335 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

BleedingUranium wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Compelling evidence for sure. I've never seen this video. But if the dream sequences represent Shepard being slowly indoctrinated, why was he ever allowed to reach Earth, let alone the beam?

Because being in the process of being indoctrinated is not the same actaully being indoctrinated. It's the difference between dying and being dead, or the difference between being tortured and the moment you break.

So... what's your point? Are you saying the reapers let Shepard defeat them on purpose?

[BleedingUranium]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Compelling evidence for sure. I've never seen this video. But if the dream sequences represent Shepard being slowly indoctrinated, why was he ever allowed to reach Earth, let alone the beam?

Because being in the process of being indoctrinated is not the same actaully being indoctrinated. It's the difference between dying and being dead, or the difference between being tortured and the moment you break.

So... what's your point? Are you saying the reapers let Shepard defeat them on purpose?

Not at all, they let Shepard think he's defeated them. The end choices are just metaphors for what Shepard's mindset is, they don't actually do anything outside of that.

Destroy isn't "Destroy the Reapers", it's "Do you want to destroy the Reapers?". It's a question, as are the others. You don't control the Reapers, you're being asked if you want to control them, or if you think it's possible.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

BleedingUranium wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Compelling evidence for sure. I've never seen this video. But if the dream sequences represent Shepard being slowly indoctrinated, why was he ever allowed to reach Earth, let alone the beam?

Because being in the process of being indoctrinated is not the same actaully being indoctrinated. It's the difference between dying and being dead, or the difference between being tortured and the moment you break.

So... what's your point? Are you saying the reapers let Shepard defeat them on purpose?

Not at all, they let Shepard think he's defeated them. The end choices are just metaphors for what Shepard's mindset is, they don't actually do anything outside of that.

Destroy isn't "Destroy the Reapers", it's "Do you want to destroy the Reapers?". It's a question, as are the others. You don't control the Reapers, you're being asked if you want to control them, or if you think it's possible.

Everything you just said is completely wrong and nonsencial.

[69_Gio_69]

You know. We can all start talking about dreams, how long indoctrination takes to work, if Shepard kneeling means anything etc. But actually the most obvious and in your face clue is the huskification in the control and synthesis ending. I mean why the f*** does Shepard change in a husk? It is THAT obvious. If IT would be confirmed we would all say: how couldn't we have seen it before?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

69_Gio_69 wrote...

You know. We can all start talking about dreams, how long indoctrination takes to work, if Shepard kneeling means anything etc. But actually the most obvious and in your face clue is the huskification in the control and synthesis ending. I mean why the f*** does Shepard change in a husk? It is THAT obvious. If IT would be confirmed we would all say: how couldn't we have seen it before?

Shepard is basically a cyborg. What you are seeing as his skin dissolves is the cybernetics that were used in his reconstruction.

[BleedingUranium]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

69_Gio_69 wrote...

You know. We can all start talking about dreams, how long indoctrination takes to work, if Shepard kneeling means anything etc. But actually the most obvious and in your face clue is the huskification in the control and synthesis ending. I mean why the f*** does Shepard change in a husk? It is THAT obvious. If IT would be confirmed we would all say: how couldn't we have seen it before?

Shepard is basically a cyborg. What you are seeing as his skin dissolves is the cybernetics that were used in his reconstruction.

Reaper parts and all? Yeahno.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Shepard does have husk-like eyes when going full Renegade in ME2 (sure, the color is red instead of the typical husk color but still).

[TheConstantOne]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

69_Gio_69 wrote...

You know. We can all start talking about dreams, how long indoctrination takes to work, if Shepard kneeling means anything etc. But actually the most obvious and in your face clue is the huskification in the control and synthesis ending. I mean why the f*** does Shepard change in a husk? It is THAT obvious. If IT would be confirmed we would all say: how couldn't we have seen it before?

Shepard is basically a cyborg. What you are seeing as his skin dissolves is the cybernetics that were used in his reconstruction.

Shepard is not that much of a cyborg.  Quite a few portions of him sure, but the Control and Synthesis endings show synthetic augmentations on Shepard's body absolutely everywhere.  Furthermore, the Illusive Man would not have risked using Reaper tech to rebuild Shepard when he hadn't yet field tested the augmentations on more expendable agents

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

He's been around Reaper tech more than anybody hasn't he?  Object Rho even claimed that Shepard's mind would be his...


Any and everyone... you have the floor.

Because indoctrination is a plot device meant to linearize the story and give the kiddies a license to kill against the likes of Udina.

You weren't expecting some real drama to emerge from it were you?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

He's been around Reaper tech more than anybody hasn't he?  Object Rho even claimed that Shepard's mind would be his...


