctrinating shepard doesn't make sense. Do the math.

Do the math yourself. Talking about whether Shepard does or doesn't get indoctrinated is not directly related to the actual Indoctrination Theory. As a matter of fact, I know people who believe that the reapers indeed try to indoctrinate Shepard, but they do not believe a single thing of the IT. They accept everything that happens as it is. No hallicunations, illusions, dreams or any of that crap.

One can be a "literalist" and still believe that the reapers tried to indoctrinate Shepard. The Indoctrination Theory has nothing to do with it.

It's the same thing in a different wrapper. Don't kid yourself.

No it isn't. It seems you don't even understand your own theory.

The IT assumes the endings aren't real. What I was talking about is someone who accepts the endings are  real, yet also believes the reapers tried to indoctrinate Shepard. Completely different thing bro.

[davishepard]

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's the same thing in a different wrapper. Don't kid yourself.

It's not. You are wrong, but will never admit it. Always trying to shove IT down one's throat.

Modifié par davishepard, 01 décembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[thehomeworld]

The narrative from ME2 - Arrival WAS going down the road of an indoctrinated and or puppet shep for several reasons:

Anyone who read did the various Cerberus and lost scientist missions in ME have a great deal of information on how indoctrination does and doesn't work. The codex may proved a nice sum up but you get to hear the people in their own words and writing how its really effecting them.

Shep in 2 wakes up on the table after DYING Miranda is unwilling to be specific on what went into shep and the base is conveniently destroyed. From that moment on TIM is constantly reminding shep that he is infact himself and that he is suppose to be the hero of the galaxy. This reinforcement goes well beyond well meaning assurances for a couple of reasons:

Tim insists on multiple levels over and over again

Miranda does this as well.

They borught in and specifically placed  on the list past crewmen who would triple reinforce this thought line.This indicates they wanted shep to use mind over matter. His mind thinking that he was completely Shepard would win out over the reaper and husk tech used to recreate him. We've seen in the past on a small scale that it is possible to resist indoctrination by sheer will alone.

Miranda wasn't just choosen to be his XO because she's pretty she was
choosen as the backup if Shep couldn't triumph over the tech inside him
then she was to kill him and restart the program again. That's why she
spies on you all the time on ship, off ship, and emails to see how
you're doing meantally and phsyically that's also why Kelly is present
to help her in this endevor.

Tim doesn't want shep to one ounce different from who he was pre-death

the technology behind the revival is suspect

Tim has a natural fascination with reaper tech, husks, and other related endeavors

EDI confirms reaper tech was used to make her and therefor the ship and eludes to the fact shep has it in him too and infact in ME3 we get this confirmed by Legion.

Overlord comes next. By this point Cerberus via Greyson and David have figured out how to meld reaper and humans/ AI and humans into one form they obviously used what they learned to help in Shep being rebuilt.

David proves there is more computer parts in shep then even he knows because he is hackable. Why not tell your agent this? Unless you wanted the reapers to later employ this tactic.

Then Arrival Shep is weak to emps, is confirmed hackable, and is suspected to have reaper components he's asleep for 2 days within range of a reaper beacon. Harbi claimed during this mission shep would be his both mind and body meaning Harbi already knew he could overtake Shep.

However ME3 got changed so the narrative no longer wished to fallow the path of indoctrination infact the narrative and the writers DIVORCED themselves from the Shep puppet route but even with the change in script they couldn't take away elements because they had nothing to replace them with.

I don't think the boy was a hallucination or reaper ploy they don't need this and they've never ever used such a tactic before the boy was real on Earth the boy we met on the Citidel was BWs lame throw they needed something to fill in what had previously been there and the kid was an easy, cheap, add in.

The dreams weren't indoctrination but a reflection of Shep's guilt notice how no one living was present? The reapers show those living to their victims and then in dream show them dying to encourage the thrall to work with them to save them. The reapers do not show the dead to encourage the thrall to aid them what's the point? Unless you're going to show the thrall by working with us we'll bring back you dead love ones? The dream is shep's guilt in nightmares nothing more.

Sanctuary I think was changed too. I think it was suppose to be the reveal of how Shep was the only test subject of the LP. How can he be the only one? These people could've been clones instead of random victims or BW could've originally intended for this area to be one of two things A) the end result. In other words they took what they learned in remaking shep to apply it here to make really high end thralls for Cerberus (ie they weren't suppose to be husks) or They pulled a Jack these poor people were kidnapped brought here and used to test all manner and level of tech before it ever went into shep's body to insure they could remake people and have them of whole body and mind using the reaper and Cerberus tech. In this case we would've fought a combination of husks, thralls, and insane Shaila like creatures.

