Re: (XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

by Raistlin Majere Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:15 am

windsurfing wrote:While Shepard's story needs a proper finishing and the reaper threat is most definitely not over unless ME3's crap is taken literally, which would be just pathetic, there is probably another 10 years left in Mark Meer and Hale to voice Shepard without the losing the required quality of their voices. Beyond 15 years from now their age will certainly start to show through their VO performances. Can't image the point of an 45-50+ Shepard trying to go around the galaxy trying to be tough and stopping wars. Wouldn't make sense to have an N7 way past 40s trying to be an elite soldier. At the start of ME3 Anderson makes a reference to Shepard's belly about being a little soft around the edges. Shepard is 32 by the timeline of ME3's events. Maybe a good 8-9 years left in him if he survives the reaper battle but not beyond that.

It's could be like Star Trek, after Kirk's legendary status is established Jean Luc Picard comes on the scene to take up the Mantle, then we have almost in parallel the events with Sisko and Janeway.

MEU can develop along this style of progression with new heroes to focus on and develop separate complete sagas.

For me Star Trek always reminds me of Cpt James T Kirk, like wise ME will always remind me of Shepard no matter who comes next and how great they turn out to be.

Actually 40-50 is probably not that much off a drawback for humans in the ME univese considering a throw away comment from Shepard in ME1 mentions that humans can now live to a 150. While the reason is not given, it is likely that the point where skills start to deteriate a lot due to age has been lifted, likely as a result of genetic and cybernetic enhancement, the last one we know Shepard has had done to him extensively.

So a late 40's start of 50s Shepard is in my eyes probably not gonna be that handicapped in skill due to age.

by windsurfing Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:52 am

Raistlin Majere wrote:Actually 40-50 is probably not that much off a drawback for humans in the ME univese considering a throw away comment from Shepard in ME1 mentions that humans can now live to a 150. While the reason is not given, it is likely that the point where skills start to deteriate a lot due to age has been lifted, likely as a result of genetic and cybernetic enhancement, the last one we know Shepard has had done to him extensively.

So a late 40's start of 50s Shepard is in my eyes probably not gonna be that handicapped in skill due to age.

Fair point I completely forgot about that part, even so life stages are not linear. Just because they live till 150 doesn't mean the more fitter periods are extending by just as much. That's what matters most. People could be living out the older ages longer than Humans today. Moreover we are talking about elite N7 soldiers, however in your support, Shepard is different since Lazerous project. It's repercussions are unknown. Hey are we onto something here? Who knows.

Regardless of the above probability it still poses a real world problem for the VOs. It will ruin it if someone else takes over for Shepard. Liara's VO was forced into a more tougher performance from ME2 onwards, it almost sounded like she had 2 packs of smokes a day for the last two years to get that bad. I actually thought it was a new VO.

In all honesty even before ME3's launch as far back as ME1 I never expected Shepard's story to continue more than 5-6 games. That would be a lot already by then. 20 years or so of Shepard.

by **DoomsdayDevice** Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:27 pm

Hanako Ikezawa wrote:There is nothing to suggest that the same thing can't happen again once Shepard's story is concluded.

That's the point.

by Dwailing Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:03 pm

Raistlin Majere wrote:
windsurfing wrote:While Shepard's story needs a proper finishing and the reaper threat is most definitely not over unless ME3's crap is taken literally, which would be just pathetic, there is probably another 10 years left in Mark Meer and Hale to voice Shepard without the losing the required quality of their voices. Beyond 15 years from now their age will certainly start to show through their VO performances. Can't image the point of an 45-50+ Shepard trying to go around the galaxy trying to be tough and stopping wars. Wouldn't make sense to have an N7 way past 40s trying to be an elite soldier. At the start of ME3 Anderson makes a reference to Shepard's belly about being a little soft around the edges. Shepard is 32 by the timeline of ME3's events. Maybe a good 8-9 years left in him if he survives the reaper battle but not beyond that.

It's could be like Star Trek, after Kirk's legendary status is established Jean Luc Picard comes on the scene to take up the Mantle, then we have almost in parallel the events with Sisko and Janeway.

