364 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

Zanath wrote...

Tymvir wrote...

It makes no sense that the "kid" would even reveal that the red option kills the reapers if it was indoctrination. He could have deceived Shepard into thinking that the red option is useless.

Why people have such a hard time understanding the "it's in your mind" sentence ?
According to the theory, the kid DOESN'T EXISTS ! It's just the result of indoctrination, it's the result of your mind being twisted.

Indoctrination is a form of very subtle brainwashing, distorting how your perceive reality and how you reason so that you will take actions that helps the Reapers.
The kid is just the REPRESENTATION of how your mind is twisted. The "destroy" ending is just a representation of Shepard's determination to kill the Reaper despite early indoctrination warping his perception so that it's shown as the worst solution.

When you talk with someone in your dream, there is nobody feeding him his line. Your mind provides them. Same here, just that the working of the brain are parasited with indoctrination, so that the dream show a twisted reality where the actions helping the reapers LOOK positive.

Except there is no concievable way that taking control of the Reapers will help them since you will control them.  There is also no concievable way Synthesis will help them since the implants are based on Shepard not the Reapers.

So the only way for the indoctrination theory to work is to say "Everything we were told is a lie, here's what REALLY happened..."

Which is just asinine...

It's also inconsistant with the thinking that the Catalyst had to be telling the truth about the destruction ending destroying the reapers.  So the Catalyst can blatantly lie about the other things but not that?  It dooesn't make sense.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Zanath wrote...

Your reasonning is like saying "hey we know bullets can kill, we've seen it on other character, so no need to make Shepard killable through bullets, it forces people to avoid them !"
Or saying that a labyrinth is bad because you need to find a way and not fall into traps - well, isn't that the very point of a labyrinth, and why it's more interesting than a corridor ?
Your counter doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Understanding the level of the tricks played through subtle hints is bad because... err because you plays Shepard ?

Sorry, still makes no sense.

Um that's not what I'm saying.  That's too simplistic a way of looking at it.  You have to look at the function of what a hero/main character in a video game where player choice (as an integral component to the mechanic) is supposed to be.  In a book this argument might work, in a JRPG, sure, but this is a game where the PC (us) must make decisions.  This is a theoretical argument/philsophical distinction.

I'm addressing the role of player character as central to the narrative.  You indirectly are equating the roles of Saren/Benezia/TIM with the role of player character.  What is the function of being the most important character of game?  What is their role?  You can not ignore the place of Shepard in the game as the "savior" by equating him/her with the "villains."  By using the Indoctrination Theory as a lens for discerning the true or "proper" choice this is what you're doing.  You are in essence saying that these other choices are wrong because look at Saren/Illusive Man.

Player character is NOT these other characters.  Player character has a more nuanced understanding because he/she is aware of things the other characters are not.  Since the PC is Shepard, Shepard is aware of things the other characters are not.  

The version of Synthesis presented to Shepard is not the same as the version of synthesis that Saren presents to the PC.  The same goes for the Control ending.

In fact, if the theory was true, it would be a GREAT metagaming and narrative trick, much more deep and subtle than what the ending are for now.

I don't see it as very subtle at all.  Given that indoctrination is a realistic component to game, it could be assumed there was always the possibility of it.  It is a variation of  the "it's all a dream" and that ending overdone and cliche as anything.  But again, ymmv.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 22 mars 2012 - 08:41 .

[Ieldra]

@Zanath:
You can justify anything with that kind of "logic". "It's not what it seems" is a cop-out argument. I can as easily turn it around and say "Destroy is not what it seems because all it will destroy is you." The indoctrination hypothesis is a construction hanging in a void with no anchor in the reality of the ME universe. The only anchor is the association with TIM and Saren, and I believe I have countered that association successfully.

And *you* missed *my* point by a few hundred kilometers: I made the point of neither option being wrong because if everything is a delusion, all you have to base your decision on is your own values. There is no external evidence for or against because everything can be a lie. You can't pick and choose and say "X is a lie while Y is not". That's dishonest.

