252 réponses à ce sujet

[Davik Kang]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
In support of this view, we have the ending cinematics of the game, which actually illustrate the effects (if you choose to interpret them literally).  This is the very same mechanic used in the VRGC mission, which is why it is familiar and seems reasonable.  OTOH, I doubt but am not sure that we have had a hallucination in the trilogy with real consequences or that we have seen the internal/mental mechanic for indoctrination.  That ambiguity can either discredit a hallucination theory or support it because not seeing it can mean either that we can't verify it or that we can't deny it as a possibility, respectively.  (Although students of philosophy will probably throw in burden shifting for their fun.) 

Ah ok, so you reckon the ending is a Virtual Reality communication?  I've never even thought of that.  Never considered the possibility.  Where is your Virtual Reality Theory thread ?

The bit I quoted does lend itself to VR and does discredit Hallucination Theory as you put it (might steal this thx).  Don't mind discrediting evidence though.  It is a fair point that no hallucination, afaik at least, has ever been implied to have had an effect on the player's decisions and actions (though I imagine it has been implied to have had a similar effect on others suffereing indoctrination attempts, such as in some ME2 missions).  Things like this will ensure that we are unlikely to come to any kind of agreement as a community until Bioware come out and say something (and probably not even then - like you were referring to with close reading etc.)  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing btw.

It got me thinking, imagine if Bioware had decided that the Legion mission would actually trap Shepard, and she would be unable to leave the VRGC.  Then everything that happened afterwards would have been a dream.  Now imagine that in the final scene, graphical glitches started appearing and the room started to fall apart like the cells you exterminate in the VRGC.  Now THAT would've driven players INSANE hahahahaha

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 12:44 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Davik Kang wrote...

Final events of ME3 in brief:

> Shepard survives the Reaper blast.  She is serverly physically and mentally drained, as shown by her posture and the dream-like visual effects, which mirrir those in earlier dream sequences.

> Shepard meets Anderson and TIM on the Citadel.  Both die eventually.

> Shepard falls unconscious, and on re-awaking, is subject to a massive hallucination.  The Reaper AI within the Citadel is able to communicate with her, and she sees it as the child from her dreams, as it attempts to appeal to her desire to save the innocent, and her guilt for not always being able to do so.

> The Crucible is a high-energy power source that, if actiavted, would send a surge via the Citadel to all Mass Relays that would severely damage synthetic machinery in the vicinity of every active Mass Relay, killing any sentient life connected to, or a part of, those synthetics.

> Shepard is still able to activate the Crucible (Destroy), but under the indoctrination attempt, believes that she has three options.  The other two, Control and Synthesis, involve the indoctrination attempt succeeding and Shepard relinquishing herself and the Crucible to the Reapers.  Refuse has Shepard do nothing, leading to a straightforward Reaper victory.

Play Leviathan. The Lev confirms the existence of the Catalyst and verifies all of its given information. And even adds more which supports synthesis as being real.

All the things which are allegedly "hallucination" are verified.

You can even call the Catalyst out using the extra information you learned from Leviathan. To which his answer is that his creators used flawed logic and never saw themselves as part of the problem they asked it to solve, and thus perceived his action as a betrayal when he's only been doing as they asked the whole time.

Plus Mass Effect: Retribution shows what an indoctrination attempt looks like from the pov of the person being indoctrinated. It's subtle and the only reason Paul Grayson noticed anything was because he knew that Cerberus implanted him with Reaper tech to study the process. The most noticabe things from Grayson's perspectives earlywere blackouts where he had no memory of anything he had done, as well as the Reapers messing with his glands to induce feelings of confidence to keep him from committing suicide by overosing on Medigel. There was never any grandiose symbolic visions. No trickery or deception.

[Davik Kang]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Play Leviathan. The Lev confirms the existence of the Catalyst and verifies all of its given information. And even adds more which supports synthesis as being real.

All the things which are allegedly "hallucination" are verified.

You can even call the Catalyst out using the extra information you learned from Leviathan. To which his answer is that his creators used flawed logic and never saw themselves as part of the problem they asked it to solve, and thus perceived his action as a betrayal when he's only been doing as they asked the whole time.

Plus Mass Effect: Retribution shows what an indoctrination attempt looks like from the pov of the person being indoctrinated. It's subtle and the only reason Paul Grayson noticed anything was because he knew that Cerberus implanted him with Reaper tech to study the process. The most noticabe things from Grayson's perspectives earlywere blackouts where he had no memory of anything he had done, as well as the Reapers messing with his glands to induce feelings of confidence to keep him from committing suicide by overosing on Medigel. There was never any grandiose symbolic visions. No trickery or deception.