MEU can develop along this style of progression with new heroes to focus on and develop separate complete sagas.

For me Star Trek always reminds me of Cpt James T Kirk, like wise ME will always remind me of Shepard no matter who comes next and how great they turn out to be.

Actually 40-50 is probably not that much off a drawback for humans in the ME univese considering a throw away comment from Shepard in ME1 mentions that humans can now live to a 150. While the reason is not given, it is likely that the point where skills start to deteriate a lot due to age has been lifted, likely as a result of genetic and cybernetic enhancement, the last one we know Shepard has had done to him extensively.

So a late 40's start of 50s Shepard is in my eyes probably not gonna be that handicapped in skill due to age.

Zaeed was 40, iirc. Anderson was 49 by the time ME3 rolled around. Hell, Admiral Hackett was 52. Age doesn't stop asskicking in the ME universe. ^^ Besides, we've pretty much concluded that Shepard is a human krogan, and Wrex is old enough to remember the Rachni Wars if memory serves. Tongue

by Guest Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:33 pm

I'm pretty sure that 40-50 for humans in the MEU = 30-40 in current standards. One's prime may continue into the 40s ideally, not 30s.

At least that's how I internally reason things.

This isn't to say that Anderson is in his prime. I'm more thinking that while he's approaching the end of his combat effective state, he's still quite ready to fight when need be. His body hasn't really degraded, even if it soon (in years) would if the war dragged on.

Shepard could probably go another 10-15+ years as an effective soldier, with the tech/medicine that the MEU offers, at least generally.

While humans can live to about 150, I'm sure that equals 80-90 in current terms, AKA far beyond most use, but still potentially able to live well enough before the body just gives out. One is probably still useful for work until at least the 60s-70s, instead of current standards of that being the time that one at least winds down.

Its actually a pretty conservative estimate of anti-aging technology for the next 1-2 centuries. For all we know, the next few decades could bring significant breakthroughs that adds years if not decades to the average lifespan (that at least has access to the treatments), but I don't want to assume that kind of thing before solid results are shown.

EDIT: I'd actually say that aside from Reaper-derived tech (which includes Mass Relays and even maybe mass effect cores), the technology in Mass Effect (especially for humanity) is actually very conservative (especially pre-Contact) compared to what even the moderate futurists predict for the next 1-2 centuries. Bioware actually kept expectations rather low, while leaving the super-high-tech stuff to either come from the Reapers or the Prothians (who themselves were propelled by Reaper tech).
Maybe, in a way, it was done this way in order to have Mass Effect more 'timeless'. If we end up underperforming over the next century, then that's okay because it was all from Reapers in Mass Effect anyway. If we end up overperforming, then Mass Effect can be seen as a quaint estimation of future tech, but an understandable one. I don't think anyone really wants to be like the ones who depicted humanity commonly using flying cars in 2010 ;). 'It was all Reapers/Space Magic' may be a better bet as it puts things out of human responsibility and therefore predictions. Star Wars did that in its own way, by putting things in a 'galaxy far far away', instead of our own galaxy with our own humanity.

by Hanako Ikezawa Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:31 pm

DoomsdayDevice wrote:
Hanako Ikezawa wrote:There is nothing to suggest that the same thing can't happen again once Shepard's story is concluded.

That's the point.

My post was more about the notion that the Mass Effect franchise needs Shepard when it does not. The Reaper storyline yes since the Reapers are Shepard's foe. Having someone else take over would be like the Inquisitor taking over for the Warden in fighting the Blight. But once that story is done, we are in the same place as we were when watching the first game develop: staring at a vast world with great possibilities.

by Hanako Ikezawa Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:32 pm

Dwailing wrote:

Zaeed was 40, iirc. Anderson was 49 by the time ME3 rolled around. Hell, Admiral Hackett was 52. Age doesn't stop asskicking in the ME universe. ^^ Besides, we've pretty much concluded that Shepard is a human krogan, and Wrex is old enough to remember the Rachni Wars if memory serves.

