80 réponses à ce sujet

[DoomsdayDevice]

AlanC9 wrote...

TIM and Saren were simply right. Deal with it.

Haha, no...

TIM and Saren were simply indoctrinated. Deal with it.

[Mcfly616]

It's all quite subjective, you see. They were all right....from a certain point of view.

[Ithurael]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TIM and Saren were simply right. Deal with it.

Haha, no...

TIM and Saren were simply indoctrinated. Deal with it.

Technically if we take IT, TIM was never indoctrinated. Shep just assumed they were for...reasons.

I mean if we are going to to into the 'entire ending sequence was a dream and thus a lie' mentality then TIM was not proven to be indoctrinated...was he? Since it was starbrat that said he was.

[AlanC9]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TIM and Saren were simply right. Deal with it.

Haha, no...

TIM and Saren were simply indoctrinated. Deal with it.

Indoctrinated and right. I can say TIM's indoctrinated because I'm not denying the ending is real.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 janvier 2014 - 03:01 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Ithurael wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TIM and Saren were simply right. Deal with it.

Haha, no...

TIM and Saren were simply indoctrinated. Deal with it.

Technically if we take IT, TIM was never indoctrinated. Shep just assumed they were for...reasons.

I mean if we are going to to into the 'entire ending sequence was a dream and thus a lie' mentality then TIM was not proven to be indoctrinated...was he? Since it was starbrat that said he was.

Not necessarily. Shepard doesn't have to be in London in IT. Let's assume everything up until and including the TIM confrontation is real. Then after Shepard passes out in front of the control panel, that could be where the full blown illusion starts. So, just the decision chamber is a dream. In that case, Shepard is still on the Citadel, did not get killed by the explosion after shooting the tube (because that only happened in the dream), and the rubble we see in the breath scene could be the result of the Reapers attacking the Citadel/Shepard as soon as Shepard chooses to destroy them. Only high EMS Shepard survives, because (s)he collected enough war assets to defend the Crucible/Citadel. (Remember all the Citadel defense force assets?)

Another possibility is this. From the moment Harbinger's laser hits, we see three white dream halos. You know, the flash to white transitions that we see whenever we see a dream. All the dreams with the kid start that way too. First one is when Shep gets hit by the laser, then another when go up the beam, then another when we go to the decision chamber. It's possible that the hallucinations start out subtly then get more and more intense as we go deeper into the dream, until nothing is real anymore.

In this respect, an interesting thing that was introduced in the Extended Cut, is that strange noise that wakes up Shepard when (s)he lies unconscious in that hallway with the bodies and the keepers. It happens right after you first hear Anderson's voice say "Shepard?". It's almost as if something 'plugs in' the Anderson voice, were it not for the fact that it happens right after you hear the voice, and not before. It's more like a mild neural shock, to wake Shepard up.

[DoomsdayDevice]

AlanC9 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TIM and Saren were simply right. Deal with it.

Haha, no...

TIM and Saren were simply indoctrinated. Deal with it.

Indoctrinated and right. I can say TIM's indoctrinated because I'm not denying the ending is real.

Like I explained in my post right before this one. It all depends where the dream started. TIM confrontation could be real if it's only the decision chamber that's a dream.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 27 janvier 2014 - 03:31 .

[SwobyJ]

Ithurael wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TIM and Saren were simply right. Deal with it.

Haha, no...

TIM and Saren were simply indoctrinated. Deal with it.

Technically if we take IT, TIM was never indoctrinated. Shep just assumed they were for...reasons.

I mean if we are going to to into the 'entire ending sequence was a dream and thus a lie' mentality then TIM was not proven to be indoctrinated...was he? Since it was starbrat that said he was.

I actually partially agree. Not that last sentence, but the rest.

However, my interpretation was that:

-Benezia was under 'secondary' indoctrination through Saren
-Saren was being indoctrinated by Nazara outright
-TIM was the remnant of the Reaper control signal from the monolith on Palaven, which was possibly actually connected to a rebel... derelict Reaper...
-Shepard is first under attempted indoctrination by Harbinger, but it fails, so as the story continues, it is a joint effort by Harbinger and Nazara

Different forms, different functions.
-Shepard actively fighting it, even without realizing what's going on. Resisting successfully.
-TIM realizing what's going on but not as actively fighting it; opting for understanding it and co-opting it. Doesn't resist successfully because the trick to beating the Reapers is NOT through understanding them (it's nice to have, but not what helps).
-Saren eventually not fighting, but accepting whatever the Reapers put in front of him. Note however that I don't see it as the exact same as 'Synthesis' option, because I don't think that Intelligence/Catalyst/Sovereign/Nazara even wanted any form of peace in ME1 (yet). It went through its own invisible changes as Shepard kicked ass, imo.


