55528 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

Lol you jumped at my like a horde of angry lions. Calm down butterflies and admit estebanus called people who don't believe in IT to be delusional and not smart. Even he/she did ^^

I can't wait when this is over.

Ohh as for some new contribution to this thread, why do you think Gamble is hinting anything to you after he was ansewring ending questions in literal sense? When he said relays get disabled in blue ending and that he considers Synthesis to be the best ending? ^^ Sure he wouldn't consider losing to be the best ending ^^

[byne]

blooregard wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Who said they even really tried? Also I guess in the time between ME1 and ME2 the Collectors would have sabotaged the Conduit if they could get it working.

I hadn't thought of that. Though the Council still gets an F for not trying.

Question: if there was a collapsed tunnel in the middle of Afghanistan that lead directly to the Oval Office, would the US Government get an F for not trying to rebuild said tunnel?

You seem to be forgetting the Conduit is in the Terminus Systems, so reopening a Relay that leads directly from the Terminus Systems to the heart of the Citadel is not exactly a good idea.

[SnazzyBeast]

Sorry, I posted this yesterday, but i'm reposting now to see if there are any additional thoughts.
...............
I realize that this stuff has probably been said before, but there are alot of posts to go through between the two threads.

1. I believe that at a minimum, BioWare wanted to leave the ending open, with indoctrination being one of the possible interpretations. One question I have though, is have we seen anywhere in the series where indoctrination consists of or involves a full-on hallucination?

2. Unrelated, but I was reading the first Mass Effect novel and there is some foreshadowing of the literal interpretation of the end. The passage talks about the danger of AI - "[AI] would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control... conventional theory held that this doomsday scenario wasn't merely possible, it was unavoidable... the emergence of artificial intelligence was the single greatest threat to organic life in the galaxy." It cites the Geth rebellion (although they were not true AI's) as support of the theory.

[MegumiAzusa]

D.Sharrah wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

blooregard wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I still want to know what happened to Ilos. I mean was the conduit destroyed or turned off forever? what happened to it and unlike the London beam the Ilos conduit would have literally led Shepard and company to the front door to the master control unit.

and before anyone says "they didn't have a mako" how hard would it have been to replace that unused and fairly useless looking spare shuttle with a mako?

Power was completely drained, even Vigil didn't work anymore.

Recharge/replace the power source problem solved right? but I suppose that would be too much for the Normandy alone (well maybe that Salarian fleet the dalatrass screws us out of could have helped)

This is my thought as well...I find it hard to believe that the Council would not have access to a portable power source.  And if that is not the problem...what, degradation of the system?  Are you going to convince that me there is no one in the ME universe that is technologically gifted enough to recover the system?  Give me a break.  No the only reason for them not to be able to get information from Vigil is a plot device that forces you to wor with Cerberus - and that, is what it is.

But another point...if the council had taken Shepard's account of ME 1 into account, maybe they would have put some of the galaxies best minds on figuring out a way to reverse egineer what the Protheans were able to do with the Conduit for the purpose of using the conduit (from the Citadel) as an emergency evacuation point....

Who said they even really tried? Also I guess in the time between ME1 and ME2 the Collectors would have sabotaged the Conduit if they could get it working.

I guess my point was...that this was one of those things they could have done better.  BTW, you give a great counter arguement to what I propose and would have had no problem if that had been what was explained...that they tried, but were stopped - but instead they just used a less creative plot device (Vigil shut down), to force your hand into working with Cerberus.  Just think of how much more intersting ME 2 could have been if you had the option to choose the faction (I can think of at least three; Cerberus, Allinace/Counicl, and Shadow Broker) that you would work with...you get the same story, same plot points just get there in slightly different ways.  Would have been a huge undertaking and I am not complaining about the stroy we got...

yeaaaaah Shadow Broker: "Now.. your first assignment is to step in this cozy stasis pod."


Btw the "they didn't even try" part was about maybe the Council is very sublty indoctrinated for years (can't be much because it would be too obvious) and so they just didn't investigate further. I mean all this "Ah, yes. Reapers." have to come from somewhere...

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 24 mai 2012 - 09:43 .

[Dwailing]

IsaacShep wrote...

