54 réponses à ce sujet

[Franky Figgs]

The point of Jack Harper's indoctrination is to guide us to the awareness of the experience itself.

From Wikipedia

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodology. It is distinguished from "education" by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

Now ask yourself - How would you simulate this experience in true form for others?

Both Jack (TIM) and Saren serve as examples. We know they are indoctrinated but we are also shown that they themselves are not aware of it. They have, overtime, found the necessary reasoning to work towards the will of Reapers as if it their very own. 
For Saren, the values of his people that Saren still believes in, that an individual's personal needs are always subordinate to the greater good of the group, are twisted so gradually that Saren remains certain he is right even though his goals are supplanted by the desires of Sovereign.
For Jack Harper, he gradually moves from promoting humanity to being certain that he is correct in his ends-justify-the-means cooperation with Reaper technology approach to elevating humanity to its “rightful place”.
It isn't until they are confronted by Shepard that they experience the cognitive dissonance necessary to realize the cost of their actions against the goals they aligned themselves to achieve. They pay with thier lives.

The translates to our experance when we are tested whether or not we are aware that the point of view of the Catalysis and the problem it faces can be solved in choosing enthrallment with our own free will.  And to justifying the Enslavers reasons over the price of our freedom.

The Catalysis explained to us...

It can not be forced.

Modifié par Franky Figgs, 24 avril 2013 - 01:08 .

[radishson]

JamesFaith wrote...

isnudo wrote...

What I also don't get is that the Reaper carcass hanging outside his office explains his indoctrination, but nothing but indoctrination explains him putting it there in the first place.

It is trophy of man with big ego.

Easy and simple.

And his indoctrination was only fastened by it, true source was in one comic.

You don't think TIM would be smart enough to realize having the remnants of a reaper 20 feet from his office might be dangerous?  Also, nothing concretely proves he was indoctrinated pre-ME3, that's fan speculation.

DecCylonus wrote...

Don't forget that indoctrination is the logical consequence of TIM's methods though. TIM was studying Reaper tech. In ME1 and 2 we saw over and over that those who are exposed to Reaper tech get indoctrinated. Beyond that, TIM was actually trying to use Reaper tech, including the reverse engineering of the indoctrination  and control signals. We have seen examples throughout the game that TIM / Cerberus prefer rapid advancement and pursue it without much regard for safety. It isn't hard to believe that they didn't take precautions with the Reaper tech they were studying. If TIM hadn't been indoctrinated in ME3, then people would have been screaming about a plot hole.

In order for TIM not to be indoctrinated, he either would have had to pursue a completely different course in ME3, or else there would have to be some explanation of how he avoided indoctrination while studying Reaper tech. If it was the latter, people would be complaining about the inconsistency with Cerberus / TIM's wreckless methods.

How is indoctrination a "natural consequence" at all?  We don't actually know very much at all about the indoctrination process.  TIM wasn't conducting the sanctuary research himself, he was funding it.  Meanwhile Henry Lawson was working hands-on with the material 24/7 and never became indoctrinated.  Obviously at the end of the day anyone is prone to indoctrination in the ME-verse because of *space magic*, but reducing TIM to a reaper toy dismantled a lot of the personality and depth he had pre-ME3.  We didn't need another Saren.  I would've expected Bioware to try their hardest at pushing TIM in any direction other than an indoctrination one, given how predictible and unsatisfying it is.

I'm asking from a THEMATIC, CHARACTER-DRIVEN perspective why the devs chose indoctrination.  There is no good reason.  There were many oppourtunities to push the limits of ME3 Cerberus, and the devs ended up taking the path of least resistance simply to give us more goons to shoot down.  I know a lot of fans think Bioware dropped the ball in a lot of different places but Cerberus was one of the most important components of the dynamic surrounding Shepard.  I really don't know why a sensical, in-character end to TIM was too much to ask for.