Ok good stuff.  Solid points with backing, thanks.  My counters for the moment:

Didn't say the Catalyst isn't real.  Just said it was a reaper AI trying to indoctrinate Shepard.  Also I didn't say Synthesis wasn't real, I was saying it's a desired solution for the Kid and something he's trying to persuade you to do (whether you think he's using indoctrination or not).

Paul Grayson's indoctrination needn't take the same form as other characters' indoctrinations.  There are reports in ME2 about sounds burning in heads, and another I think in ME1 or 2 which basically describes the disintegration of a victim's mental state.  Some heard whispers irresistible to ignore.  The Thorian in ME1 takes another form of indoctrination method.  Also Saren and TIM were indoctrinated slowly, whereas this attempt is a much more pronounced, short term attempt.  

I think it is also mentioned somewhere that indoctrination can involve the affectation of a person's dreams.  In this case, the attempt at indoctrinating Shepard started much earlier (and I think it's clear that Harbinger attempts but fails to indoctrinate Shepard in ME2), but again a full blown attempt at the end, right next to the Reaper presence, intensifies the effect.  (Specifically, if the dreams are a consequence of indoctrination, I see them as side effects from previous attempts, rather than trying to claim that Shepard is actively being indoctrinated from the beginning of ME3).

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 01:25 .

[Xilizhra]

Also Saren and TIM were indoctrinated slowly, whereas this attempt is a much more pronounced, short term attempt.

"Slowly" is the only kind of indoctrination that works to leave the victim functional. Fast indoctrination just burns out people's brains with fairly great haste; the codex is quite explicit about this.

[Xilizhra]

Paulomedi wrote...

That's...interesting. But is this disproven by the EC epilogues?

Explicitly. Some people continue to believe otherwise.

[Davik Kang]

Xilizhra wrote...
"Slowly" is the only kind of indoctrination that works to leave the victim functional. Fast indoctrination just burns out people's brains with fairly great haste; the codex is quite explicit about this.

True.  Let's hope Shepard isn't mentally finished in the breath scene.  At least the indoctrination attempt failed in this case, which could give her hope.

[Rixatrix]

Davik Kang wrote...
Ah ok, so you reckon the ending is a Virtual Reality communication?  I've never even thought of that.  Never considered the possibility.  Where is your Virtual Reality Theory thread ?

I definitely think it's a possibility - kind of fun to think of it that way, huh?  As far as starting a theory thread, I like and agree with so many of them, I'd probably find myself agreeing with people who disagree with it!  Haha.

The bit I quoted does lend itself to VR and does discredit Hallucination Theory as you put it (might steal this thx).  Don't mind discrediting evidence though.  It is a fair point that no hallucination, afaik at least, has ever been implied to have had an effect on the player's decisions and actions (though I imagine it has been implied to have had a similar effect on others suffereing indoctrination attempts, such as in some ME2 missions).

Np.  I would be interested in exploring what indoctrinated individuals believe, though.  I am doing yet another playthrough of the first Mass Effect now, so I may keep an eye out specifically for that.

Things like this will ensure that we are unlikely to come to any kind of agreement as a community until Bioware come out and say something (and probably not even then - like you were referring to with close reading etc.)  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing btw.

For some, I am sure that is extremely frustrating, but if you're like me, it's extremely interesting! :happy:

It got me thinking, imagine if Bioware had decided that the Legion mission would actually trap Shepard, and she would be unable to leave the VRGC.  Then everything that happened afterwards would have been a dream.  Now imagine that in the final scene, graphical glitches started appearing and the room started to fall apart like the cells you exterminate in the VRGC.  Now THAT would've driven players INSANE hahahahaha

I did a search when I read your question (where the Virtual Reality Theory thread is), and I wasn't surprised to find that it already did drive players insane: Virtual Reality Theory thread.  While that thread brought up many interesting ideas, it looks like it was hijacked by bickering over the validity of IT.  Why is it that so many of the threads on alternative ending interpretations have to end up arguing over the dominant alternative interpretation?  Isn't there already hugely long threads to do that, centralized on the very topic of IT?  Oh, well...


On a lighter note, there has been comedic speculation that we never left the geth consensus.  Although the fact that even if you don't enter the VRGC, the rest of the game (and the ending) still happens does cast a shadow of doubt over its sense!

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:29 .

[Xilizhra]

Davik Kang wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
"Slowly" is the only kind of indoctrination that works to leave the victim functional. Fast indoctrination just burns out people's brains with fairly great haste; the codex is quite explicit about this.

True.  Let's hope Shepard isn't mentally finished in the breath scene.  At least the indoctrination attempt failed in this case, which could give her hope.

The indoctrination attempt, if one was made, failed in every case. In Control, Shepard successfully took control where TIM couldn't (or perhaps TIM could have, and the Catalyst lied about that too, meaning that TIM really was just a few steps away from accomplishing his ultimate goal. In Synthesis, the Reapers are genuinely free and the cycles have wholly ended.

