I have posted this in the Hallucination thead. I have been asked to post it here, with the hopes that it will bring discussion about the theory to the other thread.
Thank you.
In defense of the Hallucination/Indoctrination theory: the BioWare/Player Indoctrination Theory
With
the assistance of my peers throughout the rest of this thread, I have
collated a series of facts that I would like to present to the community
as being evidence for a
a priori intention for the endings of
ME3. Some of this information will not be new to a lot of you, and it
may seem downright strange to a lot of you. It does require a strong and
disorienting amount of suspension of disbelief, so if you cannot engage
in this type of thought process, I encourage you to skip over this
post.
It will hurt your brain. Or make you think that I'm crazy.
Likely both. (I'm okay with either.)
With the assistance of
countless others' highly important observations in this thread, I sumbit
to you that possibility the endings of ME3 represent the highest form
of the metagaming experience. The highest form of BioWare's "giving the
player choice that matters, from ME1 to ME3". The highest form of player
interaction that we have yet seen from a video game. This has never
before been attempted by a company, and it represents the ballsiest
dedication to story and lore that may exist.
I believe that the
endings may be indicative of BioWare attempting to allow the player the
real-time experience of what indoctrination would be like. This theory
explains (in a highly weird, impossible, and completely insane way) all
of the missing pieces in the hallucination sequence, and also explains
BioWare's real-world actions (such as complete silence since the fan
sh*tstorm broke in response to the endings).
If you have not been
keeping up with the thread, or if you have not read Byne's/Kitten
Tactics/Turtlicious' amalgamation of all of the evidence we have
accumulated for the originial hallucination theory on page 1, then I
would urge you to do so before you read any more of this post. Due to
time constraints, I won't be posting all of the evidences that we have
located in this post to confirm or contradict this theory: I leave it in
your capable and self-aware hands to attain this information yourself. I
am posting this as an add-on to page 1, as I don't think it was
properly represented there in its entire grand scope.
So, to the meat of the issue:
We
have already established as much evidence as we can that 'proves' that
Shepard is either hallucinating/dreaming just prior to/immediately after
he runs into Harbinger's beam/Conduit. The hallucination/dream sequence
has been quite well fleshed out, with a lot of compelling environmental
evidence to support it (again, please see page 1 for further analysis).
I am going to use this particular vehicle of suspension of disbelief to
propose that BioWare's intention during this sequence is to flag the
player with as many markers as they can: This current reality playing
before your eyes (the Citadel, the Catalyst, TIM, Anderson) is a
reflection of Shepard. It is the product of his/her mind. The meeting
with the Catalyst may or may not be rooted in reality; they may meet in
some metalphysical dimension, or Shepard may just hallucinate the entire
thing. Either way, this theory would argue that it essentially doesn't
matter, because what truly matters is the role of the player in this
sequence. Your role. The scene is set in a way that urges the player to
become aware of things just
not being right, of being a place
that mirrors (literally) Shepard's experiences throughout the game. The
reality presented on the Citadel is an amalgamation of archetypes of
every thing Shepard has seen in the series, which this theory challenges
the player to understand as being a direct prompt from BioWare to
understand that what is truly happening during this scene is all within
Shepard's mind. His/her reality. Under her/his control.
Understanding
that the reality on the Citadel as being a cerebral concoction that is
entirely of Shepard's creation is important when we arrive upon the
Crucible. It becomes a vital understanding when we are faced with these
three, seemingly bizarre and unexpected choices that the Catalyst gives
us. This theory submits that BioWare is asking the player to actively
question EVERYTHING that happens once Shepard runs into Harbinger's
beam. The cost of not questioning, or making the right choice even if
you do?
Real-time player indoctrination. Shepard's literal death.
