RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,243
Posts: 5,348,248
Members: 24,610
Currently online: 671
Newest member: CptRoLorne

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Gaming

Gaming Non-Star Trek Gaming

View Poll Results: Do you believe in Indoctrination Theory?
Yes, the endgame of ME3 was a battle in Shepard's mind. 3 18.75%
No, the endgame of ME3 was literally what it appeared to be. 12 75.00%
I don't know, there is not enough evidence either way. 1 6.25%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 2 2012, 05:07 PM   #31
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Destructor wrote: View Post
Firstly: Your aggressive tone is entirely unnecessary. We are spitballing about a computer game. GodBen managed to reply without being a jerk and his points came across all the more strongly for it.
The tone of that statement came off far more derogatory than I had intended and for that I apologise. It wasn't meant to be directed at you personally, but the IT theory as a whole. Such are the perils of communicating exclusively through text.

I still stand by the substance of it though. Nothing of what I've seen in the months since IT became popular has made me a believer. As you appear to acknowledge in your own point-by-point, there's no solid evidence at all and most of it smacks of wilful misinterpretation.

The only oddities I will concede as, uh... "odd" are to do with the kid. Firstly, in his initial appearance, in the same amount of time it takes Shepard to walk from his holding cell to the courtroom, he manages to travel from the top of the building on which he was playing to the building in which she finds him. I've checked this for myself and it's about five blocks "left" (from Shepard's initial POV), across a car park and up another half dozen or so floors to the balcony where he is next seen looking out over the railing, shortly before the first husks show up,

Of course we don't know how long Shepard was out following the blast in the courtroom. It could have been less than a minute or it could have been an hour before Anderson comes too and wakes her up. For all we know that building is where the child lives, or were his parent(s) work, explaining why he fled there at all. It look more like an office building that an apartment block, so I'm guessing the latter. Odd, sure, but not inexplicable.

The other oddity and possibly the *only* thing that truly supports the indoctrination theory is the fact that the catalyst choose to appear in the boy's form. The only place that image could come from is Shepard's mind, thus, at least by the very end, the reapers had at least gotten into Shepard's memories or subconscious.

It doesn't prove she was indoctrinated, just that they did somehow get inside her skull to some degree.

I suppose it could be a passive thing in which Shepard's own mind projects a familiar image over something her mind can't fully comprehend, rather than it being the catalyst actively choosing and projecting that image. Maybe it's an primordial AI or maybe it's a highly evolved, post singularity "being of light" and the only way for such a young mind to comprehend it is to interpret it into a more familiar shape.
Reverend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2012, 08:34 PM   #32
throwback
Captain
 
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

I have seen this concept in the film "Contact" where an alien whose form would be incomprehensible to a human chooses a form - her deceased father- that she would accept.

The path of the child from the park to the building is I think the result of bad level design, and is another case where the IT proponents are using a piece of evidence that can be argued away as the result of the developers being lazy, out-of-budget, out-of-time, or careless.

As for the Mass Relays being rebuilt, the Codex states clearly,

Mass relays are feats of Prothean technology advanced far beyond the technology of any living species.
(Codex/Technology, Primary, Mass Relays)

Unlike the Protheans, who were able to build one primitive version of the mass relays that could transmit individuals and vehicles from Ilos to the Citadel, the best that the current cycle can do is communication buoys.

The buoys are little more than a cluster of primitive, miniature mass relays.
These buoys are only capable of transmitting lasers.

Real-time communication is possible thanks to networks of expensive mass relay comm buoys that can daisy-chain a transmission by lasers.
(Both quotes are from Codex/Technology, Secondary, Communications.)

I have read people's comments where they suggest that systems separated by the vastness of space could communicate by quantum entanglement communications. A major flaw with this idea is that this communication medium is dependent on the comm buoys for transmission.

The communications hub they set up on the planet has hundreds of quantum communicators, whose information is spread through broadcast on the planet and beamed out via comm buoy.
(Planetary Journal - "Ontarom")

The Reapers destroyed many of the comm buoys in the galaxy. (It is a major plot hole that the Reapers somehow missed the one buoy in the Sol system that would allow Anderson to communicate with the rest of the galaxy.)