So I view TIM to be indoctrinated into Reaper mentality and hive consciousness, but that's it. There's no form of direct control - it is all indirect and manipulative (and TIM breaches even that indirect control when he does stuff like Sanctuary).

So yes, it would make TIM functionally 'right'. It would still make him morally wrong to pursue Control. We can still opt for it as players, because imo Control may be seen as at least somewhat okay (overall) in the next game, even though it's not nearly as fitting to the core narrative of ME3 and the base character of Shepard (as written probably in the more early drafts of each game).


I think all choices are winning ones, but Synthesis is just the most 'fake' victory (in a sense), Control was a partial victory but didn't do the job, and Destroy is the most appropriate for ME3 but we'll be taught things in future games that will make it less appealing even to Destroyers. Kinda, in a micro example, like how a player might hate all AI in ME1, but by ME3 come to love EDI and Legion.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 27 janvier 2014 - 03:45 .

[SwobyJ]

I think a conversation happened with TIM, and TIM was on the Citadel.

It's just at that point, the hallucination is like 90% strong. You're arguing, but it's not in the same way and not about the same things.

"No..they're controlling you!"

The setting itself is likely not what it seems.

But yes, it's only the decision chamber that is 100% fake, even in the entire series (though I have my doubts of certain parts, I still regard them part of Shepard's memory and/or perception in some strong way).

[Mcfly616]

Wait....people still "believe" IT?

[SwobyJ]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Wait....people still "believe" IT?

Yes. Was that a silly rhetorical question?

[Mcfly616]

well, 'silly'? I'm not so sure....

[Zinoviy]

ITT: people that don't understand what "burden of proof" is and how it is logically applied.

It's not up to us to DISPROVE your theory. It's not true by default unless someone disproves it.

Some helpful reading: http://en.wikipedia....i/Occam's_razor

[themikefest]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

In this respect, an interesting thing that was introduced in the Extended Cut, is that strange noise that wakes up Shepard when (s)he lies unconscious in that hallway with the bodies and the keepers. It happens right after you first hear Anderson's voice say "Shepard?". It's almost as if something 'plugs in' the Anderson voice, were it not for the fact that it happens right after you hear the voice, and not before. It's more like a mild neural shock, to wake Shepard up.

I would suspect that Shepard was implanted with a defibrillator that activates when his/her vital signs are extremely low

[SwobyJ]

themikefest wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

In this respect, an interesting thing that was introduced in the Extended Cut, is that strange noise that wakes up Shepard when (s)he lies unconscious in that hallway with the bodies and the keepers. It happens right after you first hear Anderson's voice say "Shepard?". It's almost as if something 'plugs in' the Anderson voice, were it not for the fact that it happens right after you hear the voice, and not before. It's more like a mild neural shock, to wake Shepard up.

I would suspect that Shepard was implanted with a defibrillator that activates when his/her vital signs are extremely low

I would think so too (and it's still a possibility), but that ruined armor...

And that we've never heard of built in defibrillators, right?

[themikefest]

SwobyJ wrote...

themikefest wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

In this respect, an interesting thing that was introduced in the Extended Cut, is that strange noise that wakes up Shepard when (s)he lies unconscious in that hallway with the bodies and the keepers. It happens right after you first hear Anderson's voice say "Shepard?". It's almost as if something 'plugs in' the Anderson voice, were it not for the fact that it happens right after you hear the voice, and not before. It's more like a mild neural shock, to wake Shepard up.

I would suspect that Shepard was implanted with a defibrillator that activates when his/her vital signs are extremely low

I would think so too (and it's still a possibility), but that ruined armor...

And that we've never heard of built in defibrillators, right?

http://en.wikipedia..../Defibrillation

[SwobyJ]

Uh no, I know they exist.

I'm more questioning whether they're part of MEU's lore (though they likely are, especially considering the 'revival' mechanic), and much more so, whether Shepard's armor would equip one anymore.

And even if he did lose his pulse and was defibrillated, that still interests me. Heck, the rush of it all could have accelerated an indoctrination, possibly hinted at by some information in Sanctuary (nanites; remember that this would be the only time he would lose pulse and regain it in the story of ME3, because 'dying' in battle means game over).

Modifié par SwobyJ, 27 janvier 2014 - 04:54 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Zinoviy wrote...

ITT: people that don't understand what "burden of proof" is and how it is logically applied.

It's not up to us to DISPROVE your theory. It's not true by default unless someone disproves it.

Like duh. If there was absolute proof, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I was only protesting the claim that "EC disproves IT".

Zinoviy wrote...

Some helpful reading: http://en.wikipedia....i/Occam's_razor

This again... it's impossible to apply Occam's Razor to a work of fiction, where plots can be deliberately complicated and misleading.

That said, IT is a lot simpler and more straightforward an explanation for the ending (not to mention consistent with known lore) than taking that whole ending at face value and trying to make sense of what the child tells you and the implications of that.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 27 janvier 2014 - 04:59 .

