Guest_SwobyJ_*
Cyberfrog81 wrote...
That's not a paradigm shift.
And what we have (in the literal perspective) is a human talking to a genocidal, manipulative AI that plans to turn humanity into this cycle's Reaper. Attach a big-ass power source to the Citadel, and suddenly the two are saving the galaxy together? By Shepard committing suicide, no less.
Yeah, that's not fishy or stupid at all.
. Well saidHYR 2.0 wrote...
soidjasojjfoioadsjdoisaj!!!
Reth Shepherd wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
*snip*
Indoctrination is simply not doable at this point, because the player basically is already "indoctrinated" against the Reapers' agenda (and even from an in-universe standpoint, the Reapers do not pull it off with a 10 minute conversation). The best that the catalyst can hope to do is facilitate a compromise, which all options do, unless the player refuses to choose.
*snip*
So, I take it you've never read Mass Effect: Retribution? There is a scene near the end where ***SPOILERS***
Paul Grayson, who is now a tool of the Reapers, manages to bring Kahlee Sanders under his sway in the course of, yes, a 10-minute conversation. The sequence ends with the chilling sentence, "Kahlee was so far under the Reaper's spell, she wasn't even aware she was nodding along in agreement."
***End Spoilers***
As a matter of fact, this sequence, written by Drew Karpyshyn (please tell me you know who HE is!), very closely mirrors the sequence at the end of ME3, where Shepard is talking to the Starkid. It starts out with the protagonist arguing back with general defiance, and by the time the conversation is over, they've switched to meekly agreeing. Shepard shows slightly more resistance at the end than Kahlee did, but very little. "I...don't know." It isn't true indoctrination, yes, but on a temporary basis it serves much the same function.
By the way, Indoctrination is the term used for the "brainwashing" effect the [/b]Reapers and their technology have on organic beings.
The Grey Nayr wrote...
*snip*
HYR 2.0 wrote...
The Grey Nayr wrote...
*snip*
Not to mention he's free to choose any of them, and can even refuse to choose anything.
People really have no clue about indoctrination.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Indoctrination. A few dictionary definitions...
"To imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle"
Source: http://www.merriam-w...ry/indoctrinate
"To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view"
Source: http://www.thefreedi.../indoctrination
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine)."
Source: http://en.wikipedia..../Indoctrination
"To teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically."
Source: http://dictionary.re...octrination?s=t
... and none of that appropriately describes Shepard's exchange with the catalyst at the grand finale of ME3. But, we'll get to that later!
Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 11 décembre 2012 - 03:11 .
Steelcan wrote...
The reapers do indoctrinate though, it is not their primary purpose, it is just part of what they are. They can't control it, it just happens.
Actually, if Bioware did that, they'd be happy so the notion that "none of them would be any the wiser" doesn't apply. They'd look like geniuses compared to everyone else with egg on the face. And everyone that sits there with some self-satisfied grin on their face thinking other people should just learn to live with the endings that the Bioware gods have created, would have to eat their words.The Grey Nayr wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
The Grey Nayr wrote...
*snip*
Not to mention he's free to choose any of them, and can even refuse to choose anything.
People really have no clue about indoctrination.
Indoctrination is just their fallback plan because they don't want to admit that Mass Effect 3 just isn't what they expect. It allows them hope that Bioware will add the ending they really do want. Using "plotholes" and things they don't understand and twisting them as some convoluted way to associate with the real symptoms. And using small facts like Mac Walters studied psychology and wrote the whole ending himself, when they don't have a lick of psych training themselves to be able to tell if he did use anything.
All they've done is live in denial and actually give Bioware the perfect loophole should they ever decide to change anything. Bioware could do the IT thing and make a new ending and just say "it was planned all along" and none of them would be any the wiser.
3DandBeyond wrote...
Steelcan wrote...
The reapers do indoctrinate though, it is not their primary purpose, it is just part of what they are. They can't control it, it just happens.
This is true because even artifacts have the ability to indoctrinate.
pirate1802 wrote...