Even if the plot armored comm buoy in the Sol system was still functional after the Commander's decision, there was no guarantee that other comm buoys in the galaxy were intact and/or active.

Last edited by throwback; May 2 2012 at 08:53 PM.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 02:13 AM   #33
Destructor
Commodore
 
Destructor's Avatar
 
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

superdeluxe wrote: View Post
Yup, The Fans of ME actually gave Bioware one of the best endings of all time (If not the greatest ending of all time). By Indoctrinating the actual gamer! How audacious would that have been? It was all gift wrapped, but Bioware wanted to protect it's artistic integrity.
But we're only referencing IT because of the in-game clues that are pointing us towards it. It's like Chekov said: If you put a put on the mantel in Act I, it's going to go off in Act III. Bioware is the one who put all these little signs all over the place, we are just extrapolating them to their natural conclusion- it's not like the theory is being conjured out of whole cloth, here.

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
They never explicitly said it, but it appeared clear from their tone that the IT wasn't intentional, they were fairly condescending to anyone that brought it up. It was almost like as if they were trying not to upset children, which is understandable considering elements of the fanbase were acting like children at the time.
While I was completely disgusted by the 'Retake Mass Effect' crew and the OTT reaction from some of the fans (I mean, even if you do take the ending literally, it didn't warrant that scale of reaction), so I completely understand if Bioware was a bit frustrated in their responses. However, and I mean this, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I will gratefully accept any evidence in either direction, but I have trawled through every bit of comment from Bioware I can find (and there is frustratingly little!) looking for some kind of comment that IT is or is not true, and everything they say seems... intentionally vague. Artistic choices and 'allowing players to make their own interpretation' and so on. If there's nothing to interpret... if it's all literal... why would they be responding in this manner?

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
10 million sales is Bioware's target[/URL] for all their big games. ME3 is unlikely to reach that now due to the ending controversy.
That is a fair statement and I in no way deny that this has backfired spectacularly, whether IT is true or not (and if it's not true, they just screwed up the ending, which is totally mundane and not fixable via extended content as they have described it).

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
It doesn't so much fix them as erase them. If the IT is true, none of what happened in the final 15 minutes was real, so all the plot holes didn't happen.
Isn't that sort of what we are after, here? Either the DLC will overwrite the ending, replacing it with something that makes sense, or it will extend the ending, in which case it will somehow need to make the last 15 mins of the game make sense- in which case, IT is the most logical way it would do that.

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
In another ending (probably control with high EMS) the races of the galaxy will have the ability to rebuild the mass relays.
Surely choosing control is as good as becoming the Illusive Man yourself? But seriously that is a good point, but again, it just makes me believe that IT is the only alternative. I cannot see a way that the ending would justify taking a path so clearly marked out by the game as being the path of evil.

Reverend wrote: View Post
The tone of that statement came off far more derogatory than I had intended and for that I apologise. It wasn't meant to be directed at you personally, but the IT theory as a whole. Such are the perils of communicating exclusively through text.
Thanks man. Apologies if my response was equally aggressive. I may not sound like it, but I am actually just having fun turning this over in my mind- I genuinely won't mind if it's IT or if it's not, and am excited to find out. A mate of mine said yesterday that he's just going to wait for the DLC before finishing the game 'so he gets the full ending'. I said that we are living in a very interesting time that will never come again- the time between the release of ME3 and the release of the ending DLC. After it's released, the answer will be out, one way or the other. There are very few mysteries in this age of google and wikipedia- generally if you want information, you can get it. Everyone knew the ending of Lost about 15 minutes after it aired, whether they'd seen it or not. It feels good, and fun (even if it is frustrating!) to have a genuine mystery to toy around with. I hope this discussion is all in good fun.