You're thinking of the Patriarch. Wrex was around during the Krogan Rebellions though which was still over a millennium ago.

by **DoomsdayDevice** Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:17 am

Hanako Ikezawa wrote:
DoomsdayDevice wrote:
Hanako Ikezawa wrote:There is nothing to suggest that the same thing can't happen again once Shepard's story is concluded.

That's the point.
My post was more about the notion that the Mass Effect franchise needs Shepard when it does not. The Reaper storyline yes since the Reapers are Shepard's foe. Having someone else take over would be like the Inquisitor taking over for the Warden in fighting the Blight. But once that story is done, we are in the same place as we were when watching the first game develop: staring at a vast world with great possibilities.

The who taking over for the who fighting the what now? Never mind.

My point is that they should address the Shepard incident first. If they do something else instead, they'll have to dance around it and the whole thing will suffer for it. They might just be too chicken shit to address it and if that's the case we're sure to get some kind of lame spin-off.

If they address the Shepard issue first, yeah, then the ME universe could get interesting again, even without Shepard.

by Guest Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:12 am

I wouldn't mind if the whole secondary layer of ME4's story was about the Shepard Incident while the primary layer is something mostly unrelated (but still with lore ties to the secondary layer).

But only as long as Shepard content, even if made optional like Loyalty missions largely were, is fantastic.

by Dwailing Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:43 am

Hanako Ikezawa wrote:
Dwailing wrote:

Zaeed was 40, iirc. Anderson was 49 by the time ME3 rolled around. Hell, Admiral Hackett was 52. Age doesn't stop asskicking in the ME universe. ^^ Besides, we've pretty much concluded that Shepard is a human krogan, and Wrex is old enough to remember the Rachni Wars if memory serves.
You're thinking of the Patriarch. Wrex was around during the Krogan Rebellions though which was still over a millennium ago.

Ah, okay. I got my really old wars confused. Tongue

Yeah, Krogan Rebellions, that's it.

by Terramine Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:35 pm

Yeah the reality is, Shepard would look as old and torn as say Hackett and still on the battlefield. Like Big Boss. You'd expect a legendary warrior who might be a bit rusty now, but still better than everyone else outside of their prime.

by dorktainian Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:35 am

"what harm could there be in powering up something we barely understand?"

ah... the trollin. good job bioware.

by windsurfing Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:16 am

dorktainian wrote:"what harm could there be in powering up something we barely understand?"

ah... the trollin. good job bioware.

You mean with regards to the next game? Sort of already addressed in ME1 backstory, ME2 (codex?) and in ME3 by Illusive man talking about how people on earth were scared about activating the charon relay after they learned of the existence of such devices when they discovered the Mars Prothean ruins prior to that.

If we are reading correctly what Bioware has been hinting at lately, we are in for more exploration of unknown regions of the Milky Way, there are definitely more deactivated relays out there some even yet to be discovered.

by dorktainian Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:01 am

windsurfing wrote:
dorktainian wrote:"what harm could there be in powering up something we barely understand?"

ah... the trollin. good job bioware.

You mean with regards to the next game? Sort of already addressed in ME1 backstory, ME2 (codex?) and in ME3 by Illusive man talking about how people on earth were scared about activating the charon relay after they learned of the existence of such devices when they discovered the Mars Prothean ruins prior to that.

If we are reading correctly what Bioware has been hinting at lately, we are in for more exploration of unknown regions of the Milky Way, there are definitely more deactivated relays out there some even yet to be discovered.

i was thinking more in regards the crucible.

(XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV! - Page 7 10930770_4896907437119_7620531864731872438_o

(XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV! - Page 7 10930770_4896907437119_7620531864731872438_o

by windsurfing Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:24 am

dorktainian wrote:
i was thinking more in regards the crucible.

Ah ok, yeah that was very very strange and frustrating at the same time. Like how everyone seemed to automatically think it can be the key to winning the war before they knew what it even does.

The even more baffling part is that "experts" from all over the galaxy come together to build this, how do you build something when you have clear blueprints and not understand what it does from the outset? If the parts are like lego blocks to be assembled based on a blueprint then ok, makes sense that we don't have to know much what the end product does. Here it is totally from scratch, no blocks lying here and there for them to pick and assemble. Assembly vs manufacturing.

