739 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Seival wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

The official story is so vague that almost everything might as well be fan fiction. It's pretty much encouraged even. "Speculations for everyone".

Good. Fan-fic section will serve its purpose well, I believe

You don't seem to understand what fanfic is.

Theory = "I think this is really happening, and this is why."
Fanfiction = "I think this isn't really, at least necessarily, happening, but I'll either write a story about this for my own reasons."

There CAN BE and IS Indoctrination Theory based fanfiction. Like all fanfiction, it is of varying quality.

Duh.

But IT itself is a theory with basis. Whether it is true, partially true, or entirely false, is something up for debate until there is future confirmation or denial by Bioware, or future content that outright disproves it. And no, as far as I'm considered, EC and Levi and even Citadel DLC bolster at least a personal deviative view of mine that stems from IT. I don't really think IT itself is entirely right though. But oh well, it's a fan THEORY, not fan FICTION.

The IT thread was pushed out, at least directly, because of trolling (on BOTH ends), a thread going on so long that moderation would be very difficult for it, and because it's enough of a 'group' of the same people discussing, that structurally, a Group would be better suited for it (despite how BSN Group function is very poor for any real discussion, haha).

[SwobyJ]

Seival wrote...

Kurremurre wrote...

Seival wrote...

Fans of happy ending mod also assume MEHEM to be their "official" ending. But they learned to use fan-fic section for their assumptions eventually. ITers should learn that too. It doesn't matter they believe that "IT is better ending". The official story is different. And fan-fics should be discussed in the corresponding section.

I admit I've been out of the loop for quite a while, but considering that MEHEM is a mod - thus patently non-canon - it doesn't seem to compare. Don't IT supporters simply interpret what is already there to begin with in order to reach a conclusion as to the true nature of the ending? That sounds like a legitimate theory (even if it is untenable), not fanfiction.

Every story-related content created or modified by fans (no matter if it corresponds to the official story, or it's just a theory regarding the story, or an addition to the story) is a fan-fiction or fan-art, and should be discussed in fan-fiction or fan-art forums. That's very logical, I believe... Everything created by devs is official, and so shouldn't be discussed in fan-fiction or fan-art forums. Also very logical.

IT is a fan-created text content about modifying the official story with some very questionable things. And this is just as simple fact.

IT doesn't modify anything so I dunno what you're talking about. What, the few people who wanted Bioware to make 'IT Happen'? That's not IT itself, and that should be obvious.

IT DOES either presume or hope for a 'post-Breath' content, sure. That doesn't have anything to do with fanfiction though. It's a kind of thing that people just generally talk about when it comes to game stories. "Oh wouldn't it be cool if we get more Thane content?" "The Illusive Man might try to make his own Reaper and this is why!" It's predictive, not fanfiction.

[SwobyJ]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

If I have the fate of the galaxy in my hands I'm going to take the option that I know will definitely destroy my enemy. There is too much uncertainty with control or synthesis, that's putting a lot of trust in something that was trying to kill me a minute ago. No matter what your character is paragon, neutral or renegade any way you look at it, in those two options you must trust what the catalyst (a Reaper) is telling you.

If you can't trust the Catalyst for the Control and Synthesis options how can you trust its word that shooting a fuel line will activate the Crucible, instead of making it inoperable or, at worst, blowing the entire thing up?

We can't implicitly trust the Catalyst on anything because it convieniently appears in the last 10ish minutes of gameplay. We either take it on its words of massive implications, or we reject it, or somewhere in between.

I CHOOSE to trust CERTAIN things he says, especially regarding the Reapers' backstory. But much of everything else is suspect to me, because I don't think Reapers really see much of a difference between the virtual and the physical. It's all the same, or at least just different planes/realms that organics mostly can barely comprehend, just as synthetics can barely comprehend the organic perspective.

[SwobyJ]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Catalyst's AI core? Heh. It'd be funny if all Destroy did was turn the Reapers loose from the Catalyst's plan. After that, of course, no more Mr. Nice Guy from them; they'd proceed to conquer the galaxy and rule it for good. There's no sensible reason to let organics ever have have mass effect technology or interstellar travel.

But you didn't really answer ImaginaryMatter's question. How do you know that Destroy is Destroy? How is it more trustworthy than the other options?

(*sorry for so many posts, I'm just on a roll, and bored. Hi.)

Yep. However, I don't think that all of them would. Seriously. I think some would even be outright allies. The AI in Hyperion all had their own positions on things, including the, ha, Reapers.

Harbinger would probably be an issue though. He seemed imo to relish his role and importance instead of see it as a duty. He is now known as the Leviathan Reaper, after all.