Reverend wrote: View Post
As you appear to acknowledge in your own point-by-point, there's no solid evidence at all and most of it smacks of wilful misinterpretation.
Quite so! I absolutely concede that all points individually can be argued away or even denied outright- hell, the answer 'bad writing' or 'a bug' can explain anything- even the garden planet mystery. But when you take all of these points in aggregate, they all seem to be pointing in a similar direction. It's like if your husband comes home smelling like perfume. You say: "What's up with that?" and they give a reasonable answer ("Walked through the perfume department of the mall!", so you dismiss it, because it seems a small thing. Then you notice they step outside to take calls, they they come home late occasionally, that their overnight business trips seem to become more frequent. Each element, on it's own, would not be suspicious. But when they all pile on top of each other, they each add up to, if not evidence, then at the very lease a compelling case. I have other strained metaphors at my disposal that I will deploy later.

Reverend wrote: View Post
The only oddities I will concede as, uh... "odd" are to do with the kid. Firstly, in his initial appearance, in the same amount of time it takes Shepard to walk from his holding cell to the courtroom, he manages to travel from the top of the building on which he was playing to the building in which she finds him.
I must admit I completely forgot about this appearance of the kid from my playthrough. I'm happy to believe the kid was real until his death, even with the Reaper growl and his mysterious disappearance and his odd statement (c'mon, what actual kid would say to Shepard: "You can't save me." Way to be a downer, kid. Don't you know who Shepard is?)

Reverend wrote: View Post
It doesn't prove she was indoctrinated, just that they did somehow get inside her skull to some degree.
Well, Shepard is also forced to shoot Andersen- that's a pretty clear sign that s/he was being controlled. In fact:

NEW INDOCTRINATION THEORY!

So, original IT maintained that Shepard went into his mind when hit by the Harbinger beam. How about this: Shepard did get into the beam and did go to the Citadel. Andersen and TIM are real and that scene happened. Then Shepard goes to activate the Crucible at the console and passes out before he can. Perhaps Indoctrination started then. Perhaps Shepard was just lying, passed out, in front of the console on the Crucible, and the battle in his mind was whether or not he would activate the crucible (destroying the Reapers) or not (succumbing to control). Same theory, different parameters.

Reverend wrote: View Post
I suppose it could be a passive thing in which Shepard's own mind projects a familiar image over something her mind can't fully comprehend, rather than it being the catalyst actively choosing and projecting that image. Maybe it's an primordial AI or maybe it's a highly evolved, post singularity "being of light" and the only way for such a young mind to comprehend it is to interpret it into a more familiar shape.
The fact that it is made up of Shepard's voices also supports this theory.

Have you guys seen the video that shows the endings where, if you choose control or synthesis, the kid kind of... smirks, before disappearing. It's pretty creepy. I hate that kid If you choose destroy the kid just WIPES, like you have gotten rid of him.

throwback wrote: View Post
I have seen this concept in the film "Contact" where an alien whose form would be incomprehensible to a human chooses a form - her deceased father- that she would accept.
Heh- on my first playthrough, the moment that kid appeared I yelled: "Contact!" Which of course reminds me of the scene in South Park where Mr. Garrison vomits over how bad the end of Contact was.

throwback wrote: View Post
I have read people's comments where they suggest that systems separated by the vastness of space could communicate by quantum entanglement communications. A major flaw with this idea is that this communication medium is dependent on the comm buoys for transmission.
Interestingly, Quantum Entanglement is a real phenomenon (although we've not managed to turn it into a workable communication technology yet, but the theory is sound), and has massive implications for lightspeed communications. The ramifications for physics if QE allows for faster than light communications are staggering, since it would theoretically allow for messages to be received before they were sent. I was pleased and impressed when ME referenced this real-world concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Destructor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 02:55 AM   #34
Destructor
Commodore
 
Destructor's Avatar
 
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

One further thought: Something we do very commonly in my line of work is called a 'post-publish fix'. So basically, we reach the deadline and the content is not ready, still has bugs, still hasn't been 100% QA'd, and we publish it anyway. On our QA'd Functional Specs we write: "Post-publish fix." meaning we'll publish, fix the bug after publish, then re-upload after we've made the fixes. This is very common in gaming, as well, which is why we have day one patches and even patches 3 months after publish.