Lol you jumped at my like a horde of angry lions. Calm down butterflies and admit estebanus called people who don't believe in IT to be delusional and not smart. Even he/she did ^^

I can't wait when this is over.

Ohh as for some new contribution to this thread, why do you think Gamble is hinting anything to you after he was ansewring ending questions in literal sense? When he said relays get disabled in blue ending and that he considers Synthesis to be the best ending? ^^ Sure he wouldn't consider losing to be the best ending ^^

Are you sure?  He could be trying to mislead us.  And besides, if you believe the endings to be real, then BW has ALREADY been lying to us pretty much from the beginning with their promises about the endings.

Edit: Additionally, while we did just brutalize your comment, we did so in a very calm and collected manner without resorting to insults and/or profanities, unlike many, though not all, Literalists. 

Edit: Well, in a way, I guess we DID kind of use insults, but we did avoid using profanities, and we were very calm and collected about it.

Modifié par Dwailing, 24 mai 2012 - 09:48 .

[Jadebaby]

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...


Why oh why wasn't there an option to tear the Dalatrass a new one for being such an ignorant jack....  Sorry, I almost lost control there for a minute.  What can I say, that chick was such a cloaca.

If Kirrahe is alive, even the STG realizes what a moron the dalatrass is, and pledges their support anyways. Should have had them stage a coup against her and seize power.

It would be for the greater good of the galaxy too, since the dalatrass is basically trying to screw the entire galaxy purely to save face.

My friend had a strange thing happen where he left Kirrahe to die on Virmire and then in ME3 he was suddenly alive again, I told him that I didn't think Kirrahe could die on Virmire no matter what choice you make, but he said he remembered the staff sergeant saying "the captain will be missed." I still think he was talking about the Virmire Victim in Kaidan/Ashley. Or has this happened to anyone else?

Also, on topic, I saw those pistol changes, very interesting... Although it kind of does look like a glitch how the gun immediately changes as it randomly fires up into the air

[byne]

IsaacShep wrote...

Lol you jumped at my like a horde of angry lions. Calm down butterflies and admit estebanus called people who don't believe in IT to be delusional and not smart. Even he/she did ^^

I can't wait when this is over.

Ohh as for some new contribution to this thread, why do you think Gamble is hinting anything to you after he was ansewring ending questions in literal sense? When he said relays get disabled in blue ending and that he considers Synthesis to be the best ending? ^^ Sure he wouldn't consider losing to be the best ending ^^

Well, my point that I made about you was that you painted us all with the same brush. I dont personally consider you delusional for not believing in IT.

I'll quote myself from the thread on the HTL forums (since quoting oneself is always a classy thing to do):

Byne wrote...

I disagree with you about detesting IT, but I do agree that the people who act like they've figured it out and are unique special little flowers that are just superior to people who disbelieve it are incredibly annoying.

They're just as annoying as the people who like the literal endings, and go on about how its a beautiful ending if you are deep enough to actually understand it.

That attitude doesnt stop being annoying just because you're on my side. 

In general estebanus hasnt acted much like that, though, so I give him a pass this one time.

As for Gamble, he's not gonna come out and say if IT is true or not before the EC is released.

As you said, he was answering questions in the literal sense. He may believe that if the endings were literal, that Synthesis would be the best option, but that doesnt mean he's saying they actually were literal.

Thats just speculation on my part though, I cant say one way or another.

Modifié par byne, 24 mai 2012 - 09:47 .

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Lol you jumped at my like a horde of angry lions. Calm down butterflies and admit estebanus called people who don't believe in IT to be delusional and not smart. Even he/she did ^^

I can't wait when this is over.

Ohh as for some new contribution to this thread, why do you think Gamble is hinting anything to you after he was ansewring ending questions in literal sense? When he said relays get disabled in blue ending and that he considers Synthesis to be the best ending? ^^ Sure he wouldn't consider losing to be the best ending ^^

Maybe he's trying to keep people guessing.. Wouldn't be the 1st time a Bioware employee has lied.

Also, I never jumped at your generalization, I couldn't care less what you think of us.

[dreamgazer]

IsaacShep wrote...

Ohh as for some new contribution to this thread, why do you think Gamble is hinting anything to you after he was ansewring ending questions in literal sense? When he said relays get disabled in blue ending and that he considers Synthesis to be the best ending? ^^ Sure he wouldn't consider losing to be the best ending ^^

You mean Gamble's personal opinion on Synthesis?  