Random wild speculation here: maybe as they start building it the components start acting like indoctrination devices and everyone is pretty much made to think what they like to think, this device will beat the reapers i.e win the war. Still wouldn't explain how the leading minds didn't suspect something was off from the very start before they even started to build.

Yeah I know the other more obvious explanation , the pressures of war and the threat of imminent defeat shortsighted them, forced them to try anyway out of sheer desperation to have faith in something even if it that faith may well be misplaced. That sort of story arc arch would be disappointing.

by Guest Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:06 pm

In the literal-story sense, I can personally buy that people were just rushing to make it as well as possible, without comprehending the science behind it. With extra resources (Crucible War Assets, etc) they can do more with it than even the original plans detail. And there can be enough geniuses involved with the Crucible that we seem to get some hints that they're starting to understand how it works (again, War Asset detail mostly), by the end of the game.

All of this jives with the literal storytelling.

But what makes me not believe it, as always, is the ending. Mind trip. Virtual choice representations. Shoot a fucking tube to kill Reapers? Sounds fine if killing a single Reaper - not so logical if part of an ancient machine plan.

Though I can still buy that the Crucible is a general thing (even if we somehow don't know exactly what it is and IT is true) that interacts with all of the relays and Reapers and other stuff that is mentioned. I just can't believe my lying eyes for the ending scenes.

by windsurfing Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm

From an engineering standpoint it is total BS how they go about using the blueprints and not understand what they are looking at if they even have the idea to start work on it.

The other aspect of this why will a design of this type even have the option to control, synthesize or destroy the reapers. Said device was allegedly the work of countless cycles before humanity's cycle, why will they take the pains to have these options in this device is just beyond common sense. Everyone would just look to destroy the threat for good. scratch

by dorktainian Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:50 pm

I might leave something regarding the crucible in scary door as something just occurred to me as being a possibility.

As far as building it....it never made sense to me. Why devote all your resources on something you have no idea about what it does or how it does it, when you can be massing your fleets or devoting your resources to actual combat?

by Raistlin Majere Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:14 pm

dorktainian wrote:I might leave something regarding the crucible in scary door as something just occurred to me as being a possibility.

As far as building it....it never made sense to me. Why devote all your resources on something you have no idea about what it does or how it does it, when you can be massing your fleets or devoting your resources to actual combat?

Because even throwing all those resources at the fleets would not allow victory, only delay the defeat.

We are outmatched beyond hope, sure we can bite back, make it the most costly cycle ever for the Reapers, but victory cannot be achieved through traditional military means, the Reapers are too strong for that.

Maybe if people had listened from ME1, prepared ever since then instead of pointless bickering and denial, just maybe then we could have had a fleet able to challenge the Reapers properly. But by the time they are here it is far too late. Too much has already been lost and the attack on earth is just one last stand of defiance before a long drawn out defeat.

A miracle of some kind is needed, the Crucible beeing the only thing even close to that.

I do believe it is a trap though, but one that nontheless generates immense ammounts of energy, one of the few things we know for a fact about it. We just need to direct that energy and perhaps, just perhaps, we might have a chance.

by Terramine Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:54 am

Well, anyone notice something? The device itself isn't the whole picture. It literally requires the citadel. The equivalent of taking a puzzle, splitting it in half. Build one half yourself, and let someone else build the other half without having looked at your half. They will never be able to figure out what is on that other half. Even if it's say, a puzzle where their half is clearly say... a kitten. How do they know the puzzle doesn't suddenly turn into some kind of monstrous thing? How do they know, the other half HAS to fit with their half, the way they might expect?

The only difference here, is it's not a picture of something we even recognize in the first place. So why would we be able to fill the void of our ignorance? When it's completely beyond our knowledge? Our understanding?

But it could still work, perfectly so. You could still have them build the half without ever knowing it's full purpose.