It call comes down to the indoctrination theorist's peculiar insistence that anything but to destroy the Reapers is out of character for Shepard. That's nonsense. What you and the other indoctrination theorists are doing is trying to canonize your version of Commander Shepard.

As for the thread title, it is deliberately provocative. It appears I hit some nerves? A little sting in your new belief system, eh?

Edit:
I also agree with Lord Aesir and Village Idiot (LOL, what a name)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 08:51 .

[Zanath]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Except there is no concievable way that taking control of the Reapers will help them since you will control them.There is also no concievable way Synthesis will help them since the implants are based on Shepard not the Reapers.

/facepalm

Hello :

t the other options are the twisted "positive" versions of what would actually help the Reapers (symbiosis => harvesting ; control => they are the one controling).
"destroying" is the goal they don't want.

Indoctrination is a form of very subtle brainwashing, distorting how your perceive reality and how you reason so that you will take actions that helps the Reapers.

You didn't even bother to try to understand the theory before bashing it, and you don't even bother to really get the post you answer to, right ?

Village Idiot wrote...

Um that's not what I'm saying.  That's too simplistic a way of looking at it.  You have to look at the function of what a hero/main character in a video game where player choice (as an integral component to the mechanic) is supposed to be.  In a book this argument might work, in jrpg for sure, but this is game where the PC (us) must make decisions.  This is a theoretical argument/philsophical distinction

I'm addressing the role of player character as central to the narrative.  You indirectly are equating the roles of Saren/Benezia/TIM with the role of player character.  What is the function of being the most important character of game?  What is their role?  You can not ignore the place of Shepard in the game as the "savior" by equating him/her with the "villains."  By using the Indoctrination Theory as a lens for discerning the true or "proper" choice this is what you're doing.  You are in essence saying that these other choices are wrong because look at Saren/Illusive Man.

Player character is NOT these other characters.  Player character has a more nuanced understanding because he/she is aware of things the other character are not.  Since the PC is Shepard, Shepard is aware of things the other characters are not.  

The version of Synthesis presented to Shepard is not the same as the version of synthesis that Saren presents to the PC.  The same goes for the Control ending.

So basically, what you say is :
"even if it makes perfect sense, it's not acceptable because of the expected role of a hero"
Sorry, but that's not what I call a convincing point...

I don't see it as very subtle at all.  Given that indoctrination is a realistic component to game, it could be assumed there was always the possibility of it.  It is a variation of  the "it's all a dream" and that ending overdone and cliche as anything.  But again, ymmv.

"it's all a dream" is usually very bad because it's used as a cop-out and rewrite lots of the previous canon.
If it's the case here, it's something foreshadowed since the very beginning of the game, which only rewrite a tiny part, and this part is precisely the one that doesn't make sense. It's also subtle enough that you don't realise right away what's happening, which is the POINT of indoctrination. If the theory is true, it means that the narrative managed to make us feel like someone indoctrinated, which is a terrific accomplishment in storytelling.
Having the character indoctrinated, but us aware of it, is rather easy (Bioware even described how they scrapped part of the endings where we actually lost control of Shepard, because it's not fun to be a passive spectator).
Having the character indoctrinated, but us NOT aware of it, is much harder, and requires much more subtlety.

The fact that the worse plot holes actually makes sense if the theory is right, and that it would have tricked the players, WHILE STILL PROVIDING HINTS making someone observant enough to be able to see it coming, would be an awesome accomplishment.

Modifié par Zanath, 22 mars 2012 - 08:51 .

[Praetor Knight]

Hmm... insulting rational thinkers? Oh I dunno, but why we need to frequently be provocative around here...


Anyway, then why do we assume Shepard will survive those injuries sustained by that Reaper beam in London? I'm of the thought that Shepard never got back up to even meet Marauder Shields, that it was all imagined by Shepard after getting hit in London. And I'm thinking back to the radio chatter as Shepard goes unconscious.