[Agamemnon2589]

I may get mobbed here, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in. I hated the ending the first time I played it. Hated it so much, in fact, that I haven't played the game since my first run-through at launch. I finally got around to playing it again this week, this time with all of the DLC. I have to say, I'm 100% happy with the game now. I know that there are still people who really hate it, and I wish they could experience what I experienced when I finally played the "fixed" version of the game. But regardless, I'm happy with BioWare again.

[SwobyJ]

Agamemnon2589 wrote...

I may get mobbed here, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in. I hated the ending the first time I played it. Hated it so much, in fact, that I haven't played the game since my first run-through at launch. I finally got around to playing it again this week, this time with all of the DLC. I have to say, I'm 100% happy with the game now. I know that there are still people who really hate it, and I wish they could experience what I experienced when I finally played the "fixed" version of the game. But regardless, I'm happy with BioWare again.

That's pretty sad in a way though. To pay $40+ in order to make us happy with a game again. That's where the industry is now. Ugh.

[Almostfaceman]

Well more power to you IT guys/gals. I don't see the draw of it, I think it's too much of a stretch, and it can't be proven, thus it's irrelevant. But that's just me, different strokes for different folks.

[Agamemnon2589]

SwobyJ wrote...

Agamemnon2589 wrote...

I may get mobbed here, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in. I hated the ending the first time I played it. Hated it so much, in fact, that I haven't played the game since my first run-through at launch. I finally got around to playing it again this week, this time with all of the DLC. I have to say, I'm 100% happy with the game now. I know that there are still people who really hate it, and I wish they could experience what I experienced when I finally played the "fixed" version of the game. But regardless, I'm happy with BioWare again.

That's pretty sad in a way though. To pay $40+ in order to make us happy with a game again. That's where the industry is now. Ugh.

I would have been happy with just the free Extended Cut, I assure you. The rest of the DLC was just fantastic icing on the cake.

[Zinoviy]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Zinoviy wrote...

ITT: people that don't understand what "burden of proof" is and how it is logically applied.

It's not up to us to DISPROVE your theory. It's not true by default unless someone disproves it.

Like duh. If there was absolute proof, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I was only protesting the claim that "EC disproves IT".

Zinoviy wrote...

Some helpful reading: http://en.wikipedia....i/Occam's_razor

This again... it's impossible to apply Occam's Razor to a work of fiction, where plots can be deliberately complicated and misleading.

That said, IT is a lot simpler and more straightforward an explanation for the ending (not to mention consistent with known lore) than taking that whole ending at face value and trying to make sense of what the child tells you and the implications of that.

I didn't see that you were refuting another claim being made. That essentially nulls the second portion of my post as well, however, Occam's Razor can still apply to fiction. It's only about looking at what is reasonable to believe. You can analyze any situation, a claim, evidence for said claim, and apply.

Although misdirection and complication are components, basing things on reason is the same. It's just using good justification for what you believe.

[SwobyJ]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Well more power to you IT guys/gals. I don't see the draw of it, I think it's too much of a stretch, and it can't be proven, thus it's irrelevant. But that's just me, different strokes for different folks.

Yeah there's jerks on all 'sides', so I'm not here to defend any particular group of fans. Personally, I don't see the problem with seeing the content of the series in different ways.
Partially because... I guess I view it as designed to be seen in different ways anyway; depending on which games played, the manner played, the choices made, the level of lore investigated, and what other media is consumed and examined.

So really, it's not a big deal, and even if IT is true, it isn't like it or anything else was intended from the start. Game development is an ongoing process, and with so many writers involved, it's likely that ME3 is a far cry in many ways compared to what ME1 was intended as.

I don't see the problem with theorizing though. It isn't irrelevant if it can't be proven... yet. I know that's the thing hung over theorists ("Oh you just keep waiting for that day!" lol), but for Mass Effect I think it's important - another game is coming, and it is likely coming next year. So..let's just see?

I mean, I don't consider EC or Citadel DLC or anything else to be presentable *proof* of IT or anything else I now believe. Howeverrrr, I basically consider them all enough personal proof of certain things. I'm not here to convince people, but I will share my thoughts, and yeah, that has a bit of fun to it!

Modifié par SwobyJ, 27 janvier 2014 - 05:45 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

My main problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it relies on too many assumptions about what it feels like to personally experience the effects of indoctrination -- Indoctrination Theory basically counts any thing subliminal as proof of Indoctrination. Indoctrination affects physical parts of the brain, it has never been described as a battle of wills. From a story perspective if Shepard is under the affects of Indoctrination it is game over because at that point his brain would either be mush, as described by the Codex, or he would be completely in the hands of the Reapers.

[SwobyJ]

He's as completely in the hands of the Reapers like Aria was at the hands of Oleg at the power core.