Which might I remind everyone here, that IF a crucible was built with the Citadel in mind... doesn't that technically require one to understand how the fucking citadel works? You would have to know all it's functions, in order to build something that could plug into it. We know the fucking previous cycles never fully understood the Citadel. They understood it just as much as we understood the Crucible the moment we found the blueprints. That's seriously, the sheer lack of understanding we have about even the citadel itself. Which apparently is the CATALYST for the Crucible itself?

by Terramine Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:55 am

Here we have one device KNOWN to be created by the Reapers, that we don't understand at all. And along comes some mysterious device, that is TECHNOLOGICALLY ON PAR WITH THAT SAME DEVICE. ZING ZING ZING, RED FLAG.

by Hanako Ikezawa Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:15 am

Raistlin Majere wrote:
Because even throwing all those resources at the fleets would not allow victory, only delay the defeat.

We are outmatched beyond hope, sure we can bite back, make it the most costly cycle ever for the Reapers, but victory cannot be achieved through traditional military means, the Reapers are too strong for that.

Maybe if people had listened from ME1, prepared ever since then instead of pointless bickering and denial, just maybe then we could have had a fleet able to challenge the Reapers properly. But by the time they are here it is far too late. Too much has already been lost and the attack on earth is just one last stand of defiance before a long drawn out defeat.

A miracle of some kind is needed, the Crucible beeing the only thing even close to that.

I do believe it is a trap though, but one that nontheless generates immense ammounts of energy, one of the few things we know for a fact about it. We just need to direct that energy and perhaps, just perhaps, we might have a chance.

Yeah. In conventional warfare, to beat a technologically superior enemy you need two major advantages: better numbers and better strategy. Unfortunately for any cycle they do not have that advantage. Even if we dedicated the years between ME1 and ME3 to preparing for the Reapers, overall it would have made no difference.

While we have superior numbers, the sheer amount we need to take down one Reaper is massive and overall unobtainable. And the Reapers are legion. As Sovereign says, their numbers will darken the sky of every world. And considering they have been around at least a billion years and build a new Dreadnought and at least several Destroyers every 50,000 years that means they have around at least 20,000 Dreadnoughts and several times the amount of Destroyers. We can't match them in a numbers game since it takes a fleet to take one distracted Reaper Dreadnought out. The numbers game is even more one-sided on the ground, since as Garrus put it for every one they gain, we lose two: the one they take and the one who can't fire on a friend.

As for superior strategy, the Reapers have us beat there to due to them being incredible intelligent AIs, each of them having the mind-power of an entire race. Any strategy, no matter how brilliant, we try they will be able to figure out and counter the next time we try it. There are exceptions to this, but those strategies come with monumental challenges on our side which we wouldn't be able to sustain long enough to win the war.

So really, we need some sort of miracle weapon. And voila, the Crucible is presented and many people see that as the answer to their prayers. Especially when backed by Commander Shepard, the person who knows how to defeat the Reapers more than anyone else in the galaxy and is seen as a galactic hero for stopping Sovereign and the Collectors. So I get why people see the Crucible as what deserves the supplies. But as I said, the Reapers are crafty. If giving a fake weapon or even a Trojan horse would give them an easier time, they'll do it without hesitation.

by windsurfing Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:56 am

The crucible being a trap or infact some form of tech developed by previous cycles under the influence of indoctrination there by making it a big reaper trap is, that's all fine.

Like two people pointed out above, we cant win a conventional victory. Even if the council cared and everyone was on the same page from day one and took Shepard seriously they really did't understand much about the mass relays, they know how to use and learned how to activate some based on info recovered from the mars archives in the case of humans similarly other races could have made similar discoveries much earlier to humans.The key here is that these structures where already built and there to be used.

The crucible was not ready made, nothing existed, it is only in blueprints. Take it from an engineer, you cant build anything from a manual if there aren't already lego blocks for you to assemble. A blueprint is a highly technical document, so the engineers/scientists either know what they are looking at and know it will produce an energy beam when activated or they don't know anything about it and cant start work on anything.

Manufacturing is completely different to assembly. Unless there was some account of how the team 'assembled' everything I am under the firm impression it was all manufactured from scratch. Anderson kept repeating that no one really knew what this thing would do or if it would even work.

My take on this discrepancy, can think of two possibilities for now.