Bioware no doubt was under immense time pressure to get the game finished, so maybe they just did a more advanced version of this? No time to finish the ending properly, so they just kind of... punted it down the line? Now they have no deadline and can spend more time with the ending. Doesn't support or deny IT one way or the other, but perhaps was planned to some degree.
Destructor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 06:03 AM   #35
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Indoctrination theory is clever, but doesn't fit with the kind of game Mass Effect is.

Oh, you chose the control or synthesis ending? Too bad. You were wrong.

That would be the first time the game basically shoves the idea of a particular choice being invalid down your throat. Paragon and Renegade are typically shown as equal, perfectly valid paths to the same goal. Instead of player agency being the driving force, you're being railroaded. Hell, I'd call it punishment, really, akin to how some people on BSN talked about how BioWare should punish Paragons for being naive, or punish Renegades for being dicks.

I would accept indoctrination theory for any movie, any TV show, hell any other game, but not Mass Effect. It goes against Mass Effect's core conceits. I don't take much stock in it, for that reason, and that reason alone.

Reverend wrote: View Post
The other oddity and possibly the *only* thing that truly supports the indoctrination theory is the fact that the catalyst choose to appear in the boy's form. The only place that image could come from is Shepard's mind, thus, at least by the very end, the reapers had at least gotten into Shepard's memories or subconscious.

It doesn't prove she was indoctrinated, just that they did somehow get inside her skull to some degree.

I suppose it could be a passive thing in which Shepard's own mind projects a familiar image over something her mind can't fully comprehend, rather than it being the catalyst actively choosing and projecting that image. Maybe it's an primordial AI or maybe it's a highly evolved, post singularity "being of light" and the only way for such a young mind to comprehend it is to interpret it into a more familiar shape.
I believed that particular oddity due to the Catalyst room actually being a sort of representative virtual environment, not unlike the area Geth Consensus you visit earlier. it explains how Shepard can still be up and about, despite having basically succumbed to blood loss.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 06:22 AM   #36
Destructor
Commodore
 
Destructor's Avatar
 
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
Indoctrination theory is clever, but doesn't fit with the kind of game Mass Effect is.

Oh, you chose the control or synthesis ending? Too bad. You were wrong.

That would be the first time the game basically shoves the idea of a particular choice being invalid down your throat.
There have certainly been 'dialogue puzzles' previously in the game, where if you choose the wrong dialogue, you die and the game ends. The conversations with The Illusive Man immediately prior contains one of these, as does your encounter with Samara's daughter in ME2, off the top of my head. Many of your choices in ME2 can lead to your death at the end of the game, also. Besides- it's not 'the rest of the game'. It's the end of the game. All bets are off, whether you believe in IT or not.

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
Paragon and Renegade are typically shown as equal, perfectly valid paths to the same goal. Instead of player agency being the driving force, you're being railroaded. Hell, I'd call it punishment, really, akin to how some people on BSN talked about how BioWare should punish Paragons for being naive, or punish Renegades for being dicks.
I didn't see the choices as paragon or renegade. I saw them as 'join with the goals of Saren/The Illusive Man' or 'continue on your original mission'.

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
I would accept indoctrination theory for any movie, any TV show, hell any other game, but not Mass Effect. It goes against Mass Effect's core conceits. I don't take much stock in it, for that reason, and that reason alone.
To say that Mass Effect's complexity and writing didn't meet and exceed any other game, TV show or movie is to ignore the previous 95% of the game.

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
I believed that particular oddity due to the Catalyst room actually being a sort of representative virtual environment, not unlike the area Geth Consensus you visit earlier. it explains how Shepard can still be up and about, despite having basically succumbed to blood loss.
That's not far off Indoctrination Theory- the premise behind the theory is that the final sequence of the game is happening inside Shepard's mind. Everything else past that is just details. If you accept that the final sequence may be virtual, you're more on the side of IT than the literal interpretation.
Destructor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 07:15 AM   #37
Destructor
Commodore
 
Destructor's Avatar
 
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Further evidence: People claimed they could see 'reflections of trees' on the shiny floor of the Crucible endgame area. This was all very 'Jesus on Toast', so someone went into the cubemap for the area and found this:

http://i.imgur.com/RIIzj.jpg

The trees ARE there. They are intentionally there. They have been specifically masked so that they generate reflections on the ground but cannot be seen directly.