As for the relays in the control ending, he implied that they were disabled.  Never said anything about the other endings, and his statement can easily read to encompass all endings.

[llbountyhunter]

IsaacShep wrote...

Lol you jumped at my like a horde of angry lions. Calm down butterflies and admit estebanus called people who don't believe in IT to be delusional and not smart. Even he/she did ^^

I can't wait when this is over.

not true. I found you comment quite entertaining even though I dont agree with it.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 24 mai 2012 - 09:50 .

[MaximizedAction]

SnazzyBeast wrote...

Sorry, I posted this yesterday, but i'm reposting now to see if there are any additional thoughts.
...............
I realize that this stuff has probably been said before, but there are alot of posts to go through between the two threads.

1. I believe that at a minimum, BioWare wanted to leave the ending open, with indoctrination being one of the possible interpretations. One question I have though, is have we seen anywhere in the series where indoctrination consists of or involves a full-on hallucination?

2. Unrelated, but I was reading the first Mass Effect novel and there is some foreshadowing of the literal interpretation of the end. The passage talks about the danger of AI - "[AI] would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control... conventional theory held that this doomsday scenario wasn't merely possible, it was unavoidable... the emergence of artificial intelligence was the single greatest threat to organic life in the galaxy." It cites the Geth rebellion (although they were not true AI's) as support of the theory.

Haven't read the novel, but
would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control
doesn't necessarily imply what Starbinger claimed about the Synth/Org conflict. Growing out of control doesn't have to lead to agressive actions from synthetics. Expecting agression from the loss of control sounds more like fear than a supersticious, deterministic universe.

Who's that quote from?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 24 mai 2012 - 09:51 .

[byne]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...


Why oh why wasn't there an option to tear the Dalatrass a new one for being such an ignorant jack....  Sorry, I almost lost control there for a minute.  What can I say, that chick was such a cloaca.

If Kirrahe is alive, even the STG realizes what a moron the dalatrass is, and pledges their support anyways. Should have had them stage a coup against her and seize power.

It would be for the greater good of the galaxy too, since the dalatrass is basically trying to screw the entire galaxy purely to save face.

My friend had a strange thing happen where he left Kirrahe to die on Virmire and then in ME3 he was suddenly alive again, I told him that I didn't think Kirrahe could die on Virmire no matter what choice you make, but he said he remembered the staff sergeant saying "the captain will be missed." I still think he was talking about the Virmire Victim in Kaidan/Ashley. Or has this happened to anyone else?

Also, on topic, I saw those pistol changes, very interesting... Although it kind of does look like a glitch how the gun immediately changes as it randomly fires up into the air

Kirrahe can definitely die on Virmire. If he's dead the dialogue changes in ME2 when you and Mordin talk about Kirrahe, plus you get a different salarian STG guy to talk to on Sur'kesh in ME3.

Kirrahe is dead on the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2, and nothing you can do can get you a living Kirrahe if you play on PS3

Modifié par byne, 24 mai 2012 - 09:50 .

[MegumiAzusa]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Thorn Harvestar wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Hey guys, this has probably been brought up before but I just saw this close up in a vid and thought I'd snapshot it. People say that Shepard has TIM's eyes in synthesis and control, well this is control and the best evidence I've seen to 'prove' he does, in fact, have TIM's eyes...

Yep. Check this one out:

*snip*

(Synthesis, Destroy, Control) 

Those pics are great! and it appears to be femshep too, even better!

But honestly, Shepard's eyes in synthesis, imo, look more like these eyes...



I know they are the same, but in this picture they just look more well rounded.

Uh because of that wallpaper I just remembered a quote, that is ironically also used for him for his wiki page:
"Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but by what we seek to accomplish."
Now Harbinger said:
"That what you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction."
yeah, with a "cost", nice one Jack.

[paxxton]

SnazzyBeast wrote...

Sorry, I posted this yesterday, but i'm reposting now to see if there are any additional thoughts.
...............
I realize that this stuff has probably been said before, but there are alot of posts to go through between the two threads.