So, I figure Shepard is basically gonna be dead after that point in London from injuries sustained. The question is what happens after that's not a dream? Where I hope DLC with handle in relation to the stuff on Dark Energy and maybe weakening / overloading Reaper shields with the Crucible so that the surviving allied ships can take out the Reapers in a more conventional battle setting.

And I figure a second push by Hammer would then have to get to the Conduit, thus where EMS will be a huge factor. So here is where we could watch the Galaxy as we know it be destroyed, limp on by or even possibly survive with the Relays and Citadel intact.

So I'd be fine controlling another character, as we were able to with Joker in ME2, if we needed to control someone. And we would watch Shepard's choices throughout the trilogy reflect on how the events unfold after getting allied personnel back on the Citadel and controlling it.

At this point, I would hope that the Catalyst would then simply be critical data on the Reapers stored on the Citadel that allows the Crucible detect and lock onto Reaper Drive Cores, that are within range of the Crucible, so that we can weaken or counter act their Drive Cores. So the Citadel surviving here or not would then depend on the EMS score.

And I'm sure that once we watch that happening we can fade to black, listen to epic music and read text telling us that the Crucible scientists were then able to micro-scale the Crucible system to modify existing ship scanning equipment to identify reapers within a star system and be able to mount the anti-Reaper shield technology on dreadnoughts and cruisers so that the Reapers get defeated over the next few centuries with a synopsis of how each Homeworld will then fare in the Galaxy or not, depending on the Priority mission resolutions and the EMS score.



Also, I figure that the difference with the EMS, and getting that one special scene with the Destroy choice, is that a high amount could represent Shepard being in critical condition, barely surviving, who is then grabbed by Allies as Shepard is imagining the Normandy and Stargazer. So those players who unlock the special scene could be able see Shepard mutter some final words in London to those allies nearby before dying. Otherwise Shepard would simply die on the way to intensive medical care, and we move on to the events I go on about above.

[Heimdall]

Zanath wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Except there is no concievable way that taking control of the Reapers will help them since you will control them.There is also no concievable way Synthesis will help them since the implants are based on Shepard not the Reapers.

/facepalm

Hello :

t the other options are the twisted "positive" versions of what would actually help the Reapers (symbiosis => harvesting ; control => they are the one controling).
"destroying" is the goal they don't want.

Indoctrination is a form of very subtle brainwashing, distorting how your perceive reality and how you reason so that you will take actions that helps the Reapers.

You didn't even bother to try to understand the theory before bashing it, and you don't even bother to really get the post you answer to, right ?

Like I said, the argument is entirely reliant on the idea that everything we're told is a lie (Except the cherry picked truth of Destruction).  Which is still a total cop out with no basis in in-game reality.  I could apply that to the entire series and say Shepard has been in a coma ever since Eden Prime.  It holds just as much water.

[Ieldra]

Zanath wrote...
The fact that the worse plot holes actually makes sense if the theory is right, and that it would have tricked the players, WHILE STILL PROVIDING HINTS making someone observant enough to be able to see it coming, would be an awesome accomplishment.

I wonder if you would say the same thing if the Synthesis proved to be the correct option. Because you know, from a symbolic viewpoint and from meta-reasoning both it is the best option. Oh...I forgot, it's all a lie. Don't you see the problem? The hypothesis only works if you presume it to be true and then explain away everything that doesn't fit as a lie. It is structured so that it can't be disproven by presuming its own veracity in order to justify itself. Circular logic. That makes it so seductive to some people. Use Occam's Razor and it falls apart.   

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 09:01 .

[Zanath]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Zanath:
You can justify anything with that kind of "logic". "It's not what it seems" is a cop-out argument. I can as easily turn it around and say "Destroy is not what it seems because all it will destroy is you." The indoctrination hypothesis is a construction hanging in a void with no anchor in the reality of the ME universe. The only anchor is the association with TIM and Saren, and I believe I have countered that association successfully.

