937 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

Par for the course on the BSN.

[masster blaster]

Dude.. seriously?

 

You have no choice in low-EMS with collector base destroyed. You only get to choose destroy.

Yes and no. You have two now with the EC, and you can refuse, yet both lead to disaster, However exculding the EC and refuse, yes you do only have low-ems Destroy. Why it could be a few things.

 

1. Shepard thinks about destroy at the end, not the choices, but the thought of killing the Reapers, no matter the cost.

2. The Reapers need to keep Shepard from "waking up" and getting that moment of hope, so they need some kind of ending, to show Shepard that he/she saved the galaxy, yet in reality failed, and everyone was harvested, or killed.

3. The Reapers care not about Destroy ending at all. The catalyst is rude to Shepard in low ems options, and ask " WHY ARE YOU HERE" however in high ems ending choices the catalyst says " wake up".

And yes i know why would that catalyst say " WHY ARE YOU HERE" simply. at this point, Shepard is damaged mentally and physically. Shepard is losing the battle and his/her allies are dying. The Reapers are annoyed that Shepard has made it thus far, and think Shepard is not fit to become a servant to the Reapers, yet a threat none the less.

4. Shepard still draws breath, the Reapers are still not done taking out SWORD, SHIELD, and HAMMER. They do not see any value in Shepard, yet they must willingly have Shepard believe that there is a way to "save" the galaxy, yet it would be at a very high cost. With that in mind, the Reapers allow Shepard to go pick destroy, there is no point if Shepard wakes up by this point because the Reapers already have finished taking down Shepard's allies. Though when Shepard still functioned, the Reapers still have to stall Shepard from waking up, and by a huge amount of luck, turn the tide of the war.

[masster blaster]

This part never made sense to me. Why does the dream state have to offer a choice? How would not having a choice break the illusion? What if Shepard chooses Control for the exact purpose of destroying the Reapers without sacrificing the Geth or the Citadel? Why is there a dream state? Is there a reason for this besides it is needed to maintain IT?

 

Why is there any choice at all? Indoctrination has never been about clouding people in delusions or tricking them into working for the Reapers. It is about subverting choice all together. No one can choose their way out of Indoctrination, it's electromagnetic waves screwing around with the limbic system -- it's not a battle of wills.

Tis true, why is there any choice at all? It has been so. Saren, TIM, Kenson, Grayson, and so many others. Saren wanted to save everyone, and in doing so he went along with the Reaper's plans, and killed anyone who stood in his way. Saren was afraid of the Reapers, and wanted to live. He became a tool for the Reapers to destroy the galaxy, yet failed thanks to our Shepard's.

 

TIM, wanted to save humanity, and make it the most powerful race ever to be. The Reapers use this to their advantage and plan seeds of thoughts that Controlling the Reapers would be a good idea, and would help boaster humanity, far beyond what he could envision. However in the process he turned his troops into husk like beings, kidnap humans and created a larger army, and shipped those that had the genetic code to the slaughter house Reapers.

 

Indoctrination twists the minds of your thoughts, and goals. Hence why Shepard asked if you have a higher ems for just DESTROY alone, " There has to be a better way"? Why the goal and mission given was to stop the Reapers, and by this means killing them all, yet when the synthetics and including Shepard life is on the line. Shepard changes his/her mind.

 

Also Zhu's hope still withstands Indoctrination since their minds are one. My theory is that Leviathan, the Rachni queen, or liara link their minds to Shepard, and is why Shepard wakes up, and would be unaffected.

[DeinonSlayer]

Sometimes watching IT advocates justify themselves is like watching a kid present a long, drawn-out argument on why Santa is, indeed, real...

[ImaginaryMatter]

Yes and no. You have two now with the EC, and you can refuse, yet both lead to disaster, However exculding the EC and refuse, yes you do only have low-ems Destroy. Why it could be a few things.

 

1. Shepard thinks about destroy at the end, not the choices, but the thought of killing the Reapers, no matter the cost.

2. The Reapers need to keep Shepard from "waking up" and getting that moment of hope, so they need some kind of ending, to show Shepard that he/she saved the galaxy, yet in reality failed, and everyone was harvested, or killed.

3. The Reapers care not about Destroy ending at all. The catalyst is rude to Shepard in low ems options, and ask " WHY ARE YOU HERE" however in high ems ending choices the catalyst says " wake up".