1. I believe that at a minimum, BioWare wanted to leave the ending open, with indoctrination being one of the possible interpretations. One question I have though, is have we seen anywhere in the series where indoctrination consists of or involves a full-on hallucination?

2. Unrelated, but I was reading the first Mass Effect novel and there is some foreshadowing of the literal interpretation of the end. The passage talks about the danger of AI - "[AI] would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control... conventional theory held that this doomsday scenario wasn't merely possible, it was unavoidable... the emergence of artificial intelligence was the single greatest threat to organic life in the galaxy." It cites the Geth rebellion (although they were not true AI's) as support of the theory.

1. If they had already shown us everything in previous games, there wouldn't be a lot left for ME3.
2. Destruction of organics by synthetics is so logical and inevitable (even in RL) that it's beyond comprehension how anyone can claim otherwise.

Modifié par paxxton, 24 mai 2012 - 09:53 .

[D.Sharrah]

byne wrote...

blooregard wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Who said they even really tried? Also I guess in the time between ME1 and ME2 the Collectors would have sabotaged the Conduit if they could get it working.

I hadn't thought of that. Though the Council still gets an F for not trying.

Question: if there was a collapsed tunnel in the middle of Afghanistan that lead directly to the Oval Office, would the US Government get an F for not trying to rebuild said tunnel?

You seem to be forgetting the Conduit is in the Terminus Systems, so reopening a Relay that leads directly from the Terminus Systems to the heart of the Citadel is not exactly a good idea.

At face value I see your point.  But I have to ask you, wouldn't the events of ME 1 change your political views of the galaxy?  Don't believe Shepard and the existence of the Reapers, fine.  But, would it be smart to prepare for the worst even if that's not what you were expecting?  With this in mind, is it too much of a stetch too think that you might reach out to the Terminus systems discreetly and say, "Look, if Shepard is right about these Reapers we need to bury the hatchet and be prepared for the worst."  Now the actual conversation might take alot more time and have alot more depth - but that would be the gist of it.

I remeber one of my favorite theories from ME 2 was that the council wanted to believe Shepard but could not trust Cerberus - and therefore secretly and discreetly passed information through the right channels so a certain Turian would learn of the Thanix cannon - a weapon that proved to very important to Shepard's mission.  Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.

So, in your example if some greater evil had risen in the world and a tunnel from the White House to Afghanistan was an emergency back door - I would be ok with them trying to rebuild it.

[estebanus]

IsaacShep wrote...

Lol you jumped at my like a horde of angry lions. Calm down butterflies and admit estebanus called people who don't believe in IT to be delusional and not smart. Even he/she did ^^

No no, I didn't call people who don't believe in it delusional or stupid!

What I meant was that most anti-enders, even those that are against the IT, will likely choose the IT instead of the literal endings. That's why I think that the poll in the HTL forums are leaning towards the IT side!

I certainly was not trying to imply that all anti-ITers are stupid!

[shepskisaac]

dreamgazer wrote...

You mean Gamble's personal opinion on Synthesis? 

So the endings never happened, it was a hallucination and Mike Gamble knows about it because he was one of the people who made the game yet convinces himself that he will think that the endings did in fact happen, contrary to what he and the team created. Right?

[llbountyhunter]

MaximizedAction wrote...

SnazzyBeast wrote...

Sorry, I posted this yesterday, but i'm reposting now to see if there are any additional thoughts.
...............
I realize that this stuff has probably been said before, but there are alot of posts to go through between the two threads.

1. I believe that at a minimum, BioWare wanted to leave the ending open, with indoctrination being one of the possible interpretations. One question I have though, is have we seen anywhere in the series where indoctrination consists of or involves a full-on hallucination?

2. Unrelated, but I was reading the first Mass Effect novel and there is some foreshadowing of the literal interpretation of the end. The passage talks about the danger of AI - "[AI] would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control... conventional theory held that this doomsday scenario wasn't merely possible, it was unavoidable... the emergence of artificial intelligence was the single greatest threat to organic life in the galaxy." It cites the Geth rebellion (although they were not true AI's) as support of the theory.

Haven't read the novel, but
would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control
doesn't necessarily imply what Starbinger claimed about the Synth/Org conflict. Growing out of control doesn't have to lead to agressive actions from synthetics. Agression from the loss of control sounds more like fear than a supersticious, deterministic universe.

the second point isnt really a foreshadowing.... thats pretty much how everyone feels about AI's across all three mass effect games.