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

I think it's at least a bit of a strain to explain most of TIM's behavior in ME3 without indoctrination. I could see the TIM of ME2 sitting back and refusing to *help* the war effort because he has his own plans, but actively sabotaging it? That's a huge risk if his plans don't work out in the end, and it's not like he's never had his plans fail in the past - Shepard shuts down a lot of their operations in ME1, and he's certainly outmaneuvered at the end of ME2 if you blow up the Collector Base. While I wouldn't necessarily put this sort of all-or-nothing gamble past him, I would have expected him to concentrate on the control experiments and on infiltrating the Crucible project (or even trying to build his own version of it) rather than engaging in open hostilities against Shepard, the Alliance, and the Council.

As it is, he draws a lot of hostility and suspicion that may not be worth the trouble - the turian/krogan alliance and genophage cure wouldn't directly interfere with his operations, and even if the Citadel coup had succeeded, he and Udina would have likely faced massive defections from Council-aligned forces.

Thats sort of my point though.  "We need people to shoot at to make this Sur'Kesh mission more exiting. Reapers, no, Geth, no... gotta be Cerberus."  "It can't be Cerberus though, TIM doesn't have any reason to sabotauge the mission."  "He's, uh... indoctrinated!"  This is what I mean about invalidating TIM's development.  In ME3 there is no longer a reason to support Cerberus because most of what they do is completely nonsensical and out of character.  Bioware goes to great lengths to build Cerberus as a formidably ruthless foe, Renegade and morally grey to the extreme, then reduces them to reaper fodder in ME3.  Remember, it is possible to play a renegade in the first two games that actually agrees with a lot of what TIM says.

Modifié par radishson, 24 avril 2013 - 12:46 .

[Franky Figgs]

radishson wrote...

...Henry Lawson was working hands-on with the material 24/7 and never became indoctrinated. ---

...I'm asking from a THEMATIC, CHARACTER-DRIVEN perspective why the devs chose indoctrination.  There is no good reason...

redishson, I urge you to consider my assignment. Through it, Henry Lawson was indeed indoctrinated. The reasoning was for the player experience over a "thematic, character-driven perspective."

Modifié par Franky Figgs, 24 avril 2013 - 01:15 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

radishson wrote...
Thats sort of my point though.  "We need people to shoot at to make this Sur'Kesh mission more exiting. Reapers, no, Geth, no... gotta be Cerberus."  "It can't be Cerberus though, TIM doesn't have any reason to sabotauge the mission."  "He's, uh... indoctrinated!"  This is what I mean about invalidating TIM's development.  In ME3 there is no longer a reason to support Cerberus because most of what they do is completely nonsensical and out of character.  Bioware goes to great lengths to build Cerberus as a formidably ruthless foe, Renegade and morally grey to the extreme, then reduces them to reaper fodder in ME3.  Remember, it is possible to play a renegade in the first two games that actually agrees with a lot of what TIM says.

I'm thinking that it might have been more due to the complications of programming the game to accommodate the full range of attitudes that Shepard might display towards Cerberus, so they had to have Cerberus do something that would even turn strong Renegades against them regardless of what happened in ME1/2.

[AresKeith]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

radishson wrote...
Thats sort of my point though.  "We need people to shoot at to make this Sur'Kesh mission more exiting. Reapers, no, Geth, no... gotta be Cerberus."  "It can't be Cerberus though, TIM doesn't have any reason to sabotauge the mission."  "He's, uh... indoctrinated!"  This is what I mean about invalidating TIM's development.  In ME3 there is no longer a reason to support Cerberus because most of what they do is completely nonsensical and out of character.  Bioware goes to great lengths to build Cerberus as a formidably ruthless foe, Renegade and morally grey to the extreme, then reduces them to reaper fodder in ME3.  Remember, it is possible to play a renegade in the first two games that actually agrees with a lot of what TIM says.

I'm thinking that it might have been more due to the complications of programming the game to accommodate the full range of attitudes that Shepard might display towards Cerberus, so they had to have Cerberus do something that would even turn strong Renegades against them regardless of what happened in ME1/2.

And that backfired terribly