937 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

Reprogramming something without its consent is an insidious means of corrupting its beliefs. If you were a program written to do good, and someone inserted a virus in you to do bad things, or to have you believe as the enemy does it is sort of similar.

Brain=organic computer
CPU=synthetic computer

You can brainwash an organic, just like you can reprogram a computer.

Shepard: I will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat.
Indoctrinated: I will destroy anyone who threatens the future of the Reapers.

Peaceful machine: My mission is to serve man.
Reprogrammed machine: Destroy all humans.

It's essentially the same thing.

Except there is nothing insideous about "corrupting" synthetics in Mass Effect. In every case we see in the game,synthetics choose to ally with the Reapers themselves, without any manipulation - heretics and ME3 geth. Furthermore, the game specifically mentions indoctrination as being organic-only process. Similarities exist but they are not the same thing and should not be called as such.

[Vazgen]

[Ithurael]

Dont forget Benzia

 

Or the Salarians on Virmire

 

Or Amanda Kenson

(here she is being possessed by harbinger...note Yellow not blue)

 

Or Rana

 

All of whom were very much so indoctrinated

 

Essentially the whole Blue Eyes thing is a result of exposure to reaper technology. It is NOT a sign of indoctrination nor a symptom. Edi even had the same pattern in her eyes.

[Vazgen]

If you put it that way, Shepard chose to ally with the Reapers in control and synthesis. He wasn't forced.

 

Corruption doesn't mean force.

 

Also in that codex it states that indoctrination can suggest certain things, without forcing you. The power of suggestion is part of mind control.

 

I could suggest to you that all synthetics will die in the destroy ending, you would believe it and then pick the control and synthesis ending. Some people believed what the kid told them and they swerved off the path and didn't pick destroy.

This was not about Shepard, this was about EDI. Shepard is an organic.

The Reapers use subliminal manipulation to empower their suggestions, make them more appealing. The methods they use do not apply to synthetics though. Electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise - neither of those affects software. They can modify the software through hacking but it is as brute as forceful implantation. Not indoctrination.

[Helios969]

Is the italed actually true?

Yes, though I am basing that on modern chip architecture...but I see no reason that whatever technology future synthetics are comprised of would have significant deviation in the way they are manufactured.  All model X types would be identical, X+1's would deviate slightly but be identical within that group, etc...  It's the most basic difference between organic and synthetic life; organics grow, synthetics are manufactured.

[Iakus]

Except there is nothing insideous about "corrupting" synthetics in Mass Effect. In every case we see in the game,synthetics choose to ally with the Reapers themselves, without any manipulation - heretics and ME3 geth. Furthermore, the game specifically mentions indoctrination as being organic-only process. Similarities exist but they are not the same thing and should not be called as such.

EDI feared being reprogrammed by the Reapers if the Normandy was ever captured.

[Ambivalent]

I dislike "I wanted blue children :'(" people because of their naivety. Galaxy falling apart, people wanted unicorns and rainbows, pft. Want a Tinki Winki pet aswell?

 

Anyway I think i believe IT. I believe proofs are out there as pointed a few times. People just can't admit their "awesome Shephard" is human after all. A human and walked a dangerous path since Eden Prime.

 

So i think Bioware tried to make IT canon but afraid to admit it after that much crapstorm. I can understand that totally

[Ambivalent]

Is that the root of the problem? People don't want to believe Shepard is just human?

 

I never considered that.

 

Personally, that's all I want Shepard to be... but I'm on the fence about IT. It's interesting at least.

 

What i meant was Shephard became really influential and powerful character since first game. 

 

I wouldn't for example classify Anakin Skywalker as "human". Yes he had emotions, dreams, had his heart broken a few times, he was afraid to lose Padme etc. but he was a hero/villain even at Pod Race sequence. He wasn't your typical jedi, sitting on their post futuristic chairs to wait for stuff to happen. He made them happen

 

Back to our dear Shephard.

 

No need to mention smaller stuff or rest of the series. Letting a genocide to happen or release their queen? Letting council to die or save them? Earning a place for humans in council even voting for human councilor as outsider, saving the galaxy etc. 

 

He/she was human so to speak but even at the end of first game he/was much more. A war hero or a ruthless leader doesn't really matter. He/she was full of influence, had will to do anything and had power to decide on so many big things.

 

I think he/she lacked any imperfections according to some folks because Bioware tend to introduce our characters as heroes from start.*

 

Remember Shephard's psychological profile? Even sole survivor sounds worthy and that was lesser than being a war hero by saving a squadron or being ruthless but getting the job done.

 

* Only exception comes to mind is Dragon Age 2 but it had its own problems though i liked it. (Edit: Forgot about KOTOR, i won't forgive myself as a fanboy -.-)

 

PS: I mean, in Battle of Citadel there was at least Admiral Heckett but Shephard decided to "ignore" or "save" council members. It might be simply "bad design" that an Admiral following your orders and not arguing about your choice in any way but i also think Shephard was probably one of the most influential, powerful and iconic organic living at that time.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well, there was this....

 

[SwobyJ]

I found it hard to breathe, I was laughing so hard at that.

[RanetheViking]

lol@IndoctrinationTheory.com

[AlanC9]

Yes, though I am basing that on modern chip architecture...but I see no reason that whatever technology future synthetics are comprised of would have significant deviation in the way they are manufactured. All model X types would be identical, X+1's would deviate slightly but be identical within that group, etc... It's the most basic difference between organic and synthetic life; organics grow, synthetics are manufactured.

But synthetics are manufactured by different people at different times, sometimes without the need to maintain backward compatibility. You can port 8088 code to, say, a Cortex-A8, but is the code really all that similar? (I never get down to that level myself).

[AlanC9]

Well, yeah, but that's like saying that organic thought is all about making particular neurons fire.

[AlanC9]

Well, we do have to accept some fundamental distinction there, yeah, since it's baked into the lore.

[Ambivalent]

Even Shephard believes.

 

Spoiler

[dorktainian]

of course shep's indoctrinated, but then so are we......

 

[SwobyJ]

How do we fight something that can worm its way into your head?

I don't know, but we don't have a choice.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Even Shephard believes.

 

Spoiler