Any and everyone... you have the floor.

Because indoctrination is a plot device meant to linearize the story and give the kiddies a license to kill against the likes of Udina.

You weren't expecting some real drama to emerge from it were you?

I... had hoped...

[BleedingUranium]

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

He's been around Reaper tech more than anybody hasn't he?  Object Rho even claimed that Shepard's mind would be his...


Any and everyone... you have the floor.

Because indoctrination is a plot device meant to linearize the story and give the kiddies a license to kill against the likes of Udina.

You weren't expecting some real drama to emerge from it were you?

Hello Heretic_Hanar.

[Invisible Man]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

69_Gio_69 wrote...

You know. We can all start talking about dreams, how long indoctrination takes to work, if Shepard kneeling means anything etc. But actually the most obvious and in your face clue is the huskification in the control and synthesis ending. I mean why the f*** does Shepard change in a husk? It is THAT obvious. If IT would be confirmed we would all say: how couldn't we have seen it before?

Shepard is basically a cyborg. What you are seeing as his skin dissolves is the cybernetics that were used in his reconstruction.

i just figured the metal stuff was what was left of his/her armor after the rest of it was melted off by the reaper's beam.

[KyreneZA]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Destroy isn't "Destroy the Reapers", it's "Do you want to destroy the Reapers?". It's a question, as are the others. You don't control the Reapers, you're being asked if you want to control them, or if you think it's possible.

And, unlike your signature, all choices (if IT is true) lead to the Reapers winning. If the Crucible is a dud/trap, and if conventional victory is impossible, then the "Breath Scene" is also just some forestalling of the inevitible destruction of Shepard's cycle (best case being that the galaxy puts up a hell of a fight under a "I beat Indoctrination" T-shirt wearing Shepard and the Reapers have a large amount of casualties--of destroyer and capital class Reapers).

This may be a very grim ending, but the Reapers winning is still closure. The player is still given choice (since the whole series has been about choice) as to how badly is Shepard (and the galaxy) defeated (from total humiliation with Shepard being the mind of the new human Reaper in Synthesis to the best case described in the paragraph above).

As horrible as the dialogue of the "Stargazer Scene" is, it does provide that closure in each of the original three (and EC four) ending. Always.

"Why wasn't Shepard Indoctrinated?" Because s/he didn't choose Control or Synthesis. But the process was being attempted throughout ME3, perhaps as early as Arrival if Shepard did it in your (the player's) canon.

[DirtyPhoenix]

TheConstantOne wrote...


Shepard is not that much of a cyborg.  Quite a few portions of him sure, but the Control and Synthesis endings show synthetic augmentations on Shepard's body absolutely everywhere.  Furthermore, the Illusive Man would not have risked using Reaper tech to rebuild Shepard when he hadn't yet field tested the augmentations on more expendable agents

Everywhere? I just saw it in her eyes and part of her face. Anyway, Shepard being just "meat and tubes" at the beginning of ME2, I imagine she has some heavy cybernetics built into her. What Shepard went through was far worse than what Jensen from DEHR had to endure, and Jensen ended up pretty uch a cyborg, so I assume Shepard would be too.

Seboist wrote...

Because indoctrination is a plot device
meant to linearize the story and give the kiddies a license to kill
against the likes of Udina.

You weren't expecting some real drama to emerge from it were you?

And lets not forget its a cheap way to explain anyone going lolevil at the writer's convenience.

[Indy_S]

pirate1802 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Because indoctrination is a plot device meant to linearize the story and give the kiddies a license to kill against the likes of Udina.

You weren't expecting some real drama to emerge from it were you?

And lets not forget its a cheap way to explain anyone going lolevil at the writer's convenience.

Truly, it's amazing how it was used. There was never any doubt that Udina was a bad guy after the Salarian says so. There was never any doubt TIM was a bad guy after speaking to him on Mars. Shepard's never wrong, apparently. I guess that does make him the best candidate to solve the Catalyst's 'problem'.

[BleedingUranium]

Indy_S wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Because indoctrination is a plot device meant to linearize the story and give the kiddies a license to kill against the likes of Udina.

You weren't expecting some real drama to emerge from it were you?

And lets not forget its a cheap way to explain anyone going lolevil at the writer's convenience.

Truly, it's amazing how it was used. There was never any doubt that Udina was a bad guy after the Salarian says so. There was never any doubt TIM was a bad guy after speaking to him on Mars. Shepard's never wrong, apparently. I guess that does make him the best candidate to solve the Catalyst's 'problem'.

There was never any doubt TIM was a bad guy from the moment you meet him. As for Udina, he's always been like that, have you seen the ultimate Renegade ending to ME1?