What the fudge! I saw a duck and trying really hard to see the rabbit O.o
Modifié par MegaSovereign, 07 janvier 2013 - 05:19 .
Modifié par pirate1802, 07 janvier 2013 - 05:50 .
pirate1802 wrote...
Correct me if I' wrong, but doesn't ME2 have a similar point? I mean we are told to destroy the collector homeworld all the time, then at the 11th hour TIM calls you and tells that its possible to leave it intact?
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 janvier 2013 - 05:58 .
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 janvier 2013 - 01:59 .
HYR 2.0 wrote...
** 1/23 Update **
-- The PST pic in my sig is now a clickable link to this thread.
-- “The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds
which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be
mind.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche.
-- Paradigm Shift as a Common Story-Telling Technique.
Indeed, PST would not truly be worthy of the title "theory" if this phenomenon were not observed and proven to exist elsewhere. Otherwise, it would be merely hypothesis. Fortunately, I do have that.
Here's a list of examples I thought of that fit this trend I have observed...
0.) ME3 Ending (at face-value).
1.) Urdnot Wrex vs. the krogan stereotype.
2.) Garrus Vakarian vs. the turian stereotype.
3.) EDI & Legion vs. the AI (and geth) stereotype.
4a.) The Collector Base -- entrusting the base to Cerberus.
4b.) The Collector Base -- alternative solution
5.) The "Suicide" Mission.
6.) Hero/Villain perception of Han'Gerrel and Zal'Koris between ME2, ME3.
(0) I have talked at length in this OP about the face-value ending and the common perceptions (paradigms) it shatters.
#1-3 cover three characters who buck certain stereotypes surrounding some major species in the Mass Effect galaxy. (1) The krogan are perceived as wandering criminals and thugs with no real redeeming qualities and a lust for violence; Urdnot Wrex shows us that some krogan can be reasonable and recognize that they need to move forward from their old ways. (2) In ME1, humanity's uneasy relations with the turians is very prominent, and Commander Shepard himself can often voice mistrust towards them; Garrus Vakarian's loyalty to Shepard's command, however, shows that both sides *can* work together. The Normandy itself is an example of this, if not a prominent one. (3) In ME1, Shepard does not have any good experiences with synthetics not completely bound to programming constraints on their freedom, especially not the geth. EDI (mandatory) and Legion (optional) however show us that not all synthetics are a danger/threat to organics.
(4a) See the provided link. To summarize, ME2 hammered across a point to the player that Cerberus cannot be trusted... however, the player ultimately benefits the most by choosing to give them the Collector Base at the end of the game than not. (4b) To a lesser extent, Shepard/player is under the impression that the objective is to destroy the base, but later learn that the Collectors can be wiped out while preserving the base for study with a radiation pulse (special thanks to pirate1802 for pointing this one out, page 2 of this thread).
(5) The only message repeated ad nauseum even more than "You can't trust Cerberus" is "The mission to/from the Omega-4 relay is suicide." However, casualties are not only avoidable, but very easily so. It's actually harder to lose the entire squad on the mission than it is to bring them all back alive. Even if the entire squad and crew dies, the Normandy always comes back home with Joker and EDI at the bare minimum. In truth, this example may be more of simple hype than anything, but the fact exacts that it is perceived as impossible to complete the mission with no losses.
Last one I was able to think of... (6) when we are first introduced to the quarian Admiralty Board in ME2, we see Admiral Zal'Koris as a bit of an antagonist, seeking to prove our squadmate Tali'Zora's guilt for political gain against an imminent geth-quarian war. A war-supporting Admiral Han'Gerrel, on the other hand, is more reasonable to us and seems to sincerely want to find Tali innocent of those charges. In this iteration, we seem to identify Koris as the bad guy, and Gerrel as our friend. Come ME3, this changes for players who wish to resolve the geth-quarian conflict peacefully. Koris is an advocate for stopping the war and coexisting with the geth. Gerrel is determined to take back the homeworld at all costs, even to the point where he endangers Commander Shepard's life.
