183 réponses à ce sujet

[Cecilia L]

BleedingUranium wrote...

ME3 and half of ME2 exist to teach you that organics vs synthetics isn't a thing, not anymore than organics vs organics or synthetics vs synthetics. You're supposed to learn that there's no meaningful difference between organic and synthetic life.

And that's another reason you're supposed to realise that the kid is full of crap.

Because he is full of crap, right? Or is he? I don't know if any others except ITheorists mistrust the child. It would be interesting to know how trustworthy non-ITers think he is.

Even if you are taking the endings at face value, do you accept what the child says as truth? Maybe he has no motivation to lie. But maybe he isn't even the Catalyst. And what about the Crucible? 

Some ITers believe it's a reaper trap. If that's what it is, has it always been? In what cycle did indoctrinated agents make changes to the schematics? Why won't the Leviathan tell Shepard about the people who designed it? 

[KingZayd]

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Shepard picking destroy WON'T cure him of indoctrination. It merely demonstrates some degree of resistance to it's influence. Resistance which would only be temporary.

We don't know that. Shepard is famous for doing what was thought to be impossible. Given how stories work, I think it's likely that he beat it, permanently and completely.

I'd say the only way to properly beat the indoctrination, would be to destroy the source (the Reapers) before he lost control.

[XXIceColdXX]

Well the Devs have stated that IT is a valid interpretation of the ending.

So OP id have to say yes it is, sort of. Except all the endings are still there, just interpreted a different way.

Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 24 janvier 2013 - 03:47 .

[Wayning_Star]

draconian139 wrote...

They could need organics for several reasons. To me the most likely reason is for reproductive purposes, from what we've seen organics seem to be necessary to create Reapers.

Yes, we/organics created them, via our dependent evolution. But after that, we're really not needed to sustain the catalyst. It doesn't operate like the Leviathan. Co dependent. The experiment isn't it's sustainance, merely a by product. Other wise it would harvest just advanced races for 'stuff' to create reapers. They have purpose other than just harvest or promoting the cycle. They store stuff for future reference, for some, unexplained reason. The MEU is not just a food source, in other words.

The MEU is the beings who live there, without them, the universe would just be, well empty, devoid of ideas, mindless matter and reactions. Intellect challenges nature, it's a matter of survival.

[Wayning_Star]

KingZayd wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Shepard picking destroy WON'T cure him of indoctrination. It merely demonstrates some degree of resistance to it's influence. Resistance which would only be temporary.

We don't know that. Shepard is famous for doing what was thought to be impossible. Given how stories work, I think it's likely that he beat it, permanently and completely.

I'd say the only way to properly beat the indoctrination, would be to destroy the source (the Reapers) before he lost control.

won't work because they exist IN the Leviathan. Also they exist in the matter of technology designed by Leviathan.

Apex races have a tendency to survive, no matter what. It's the reason the IT exists, a form of survival, even if futile to imagine that working, when the physics for it are all wrong in the MEU.

[Wayning_Star]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Well the Devs have stated that IT is a valid interpretation of the ending.

So OP id have to say yes it is, sort of. Except all the endings are still there, just interpreted a different way.

the devs are metagaming, or saying that metagame is good!!

[Wayning_Star]

Cecilia L wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

ME3 and half of ME2 exist to teach you that organics vs synthetics isn't a thing, not anymore than organics vs organics or synthetics vs synthetics. You're supposed to learn that there's no meaningful difference between organic and synthetic life.

And that's another reason you're supposed to realise that the kid is full of crap.

Because he is full of crap, right? Or is he? I don't know if any others except ITheorists mistrust the child. It would be interesting to know how trustworthy non-ITers think he is.

Even if you are taking the endings at face value, do you accept what the child says as truth? Maybe he has no motivation to lie. But maybe he isn't even the Catalyst. And what about the Crucible? 

Some ITers believe it's a reaper trap. If that's what it is, has it always been? In what cycle did indoctrinated agents make changes to the schematics? Why won't the Leviathan tell Shepard about the people who designed it? 

well the catalyst isn't a child by any means, but is more predictable in it's mission assigned by the Leviathan, altered by chaos, a natural order of nature.. it's trying to upend, just as any organic wishing to survive. Often organics tends to assign their emotional responses to synthetics. Until they actually assume sentience,then the funs over with all that?

[KingZayd]

Wayning_Star wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Shepard picking destroy WON'T cure him of indoctrination. It merely demonstrates some degree of resistance to it's influence. Resistance which would only be temporary.

We don't know that. Shepard is famous for doing what was thought to be impossible. Given how stories work, I think it's likely that he beat it, permanently and completely.

I'd say the only way to properly beat the indoctrination, would be to destroy the source (the Reapers) before he lost control.

won't work because they exist IN the Leviathan. Also they exist in the matter of technology designed by Leviathan.