No, you've just completely missed the point of the theory.
Seriously.
I can't even start to counter your reasoning because you just don't get even the basis of the theory.
The only part you seem to have (vaguely) understood is that the ending was not real. All the rest went past about one light-year over your head.

As for the thread title, it is deliberately provocative. It appears I hit some nerves? A little sting in your new belief system, eh?

Please, guy, you're the one starting a troll thread over a theory you didn't even understood because you thought it was not allowing your belief system to express itself, and you're feeding me this line ? :-/

[Ieldra]

Zanath wrote...
Please, guy, you're the one starting a troll thread over a theory you didn't even understood because you thought it was not allowing your belief system to express itself, and you're feeding me this line ? :-/

Yes, I do. Because I'm not the one trying to impose my belief system on others.

About missing the point: The core point is easy to understand: you claim the scene takes place in Shepard's mind while he's fighting indoctrination. You claim that in order to escape indoctrination, you must choose Destroy. My point still stands: if Harbinger controls this reality, then anything can be a lie and you have no basis to prefer one choice to the other. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 09:13 .

[cyborg2501]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Zanath wrote...
The fact that the worse plot holes actually makes sense if the theory is right, and that it would have tricked the players, WHILE STILL PROVIDING HINTS making someone observant enough to be able to see it coming, would be an awesome accomplishment.

I wonder if you would say the same thing if the Synthesis proved to be the correct option. Because you know, from a symbolic viewpoint and from meta-reasoning both it is the best option. Oh...I forgot, it's all a lie. Don't you see the problem? The hypothesis only works if you presume it to be true and then explain away everything that doesn't fit as a lie. It is structured so that it can't be disproven by presuming its own veracity in order to justify itself. Circular logic. That makes it so seductive to some people. Use Occam's Razor and it falls apart.   

Occam's Razor doesn't really collapse the theory, it just suggests that the current ending is the correct one because it is the simplest answer with the fewest assumptions. Unless you have a more plausible hypothesis?

[Zanath]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, I do. Because I'm not the one trying to impose my belief system on others.

Yeah, thanks for exactly proving all my points.
Seems I'm not the one that had some nerves hit and a sting in his belief system.

And to reiterate my first post, funny how you take a jab at "emotionnal knee-jerk reaction" and present yourself as "someone with reason instead" while this entire thread is about your emotional knee-jerk reaction against a theory that you couldn't even manage to understand.

Basically, you're the best example of what you rail against, and what you rail against is the best example of what you would like yourself to be.
Oh, the irony !

[cyborg2501]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Zanath wrote...
Please, guy, you're the one starting a troll thread over a theory you didn't even understood because you thought it was not allowing your belief system to express itself, and you're feeding me this line ? :-/

Yes, I do. Because I'm not the one trying to impose my belief system on others.

If you want to believe in your indoctrination hypothesis, fine. If you want to bring Bioware to implement it retroactively, YOU ARE RUINING OTHER PEOPLE'S GAMES. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?

By the way, I agree that all this talk about I.T. has effectively ruined it for anyone. No one wants to see something they've already figured out. Even if it WAS Biowares plan, they'll have to change it enough so that people don't know what to expect.

[Zanath]

Ieldra2 wrote...

If you want to believe in your indoctrination hypothesis, fine. If you want to bring Bioware to implement it retroactively, YOU ARE RUINING OTHER PEOPLE'S GAMES. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?

I'm not you man, I'm not throwin a tantrum because I falsely interpret that my inner belief system isn't recognized by some theory made by some guys on the Internet. Please.

I do not "want to believe" in indoctrination theory. I just looked at it, and said "dang it, it just fits in perfectly ! It would be great if it was what Bioware had planned all along !".
If it happens to not be the case - if you notice, I always say "according to the theory" and not "it's what actually happened", because for now it's just a theory - then I would just /facepalm at Bioware for having done a REALLY sh*ttty ending and missing a huge potential.