But this is all based on my thoughts that the processes/virtuality inside a Reaper is a galaxy in itself. Basically a pocket virtual universe where as many people as possible are preserved in their (or their chosen Avatar's) image of peace. Wild speculation on this, I know. But if that's somehow the case, then yes, they'd all have their own views, and its the Intelligence that just provides them direction through the Cycle/Reaping methodology.


OK DONE NAO

Modifié par SwobyJ, 02 janvier 2014 - 10:12 .

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
The Catalyst's AI core? Heh. It'd be funny if all Destroy did was turn the Reapers loose from the Catalyst's plan. After that, of course, no more Mr. Nice Guy from them; they'd proceed to conquer the galaxy and rule it for good. There's no sensible reason to let organics ever have have mass effect technology or interstellar travel.

You mean exactly like what could potentially happen to the Reapers following the Synthesis ending, then?

AlanC9 wrote...
But you didn't really answer ImaginaryMatter's question. How do you know that Destroy is Destroy? How is it more trustworthy than the other options?

Answered that one plenty of times (although most recently on the Destroy mindset thread).  It boils down to intent.  Intent is pivotal in the function of any device.  So where does the intent behind the choices come from?

Destroying the Reapers can be considered a legitimate function of the Crucible because Hackett, the Alliance and the scientists, engineers and militaries of the various races Shepard recruits built the Crucible with little idea of what it's function was, but with the intent of using it to Destroy the Reapers.

The same with Control.  TIM had access to the Crucible's schematics, before it even arrived with the Alliance's research teams in fact.  Couple that with the technology he managed to recover from the Collector base, the experiments he was conducting on Horizon and the fact that he relocated to the Citadel (presumably with the tech he had develped) prior to it moving to Earth and it's easy to believe that TIM was able to implent his technology in such a manner that would make Controlling the Reapers a feasible possibility.

As for Synthesis?  Well, we know exactly where that idea and that option came from.  After all, they have "tried a... similar... solution before".

But of course, this isn't the Destroy thread, this is a thread about the Indoctrination Theory... so from a non-literal point of view where these events are taking place in Shepard's subconcious then we would have to look at the symbology... and again, the intent.  Again, the intent of the Allied forces as they raced desperately to the beam was finding a way to activate the Crucible, Destroy the Reapers and end the war once and for all.  If we assume the end choice is an indoctrination attempt, and the Reapers are attempting to subvert Shepard's will or turn him/her from their path, then Destroy represents Shepard sticking to the plan and staying true to the goal - as can be inferred by the injured and disorientated Shepard holding on to his gun and becoming more confident, more determined and more resolute as he/she shoots at whatever the hell the tube is supposed to represent.  And as also can by inferred by Shepard throwing his/her weapon away in every other choice.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
The Catalyst's AI core? Heh. It'd be funny if all Destroy did was turn the Reapers loose from the Catalyst's plan. After that, of course, no more Mr. Nice Guy from them; they'd proceed to conquer the galaxy and rule it for good. There's no sensible reason to let organics ever have have mass effect technology or interstellar travel.

It's also very possible they'd turn on each other or splinter into Reaper factions if we assume that their mind is actually the amalgamation of their race's individuals. Perhaps Reapers made from organic races vs. Reapers made from synthetics (PURE SYNTHETICS. PURGE THE HALF-BREEDS)

[ElSuperGecko]

SwobyJ wrote...
But IT itself is a theory with basis. Whether it is true, partially true, or entirely false, is something up for debate until there is future confirmation or denial by Bioware, or future content that outright disproves it. And no, as far as I'm considered, EC and Levi and even Citadel DLC bolster at least a personal deviative view of mine that stems from IT. I don't really think IT itself is entirely right though. But oh well, it's a fan THEORY, not fan FICTION.

Before we get someone bleating on about "Theory - LOL no", we should really point out the dictionary definition, for clarity's sake:

Theory (the·o·ry):

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (nope)
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.(nope)
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.(nope)
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.  (there we go)
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. (not really)
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.  (and there we go again)

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 02 janvier 2014 - 10:21 .

[Lunch Box1912]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

johnnythao89 wrote...

Because it' was never intentional for the IT to exist. I do like the IT though, and I do believe in it, but whatever...nothing's cannon anyways....

It exists to an extent just not to the level everyone was hoping Bioware would confirm it exist.

What do you mean by this?

Indoctrination is in the codex, it's in the game. Shepard is batting elements of it in ME3.

[ElSuperGecko]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...
Indoctrination is in the codex, it's in the game. Shepard is batting elements of it in ME3.

Yep, that much at least is undeniable.  The question isn't if  Shepard is fighting against Reaper indoctrination, it's when Shepard's fighting Reaper indoctrination and how.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 02 janvier 2014 - 11:44 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Answered that one plenty of times (although most recently on the Destroy mindset thread).  It boils down to intent.  Intent is pivotal in the function of any device.  So where does the intent behind the choices come from?