Apex races have a tendency to survive, no matter what. It's the reason the IT exists, a form of survival, even if futile to imagine that working, when the physics for it are all wrong in the MEU.

Source for the Reapers existing IN the Leviathan? or in the "matter of technology designed by Leviathan"?

Evidence to support "Apex races have a tendency to survive, no matter what."?

[Wayning_Star]

KingZayd wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Shepard picking destroy WON'T cure him of indoctrination. It merely demonstrates some degree of resistance to it's influence. Resistance which would only be temporary.

We don't know that. Shepard is famous for doing what was thought to be impossible. Given how stories work, I think it's likely that he beat it, permanently and completely.

I'd say the only way to properly beat the indoctrination, would be to destroy the source (the Reapers) before he lost control.

won't work because they exist IN the Leviathan. Also they exist in the matter of technology designed by Leviathan.

Apex races have a tendency to survive, no matter what. It's the reason the IT exists, a form of survival, even if futile to imagine that working, when the physics for it are all wrong in the MEU.

Source for the Reapers existing IN the Leviathan? or in the "matter of technology designed by Leviathan"?

Evidence to support "Apex races have a tendency to survive, no matter what."?

the Leviathan survives harvest to hire/permit Shep to live to serve them in destroying the reapers... The levi can always make another intelligence,etc...as well as that technology is the basis for sentient synthetic life in the MEU, even Edi is made of reaper technology, just as the Geth and Prothean Ai.

[warblewobble]

Cecilia L wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

ME3 and half of ME2 exist to teach you that organics vs synthetics isn't a thing, not anymore than organics vs organics or synthetics vs synthetics. You're supposed to learn that there's no meaningful difference between organic and synthetic life.

And that's another reason you're supposed to realise that the kid is full of crap.

Because he is full of crap, right? Or is he? I don't know if any others except ITheorists mistrust the child. It would be interesting to know how trustworthy non-ITers think he is.

Even if you are taking the endings at face value, do you accept what the child says as truth? Maybe he has no motivation to lie. But maybe he isn't even the Catalyst. And what about the Crucible? 

Some ITers believe it's a reaper trap. If that's what it is, has it always been? In what cycle did indoctrinated agents make changes to the schematics? Why won't the Leviathan tell Shepard about the people who designed it? 

Speaking personally (not an IT-theorist but find it interesting- really liked MassterBlaster's little list a page or so ago) I'd say that even if we're going for a literal interpretation of events it's possible that the AI may not intentionally be lying but could still be speaking untruthfully. Its perspective may be skewed or some of its facts flat-out incorrect without it being a malevolent entity that's intentionally trying to deceive Shepard.

It was, after all, (as we learned in Leviathan) created by a race with its own flaws and limitations. Further, from the sound of it they gave the thing pretty vague directives. Not usually a good idea with AIs.

[HiddenInWar]

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Shepard picking destroy WON'T cure him of indoctrination. It merely demonstrates some degree of resistance to it's influence. Resistance which would only be temporary.

We don't know that. Shepard is famous for doing what was thought to be impossible. Given how stories work, I think it's likely that he beat it, permanently and completely.

I think he beat it with Destroy too.

[Lyrandori]

@ Is Indoctrination its own form of an ending?


Well yeah, why not?

You're not obliged to rely on anything that's just on-screen, you can canonize anything you want in your mind. If you'd happen to feel satisfied in believing that Shepard was indoctrinated then so be it, let that happen, doesn't have to be on-screen, imagination is powerful. My own post-ME3 consists of Shepard still being alive and she was indeed partially indoctrinated and needed medical assistance for months following the events, but she survived and she's now married with Liara (no children yet). She's now 36 years-old and I have canonized that due to her Lazarus Project implants she'll live past the 200 years-old mark, making her not only the icon that she already was due to her actions during the Reapers War, but also the first human being to have lived for more than two centuries. That's my stuff and if BioWare happens not to like it I just shrug and tell them to deal with it, 'cause it's my artistic integrity (yeah we can have that too, not just BioWare).

See? I can do it, means everyone else can. Now the "problem" is that not everyone "wants to" (even if they could). Some people want to be told a story, not make one themselves. I mean relying on your own imagination to construct your own satisfying ending for a game isn't necessarily a sign that the game was good anyway (by "good" I mean self-satisfying, it's obviously subjective and I shouldn't have to detail this). When I completed Dragon Age: Origins I did not create my own ending in my head, instead I was satisfied with that "canonically" occurred on-screen, and then from that point (post-ending) I canonized my own continuity of my Warden's life with Leliana (still consisting of chasing remnants of Dark Spawn in the Deep Roads, amongst other stuff, including teaming up with Zevran again after some years had passed to fix a politics-related issue in Antiva).