I'm not among the people who want "another" ending. I think the endings are one of the most idiotic endings I've ever seen (if the indoc theory is false) and if they stand true, I think that Bioware should take whatever bad karma they deserve for making such an horrible mess.
But I'm not interested in them building a different ending just to please the fan. I'm actually on the "artistic integrity" side, even if for this case it seems either a genius' accomplishment (the indoc theory), or simply a cataclysmic display of incompetence/idiocy (if the actual endings were really supposed to be the real ones).

About missing the point: The core point is easy to understand: you claim the scene takes place in Shepard's mind while he's fighting indoctrination. You claim that in order to escape indoctrination, you must choose Destroy. My point still stands: if Harbinger controls this reality, then anything can be a lie and you have no basis to prefer one choice to the other.

Thanks for, again, proving my point that you rail against a theory you didn't even understood. I'll refer you to my few previous post, where I already answer exactly this point - though it doesn't seem reading on the I.T. provided you with any modicum of understanding, so I'm not sure it will do you much good.

Modifié par Zanath, 22 mars 2012 - 09:18 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

Zanath wrote...

"even if it makes perfect sense, it's not acceptable because of the expected role of a hero"
Sorry, but that's not what I call a convincing point...

Well, that's your opinion.  Up until this point, the Mass Effect series has presented us with a relatively straight forward expected role of a hero and while there are always variants of that construction, I see no other reason why logically, the last installment of this game would deviate from this path.  It's creating a twist for the sake of a twist when the narrative thus far has shown us otherwise.

I also didn't say it made  "perfect sense," I said it's plausible because indoctrination is very real within the Mass Effect Universe.  Debating illusion is pointless because essentially every intepretation could be attributed to affirming that illusion.  It's a circular argument and is exhausting.

"it's all a dream" is usually very bad because it's used as a cop-out and rewrite lots of the previous canon.

You mean that whole scene that supposedly begins the indoctrination sequence, right?  If you play it out exactly as is and believe it to be canon only to discover that, aha, Shepard has been indoctrinated, isn't that effectively rewriting canon?  

And it's all a dream ending in still planned (like Indoctrination Theory) it just tricks you at the very end so it's still "canon."    

If it's the case here, it's something foreshadowed since the very beginning of the game, which only rewrite a tiny part, and this part is precisely the one that doesn't make sense.

Or you know, it just could not have been implemented well.  Sometimes the lie is preferable to the truth.

It's also subtle enough that you don't realise right away what's happening, which is the POINT of indoctrination. If the theory is true, it means that the narrative managed to make us feel like someone indoctrinated, which is a terrific accomplishment in storytelling.
Having the character indoctrinated, but us NOT aware of it, is much harder, and requires much more subtlety.

I think it depends upon your definition of subtle.  I don't think a reading Indoctrination Theory is very subtle, but again, ymmv.

[Ieldra]

cyborg2501 wrote...
Occam's Razor doesn't really collapse the theory, it just suggests that the current ending is the correct one because it is the simplest answer with the fewest assumptions. Unless you have a more plausible hypothesis?

Of course it doesn't collapse it. I'm quite sure that after the new ending content has come out, some people will still believe IT was planned at some time and scrapped because people had figured it out in advance. Because well, that would only make sense. Yeah right. Bioware then comes out and says that no, it was never planned, and then the IT adherents would reply "Of course they wouldn't admit it. That would make them look incompetent". It's a merry-go-round conspiracy theory.

As I see it, "Bioware screwed up in an epic way" is the simplest explanation, especially after that insider information that surfaced earlier this day, claiming that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson had put it together without input from the team. 

[Zanath]

Village Idiot wrote...

Well, that's your opinion.  Up until this point, the Mass Effect series has presented us with a relatively straight forward expected role of a hero and while there are always variants of that construction, I see no other reason why logically, the last installment of this game would deviate from this path.  It's creating a twist for the sake of a twist when the narrative thus far has shown us otherwise.

I don't see how escaping indoctrination through stubborn determination is not a straightforward role for a hero.

Or you know, it just could not have been implemented well.  Sometimes the lie is preferable to the truth.