Destroying the Reapers can be considered a legitimate function of the Crucible because Hackett, the Alliance and the scientists, engineers and militaries of the various races Shepard recruits built the Crucible with little idea of what it's function was, but with the intent of using it to Destroy the Reapers.

The same with Control.

Still didn't answer the question, really. How do you know that [shoot the tube] = [destroy the Reapers] -- apart from some unexplained vision of Anderson -- rather than, say, causing an explosion that damages the Crucible beyond function. There's no real rhyme or reason between cause and effect here, nor are you told ahead of time that that is what it will take; it's no more reasonable than believing that holding the rods or jumping into the device will trigger Destroy.

The Catalyst could employ "the switcheroo" here and you'd be helpless to know.

I mean, if you subscribe to "Deception"-nonsense or claim not to trust the kid,' you should really choose the opposite of you we're lead to believe.

[Lunch Box1912]

over analyzing, we split the finest hair folks

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 17 février 2014 - 01:36 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

over analyzing, we spit the finest hair folks

Believe me, I don't actually think any of this. It being a game and things working out for that reason is enough for me. If we're going to be pedantic, though, let's apply that scrutiny to both sides of the argument.

[Lunch Box1912]

I agree with that, What I'm simply implying is pretend all three options turn out to be a hoax and you were simply blowing up Hackets office chair (for conversation sake) After playing through Mass Effect 1,2 and 3 when you get to the catalyst and he presents these choices to you and you reflect on the events throughout the series to logically deduce what you must do, why the hell would still pick control or synthesis? The first thing I thought about when I saw the control tube was The Illusive Man, how did control work out for him? Then I was showed the synthesis beam and first thought in my head was Saren, how did synthesis work out for Saren. So I chose destroy.

If you could break down the reasons you made the decision you made to its simplest form how do you make that decision throwing the demises of Saren and TIM to the wayside?

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 07 janvier 2014 - 03:09 .

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
You mean exactly like what could potentially happen to the Reapers following the Synthesis ending, then?

Better that it comes from destroying the Catalyst; there's more irony if Shepard causes the disaster by opposing the Catalyst rather than by cooperating with him.

I don't follow your argument about intent. Hackett's intent would matter if he'd designed the thing, but he didn't.

[AlanC9]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

If you could break down the reasons you made the decision you made to it's simplest form how do you make that decision throwing the demises of Saren and TIM to the wayside?

Because their demises aren't relevant to the merits of the decision. TIM didn't seize control of the Reapers, but he didn't ever actually try; Shepard can point this out.  And Saren was in no position to bring about Synthesis, so his suicide doesn't say anything except that he realized his plan wasn't actually a plan. And if Shepard shoots Saren that proves even less.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 janvier 2014 - 02:21 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Why is this thread still here?

[ImaginaryMatter]

I never understood the notion of Saren wanting a Synthesis of sorts. He only expressed the idea in the Council chambers and by then he was so far down the path of Indoctrination that it was unlikely something his original self wanted in any form. Instead Saren's sins were the Illusive Man's, he thought he was beyond the control of the Reapers and that he could manipulate them to an extent; sure, it wasn't literal control over the Reapers but he did carry the same idea that Organics could outplay them, when the entire time he played directly into their hands... or space tentacles.

[ImaginaryMatter]

DinoSteve wrote...

Why is this thread still here?

I think because we're all flirting the line of the Indoctrination Theory. That we're not so much talking about the IT itself but rather how different forces, both inside and outside the game, react to it. Either that or the mods are lazy or beyond by comprehension to understand.

[SwobyJ]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I never understood the notion of Saren wanting a Synthesis of sorts. He only expressed the idea in the Council chambers and by then he was so far down the path of Indoctrination that it was unlikely something his original self wanted in any form. Instead Saren's sins were the Illusive Man's, he thought he was beyond the control of the Reapers and that he could manipulate them to an extent; sure, it wasn't literal control over the Reapers but he did carry the same idea that Organics could outplay them, when the entire time he played directly into their hands... or space tentacles.

And then we have the ending of ME3 where we're supposed to believe the Reapers will present the solutions to our problems on a silver platter.

Different tone to it, yes, totally, but too similar to TIM and Saren to keep my comfortable about ...anything.

[AlanC9]

SwobyJ wrote...

And then we have the ending of ME3 where we're supposed to believe the Reapers will present the solutions to our problems on a silver platter.

Our problems?

[SwobyJ]

AlanC9 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

And then we have the ending of ME3 where we're supposed to believe the Reapers will present the solutions to our problems on a silver platter.

Our problems?

...Yes?