I'll put it the way my cousin did: If you have to self-satisfy yourself by head-canonizing your own ending to override the game's own "canon" ending, then something is wrong. A game's ending needs to provide clarity and closure, if you head canon your own ending it doesn't mean the ending(s) the game itself offered was bad (not necessarily, although it can also be "plain bad" too), but means that it just wasn't clear, it was confusing, lacked details and closure, so we as the audience pretty much "have to" write the ending down ourselves (literally, or in our mind). Well I agree with him. We shouldn't "have to" do that. Did we do that as a community with ME1? No. Did we do that as a community with ME2? No (although at that point we pretty much started to question the reason of existence for baby terminator). Why? Because even if the endings happened to be "bad" for some, they were clear enough and didn't need much of extra explanations, what occurred on-screen in ME1 and ME2 was "clear" and "closure" enough, we didn't have to stare at the screen for one hour only to still not understand what just happened... that's the difference.

But anyway, BioWare will never create a fifth ending consisting of Shepard being indoctrinated, they're too proud of the three original endings they gave us, and I'm sure they didn't have a smile when they made the Refusal ending, since they were genuinely happy with the original three, therefor did not "necessitate" an additional one to "appease" the "whining fans". Now had BioWare not done a fourth ending people around would still ask them to do one anyway. That's because, as I said above, ultimately there's some people around who want to be told a story (that is being concluded and provides closure and clarity in doing so), and those gamers don't want to create a story themselves, some don't care to, some don't have the time to, and some don't have the imagination to.

Bottom line is sure, why not? Want indoctrination? Make it happen in your head and consider it canon. If what you consider canon or official can only be on-screen, then the obvious answer is no, Indoctrination cannot be a form of an ending on its own, obvious enough.

Modifié par Lyrandori, 24 janvier 2013 - 04:37 .

[BleedingUranium]

warblewobble wrote...

Speaking personally (not an IT-theorist but find it interesting- really liked MassterBlaster's little list a page or so ago) I'd say that even if we're going for a literal interpretation of events it's possible that the AI may not intentionally be lying but could still be speaking untruthfully. Its perspective may be skewed or some of its facts flat-out incorrect without it being a malevolent entity that's intentionally trying to deceive Shepard.

It was, after all, (as we learned in Leviathan) created by a race with its own flaws and limitations. Further, from the sound of it they gave the thing pretty vague directives. Not usually a good idea with AIs.

Indeed. The kid doesn't have to be lying or manipulating you to be wrong.

[DirtyPhoenix]

valhallaVANDAL wrote...

Untold wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

We have the destroyers, controllers, synthesizers, and refusers. Does indoc work into this too, as an ending like the original four?

Sure it does. Nothing is really solid clear in the ending. Some people have argued that Leviathan cemented the catalyst while I felt it ended up supporting it and IT at the same time. By that I mean the Leviathan added support for the creation of the catalyst but their method of doing so is what supports IT, by inducing a dreamlike state that resembles reality.

Honestly, anything works and I guess that's the point. Still not a huge fan of the ending but what can you do? You roll with what you have. And in this case it was a kind of "make your own ending" sort of deal.

Does the Leviathan actually say the word "Catalyst?"  I only remember him saying the word "Intelligence" to refer to the program that controls the Reapers.

Leviathan doesn't say the word "Catalyst" because the DLC is playable at any time and we only know about the Catalyst being the reaper-kind only towards the end. It would screw it up. Hard to miss the reason actually.

[masster blaster]

Pirate actually it doesn't you see. If you played Arrival before the SC mission, then instead of Harbinger appering in his true form, then you get the Collector General. So if you play before you find out about the Catalyst, then they should have called it the intellegnce, however it is not so. So it just means the intellegnce is not the Catalyst.

That's the problem here.

IT: believes that the brat is not the catalyst, I mean come on who the hell is making the crucible literally work. IT or not it's not hard for people to think that Shepard is the true catalyst.

Literal: believes that the brat is the catalyst, why I don't know because you are talking to the "leader of the enemy/Reapers", and it claims it's the Catalyst. It's like saying I am god, and to hell's to the no I am not, yet would people believe that person. A few perhapse, but for ME3, almost half do.

[dorktainian]

a catalyst being a trigger for change, star brat cannot be the catalyst. also he speaks in absolutes.

why is star brat the image of a boy in shepards mind? think about it. its not hard. shepard is seeing what someone else wants him to see.....and being suggested opinions that are not his own......... ergo indoctrination. it is right there in front of you.