And yes i know why would that catalyst say " WHY ARE YOU HERE" simply. at this point, Shepard is damaged mentally and physically. Shepard is losing the battle and his/her allies are dying. The Reapers are annoyed that Shepard has made it thus far, and think Shepard is not fit to become a servant to the Reapers, yet a threat none the less.

4. Shepard still draws breath, the Reapers are still not done taking out SWORD, SHIELD, and HAMMER. They do not see any value in Shepard, yet they must willingly have Shepard believe that there is a way to "save" the galaxy, yet it would be at a very high cost. With that in mind, the Reapers allow Shepard to go pick destroy, there is no point if Shepard wakes up by this point because the Reapers already have finished taking down Shepard's allies. Though when Shepard still functioned, the Reapers still have to stall Shepard from waking up, and by a huge amount of luck, turn the tide of the war.

 

What standard are the Reapers holding Shepard to here? He is the first and only person in like a billion years to do any of this stuff. So why do they judge a low EMS Shepard as a failure when everything he still did is miraculous and one of a kind, do the Reapers somehow know things could have been done better? Also, how is a low EMS Shepard more physically or mentally damaged than a higher EMS Shepard? The dialogue and physical appearances don't differ between scenes, really the only difference is among other people, Shepard still acts and speaks the same; and a lower and higher EMS doesn't reflect the amount of deaths that have happened giving the dream sequences more weight.

 

Also, if Shepard is some how unworthy why bother with the scene at all? The Reapers have won regardless of EMS if Shepard is in a state to be Indoctrinated. Why just not kill him? Does he some how have some vital use to them? Are they just screwing around?

 

Tis try why is there any choice at all? It has been so. Saren, TIM, Kenson, Grayson, and so many others. Saren wanted to save everyone, and in doing so he went along with the Reaper's plans, and killed anyone who stood in his way. Saren was afraid of the Reapers, and wanted to live. He became a tool for the Reapers to destroy the galaxy, yet failed thanks to our Shepard's.

 

TIM, wanted to save humanity, and make it the most powerful race ever to be. The Reapers use this to their advantage and plan seeds of thoughts that Controlling the Reapers would be a good idea, and would help boaster humanity, far beyond what he could envision. However in the process he turned his troops into husk like beings, kidnap humans and created a larger army, and shipped those that had the genetic code to the slaughter house Reapers.

 

Indoctrination twists the minds of your thoughts, and goals. Hence hwy Shepard ask in you have a higher ems for just DESTROY alone, " There has to be a better way"? Why the goal and mission given was to stop the Reapers, and by this means killing them all, yet when the synthetics and including Shepard life is on the line. Shepard changes his/her mind.

 

ALso Zhu's hope still withstands Indoctrination since their minds are one. My theory is that Leviathan, the Rachni queen, or liara link their minds to Shepard, and is why Shepard wakes up, and would be unaffected.

 

Yes, Indoctrination twists your thoughts completely, you have no choice in the matter. How Indoctrination would work in the scene is that Shepard will always walk towards the Synthesis or Control parts, as the part of Shepard that can resist (choose Destroy) would have itself been destroyed. Indoctrination relies on some part of Shepard remaining intact, when Indoctrination removes this will completely. You can't resist it (unless you're a robot).

[SwobyJ]

All I can think of while reading this...
 

I can't go into detail for fear of accidentally saying the little that I know. And keep in mind that the little I know can change, so even what I know today may not be valid in a month or a quarter or a year, etc. So I definietely don't want you to think "Priestly says X so it must be X (or since many don't trust me, Y)".

As for Crimsontearz's comment, they stated it MUST be X or Y in their opinion. That does not make it so. It just means that they think only X or Y must be valid. To me, that severely limits the remainder of the alphabet of imagination.
 
-Chris Priestly

 

You lack imagination. Simple.

 
-Chris Priestly

[KaiserShep]

Indoctrination's a hell of a drug.

[Iakus]

Sometimes watching IT advocates justify themselves is like watching a kid present a long, drawn-out argument on why Santa is, indeed, real...

 

I can't help but sympathize, though.  I wish I had that kind of faith that the endings weren't a screwup of epic proportions to sustain me.