There's no ambiguity in this, these are established plot events. The phenomenon is a very real aspect of the trilogy.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
** 1/23 Update **
-- The PST pic in my sig is now a clickable link to this thread.
-- “The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds
which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be
mind.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche.
-- Paradigm Shift as a Common Story-Telling Technique.
Indeed, PST would not truly be worthy of the title "theory" if this phenomenon were not observed and proven to exist elsewhere. Otherwise, it would be merely hypothesis. Fortunately, I do have that.
Here's a list of examples I thought of that fit this trend I have observed...
0.) ME3 Ending (at face-value).
1.) Urdnot Wrex vs. the krogan stereotype.
2.) Garrus Vakarian vs. the turian stereotype.
3.) EDI & Legion vs. the AI (and geth) stereotype.
4a.) The Collector Base -- entrusting the base to Cerberus.
4b.) The Collector Base -- alternative solution
5.) The "Suicide" Mission.
6.) Hero/Villain perception of Han'Gerrel and Zal'Koris between ME2, ME3.
(0) I have talked at length in this OP about the face-value ending and the common perceptions (paradigms) it shatters.
#1-3 cover three characters who buck certain stereotypes surrounding some major species in the Mass Effect galaxy. (1) The krogan are perceived as wandering criminals and thugs with no real redeeming qualities and a lust for violence; Urdnot Wrex shows us that some krogan can be reasonable and recognize that they need to move forward from their old ways. (2) In ME1, humanity's uneasy relations with the turians is very prominent, and Commander Shepard himself can often voice mistrust towards them; Garrus Vakarian's loyalty to Shepard's command, however, shows that both sides *can* work together. The Normandy itself is an example of this, if not a prominent one. (3) In ME1, Shepard does not have any good experiences with synthetics not completely bound to programming constraints on their freedom, especially not the geth. EDI (mandatory) and Legion (optional) however show us that not all synthetics are a danger/threat to organics.
(4a) See the provided link. To summarize, ME2 hammered across a point to the player that Cerberus cannot be trusted... however, the player ultimately benefits the most by choosing to give them the Collector Base at the end of the game than not. (4b) To a lesser extent, Shepard/player is under the impression that the objective is to destroy the base, but later learn that the Collectors can be wiped out while preserving the base for study with a radiation pulse (special thanks to pirate1802 for pointing this one out, page 2 of this thread).
(5) The only message repeated ad nauseum even more than "You can't trust Cerberus" is "The mission to/from the Omega-4 relay is suicide." However, casualties are not only avoidable, but very easily so. It's actually harder to lose the entire squad on the mission than it is to bring them all back alive. Even if the entire squad and crew dies, the Normandy always comes back home with Joker and EDI at the bare minimum. In truth, this example may be more of simple hype than anything, but the fact exacts that it is perceived as impossible to complete the mission with no losses.
Last one I was able to think of... (6) when we are first introduced to the quarian Admiralty Board in ME2, we see Admiral Zal'Koris as a bit of an antagonist, seeking to prove our squadmate Tali'Zora's guilt for political gain against an imminent geth-quarian war. A war-supporting Admiral Han'Gerrel, on the other hand, is more reasonable to us and seems to sincerely want to find Tali innocent of those charges. In this iteration, we seem to identify Koris as the bad guy, and Gerrel as our friend. Come ME3, this changes for players who wish to resolve the geth-quarian conflict peacefully. Koris is an advocate for stopping the war and coexisting with the geth. Gerrel is determined to take back the homeworld at all costs, even to the point where he endangers Commander Shepard's life.
There's no ambiguity in this, these are established plot events. The phenomenon is a very real aspect of the trilogy.
Guest_Sion1138_*
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Reth Shepherd wrote...
Out of curiosity, how do you get the idea that Shepard is off limits to indoctrination? What evidence do you have
Shepard isn't. The player is.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
The Grey Nayr wrote...
*snip*
Not to mention he's free to choose any of them, and can even refuse to choose anything.
People really have no clue about indoctrination.
Retour en haut