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

?

"Both Blue and Green use the Reapers in some manner."










"That which you know as Reapers are your SALVATION through DESTRUCTION."


Destroy is against the Reapers, yes, but so was Control as it was directly presented - winning through control of the enemy.

We just believe in Destroy's results more, because we've done it until now, and it has secured apparent victory. But the Reapers have also destroyed organics. Over and over and over. They keep coming. Destroy one and there's several elsewhere. Destroy them all and.. well, that's just crazy talk. (*cue Crucible ex machina*) Just as controlling others and merging others is what they do, destruction is a core facet of their kind. Destroy may be in the most clear resistance to the Reapers, but what it stands for (extermination of intelligent species en masse) is nothing new to them in itself. They do it on a regular cycle. This time it is just turned on them; but that is something you could argue for all of the endings, when taken directly.

Sovereign: Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction. This exchange is over...

By the way, I know the words were 'use the Reapers'.

But that's why the Catalyst is there. Catalyst is some big Reaper figure that we must, for some reason, use in order to continue. As far as Shepard knows, he's using the Reapers (joining with the freakin Citadel itself) to Destroy the Reapers.

Just using the Reapers more as a tool, instead of a peer (Control), or a part of a solution (Synthesis).

Its all they deserve, really.

I've always said that all the endings are twists.

Want to control > end up being controlled

Want to synthesize > end up being harvested

Want to destroy (thus resisting indoctrination) > end up being destroyed

But with high EMS, Shepard has enough war assets to survive this (attempt to destroy him)

As for ending up as a Reaper destroyer for picking destroy...

No. Just no.

Also, Gecko was obviously referring to ending colours.

As for the Reapers having red lights on them and red lasers, yeah I don't think that has anything to do with anything. Red is always the colour of menace and evil. Good guys shoot blue lasers. Bad guys shoot red ones. Also, lightsabers. Etcetera ad infinitum.

You can post as many images as you want Swoby, it does absolutely nothing to refute the point I was making. I wasn't referring to the usage of colour, but the three colour-coded options Shepard is faced with in the finale.

Being deliberately obtuse about it isn't going to sway my opinion at all.

Anderson clearly states "We destroy them or they destroy us".

And that is exactly what happens.. We either destroy them, or they destroy us utterly.

Example of Dream Logic:

Dreamfall Chapters - Zoe, the protagonist, spends months in a coma in a hospital bed. But a form of her is also in a dreamscape called the Storytime, where she is a hero helping others from being stuck in eternal nightmares.

She makes a choice regarding her identity (Red/Blue) but endeavors to wake up regardless, in some form (either more like her old self, or more like her dream self). 

She wakes up.

Next scene with her is months later. She forgot most of the events. Because it was a dream.

She has to come to remember crucial parts of her past in order to save the world.


This is just an example. I just wanted to say how when we're dealing with dream concepts, 'waking up' isn't always as simple as 'get up, kick ass, remember all that went before'. It can actually be treated as a soft reset of the plot. *Someone* wakes up, but it won't be until they remember everything, that they can be considered to be the full continuation of the earlier protagonist.


EDIT: If this is somehow what is happening, more or less, then yeah, I'd expect a Breath Destroy Shepard to most remember the most of what happened, without sacrificing his human identity. I'm just not so sure about lower EMS.

Raistlin Majere wrote:That is what Destroy is to me, it is Shepard's subconscious mind showing him the right path, the way out (...)

Exactly. Like when Aria and Shepard are trapped inside a force field in the Omega generator, Aria refuses to go down without a fight; she attacks the very fabric of the thing that's holding them captive (like when Shepard shoots the tube in destroy), and finds a way out. When asked how she knew she could do that, her reply is: "I didn't."

There's another white transitional light at the beginning fo the game right when Shepard and Anderson are running toward the Normandy and the Normandy's cargo bay doors open up with the VS there and then Shep and Anderson say goodbyes and goodlucks and all that jazz. . That's when there's yet again another White transitional light.

So we have:

One in Arrival.
One during the beam run
One during the ascension to the decision chamber
One during the geth consensus
And now one at the beginning.  


Yep.

- Waking up from the ME3 dreams.

I think there's more, but don't remember now.

Oh wait I totally forgot why I just came in here. It actually had nothing to do with this convo, silly me. I wanted to point out something about a show that reminds me of Mass Effect 3, I don't know if anyone else has made the comparison but I doubt it because it's an unlikely comparison.

Why? Because the show is The Legend of Korra. Spoiler alert for those who give a fuck

Korra Spoilers:

Has anyone ever said that Shepard was indoctrinated?

I thought a major point of IT was the simple statement, that Shepard was undergoing the process of indoctrination (it being a process due to the fact that if Shepard was going to be turned, it would be done using slow indoctrination - so that he would become the ultimate sleeper agent). And the end game, where the discussion regarding the three choices relvoves, deals with the turning point in this process. The beam run, the Citadel, the TIM/Anderson confrontation, and finally the decision chamber > is the Reaper's last attempt to complete the process.