[DirtyPhoenix]

The difference is that here, you CANNOT play leviathan after you've come to know the real ideatity of the catalyst, so it always be called the Intelligence to hide the supposed "plot twist"

[TurianRebel212]

dorktainian wrote...

a catalyst being a trigger for change, star brat cannot be the catalyst. also he speaks in absolutes.

why is star brat the image of a boy in shepards mind? think about it. its not hard. shepard is seeing what someone else wants him to see.....and being suggested opinions that are not his own......... ergo indoctrination. it is right there in front of you.

In the original script the Catalyst was Prothy the Prothean (Javik) but they changed it. It's obvious that the Catalyst is Shep now. Or the 'catalyst' as we know it is yet to be revealed. My bet is the ending is finished and the end choices are what they are. But interpretations of them is unique to each player. Like BioWare has stated. 

[BetrayerOfNihil]

This outcome is so unbelievably ****ing undesirable that I can't even imagine why anyone would theorise it.

Indoctrination would be a Critical Mission Failure so bad it'd wipe your progress in the whole trilogy, make you start over from Level 1 on Insanity, give no Experience for anything, and force you to use non-modifiable and non-upgradable starting equipment only. All as punishment for allowing it to happen. It'd be worse than Refuse, and that's saying a LOT.

Modifié par BetrayerOfNihil, 24 janvier 2013 - 06:17 .

[masster blaster]

I hardly call that a plot twist. Why because...

1. Why the hell is the leader of the Reapers living on the Citadel?

2. How the hell is it know it's the Catalyst?

3. It claims's it's the catalyst?

4. It takes the form a the child that died on Earth. Why the hell would the catalyst take the form of the child, and how the hell does it know about the child?

5. Why doesn't it have FULL control over the Citadel?

6. Why didn't the Leviathans tell us where the **** was the brat? I am sure they would have knowne because they have watched the galaxy for waht ever since they cycle started, and not a single Leviathan knew about the Catalyst living on the Citadel.

I can go on but you get the point.

All I can say is that

In literal ending the Star brat is full of bs, and people believe his bs.
( except the ones that hate the brat, and either pick refuse or Destroy to give it the middle finger ending)


IT: Brat is full of bs, trying to trick the player into foing something that they shouldn't be doing, and either play the brat's mind game, or well die, or Indoctrinated. ( I mean Shepard, not the player)

[HiddenInWar]

BetrayerOfNihil wrote...

This outcome is so unbelievably ****ing undesirable that I can't even imagine why anyone would theorise it.

Indoctrination would be a Critical Mission Failure so bad it'd wipe your progress in the whole trilogy, make you start over from Level 1 on Insanity, give no Experience for anything, and force you to use non-modifiable and non-upgradable starting equipment only. All as punishment for allowing it to happen. It'd be worse than Refuse, and that's saying a LOT.

Is that possible?

[KevShep]

masster blaster wrote...

I hardly call that a plot twist. Why because...

1. Why the hell is the leader of the Reapers living on the Citadel?

2. How the hell is it know it's the Catalyst?

3. It claims's it's the catalyst?

4. It takes the form a the child that died on Earth. Why the hell would the catalyst take the form of the child, and how the hell does it know about the child?

5. Why doesn't it have FULL control over the Citadel?

6. Why didn't the Leviathans tell us where the **** was the brat? I am sure they would have knowne because they have watched the galaxy for waht ever since they cycle started, and not a single Leviathan knew about the Catalyst living on the Citadel.

I can go on but you get the point.

All I can say is that

In literal ending the Star brat is full of bs, and people believe his bs.
( except the ones that hate the brat, and either pick refuse or Destroy to give it the middle finger ending)


IT: Brat is full of bs, trying to trick the player into foing something that they shouldn't be doing, and either play the brat's mind game, or well die, or Indoctrinated. ( I mean Shepard, not the player)

this^

[masster blaster]

Clearly Betray you don't know nothing about IT, so either learn it, or just don't even talk about IT because all of your post does not even make any sense.

[BetrayerOfNihil]

HiddenInWar wrote...
Is that possible?

You just let your mind and liberty be ripped away from you by the most disgusting and horrifying monsters the Universe has ever known, leaving the next Cycle to get screwed. You bet that'd be a million times worse than deciding to give it your all to fight them when you have other solutions right in front of you.

masster blaster wrote...
Clearly Betray you don't know nothing about IT, so either learn it, or just don't even talk about IT because all of your post does not even make any sense.

I don't need to learn anymore **** about Indoctrination Theory. The most virtuous/ruinous man/woman in Galactic history doesn't fall to Indoctrination.

[HiddenInWar]

BetrayerOfNihil wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...
Is that possible?

I don't need to learn anymore **** about Indoctrination Theory. The most virtuous/ruinous man/woman in Galactic history doesn't fall to Indoctrination.

Indoctrination doesn't really care for the virtuous, it's only goal is to spread and control. How heroic someone is doesn't make a difference ultimately.