The hack scene with TIM was an original scene it was Tim's backup but even within this scene it had been changed. I assume what should've happened in this scene was TIM was trying to hack shep back onto his side after the reapers had hacked and used Shep to their own ends at this critical moment TIM wanted to sabotouge them and so hacked him back to be his puppet to control the reapers like greyson or david couldn't. In the original plot TIM wasn't indoctrinated and was able to resist the reapers if only barely to make Shep do what he thought was best.

At somepoint before the end of priority Earth shep was suppose to have been hacked thereby being claimed by the reapers since indoctrination seems to not be working on him but Hari would've known shep's emp weakness at a minimum and TIM could've always let it slip about Hacking why? Because TIM would be confident that he knew the hardware codes back and fourth and he knew he could hack shep at the critical time so shep would be TIM's cylon insider who would then destroy the reapers from the inside out.

It was obvious TIM wanted to use shep not for the hero aspect there makes no sense to spend that much money place that much risky tech inside shep, then not make protection codes to be sure he was able to do his job around reapers and emps w/o fail unless you wanted those weaknesses for a reason. I think the original plan was that Shep was nearly everyone's tool. Tim was going to use him as bait let the reapers take him, hack him back, and make shep destroy or weaken them from the inside out so that TIM and the Alliance could then kill the reapers and save the day.

The reapers obviously wanted shep too for their own goals Harbi spoke often of wanting shep as his Saren by any means necessary and even if shep had to die to make that happen he'd just revive shep as a thrall like Saran. When Arrival occurred it was a trap to lure shep in via Hackett once there Harbi reprogrammed Shep's code so when the time was right they'd just hack shep to their side just like a geth and use him against the galaxy.

Shep was never meant to be able to choose what he wanted once he woke up on that table everyone else save the Alliance had bigger plans for him. The game was to then consist of shep trying as a human being to fight both the Reapers and TIM on not just a physical front but a psychological one as well as Shep mournfully asks if he is not really shep but an AI or to me perhaps something in between a husk and AI.

There may've even been a geth plot to take shep over too. The geth world mission was lacking so much in conflict that it was nearly a shell like a vampire had come in and sucked all it's blood out. I think the geth could've also wanted to use shep and why not? He's nearly a geth anyway he's just a the combination of their two most fav things organic and cybernetic. They had him very vulnerable there in their world inside their code they could've easily hacked him. Legion knew of this weakness and it wouldn't have been hard for either Legion, one of his geth, or a reaper and or a proreaper geth to get in there and take him over for a duration of the game and then Tali, Legion, and EDI need to hack him back.

While at one point BW may've wanted shep to be enslaved by TIM the reapers or both they divorced the plot from this path once ME3 began. It isn't feesable to keep asking them and demanding them to switch it back it's similar to asking and demanding them to switch back the plot to the dark theory and reinclude all the things they removed from it to fit in the new plot of bad programming dooms the world.

Modifié par thehomeworld, 01 décembre 2012 - 02:01 .

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*sigh*

A lot of the writing in ME3 doesn't make any sense. You assume malice (an indoctrination plot-twist yet to be revealed by BioWare), I assume stupidity (bad writing).

Hanlon's Razor states: Don't assume malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation.



So there you have it.

Fine then. I propose it goes both ways. You assume stupidity which is also a large assumption. Perhaps we are both right and wrong at the same time in different places in the story. Sound okay to just leave it at that?

Hanlon's Razor states that stupidity is less of an assumption that malice.


I honestly don't feel like discussing about this little thing much longer. So fine, lets agree to disagree. 

[dreamgazer]

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's the same thing in a different wrapper. Don't kid yourself.

He's not, really. There's a difference between the interpretation of Shepard undergoing indoctrination, which uses only what's observable in the game, and the "theory" that demands NWN-style results. Not so binary. There are other non-literal viewpoints, if someone wants to engage them.

[BatmanTurian]

davishepard wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's the same thing in a different wrapper. Don't kid yourself.

It's not. You are wrong, but will never admit it. Always trying to shove IT down one's throat.

says the guy attacking others for their interpretation as well.

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

davishepard wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's a thread addressing IT. If you don't like IT, there are other threads you can read. No one is forcing an interpretation on anyone, merely discussing them. If you wish to disrupt discussion on a story discussion forum, you are doing it wrong.

No, its not. Point to me where in the OP the words "Indocrination Theory" can be seen.

The thread is about why indoctrinating shepard doesn't make sense. Do the math.

Do the math yourself. Talking about whether Shepard does or doesn't get indoctrinated is not directly related to the actual Indoctrination Theory. As a matter of fact, I know people who believe that the reapers indeed try to indoctrinate Shepard, but they do not believe a single thing of the IT. They accept everything that happens as it is. No hallicunations, illusions, dreams or any of that crap.

One can be a "literalist" and still believe that the reapers tried to indoctrinate Shepard. The Indoctrination Theory has nothing to do with it.