[Dwailing]

D.Sharrah wrote...

byne wrote...

blooregard wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Who said they even really tried? Also I guess in the time between ME1 and ME2 the Collectors would have sabotaged the Conduit if they could get it working.

I hadn't thought of that. Though the Council still gets an F for not trying.

Question: if there was a collapsed tunnel in the middle of Afghanistan that lead directly to the Oval Office, would the US Government get an F for not trying to rebuild said tunnel?

You seem to be forgetting the Conduit is in the Terminus Systems, so reopening a Relay that leads directly from the Terminus Systems to the heart of the Citadel is not exactly a good idea.

At face value I see your point.  But I have to ask you, wouldn't the events of ME 1 change your political views of the galaxy?  Don't believe Shepard and the existence of the Reapers, fine.  But, would it be smart to prepare for the worst even if that's not what you were expecting?  With this in mind, is it too much of a stetch too think that you might reach out to the Terminus systems discreetly and say, "Look, if Shepard is right about these Reapers we need to bury the hatchet and be prepared for the worst."  Now the actual conversation might take alot more time and have alot more depth - but that would be the gist of it.

I remeber one of my favorite theories from ME 2 was that the council wanted to believe Shepard but could not trust Cerberus - and therefore secretly and discreetly passed information through the right channels so a certain Turian would learn of the Thanix cannon - a weapon that proved to very important to Shepard's mission.  Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.

So, in your example if some greater evil had risen in the world and a tunnel from the White House to Afghanistan was an emergency back door - I would be ok with them trying to rebuild it.

Yeah, but since it turns out that the Council NEVER believed Shepard until the Reapers were SITTING RIGHT ON TOP OF THEM, I doubt they would have cared enough to bother.

[llbountyhunter]

IsaacShep wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

You mean Gamble's personal opinion on Synthesis? 

So the endings never happened, it was a hallucination and Mike Gamble knows about it because he was one of the people who made the game yet convinces himself that he will think that the endings did in fact happen, contrary to what he and the team created. Right?

the endings DID happen but werent real.  


problem solved.

[estebanus]

GAH, YA'LL MISUNDERSTOOD MY COMMENT!

[llbountyhunter]

double post.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 24 mai 2012 - 09:54 .

[byne]

D.Sharrah wrote...

byne wrote...

blooregard wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Who said they even really tried? Also I guess in the time between ME1 and ME2 the Collectors would have sabotaged the Conduit if they could get it working.

I hadn't thought of that. Though the Council still gets an F for not trying.

Question: if there was a collapsed tunnel in the middle of Afghanistan that lead directly to the Oval Office, would the US Government get an F for not trying to rebuild said tunnel?

You seem to be forgetting the Conduit is in the Terminus Systems, so reopening a Relay that leads directly from the Terminus Systems to the heart of the Citadel is not exactly a good idea.

At face value I see your point.  But I have to ask you, wouldn't the events of ME 1 change your political views of the galaxy?  Don't believe Shepard and the existence of the Reapers, fine.  But, would it be smart to prepare for the worst even if that's not what you were expecting?  With this in mind, is it too much of a stetch too think that you might reach out to the Terminus systems discreetly and say, "Look, if Shepard is right about these Reapers we need to bury the hatchet and be prepared for the worst."  Now the actual conversation might take alot more time and have alot more depth - but that would be the gist of it.

I remeber one of my favorite theories from ME 2 was that the council wanted to believe Shepard but could not trust Cerberus - and therefore secretly and discreetly passed information through the right channels so a certain Turian would learn of the Thanix cannon - a weapon that proved to very important to Shepard's mission.  Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.

So, in your example if some greater evil had risen in the world and a tunnel from the White House to Afghanistan was an emergency back door - I would be ok with them trying to rebuild it.

Theres really not anyone to reach out to in the Terminus Systems though. Aria only really controls Omega, the rest is just pirates and terrorists. Reaching out and saying 'hey lets work on this conduit' could easily backfire if whoever you reach out to just decides to betray you.

Also, fun fact: Joker subscribed to that theory about the Council believing Shepard but lying to you because of Cerberus. He says something along those lines in ME3.