Those problems being at least one of:

-The Reapers themselves
-The galaxy's infighting
-The organic/synthetic conflict

No matter how we play the game, at least one of these is a significant problem to Shepard.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

I agree with that, What I'm simply implying is pretend all three options turn out to be a hoax and you where simply blowing up Hackets office chair (for conversation sake) After playing through Mass Effect 1,2 and 3 when you get to the catalyst and he presents these choices to you and you reflect on the events throughout the series to logically deduce what you must do, why the hell would still pick control or synthesis? The first thing I thought about when I saw the control tube was The Illusive Man, how did control work out for him? Then I was showed the synthesis beam and first thought in my head was Saren, how did synthesis work out for Saren. So I chose destroy.

If you could break down the reasons you made the decision you made to it's simplest form how do you make that decision throwing the demises of Saren and TIM to the wayside?

Oh that's another thing entirely. I will answer it for you, though, because: I. Can't. Helpmyself.

1.) I didn't think of Saren at all, in fact. I actually thought of Shepard. I legitimately thought Shepard being cyborg himself had something to do with this option being possible (now I think it's just a forced sacrifice for this ending).

That begs the question, though, why Saren is never brought up here if this was indeed the same thing he wanted, not even with EC. No vision of Saren jumping into the beam. No, "Huh. So Saren was right after all." I think it was supposed to be different.

2.) Despite Cerberus and TIM in ME3 I was never against Control, because I thought anything's better than what the Reapers destroying everything and everyone. And then I really can't knock TIM for anything he did because his plan was 100 times more intelligent than Shepard's. TIM actually had a method to his madness -- find a weakness in the Reapers' system and exploit it. Shepard, OTOH, puts all his chips on an alien device mainly because he can't think of anything better.

It's [tested theory] vs. [shot-in-the-dark]. The former is better 9 times out of 10. This just happens to be the one.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

StreetMagic wrote...

Both of their plans are the same in that respect. Either one is about playing with technology you don't understand. The main difference with TIM is he isn't afraid of any aspect of it. I guess you have to go to his comic book to get more into this, but he's always been a strong believer that humans can adapt to anything. They illustrate this with how he operated in the FCW. He was quickly figuring out some of Turian gizmos their military had left around. Like a child picking up a cell phone and figuring it out quickly. It surprised one of the Turians he captured. And TIM took the same stance once he ran into Reaper tech. That's his downfall though. Reaper tech isn't really tech. It might as well be mind controlling space magic made by dark wizards from hell. It's too beyond the point for a measely human to adapt and harness. Not directly at least. What kind of plan is that? To take this stuff and put it in your head. "Confidence born of ignorance."

We have an idea of how indoctrination works; there's a Codex on it. It's all control-signals. TIM recognized that (the artifact from ME:E gave him info on the Reapers) and tried to turn that against them. He did have success with it on a small scale, too; enough that the Reapers themselves saw it as a threat and destroyed everything.

Shepard has no method to his madness.

[Seival]

SwobyJ wrote...

Seival wrote...

Kurremurre wrote...

Seival wrote...

Fans of happy ending mod also assume MEHEM to be their "official" ending. But they learned to use fan-fic section for their assumptions eventually. ITers should learn that too. It doesn't matter they believe that "IT is better ending". The official story is different. And fan-fics should be discussed in the corresponding section.

I admit I've been out of the loop for quite a while, but considering that MEHEM is a mod - thus patently non-canon - it doesn't seem to compare. Don't IT supporters simply interpret what is already there to begin with in order to reach a conclusion as to the true nature of the ending? That sounds like a legitimate theory (even if it is untenable), not fanfiction.

Every story-related content created or modified by fans (no matter if it corresponds to the official story, or it's just a theory regarding the story, or an addition to the story) is a fan-fiction or fan-art, and should be discussed in fan-fiction or fan-art forums. That's very logical, I believe... Everything created by devs is official, and so shouldn't be discussed in fan-fiction or fan-art forums. Also very logical.

IT is a fan-created text content about modifying the official story with some very questionable things. And this is just as simple fact.

IT doesn't modify anything so I dunno what you're talking about. What, the few people who wanted Bioware to make 'IT Happen'? That's not IT itself, and that should be obvious.

IT DOES either presume or hope for a 'post-Breath' content, sure. That doesn't have anything to do with fanfiction though. It's a kind of thing that people just generally talk about when it comes to game stories. "Oh wouldn't it be cool if we get more Thane content?" "The Illusive Man might try to make his own Reaper and this is why!" It's predictive, not fanfiction.

IT modifies the ending, so it becomes different from the official ending. Who cares that modification exists only on a paper? Lots of other fan-fictions exist only on a paper too, and that doesn't stop them from being fan-fictions. Just observe the fan creations forum.

You may call IT "an interpretation" of course, but this also doesn't change the fact that it's a fan-fiction. Fans may interprete whatever they want whatever they like, but they aren't working in BioWare, so everything they can imagine regarding the story will always remain fan-made, i.e. fan-fiction.

Modifié par Seival, 03 janvier 2014 - 07:11 .