1) This is oversight by the writers, they are writers after all not technically inclined professionals or some discipline of engineering. This of course raises the question why someone like Casey who has a Mechanical engineering background not see the big problem with this, or the mass of software engineering workforce who would have known about these story elements. Lapse of judgement? has happened to even some of the best, so who knows. There is also the argument of "well the general masses are not all heavily into the technical aspects of such things, they wont notice or care for such things, we'll keep it this way for dramatic effect". True but those who will notice it will point it out anyway.

2) The scientists understood exactly what the device does but didn't know what this device should be interacting with. The blueprints are only highly detailed for it's construction and its independent working. I write blueprints all the time for my ASIC test programs because the next engineer taking over needs to know what I have done and what I had intended to do, they can take it from there without issues and time losses figuring out things which leads to needless reinventing of things. If this was the case then the lead writers did a terrible job in conveying it when they made it more like "we don't know what it does" all the time. It should have been more like "we know it's a device that fires a destructive beam of a certain type but something is needed to work with this and that is not detailed in the blueprints". Ah but then the element of suspense about what really is the catalyst would be lost as it would be more obvious the catalyst is the missing device....

It would also follow that even if they don't have the blueprints for the citadel and hence couldn't connect the dots right away, they would have had some sort of technical intuition that something was off. That's probably were the pressures of war and threat of imminent defeat got the better of them and they persevered anyway. Plausible and understandable.

by Guest Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:39 pm

They already said what it does (emits powerful energy, interacts with relays, etc). They just don't know what it does (what it results in achieving).

They clearly did know enough to suppose that it is a weapon against and even to damage the Reapers, but TIM also seemed to know enough to be sure that it was capable to control Reapers.

If the Crucible was a project that took many cycles to develop, at least to some significant extent, then should it really be a surprise that the plans that pass forward is some combination of those who were not indoctrinated and worked on it as a weapon, and those who were indoctrinated and worked on it as a tool?

The impression is also left that we never, ever get complete plans. No cycle has ever completed it in its full form, nor fully understood what it would eventually become. It was only this cycle that completes it, and may have incorporated elements from both the free-willed and indoctrinated builders over the previous cycles. And then we can make it so good, with so many assets pooled towards its construction and defense, and so much understood about what it is capable of (though again, not what it really does), that synthesis becomes possible, at least once combined with the Citadel/Catalyst and specifically Shepard himself.

I'm taking a mostly literal perspective here though, for the record. And things are still so vague that we can still learn of this all as a manipulation or false/dream/illusion of some sort. Just saying that with what we're given, I'm not one to be confused or disagree with Bioware showing us a Crucible that the galaxy understands a lot of, at least eventually, but still doesn't really understand what it'll ultimately do to everything around Earth, the Sol System, and the Milky Way.

That's why we have Hackett bring up the nuke. Clearly, nuke tests didn't vaporize the atmosphere or the Earth, but until it was tested, it was all just theory.

So in ME3 we're shown theory put into results, of varying types and success rates. Its the ITers that go "Something's not right about this", and especially how the choices are presented to us.

I at least find it possible that the choices are all illusion, and that everything we did may have been actually a very bad Destroy Result (more or less). The Indoctrinated/Controllers were wrong, and the Dreamers/Synthetizers were wrong. Maybe in some sort of realm, good stuff happened, but I'm at least prepared for the result that someone wakes up in 'ME4' and sees that they caused ruination to some large extent.

Just like atomic/nuclear research, we may have first developed the 'bomb', but this could still lead to research in more future technologies.

by windsurfing Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:57 am

SwobyJ wrote:They already said what it does (emits powerful energy, interacts with relays, etc). They just don't know what it does (what it results in achieving).

Anyone know a YouTube video for the sequence that shows this?

SwobyJ wrote:
That's why we have Hackett bring up the nuke. Clearly, nuke tests didn't vaporize the atmosphere or the Earth, but until it was tested, it was all just theory.

I don't ever remember Hackett talking about nuke tests in the past. At what point does he bring this up? YouTube video if available would be great.

by Sponsored content