Someone please explain to me why they would do this, if IT was not true.
Destructor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 10:05 AM   #38
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

^Easily. Like the catalyst's voice and appearance it's just more of the same reflection of Shepard's subconscious. The trees are just as much a part of that aspect of Shepard as the kid. In a sense they're one and the same.

The main problem with IT, or rather those hoping to prove it is that they approached it in the wrong direction. They started with the basic premise that Shepard was indoctrinated and none of the ending was real (because the didn't *want* it to be) and then proceeded to find every little inconsistency that supports it. While that may sound perfectly reasonable, it falls apart when you notice how inconsistencies and oddities that don't directly support IT (of which there are a not insignificant number) are totally ignored. If all of them pointed towards IT, there'd be a valid argument. The don't and the ones purported to are bloody flimsy at best.
Reverend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 04:47 PM   #39
TheGodBen
Rear Admiral
 
TheGodBen's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Destructor wrote: View Post
However, and I mean this, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I will gratefully accept any evidence in either direction, but I have trawled through every bit of comment from Bioware I can find (and there is frustratingly little!) looking for some kind of comment that IT is or is not true, and everything they say seems... intentionally vague.
Of course they're being intentionally vague. Throughout this shitstorm there has been a group of fans that are absolutely convinced, against the balance of probability, that Bioware are geniuses, and they've been encouraging the fans that are angry to cool off and wait for more. Bioware would be insane to intentionally throw away such an asset.

Isn't that sort of what we are after, here? Either the DLC will overwrite the ending, replacing it with something that makes sense, or it will extend the ending, in which case it will somehow need to make the last 15 mins of the game make sense- in which case, IT is the most logical way it would do that.
Actually, all I want are two things; I want my decisions to be shown to have consequences, and I want to be able to challenge the Catalyst's reasoning. I think that the Catalyst is full of crap, but the fact that a machine intelligence came up with such a flawed plan makes a perverse kind of sense to me. So I don't need that whole segment gone, I just need them to re-add the dialogue sequences where you question the Catalyst, which they intentionally cut out because they wanted "lots of speculation from everyone". If they can also reflect some of my bigger choices throughout the trilogy in the extended ending cutscenes, that would be swell. It wont make for a great ending, and I'll still hate the synthesis option with a passion, but I would find such an ending acceptable.

Surely choosing control is as good as becoming the Illusive Man yourself? But seriously that is a good point, but again, it just makes me believe that IT is the only alternative. I cannot see a way that the ending would justify taking a path so clearly marked out by the game as being the path of evil.
I don't think it was marked as the path of evil, control was the blue option after all and blue has always been the colour of paragon. That confused me the first time I played it, but that's the way it was. I also reject the idea TIM was evil. He was ruthless, he was certainly no hero, but he was motivated by a desire to protect humanity, and while he may have been tainted by indoctrination in his final days, that doesn't mean his ideas were invalid. The morality system in Mass Effect wasn't as complex as I would have liked, but it wasn't so simplistic that TIM can be characterised as a force for evil.
__________________
...so many different suns...
TheGodBen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 05:07 PM   #40
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
I don't think it was marked as the path of evil,
Except for
  • It being chossen by those who are indoctinated as Vendetta will tell you
  • You find out about from an indocrintaed person
  • And all your paragon options in the prvious section were telling the Illusive Man how it is wrong

control was the blue option after all and blue has always been the colour of paragon. That confused me the first time I played it,
Considering paragons were arguing against not two minutes ago of course not making it the paragon choice makes not sense.