The player's choice determines the outcome...so if Shepard is indoctrinated or resists indoctrination would have impact after the choices - and that being the main reason for all the butt hurt...because if true, there is no way that the story could be over.

And Terramine, to answer your question - wouldn't it be as simple as the way Bioware handled the end of ME2. If Shepard died during the SM, then that Shepard's story could not be continued. Similarily, I could see the simple solution being that if Shepard succumbs to indoctrination, that Shepard's story can not be continued. And given the implication that a Shepard who refuses dies along with the rest of the "cycle" - that would be a similar game state.

IF, Shepard's story is to continue the only way that can be done is using the only game state that explicitly states that Shepard is alive - high EMS destroy w/the breath scene.

DSharrah wrote:

IF, Shepard's story is to continue the only way that can be done is using the only game state that explicitly states that Shepard is alive - high EMS destroy w/the breath scene.

That's not entirely accurate.....

"Has anyone ever said that Shepard was indoctrinated?"

In fact I'm saying it. Or suggesting it. We assume Shepard can break out. We assumed from the start that there would be some way to avoid it.

The original concept does not actually have much in the way of ARTISTIC VISION. There is much more art, within showing the players exactly HOW one gets indoctrinated... and focusing solely on that. Showing the players how Shep has been indoctrinated, showing the players how THEY'VE been indoctrinated.

Not that Shepard has been indoctrinated this whole time. I agree up till the point of "completion". Where I assert that completion HAPPENS and there is no escaping it.

"The player's choice determines the outcome..."

No that's an illusion, other ITers have explained plain as day that the point was never actually choices mattering.

"And Terramine, to answer your question - wouldn't it be as simple as the way Bioware handled the end of ME2. If Shepard died during the SM, then that Shepard's story could not be continued. Similarly, I could see the simple solution being that if Shepard succumbs to indoctrination, that Shepard's story can not be continued. And given the implication that a Shepard who refuses dies along with the rest of the "cycle" - that would be a similar game state."

But see, EA wouldn't allow such a thing. EA will not allow artistic integrity to actually DAMAGE funds in any way. The only reason ME4 might be allowed by EA, is because they're cashing in. But if you piss off a huge portion of the fanbase... Controllers, Synthesizers, Refusers, etc. Then you're blatantly sacrificing shitloads of fans just for your artistic vision. EA wouldn't have that.

Also why would Bioware seek to piss people off in the first place? I get that IN CONTEXT, said people are wrong. But they are wrong in context of a fucking video game. Not something to justify going out of your way to piss them off pointlessly. However if all endings are indoctrination. Most people will be fine with it. If anything, it'll be loved by a wider arrange of people.

Terramine wrote:

vlad78 wrote:

They did so only when Shep was there.

In case it wasn't clear, Vlad is demersel or whatever that corrupt Admin's name was. There's no way he knows of ideas like Shepard having his own indoctrination ability, unless he's been in this thread for a long time and has been interacting with other people. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

   
Yeah I'm Demersel, how could you unmask me?  I'm  the space pirate ,
Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!
   

Btw who the f%µ% is Demersel!! (and thank you for the lol)

In case it wasn't clear, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
But previously mentioning Riff allows me to make some assumptions about the so called demersel. Was he russian with a hint of smugness?

Anyway stick to what you want but as we previously said (smash and I) we've been speculating over IT by ourselves since the release of ME3, just as long as many of you and maybe longer and Shep being able to create it's own neural network is one of our favorite theory (and imho the answer to what kind of anomaly shep could have within his genetic potential).

It would answer to the question how can shep break someone else's indoctrination, how could he/she resist for 3 games (at least 2) to reaper indoctrination, how could he/she learn his squadmates powers, how could he become better at what he was doing simply by tagging along some of his squadmates for long enough in ME1, how could he/she sway anyone else's opinion (with some meaningful exceptions) and this started right after being subjected to Sovereign's indoctrinating sound on EP (when Sovereign was lifting off) .

So who's Demersel?
Is he 'Dmitry Yaroslavskiy' (I've just made a quick google search)

Okay, catching up on the thread.

Vlad isn't demersel. He's someone from the Clevernoob forum. Demersel is too busy right now filming, for his job, all day.

Demersel doesn't even agree with Choose Wisely.

Reading on...

Mass Effect is really not a big EA money maker. EA is putting most of their time and money into the DICE made games most notably Battlefield and Star Wars battlefront. With the yearly releases of their sports games of course. As important as we'd like to think Mass Effect and BioWare for that matter are too EA.... They're really not.

The Battlefield series has sold nearly 60 million games and grossed over 3 billion dollars...... Madden has almost the same numbers as does fifa.