Let's clear something up : I'm not saying "the I.T. is definitely true !", I'm saying "the I.T. is a f*cking great theory that just fits perfectly, and if it's what Bioware had planned, they just made a superb narrative twist".
It's also perfectly possible that Bioware just messed up in cosmic scale. But the thread is about I.T., so I answer about I.T.

You mean that whole scene that supposedly begins the indoctrination sequence, right?  If you play it out exactly as is and believe it to be canon only to discover that, aha, Shepard has been indoctrinated, isn't that effectively rewriting canon? 

Do you think that the Geth consensus scene is rewriting canon because Shepard was there only in mind ?

Modifié par Zanath, 22 mars 2012 - 09:24 .

[Heimdall]

Zanath wrote...

I do not "want to believe" in indoctrination theory. I just looked at it, and said "dang it, it just fits in perfectly ! It would be great if it was what Bioware had planned all along !".

How-

How on earth does the indoctrination theory fit any better than the current endings?  All it does is negate player choice even further.

[jackyboy666]

I have some arguments to be made regarding how ME2 ties into ME3.

So, Shepard is seen as an asset to the Reapers.

TIM/Cerberus is under indoctrination.

The collectors attempt to retrieve Shepards body for "huskification" so to speak to turn him into an inside agent.

Liara manages to steal his body from the Shadow Broker and sells to Cerberus (not knowing of their relationship with the Reapers)

TIM uses available (reaper?) tech to bring Shepard back to life.

TIM convinces Shepard that he has been bought back from the dead with upgrades (reaper tech?) to help HIM fight a battle to stop the collectors (lie)

TIM persuades Shepard that they are a threat and are related to the Reapers and rather than send an army he is seen as a symbol of hope by others (he is the valuable asset to him and the reapers plus he has just been implanted to hell and is more than likely to succumb to TIM/reapers ways) Shepard is also in close contact with many of the galaxies most feared troops/minds etc that would pose a threat to the reapers. And so having shepard implanted with devices will allow him to be indoctrinated far easier if the reapers need him to do their deeds (like Saren etc)

So when TIM wants Shepard to retrieve the Reaper tech, he would of said yes.

When at the collector base You can say yes or no depending on who you are, but originally TIM wanted you to retrieve it.

The argument being, why go through all this to retrieve tech that the reapers/cerberus already have (since TIM is under reaper control and why would the reapers what their own tech being retrieved and to what end!?) If it was to help cerberus build an army for when the arrival happens, why would the reapers not just send reaper tech directly to them? I cannot get my head around the reasons why this was a big effort in ME2 and more importantly the relationship between Cerberus and the reapers in ME3.

I think I am typing utter BS. Sorry, I just needed to vent.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Zanath wrote...

I don't see how escaping indoctrination through stubborn determination is not a straightforward role for a hero.

If this were a book or game where there was no such thing as player choice then yes that argument could be made.  But Indoctrination Theory makes it clear that choosing "Destroy" is the only true ending and negates the function of player character in the role of hero.  You can not divorce the game mechanic from  narrative.  They work together one in the same.

Do you think that the Geth consensus scene is rewriting canon because Shepard was there only in mind ?

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this?  Can you explain a bit more?  Shepard jacks into the Geth concensus and see events into the past.  It is a virtual space and is experienced.  Indoctrination theory says the experience you had from the beam explosion on did not happen.

[Ieldra]

@jackyboy:
Not quite sure how your question fits into the topic, but here is how I interpret it:

TIM retained much of his original goals to protect humanity throughout most of his history. Indoctrination isn't digital, it starts as a very subtle influence and becomes stronger with time. As of ME2, TIM was still working for his own goals, but these goals were in the process of being subverted by the Reapers.

[jackyboy666]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@jackyboy:
Not quite sure how your question fits into the topic, but here is how I interpret it:

TIM retained much of his original goals to protect humanity throughout most of his history. Indoctrination isn't digital, it starts as a very subtle influence and becomes stronger with time. As of ME2, TIM was still working for his own goals, but these goals were in the process of being subverted by the Reapers.