Of course Shepard's always right, he's the protagonist.

Besides, how exactly is indoctrination a cheap plot device? It means the main villains of the series are being main villains. You're not really fighting Cerberus, you're fighting the Reapers (for example).

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:21 .

[Indy_S]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Truly, it's amazing how it was used. There was never any doubt that Udina was a bad guy after the Salarian says so. There was never any doubt TIM was a bad guy after speaking to him on Mars. Shepard's never wrong, apparently. I guess that does make him the best candidate to solve the Catalyst's 'problem'.

There was never any doubt TIM was a bad guy from the moment you meet him. As for Udina, he's always been like that, have you seen the ultimate Renegade ending to ME1?

Of course Shepard's always right, he's the protagonist.

Besides, how exactly is indoctrination a cheap plot device? It means the main villains of the series are being main villains. You're not really fighting Cerberus, you're fighting the Reapers (for example).

But that's the thing, there was doubt about TIM. He was offering everything you needed to fight a threat you wanted to fight. He could be a good guy. The reveal that he was evulz all along may just be skewing your perspective of this fact. The same is true for Udina. His morals may have differed from the player's (humans first versus everyone's equal) but he wasn't to be seen as evil. There was doubt there.

And I have to take extreme issue with the protagonist always being right. The protagonist is a perspective in the universe. Other perspectives are aware of different things. It's the combination of perspectives that creates the true picture, creates revelations. And fankly, it's amazing to see an IT supporter make the claim that Shepard is always right. It makes it seem like you as a player were never in any doubt that what you were being shown was simultaneously true and false.

I never made the comment of indoctrination being a cheap plot device. I said it was used poorly. It never created suspicion. It never made you question anyone's motives. And it reduces complex villains down to 'they were evulz'.

Modifié par Indy_S, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:33 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

It is cheap because:

A) It provides an easy way to give the player unlimited mooks to shoot at. Cerberus in ME2 was a clandestine group with handpicked members. Cerberus in ME3 is a great empire having their lolindoctrinated soldiers everywhere who the player can pew-pew.

Its also a cheap way to give motive to the villain. Being evil isn't the main thing here, the motive is. Me being evil because I have an insidious and personal motive is miles better than being evil because I was lolindoctrinated (TI in ME3). Ofcourse, that's taking the ending literally, according to IT TIM isn't even there.

And its not just in ME, I'm against this form of brainwash/mindcontrol inn any story, because mostly they are not done properly and are just an excuse to enable the villain to bring up a huge army or to "turn" characters, as happened in ME3.

[BleedingUranium]

Indy_S wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Truly, it's amazing how it was used. There was never any doubt that Udina was a bad guy after the Salarian says so. There was never any doubt TIM was a bad guy after speaking to him on Mars. Shepard's never wrong, apparently. I guess that does make him the best candidate to solve the Catalyst's 'problem'.

There was never any doubt TIM was a bad guy from the moment you meet him. As for Udina, he's always been like that, have you seen the ultimate Renegade ending to ME1?

Of course Shepard's always right, he's the protagonist.

Besides, how exactly is indoctrination a cheap plot device? It means the main villains of the series are being main villains. You're not really fighting Cerberus, you're fighting the Reapers (for example).

But that's the thing, there was doubt about TIM. He was offering everything you needed to fight a threat you wanted to fight. He could be a good guy. The reveal that he was evulz all along may just be skewing your perspective of this fact. The same is true for Udina. His morals may have differed from the player's (humans first versus everyone's equal) but he wasn't to be seen as evil. There was doubt there.

And I have to take extreme issue with the protagonist always being right. The protagonist is a perspective in the universe. Other perspectives are aware of different things. It's the combination of perspectives that creates the true picture, creates revelations. And fankly, it's amazing to see an IT supporter make the claim that Shepard is always right. It makes it seem like you as a player were never in any doubt that what you were being shown was simultaneously true and false.

I never made the comment of indoctrination being a cheap plot device. I said it was used poorly. It never created suspicion. It never made you question anyone's motives. And it reduces complex villains down to 'they were evulz'.

The protagonist can be wrong about some things, but not about the main point of the story. And I never trusted TIM, I knew all I needed to from what I saw of Cerberus in ME1. Of course he wasn't as bad then, but like the One Ring, the corruption takes time.

The Reapers have always been 'they were evulz' as you put it.

[BleedingUranium]

pirate1802 wrote...

It is cheap because:

A) It provides an easy way to give the player unlimited mooks to shoot at. Cerberus in ME2 was a clandestine group with handpicked members. Cerberus in ME3 is a great empire having their lolindoctrinated soldiers everywhere who the player can pew-pew.

That's all you knew about them, yes.