[TheWill]

im sure not everyone.. myself included that use the IT thread follow the exact same theory as everybody else on there... we just all agree like yourself that there was an indoctrination attempt and the ending is not all that it seems... it just there arent many places to post on forums without peope calling you a moron... and im sure thats true for all of us.. and any of us.

[Xilizhra]

TheWill wrote...

im sure not everyone.. myself included that use the IT thread follow the exact same theory as everybody else on there... we just all agree like yourself that there was an indoctrination attempt and the ending is not all that it seems... it just there arent many places to post on forums without peope calling you a moron... and im sure thats true for all of us.. and any of us.

This would be less of a problem if IT was less like a cult, I suspect.

[Davik Kang]

Xilizhra wrote...
The indoctrination attempt, if one was made, failed in every case. In Control, Shepard successfully took control where TIM couldn't (or perhaps TIM could have, and the Catalyst lied about that too, meaning that TIM really was just a few steps away from accomplishing his ultimate goal. In Synthesis, the Reapers are genuinely free and the cycles have wholly ended.

I think we talked about this before right?  If Shepard is being indoctrinated, how does that fit with Control and Synthesis being the result of breaking indoctrination?  I can see how Control and Synthesis are valid endings, but in this case I would have thought you'd have to reject the notion of indoctrination.  What goals are being indoctrinated into Shepard's head if Control or Synthesis are the result of her breaking that indoctrination?

[Xilizhra]

Davik Kang wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
The indoctrination attempt, if one was made, failed in every case. In Control, Shepard successfully took control where TIM couldn't (or perhaps TIM could have, and the Catalyst lied about that too, meaning that TIM really was just a few steps away from accomplishing his ultimate goal. In Synthesis, the Reapers are genuinely free and the cycles have wholly ended.

I think we talked about this before right?  If Shepard is being indoctrinated, how does that fit with Control and Synthesis being the result of breaking indoctrination?  I can see how Control and Synthesis are valid endings, but in this case I would have thought you'd have to reject the notion of indoctrination.  What goals are being indoctrinated into Shepard's head if Control or Synthesis are the result of her breaking that indoctrination?

Simple: submission. In Control, the Catalyst hopes to seize control of Shepard's mind and purge it from the computer system; instead, Shepard wins and purges the Catalyst instead. In Synthesis, the Catalyst hopes to control the resulting world, but is overpowered by Shepard's energy being added to the Crucible and is destroyed in some other manner.

[TheWill]

[/quote]
This would be less of a problem if IT was less like a cult, I suspect.
[/quote]


very true.... but after all the drinking, butt grabbing and stranger killings it starts to feel like a family.... lol

[Davik Kang]

TheWill wrote...
im sure not everyone.. myself included that use the IT thread follow the exact same theory as everybody else on there... we just all agree like yourself that there was an indoctrination attempt and the ending is not all that it seems... it just there arent many places to post on forums without peope calling you a moron... and im sure thats true for all of us.. and any of us.

Yeah I know, one of the reasons I created this thread was because in the IT thread I ended up being like many of the trolls, because although I was asking legitimate questions, a lot of them were contrary to what most of the ITers thought.  Many of them were still really attentive and helpful, but I also got that impression that some were getting a little annoyed.  So I figured a separate thread would be a better place for people to discuss this and similar interpretations of the ending, rather than spamming the IT thread and having all kinds of cross-purpose arguments all at once.

It is a pretty big part of the IT that everything after the Harbinger blast is a straight up dream or hallucination.  Not all ITers agree with this, but most of the more prominent protagonists of that thread do think that.  This interpretation is really quite different in many respects, so it seems sensible to make a separate thread for the discussion.

As for the last bit... people can shout insults like moron all day long, I'm not interested, this thread really has nothing to do with the existence or persistence of such people.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:09 .

[Xilizhra]

As for the last bit... people can shout insults like moron all day long, I'm not interested, this thread really has nothing to do with the existence or persistence of such people.

Most of the IT thread is that sort of person. A great deal of it, at least.

[Davik Kang]

Xilizhra wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...
What goals are being indoctrinated into Shepard's head if Control or Synthesis are the result of her breaking that indoctrination?

Simple: submission. In Control, the Catalyst hopes to seize control of Shepard's mind and purge it from the computer system; instead, Shepard wins and purges the Catalyst instead. In Synthesis, the Catalyst hopes to control the resulting world, but is overpowered by Shepard's energy being added to the Crucible and is destroyed in some other manner.

Ok fair enough, it's quite different to the interpretation espoused here, but could be the basis for a new interpretation.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:47 .