Point being, I actualy think EA could give 2 shits about Mass Effect or other BioWare games. Hence the long, long time between ME3 and the next game. Lets just assume the next Mass Effect game comes around 2016ish. That's well over FOUR. 4. Years without having a Mass Effect game in the market, EA would never allow such things from their really important, ie top priority/money maker games like BF, Madden or Fifa. Or even SIMS.

This is both a good and bad thing. It's good that EA's "make money at all cost and meet deadlines no matter how the game is polished or lack their of" attitude doesn't really apply but.... It's also bad because it means that BioWare can get lazy and just go through the motions with the next game (which I think they are).

I'm leaning more and more toward the complete reboot idea for the next "Mass Effect" game. I think it won't be until 2017. And I think it will be completely new and only resemble the Shepard saga in title and small elements.

The long time between ME3 and this game validifies my perspective because if the next game was bout Shepard, I would think BioWare would have released it already, while the aftermath of ME3's ending are still relatively fresh in people minds.

But I think we're looking at 2017 and at the earliest 2016 for the next game. It would be like BioWare going "Oh hey, remember Shepard and that really controversial ending for ME3 back in 2012, well.... yeah, so here's Shepard. Remember that guy???".


The "time heels all wounds" approach. I think they're banking on the idea of, "hey if we just wait long enough people won't really care and all the people who think ME3's ending was something else and Shepard is coming back will have moved on"

I could honestly see the next Mass Effect game becoming like Half Life 3, they might just keep us waiting forever.

I don't think people would even remember or really care at this point, lol. So this leads to the conclusion that the next ME game is a complete reboot entirely. Brand new team. Brand new Director and all that jazz.

Terramine wrote:Everybody started talking about Destroy, so I started talking about Refuse. Y'all stop talking about Destroy, I'll stop talking about Refuse. Note how i didn't pop up talking about this UNTIL Y'all did it first. don't be hypocrites.

I stopped fighting before because y'all stopped talking about destroy. I'll stop if y'all stop. I didn't start it.

Are you out of your mind? This is the official IT forum. The theory that is completely based on the idea that destroy is the option in which Shepard resists indoctrination and wakes from an illusion. Sure, there's lots of versions of IT, but that is the main theory. You can't expect people to stop talking about destroy in the IT thread. That is completely and utterly absurd and unreasonable.

Now you may have your own ideas about IT, and that's all fine and dandy, but that does not give you the right to attack any and all mentions of destroy in the freaking IT thread.

We weren't having a discussion about destroy vs. refuse. So yes, you did start it. And now thanks to you I'm going to have to moderate the freaking thread again.

Terramine wrote:In case it wasn't clear, Vlad is demersel or whatever that corrupt Admin's name was. There's no way he knows of ideas like Shepard having his own indoctrination ability, unless he's been in this thread for a long time and has been interacting with other people. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

And this is relevant to this discussion, how? And even if you're right, anyone is free to post here under any alias they like, unless they were banned, which he wasn't. End of discussion.

Terramine wrote:@Everybody Y'all still haven't accounted for the fact that, either Shepard is or he isn't indoctrinated. It would require 2 different games to have both.

No it would not. Anyone who picked control or synthesis willingly chose to kill off their Shepard. Even if that means their Shep isn't dead, it means their Shepard is completely out of their control, he's become another person, and (in line with ME themes) for all intents and purposes, dead.

We've mentioned this only a zillion times or so.

Thank you DD.

Terramine wrote:But see, EA wouldn't allow such a thing. EA will not allow artistic integrity to actually DAMAGE funds in any way. The only reason ME4 might be allowed by EA, is because they're cashing in. But if you piss off a huge portion of the fanbase... Controllers, Synthesizers, Refusers, etc. Then you're blatantly sacrificing shitloads of fans just for your artistic vision. EA wouldn't have that.

Controllers and synthesizers have nothing to be pissed off about, because once again, they willingly and knowingly chose to kill off their Shepard. You can't sacrifice your Shepard and then expect to be able to play with him again, now can you?

Terramine - Did it cost Bioware or EA any money on ME3 when they didn't allow people who killed a Shepard in ME2 to continue that storyline with ME3?

Because if you looked at my post (meaning, actually understood the words that I wrote - instead of flying off half cocked, because someone chose to agree with you)...you would understand that is the exact comparison that I was making.  As Doomsday just said, in the case of this discussion:

Dead ME2 Shep = Indoctrinated ME3 Shep : Alive ME2 Shep = Unindoctrinated ME3 Shep

One game play state allows you to continue the Shep storyline, one does not.

And while you may be right there could be some initial blow back to an IT reveal - most of the chatter that I have heard (be it on twitter, facebook, forums, conversations, etc.), would indicate that an IT reveal would be a huge save for the franchise.  Meaning that you may see in uptick in ME1-3 sales after the reveal as people want to play it again "now that they know the truth".

What physiological mechanism does Shepard use to indoctrinate? Space magic? Does he wave his wand to hijack other's limbic system? Then how does femshep do it?