Think
about it carefully. We arrive on the Crucible, and are faced with an
archetype of manipulation, the Catalyst. Taking the form of a child that
has come to represent everything that is horrendous about the Reapers
to Shepard, the Catalyst/Harbinger provides Shepard with three strange
and disorienting choices. He first presents Shepard with the option of
Destroy, making swift and empty assertations about how it is the wrong
choice because it would kill all synthetic life and Shepard
herself/himself. At its surface, this seems like the renegade/chaos
option, and is even insidiously portrayed in Renegade Red, a direct nod
to the Player himself/herself. Directly appealing to your experiences
with how the game works. He then goes on at great length about the
Control and Synthesis options, portraying Control as the blue
paragon/order option. Again, directly appealing to the Player. He argues
that Control is the best option, implies that Shepard is the new
Catalyst, and leaves us to contemplate the possibility that we
could use it to try and save the people we love; after all, we are Shepard, and we would never become like TIM.
Synthesis is the last option explored, and it is portrayed as a
compromise or as being the Brave New Hope for the galaxy. I have a
suspicion that Synthesis may actually be the 'perfect' choice, but that
is for another theory.
(If you're curious, read about the
tech-singularity lore within the game, and research humes spork's posts
about the singularity within this thread.) Either way, Synthesis smacks
of strangeness because it seems so inherently Reaper-oriented. As though
it were servicing the Reapers' philosophy more strongly than the other
two options.
This moment, when you are standing there, agonizing
over your choice? This is your indoctrination moment. This is where, it
could be (fantastically and insanely) argued that this is the moment
when indoctrination and all of its insidious power becomes as real as it
possibly CAN be to the Player. Think about it! We stand there. We
agonize. We freak out about the ridiculous choices, and we wonder (like
Shepard would) why we just can't ARUGE with the Catalyst (like Shepard
would). And then, as this reality seems to be the only way forward (much
like how indoctrination presents a version of reality to the
indoctrinated that he/she sees as being the ONLY REAL OPTION -- echoes
of TIM, Kai Leng, Saren here), we begin to
accept it. Tremulously, we start to make our choice.
If
you choose Control, then you, the player -- the one who moves through
the game though Shepard's eyes; every choice s/he has ever made in the
game has been directly because of you -- have been indoctrinated. It may
have been because you thought you could save your crew, your LI, or
that you really could gain perfect Control over the Reapers because you
are Shepard. Regardless, you have been duped. Indoctrinated by the game.
Your slow exposure to the Reapers in 2007 culminates to this final
choice -- complete and free player agency and determination.
If
you choose Synthesis, you face a fate similar to that of Control. It's
debatable to me at this point as to whether or not you have chosen to
fulfill the Reapers' purpose, but indoctrination is still a heavy
possibility with this one. The only reason that I state this with any
certainty is because, like the ending we see with Control, Shepard is
dead at the final credits.
If you choose Destroy, then the Player
Indoctrination Theory submits that this is you, the player, deciding
whether or not Shepard overcomes the indoctrination attempt being rained
upon him/her by Harbinger/the Catalyst. If you decide this option, and
if you have enough EMS to ensure that Shepard has enough real-world time
to get through the indoctrination attempt/hallucination -- Shepard
lives. We see him/her breathing in the rubble of London streets at the
end of the game. Shepard has defied indoctrination. You, yourself, have
defied indoctrination.
Does this theory make sense? Maybe not.
When we consider BioWare's real-world motivations and risks (profit,
losing a large fanbase over the disgusting wretchedness of the endings
as they currently exist), then the theory is hard to support. But if,
for just one moment, we can let ourselves believe that BioWare may just
have lived up to their celebrated philiosophy of Player Choice and
Player Acutalization, then this theory becomes awe-inspiring. Is it
possible? Could BioWare have sacrificed the potential for safe profits
in order to bring the most insane and beautiful gaming experience of all
time to its fans? The most unprecedented example of player immersion of
our times? Would BioWare have truly allowed the risk for profit and
angering a serious amount of their fan population in pure deference to
the story, and its lore?
It may explain BioWare's silence on the
matter, until "more people have played the game", or until all regions
have the game. It may explain Jess M.'s twitter about fans "reacting
before having all of the facts". It may.... just may explain these super
sh*tty endings in a way that would make BioWare the God of RPGs.
Is it likely? No. Am I reaching, insanely? Yes.
But is it possible?
Yes.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