Its also a cheap way to give motive to the villain. Being evil isn't the main thing here, the motive is. Me being evil because I have an insidious and personal motive is miles better than being evil because I was lolindoctrinated (TI in ME3). Ofcourse, that's taking the ending literally, according to IT TIM isn't even there.

And its not just in ME, I'm against this form of brainwash/mindcontrol inn any story, because mostly they are not done properly and are just an excuse to enable the villain to bring up a huge army or to "turn" characters, as happened in ME3.

TIM has been indoctrinated for decades, but it's also irrelevant. Cerberus isn't really it's own thing, it's just the Reapers under a different name.

The Reapers are, and always have been, the only true evil. You fight them and no one else in ME3. Just like in LotR everything that's fought is really just Sauron and things he controls. When Boromir attacks Frodo, Frodo's not fighting Boromir, he's fighting Sauron's influence, meaning he's fighting Sauron.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:44 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Holy hell, where are all these laws about fiction written down? I'd like to read them. the protagonist can never be wrong about the main point of the story? Play Spec Ops The Line and Assassins Creed III. Walker and Connor get played and end up as fools with nothing on their hands.

[Meltemph]

^Eh, I think you are over simplifying TIM. Ever since evolution, he has always been a "special" case, one who very early on in this cycle realized the threat of the reapers(long before anyone else), and perhaps due to his... unique connection to the reapers had a stronger fear of them.

Realizing the closer they got, the more control he lost - since he wasn't effected the same way as everyone else, from the artifact, which is actually quite similar to what happened to Shep on arrival - I think his desire for survival took him to extreme's.

I think what we say was a man fighting the reapers(indoctrination or whatever you want to call what tim was going through) the whole time in 2, and eventually losing to it in 3. I think the parallels between him and Shep are actually substantial.

[BleedingUranium]

pirate1802 wrote...

Holy hell, where are all these laws about fiction written down? I'd like to read them. the protagonist can never be wrong about the main point of the story? Play Spec Ops The Line and Assassins Creed III. Walker and Connor get played and end up as fools with nothing on their hands.

So you're saying that the main point to Mass Effect is that the Reapers were right all along?

[BleedingUranium]

Meltemph wrote...

^Eh, I think you are over simplifying TIM. Ever since evolution, he has always been a "special" case, one who very early on in this cycle realized the threat of the reapers(long before anyone else), and perhaps due to his... unique connection to the reapers had a stronger fear of them.

Realizing the closer they got, the more control he lost - since he wasn't effected the same way as everyone else, from the artifact, which is actually quite similar to what happened to Shep on arrival - I think his desire for survival took him to extreme's.

I think what we say was a man fighting the reapers(indoctrination or whatever you want to call what tim was going through) the whole time in 2, and eventually losing to it in 3. I think the parallels between him and Shep are actually substantial.

That is more accurate, yes.

[Indy_S]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

But that's the thing, there was doubt about TIM. He was offering everything you needed to fight a threat you wanted to fight. He could be a good guy. The reveal that he was evulz all along may just be skewing your perspective of this fact. The same is true for Udina. His morals may have differed from the player's (humans first versus everyone's equal) but he wasn't to be seen as evil. There was doubt there.

And I have to take extreme issue with the protagonist always being right. The protagonist is a perspective in the universe. Other perspectives are aware of different things. It's the combination of perspectives that creates the true picture, creates revelations. And fankly, it's amazing to see an IT supporter make the claim that Shepard is always right. It makes it seem like you as a player were never in any doubt that what you were being shown was simultaneously true and false.

I never made the comment of indoctrination being a cheap plot device. I said it was used poorly. It never created suspicion. It never made you question anyone's motives. And it reduces complex villains down to 'they were evulz'.

The protagonist can be wrong about some things, but not about the main point of the story. And I never trusted TIM, I knew all I needed to from what I saw of Cerberus in ME1. Of course he wasn't as bad then, but like the One Ring, the corruption takes time.

The Reapers have always been 'they were evulz' as you put it.

The protagonist can be wrong about some things and yet, Shepard is never wrong. The fact that you apparently had no doubts about TIM doesn't change the fact that the player is supposed to be suspicious of his motives, not actually convinced one way or another.

The Reaper's motives were unknown. I can handle that. They were opposed to the player for seemingly no reason (until the end, that is). The indoctrinated people were given the motive to help the Reapers. That's why they were so laughably evil, they were set against you arbitrarily. Any complex motivation was gone. They did evil things 'because they were indoctrinated'. The Reapers were evil. Their slaves were 'evulz'.

And I agree with the pirate that any form of mind control is horribly handled in most cases in fiction. I wish it would show up less frequently or more competently.