I also reject the idea TIM was evil.
So the dead admiral, the fact that he wanted to start Overlord all over against despite the horrific things that happened the first time, the fact that he turned people into Husk hybrid things, the fact that he wanted to use a Reaper murder factory, he policy of killing people who quit, and all the other crap Cerberus was up to in the Mass Effect games doesn't at least make consider the possibility that he may in fact be evil.

and while he may have been tainted by indoctrination in his final days, that doesn't mean his ideas were invalid.
No all the torture and death that was part of those ideas are what make them invalid.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 05:39 PM   #41
PsychoPere
Vice Admiral
 
PsychoPere's Avatar
 
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

The Illusive Man had been "tainted" by indoctrination for a lot longer than just his "final days" - since the First Contact War against the turians, in fact.
PsychoPere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 06:59 PM   #42
throwback
Captain
 
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

I have difficulty in believing that the TIM was indoctrinated for decades.

There is a medical procedure called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. In this procedure, the doctor uses a device that sends electromagnetic signals to the brain of the patient. These signals alter the neurons in the brain, and has been proven in clinical trials to alter the morality of a person. The process is temporary for when the patient is no longer exposed to the devices he returns to normal, and requires constant exposure for the process to take hold. Reaper technology that indoctrinates individuals uses a similar methodology, as proven in the first game.

When I look at TIM's case, I know he is exposed to Reaper technology in the First Contact War, and, that for the time he is exposed, he is indoctrinated. Yet, when the war ended, he is no longer exposed to Reaper technology. So, I am thinking, based on the TMS, that TIM went through a process of returning to normal. Yet, Bioware claims that TIM never return to normal.

How did the Reapers maintain their indoctrination of TIM in the intervening thirty years between the end of the First Contact War and the Reaper War?
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 07:01 PM   #43
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
TheGodBen wrote: View Post
control was the blue option after all and blue has always been the colour of paragon. That confused me the first time I played it,
Considering paragons were arguing against not two minutes ago of course not making it the paragon choice makes not sense.
That would presuppose that "paragon" and "renegade" are moral absolutes. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think it's more that paragon is more passive, diplomatic, by-the-book and yes the more morally righteous whereas renegade is usually the more aggressive, direct, no nonsense, ends-justify-the-means and again, yes, morally grey option. In that context, the destroy option is the renegade thing to do as it take the geth down with the reapers and risks unleashing chaos and a permanent end to all orginic life (IF you buy starchild's BS of course.) Control is clearly the more peaceful and one might argue, selfless solution.

I also reject the idea TIM was evil.
So the dead admiral, the fact that he wanted to start Overlord all over against despite the horrific things that happened the first time, the fact that he turned people into Husk hybrid things, the fact that he wanted to use a Reaper murder factory, he policy of killing people who quit, and all the other crap Cerberus was up to in the Mass Effect games doesn't at least make consider the possibility that he may in fact be evil.
I agree with TheGodBen on this one. Of course it rather depends on your personal definition of evil and whether motivation or action is the more important factor.

I think the way TIM sees things, if he and Cerberus failed in their endeavours then all those people they murdered would be dead anyway. Better they die serving a higher cause than end up mulched into reaper paste.

He didn't commission all those horrors and atrocities because it made him feel good, he did it because (as far as he was concerned) it was absolutely necessary.

Put it this way, if TIM was evil, he wouldn't have been anywhere near as interesting as he was. A good villain should always believe that he's the hero of his own story.

PsychoPere wrote: View Post
The Illusive Man had been "tainted" by indoctrination for a lot longer than just his "final days" - since the First Contact War against the turians, in fact.
Depends on what you mean by "tainted." Sure, he was exposed to reaper tech early on (hence the eyes) but it's still unclear exactly when the reapers took full control of him. My feeling is that it wasn't until he had those final cybernetics installed before going to the citadel. I'd be willing to bet he'd gotten as far as walking right up to that panel before either Anderson or Shepard arrived, only to find he couldn't push the button. Nothing up until that point makes sense unless he still had at least some influence over his own thoughts and decisions.

Destructor wrote: View Post
Further evidence: People claimed they could see 'reflections of trees' on the shiny floor of the Crucible endgame area. This was all very 'Jesus on Toast', so someone went into the cubemap for the area and found this:

http://i.imgur.com/RIIzj.jpg

The trees ARE there. They are intentionally there. They have been specifically masked so that they generate reflections on the ground but cannot be seen directly.