It's the same thing in a different wrapper. Don't kid yourself.

No it isn't. It seems you don't even understand your own theory.

The IT assumes the endings aren't real. What I was talking about is someone who accepts the endings are  real, yet also believes the reapers tried to indoctrinate Shepard. Completely different thing bro.

And IT makes more sense than that. But if it involves indoctrination of Shepard, then it falls under IT. It might be slightly different, such as TTG's Con theory but it comes down to the same deal.

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

*sigh*

A lot of the writing in ME3 doesn't make any sense. You assume malice (an indoctrination plot-twist yet to be revealed by BioWare), I assume stupidity (bad writing).

Hanlon's Razor states: Don't assume malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation.



So there you have it.

Fine then. I propose it goes both ways. You assume stupidity which is also a large assumption. Perhaps we are both right and wrong at the same time in different places in the story. Sound okay to just leave it at that?

Hanlon's Razor states that stupidity is less of an assumption that malice.


I honestly don't feel like discussing about this little thing much longer. So fine, lets agree to disagree. 

Alright, no more arguing from me then.

[davishepard]

BatmanTurian wrote...

IT IT IT IT IT

I would have more sucess arguing with the door in my kitchen.
Oh, well, do what you - really - must.

[Jadebaby]

JShepppp wrote...

TL;DR: It is much more efficient for the Reapers to kill Shepard than indoctrinate him - thus trying to indoctrinate Shepard is pointless.

You wasted a lot of time on this, I feel sorry for you because of that.

If you played ME2, you'd know that Harbinger wants to *dominate* Shepard. Not kill him/her.

It would strike a much more significant blow to the galaxy if their top soldier became indoctrinated and started fighting for the other side, rather than just simply being killed.

[davishepard]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

TL;DR: It is much more efficient for the Reapers to kill Shepard than indoctrinate him - thus trying to indoctrinate Shepard is pointless.

You wasted a lot of time on this, I feel sorry for you because of that.

If you played ME2, you'd know that Harbinger wants to *dominate* Shepard. Not kill him/her.

It would strike a much more significant blow to the galaxy if their top soldier became indoctrinated and started fighting for the other side, rather than just simply being killed.

That's why Shepard may die in one ending?

[Jadebaby]

davishepard wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

TL;DR: It is much more efficient for the Reapers to kill Shepard than indoctrinate him - thus trying to indoctrinate Shepard is pointless.

You wasted a lot of time on this, I feel sorry for you because of that.

If you played ME2, you'd know that Harbinger wants to *dominate* Shepard. Not kill him/her.

It would strike a much more significant blow to the galaxy if their top soldier became indoctrinated and started fighting for the other side, rather than just simply being killed.

That's why Shepard may die in one ending?

Can you be more specific?

[BatmanTurian]

davishepard wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

IT IT IT IT IT

I would have more sucess arguing with the door in my kitchen.
Oh, well, do what you - really - must.

You sound the same to me, except the opposite. The difference is that I attempt to be polite to you.

[davishepard]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Can you be more specific?

Yes.

www.youtube.com/watch

[DoomsdayDevice]

thehomeworld wrote...

The dreams weren't indoctrination but a reflection of Shep's guilt notice how no one living was present? The reapers show those living to their victims and then in dream show them dying to encourage the thrall to work with them to save them. The reapers do not show the dead to encourage the thrall to aid them what's the point? Unless you're going to show the thrall by working with us we'll bring back you dead love ones? The dream is shep's guilt in nightmares nothing more.

I'll tell you what the point was.

In the dreams, you hear voices of dead crewmates, and you chase a boy who, no matter how hard you try to save him, always burns before your eyes.

So yes, the dreams are about survivor guilt. How does that tie in to indoctrination and the endings? Simple.

What is the number one reason non-destroyers pick their ending? They don't want to kill EDI and the Geth.
All of this is preparing you for the ending, where the "catalyst"  is trying to sway you from the option that is least favourable to him by telling you that your friends will die. And he just so happens to take the form of that poor little boy.

The Reapers try to exploit the human weakness of wanting to save everyone. The key is understanding that you can't always win and save everyone at the same time. As a military leader, sometimes you need to make the hard
choices and sacrifice the few to save the many.

Garrus:"If just one survivor is left standing at the end of the war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen."

Even Omega DLC elaborates on this:

Aria: "Nyreen's code of ethics won't let her sit by if civilians are exposed. It's what makes her utterly predictable and easy to manipulate."

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 01 décembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[Jadebaby]

davishepard wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Can you be more specific?

Yes.

www.youtube.com/watch

lol you must see the error in this..

[BatmanTurian]

thehomeworld wrote...

*snip of awesome*

That's a cool way of looking at the story. I disagree but concede you could be correct.