[D.Sharrah]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

blooregard wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I still want to know what happened to Ilos. I mean was the conduit destroyed or turned off forever? what happened to it and unlike the London beam the Ilos conduit would have literally led Shepard and company to the front door to the master control unit.

and before anyone says "they didn't have a mako" how hard would it have been to replace that unused and fairly useless looking spare shuttle with a mako?

Power was completely drained, even Vigil didn't work anymore.

Recharge/replace the power source problem solved right? but I suppose that would be too much for the Normandy alone (well maybe that Salarian fleet the dalatrass screws us out of could have helped)

This is my thought as well...I find it hard to believe that the Council would not have access to a portable power source.  And if that is not the problem...what, degradation of the system?  Are you going to convince that me there is no one in the ME universe that is technologically gifted enough to recover the system?  Give me a break.  No the only reason for them not to be able to get information from Vigil is a plot device that forces you to wor with Cerberus - and that, is what it is.

But another point...if the council had taken Shepard's account of ME 1 into account, maybe they would have put some of the galaxies best minds on figuring out a way to reverse egineer what the Protheans were able to do with the Conduit for the purpose of using the conduit (from the Citadel) as an emergency evacuation point....

Who said they even really tried? Also I guess in the time between ME1 and ME2 the Collectors would have sabotaged the Conduit if they could get it working.

I guess my point was...that this was one of those things they could have done better.  BTW, you give a great counter arguement to what I propose and would have had no problem if that had been what was explained...that they tried, but were stopped - but instead they just used a less creative plot device (Vigil shut down), to force your hand into working with Cerberus.  Just think of how much more intersting ME 2 could have been if you had the option to choose the faction (I can think of at least three; Cerberus, Allinace/Counicl, and Shadow Broker) that you would work with...you get the same story, same plot points just get there in slightly different ways.  Would have been a huge undertaking and I am not complaining about the stroy we got...

yeaaaaah Shadow Broker: "Now.. your first assignment is to step in this cozy stasis pod."


Btw the "they didn't even try" part was about maybe the Council is very sublty indoctrinated for years (can't be much because it would be too obvious) and so they just didn't investigate further. I mean all this "Ah, yes. Reapers." have to come from somewhere...

During/Post ME 2, I would have agreed with you...post LotSB, I had a alternate universe theory where you wake up just the same on the Cerberus base - but when you get to the scene where Miranda shoots Wilson, instead of playing out exactly the same...you had a choice who to side with, pick Miranda game continues as we got; but, choose Wilson, he takes you to the Shadow Broker and after burying the hatchet/having Liara interupt the scene whatever...the SB ship becomes your base of operations and everythign proceeds from there much the same way...

[SnazzyBeast]

MaximizedAction wrote...

SnazzyBeast wrote...

Sorry, I posted this yesterday, but i'm reposting now to see if there are any additional thoughts.
...............
I realize that this stuff has probably been said before, but there are alot of posts to go through between the two threads.

1. I believe that at a minimum, BioWare wanted to leave the ending open, with indoctrination being one of the possible interpretations. One question I have though, is have we seen anywhere in the series where indoctrination consists of or involves a full-on hallucination?

2. Unrelated, but I was reading the first Mass Effect novel and there is some foreshadowing of the literal interpretation of the end. The passage talks about the danger of AI - "[AI] would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control... conventional theory held that this doomsday scenario wasn't merely possible, it was unavoidable... the emergence of artificial intelligence was the single greatest threat to organic life in the galaxy." It cites the Geth rebellion (although they were not true AI's) as support of the theory.

Haven't read the novel, but
would teach itself; quickly surpassing the capabilities of its organic creators and growing beyond their control
doesn't necessarily imply what Starbinger claimed about the Synth/Org conflict. Growing out of control doesn't have to lead to agressive actions from synthetics. Expecting agression from the loss of control sounds more like fear than a supersticious, deterministic universe.

Who's that quote from?

Fair enough, but I probably didn't do a good job in giving the passage enough context. It was really harping on the "doomsday" nature of the scenario. The quote wasn't spoken by anybody, it was a narrative paragraph about the dangers of AI research. This doesn't necessarily make what the starkid said true, but it at least shows that the idea has some footing in the mass effect universe.