Someone please explain to me why they would do this, if IT was not true.
Further to what I said above, this also depends on the assertion that the dreams themselves are proof that Shepard is indoctrinated. They are patently not, ergo the trees being there in the final room is either a subtle reflection of Shepard's subconscious, or it's just the developers being cute.

Nowhere in the lore does it state that indoctrinated people have recurring nightmares. They have *waking* visual and auditory hallucinations. On the other hand, people who suffer from extreme trauma and stress are indeed know to have such nightmares. No giant eldrich cybergods required.

Also, while I'm at it; Vega's "do you hear that hum" line has nothing to do with indoctrination. The assertion that it is actually manages to be wrong in two distinct ways. Firstly, people who are indoctrinated don't vibrate, so if Vega is hearing something that isn't there, then wouldn't that mean that he's the one who's indoctrinated and not Shepard?

Secondly, while yes, methods of indoctrination dose include the use of infrasound, there's no way anyone would actually hear it. By definition, infrasound is sound below the frequencies audible to humans ears. What Vega is hearing is the noise from the massively oversized eezo core, bolted to the deck not ten meters from where he stands. We know this because *we can hear it too*.

Last edited by Reverend; May 3 2012 at 11:51 PM.
Reverend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 07:45 PM   #44
TheGodBen
Rear Admiral
 
TheGodBen's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Considering paragons were arguing against not two minutes ago of course not making it the paragon choice makes not sense.
The problem is that the paragons telling you not to trust TIM didn't know what he knew, they didn't even know exactly what the Crucible was going to do. TIM did, and when you're provided with new information at the end of the game you realise that TIM's claims may have been correct all along. Who is to say that if Anderson or Hackett knew that controlling the Reapers was as simple as walking up to a console that they wouldn't have changed their minds and decided to go for it?

So the dead admiral, the fact that he wanted to start Overlord all over against despite the horrific things that happened the first time, the fact that he turned people into Husk hybrid things, the fact that he wanted to use a Reaper murder factory, he policy of killing people who quit, and all the other crap Cerberus was up to in the Mass Effect games doesn't at least make consider the possibility that he may in fact be evil.
He was ruthless, he was a criminal, he deserved to spend the rest of his life in prison, but was he evil? As Reverend said, I think that's open to interpretation. Was he driven by ego, a lust for power, or was he genuinely doing what he felt was necessary to protect humanity? Perhaps a little of all three. But he did help Shepard when nobody else would, he did spend a vast fortune bringing Shepard back to life, thus saving galactic civilisation. He did some good things and he did some bad things. To me, he's somewhere between a villain and an antihero, which is why he's one of my favourite characters in the series.

No all the torture and death that was part of those ideas are what make them invalid.
So the torture that happens at Guantanamo Bay, the practice of extraordinary rendition, those acts invalidate the quest to prevent terrorist attacks? Don't get me wrong, I oppose those acts and think those involved should stand trial for human rights violations, but that doesn't mean that we should stop attempting to gather intel about future attacks altogether.

If controlling the Reapers allows for the reconstruction of the mass relays, and if it would aid in repairing the damage done to galactic civilisation, does it matter a damn that TIM once advocated it? Can't we admit that his motivation had merit even if his methods were unconscionable?

PS I picked destroy.
__________________
...so many different suns...
TheGodBen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2012, 11:08 PM   #45
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: ME3: The argument for/against Indoctrination Theory (Spoilers)

Destructor wrote: View Post
To say that Mass Effect's complexity and writing didn't meet and exceed any other game, TV show or movie is to ignore the previous 95% of the game.
You seem to have misinterpreted my post, in this particular point.

TV shows and movies are linear. Indoctrination Theory is a forced linear path.

Mass Effect is branching. Shepard didn't get indoctrinated when you let the council die, when one of your squaddies died due to not being loyal enough, when he/she saved the Collector Base. I see no reason why the ending to ME3 should punish alternatives, when prior games in the trilogy had not done so, and had even encouraged alternate choice.

Its not a difference in complexity. Its a difference in presentation and technique.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
mass effect 3

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.