[Xilizhra]

Ok fair enough, it's quite different to the interpretation espoused here, but could be the basis for a new interpretation.

I don't have a problem with indoctrination. I do have a problem with one ending being intrinsically superior to the others. I believe my idea here is a superior compromise that can satisfy a greater number of people.

[Davik Kang]

Xilizhra wrote...

As for the last bit... people can shout insults like moron all day long, I'm not interested, this thread really has nothing to do with the existence or persistence of such people.

Most of the IT thread is that sort of person. A great deal of it, at least.

Ok well in my experience that's not what I found on the IT thread.  I think a lot of people become defensive or even hostile when you attack closely held opinions on things that have taken a lot of time and effort to defend.  The IT guys, much like people in other threads, become upset when a point is pushed relentlessly that doesn't fit with their theory.  That's normal to be honest.  But they mostly don't resort to personal insults.  

Constantly harping about a case for something contrary to IT in the IT thread is likely to result in aggression and frustration.  This thread helps to avoid such confrontations without explicitly saying other theories are right or wrong.

[Davik Kang]

Xilizhra wrote...
I don't have a problem with indoctrination. I do have a problem with one ending being intrinsically superior to the others. I believe my idea here is a superior compromise that can satisfy a greater number of people.

Right, but saying your idea is superior to someone else's is asking for trouble.  Using the word "compromise" doesn't alleviate that.

[Xilizhra]

But they mostly don't resort to personal insults.

I suppose I should feel special, then, being repeatedly called stupid and other such things. And all I really want is to establish some kind of unifying theory that doesn't exclude anyone's ending roleplaying, but they're incredibly elitist about Destroy being the One True Path to God... er, victory.

Right, but saying your idea is superior to someone else's is asking for
trouble.  Using the word "compromise" doesn't alleviate that.

If I didn't believe my idea was superior, I wouldn't be suggesting it. I have a lot of lame ideas that I let go unsaid. I respect your idea, but I like mine better, as it can accomodate more possibilities.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:55 .

[Davik Kang]

Xilizhra wrote...
I suppose I should feel special, then, being repeatedly called stupid and other such things. And all I really want is to establish some kind of unifying theory that doesn't exclude anyone's ending roleplaying, but they're incredibly elitist about Destroy being the One True Path to God... er, victory.

I'm not defending personal insults, I'm just saying that the IT crowd are generally a pretty reasonable bunch if you don't go constantly pressing ideas on them that they don't agree with.

Xilizhra wrote...

Davik Kang said...
Right, but saying your idea is superior to someone else's is asking for
trouble.  Using the word "compromise" doesn't alleviate that.

If I didn't believe my idea was superior, I wouldn't be suggesting it. I have a lot of lame ideas that I let go unsaid. I respect your idea, but I like mine better, as it can accomodate more possibilities.

Fine, but we differ on this point then, because I don't believe my interpretation is superior to anyone else's, and I'm not interested in trying to mould people's views to suit my own.  Some people will agree with them, many others will not.  That's ok.  I just wanna talk about these ideas with people.  Nothing more.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:11 .

[Rixatrix]

Xilizhra wrote...

Right, but saying your idea is superior to someone else's is asking for 
trouble.  Using the word "compromise" doesn't alleviate that.

If I didn't believe my idea was superior, I wouldn't be suggesting it. I have a lot of lame ideas that I let go unsaid. I respect your idea, but I like mine better, as it can accomodate more possibilities.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean it in the friendliest regard.  Is there some reason why your idea can't just be "valid" instead of "superior"?  Why not support your idea with evidence and leave subjective qualifications like "superior" out of it?  I think many more people would be more inclined to entertain your theory and discuss it with you rather than be repulsed by the conceit of "superiority."

Davik Kang wrote...
Fine, but we differ on this point then, because I don't believe my interpretation is superior to anyone else's, and I'm not interested in trying to mould people's views to suit my own.  Some people will agree with them, many others will not.  That's ok.  I just wanna talk about these ideas with people.  Nothing more.

Part of the reason why I like this thread so much!

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:11 .

[Xilizhra]

Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean it in the friendliest regard. Is there some reason why your idea can't just be "valid" instead of "superior"? Why not support your idea with evidence and leave subjective qualifications like "superior" out of it? I think many more people would be more inclined to entertain your theory and discuss it with you rather than be repulsed by the conceit of "superiority."

I admit I can be somewhat impatient with providing evidence, since the biggest pieces, the epilogues, are so routinely disregarded. As for the rest... well, in terms of literary quality, I wouldn't say my idea is superior; I do, however, believe it's a better solution for game purposes, as it can satisfy more peoples' preferences.

[macrocarl]

I like your interpretation and came to a similar conclusion myself........ Actually I have several but the one you present here OP is one of my more favorites!