You know what, threads slow and I took some time typing this up so I'm going to post this, despite my earlier pledge to drop the topic. This is THE IT thread and as such is the proper place to discuss what the definition of IT in fact is. It's unfair to come in making serious pronouncements on what IT means, going so far as claiming most IT supporters don't understand IT, and then try to relegate the discussion to private messages. You put this out there so here is my best attempt at a response:
Indoctrination Theories, as their starting point, must be based on the assertion that the Reaper tool of Indoctrination is used. How, when, and to what extent is clearly still being debated. What isn't debatable is that Reaper indoctrination is an actual demonstrable phenomenon. Starchilds attempts at influencing Shepard through deception is propaganda, which, in the real world, can be described as indoctrination. However, your claim that this constitutes indoctrination as defined within the confines of the Mass Effect Universe is misleading as the connotations of the word indoctrination is wildly different in each respective use. Influencing a person into making a decision detrimental to themselves through confusion and intimidation is most aptly defined as simply a deception.
The act of indoctrination, in it's full context in the game world, is not an attempt to persuade or guide simply through dialogue or mere psychological manipulation, it is a physiological attack on the entire nervous system. That is the reason why indoctrination cannot be fully reversed by convincing an indoctrinated subject of their plight, this is clearly demonstrated in Sarens and Benezias cases.
With what defines indoctrination now established, let's move on to the next part of your argument:
From a narrative standpoint, the entire meaning and resulting consequences of the ending sequence are fundamentally dependent on whether or not what we see occurs as presented. I even posit that accepting what is on screen, even if one claims the Reapers are using an indoctrination signal throughout, is ultimately contrary to what Indoctrination Theory represents. In that situation, the player is not effected by indoctrination directly, rendering it irrelevant to the decision making process and therefore irrelevant to the narrative as well.
The essence of what Indoctrination Theory means is that the ending, whatever the particulars, is not happening literally. (Again, when, how and to what extent the on screen reality is warped or entirely false is why this thread exists.) The impact of this theory on what the ending means and it's subsequent impact on the entire ending narrative cannot be overstated. It is irreconcilable with your theory that the ending is meant to be taken at face value. In fact, it specifically rejects that as it's starting premise. "Was the ending a hallucination" remains unresolved. Therefore, the thread continues.
The debate whether the end choices are morally subjective or if there is an actual correct choice which Starchild is attempting to dissuade Shepard from selecting is incompatible to Indoctrination Theory as it's been initially presented.
Ce sujet est fermé
(I was paying attention.) Anyway, I think this is a viable possibility, considering all reapers would know of Leviathan. Good job!
Retour en haut