Ohhhh ok that makes alot more sense! Sorry.

I have been wrecking my brain about it for no reason then!

[xsdob]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

OP, your solution doesn't explain the many plot holes... Indoctrination Theory does.

Indoctrination lost all of it's validity when it's subscribers began using visual effects and game mechanics as proof. They forgot that times slows down when your injured, or that you get lines around the creen when your low on health. Also, they dismiss the fact that the illusive man can kill himself, that the VI on thessia or ilos nor javik detect indoctrinations prescense, or that fast indoctrination leds to massive brain damage, so even if shepard did wake up after picking destroy, he would have been reduced to a vegatable as part of the indoctrination process.

Also, there is no such thing as "attempted indoctrination". It stays at the level the reapers set it at, so if they push you to the point that your hearing voices and seeing hallucinations than your already too far gone to resist them, it never goes down form that level, meaning you would have been detected as indoctrinated on thessia by the VI.

Everywhere I've seen, people who say the indoctrination theory is real try to say that he only got indoctrinated at the beam AND that he was always indoctrinated from the start of ME1, you have to pick one or the other. Indoctrination works by how close the reapers are to their indoctrinated followers, Rana was indoctrinated in ME1, when the reapers where in the galaxy the indoctrination process increased instantly, same thing with the hanar diplomat, so if the reapers operated this way, than shepard should have already fallen to them back on earth, but he didn't, or he wouldn't be able to kill one on rannoch. But if he wasn't indoctrinated until that point than indoctrination was done to him so quickly and so strongly that he wouldn't have a brain to continue functioning anymore, also this theory requires indoctrination to work mor elike inception than indoctrination.

Both options suck for the theory's validity or the prospect of future content, but you can't say he was indoctrinated always but only at the beam.

[Zanath]

Village Idiot wrote...

If this were a book or game where there was no such thing as player choice then yes that argument could be made.  But Indoctrination Theory makes it clear that choosing "Destroy" is the only true ending and negates the function of player character in the role of hero.  You can not divorce the game mechanic from  narrative.  They work together one in the same.

No, it just put the player in the shoes of the hero, not really realizing that things aren't real. It's a narrative/perspective trick, I still don't see at all how the role of the hero is relevant here.

It's just like being thrown into a labyrinth, left some clues as to where the exit is, and finding the way. Is the hero less of a hero or changing role just because he interpreted correctly the hints that the big with "EXIT" was a trap and the door with "DEATHTRAP" was the exit ?

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this?  Can you explain a bit more?  Shepard jacks into the Geth concensus and see events into the past.  It is a virtual space and is experienced.  Indoctrination theory says the experience you had from the beam explosion on did not happen.

No, it says that it happened inside the brain of Shepard. It was an "inner travel", navigating through the coils of indoctrination, just like being in the Geth consensus was a virtual travel, navigating through the coils of the geth hive-mind.

[Heimdall]

Zanath wrote...

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this?  Can you explain a bit more?  Shepard jacks into the Geth concensus and see events into the past.  It is a virtual space and is experienced.  Indoctrination theory says the experience you had from the beam explosion on did not happen.

No, it says that it happened inside the brain of Shepard. It was an "inner travel", navigating through the coils of indoctrination, just like being in the Geth consensus was a virtual travel, navigating through the coils of the geth hive-mind.

Huge difference.  Shepard's actions in the geth server directly effected reality.  It was not solely in Shepard's head, it was navigation of the geth server and directly confronting very real threats.  Indoctrination hallucinations occur solely in Shepard's head and have no effect on the real world.  The two are not comparable.

[Zanath]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Huge difference.  Shepard's actions in the geth server directly effected reality.  It was not solely in Shepard's head, it was navigation of the geth server and directly confronting very real threats.  Indoctrination hallucinations occur solely in Shepard's head and have no effect on the real world.  The two are not comparable.

And ?
Being able to get out of a labyrinth doesn't change the rest of the world neither. Your point ?