[KaiserShep]

I can't help but sympathize, though.  I wish I had that kind of faith that the endings weren't a screwup of epic proportions to sustain me.

 

Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?

[Iakus]

Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?

 

Something like that

[ImaginaryMatter]

I can't help but sympathize, though.  I wish I had that kind of faith that the endings weren't a screwup of epic proportions to sustain me.

 

I like IT enough, I think it's pretty clever. But I don't think it's anywhere near true, plus the implication is pretty grim as well, even if Shepard somehow 'resists' that still means he's lying on the ground somewhere before the Reapers straight up kill him.

[SwobyJ]

To be clear, my last post was towards both ITers like masterblaster and those who think that IT has nothing true to it at all.

[SwobyJ]

I like IT enough, I think it's pretty clever. But I don't think it's anywhere near true, plus the implication is pretty grim as well, even if Shepard somehow 'resists' that still means he's lying on the ground somewhere before the Reapers straight up kill him.

 

Nah, Shepard is fine.

[masster blaster]

Sometimes watching IT advocates justify themselves is like watching a kid present a long, drawn-out argument on why Santa is, indeed, real...

To be fair there was a saint Nichols. Yet it is the parents now that take in the roll as santa. Not to mention same can be said to people who think the endings are not terrible yet have little to evidence or vaild opinions unless you say " well it ended who cares". I think ythey do have some merit arguments but just like many or few may not see IT I don't see yhr same level as the endings being good unless IT is involved some way.

Each has his or her reasons towards the endings and I respect that, yet if you say that it is like arguing why santa is real to arguing for indoctrination is an insult for me.

[Kabooooom]

I keep seeing people say "you can't resist indoctrination". Sure you can. Saren resisted it with a bullet to the head.

[KaiserShep]

And he was heavily augmented. Per Joker's description, the guy was practically a marauder.

[AlanC9]

Each has his or her reasons towards the endings and I respect that, yet if you say that it is like arguing why santa is real to arguing for indoctrination is an insult for me.

What did you expect, though? A creationist dropping by a science forum wouldn't find his views respected either.

[SwobyJ]

What did you expect, though? A creationist dropping by a science forum wouldn't find his views respected either.

 

That is offensive towards the Maker.

[masster blaster]

What did you expect, though? A creationist dropping by a science forum wouldn't find his views respected either.

To be at least civil, and give a good comparison against IT rather than the "santa is real" thing. It I stupid to compare that to IT for there are no similarities and nothing on the same topic.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Bah IT.

[masster blaster]

Bah IT.

okay.

[Iakus]

To be at least civil, and give a good comparison against IT rather than the "santa is real" thing. It I stupid to compare that to IT for there are no similarities and nothing on the same topic.

 

Not respecting something is apparantly a perfectly valid reason to not be civil

[AlanC9]

To be at least civil, and give a good comparison against IT rather than the "santa is real" thing. It I stupid to compare that to IT for there are no similarities and nothing on the same topic.

 

I thought belief in Santa was a pretty good metaphor, actually. I think analogizing IT to creationism is a little more apt when we're discussing the merits, but DeinonSlayer was talking about the experience of reading IT arguments rather than their substance.

[masster blaster]

I thought belief in Santa was a pretty good metaphor, actually. I think analogizing IT to creationism is a little more apt when we're discussing the merits, but DeinonSlayer was talking about the experience of reading IT arguments rather than their substance.

It depends on which ones you read from though. Not everyone who likes or agrees with IT have similar views, or understand the original IT. When you hear fans " IT makes the most sense" you wonder why it does. They either know IT to some degree, don't know the theory at hand, or know some, but it could not be what the original is.

 

Same goes for the other choice ending fans. Most or some have different or similar views. Some are good views, and some just don't sway the other side, which could be anyone. I do my best to answer a question given to me as best as i can. I can only theories what evidence, or speculations I know, and we all have come up with. It could be true, and it may not be true, but theories is all we have, and some are good and some are not good. But that's goes to everyone who sees the endings from their view point or others, so it depends on what answer you are looking for, and your mind set on what you think it best.

[AlanC9]

I'd sign on for that if I'd actually ever heard any good IT arguments.But it's been years, and I haven't. The're all coming across as patched-together rationalizations to justify a position that wasn't chosen rationally in the first place. See, for instance, your response to Psychevore on page 22 above.