TL;DR: It is much more efficient for the Reapers to kill Shepard than indoctrinate him - thus trying to indoctrinate Shepard is pointless.
There has been a lot of discussion about Shepard being indoctrinated in ME3. Rather than look at whether or not this was the case, here I am going to look at WHY Shepard would be indoctrinated. Why would the Reapers go through all this effort to indoctrinate the avatar of organic resistance? Is it worth it?
My humble answer is no. And the rest of this post will be me explaining my thinking.
I. High Profile Indoctrination
II. Indoctrinating Shepard - The Benefits
III. Indoctrinating Shepard - The Costs
(Please note that while I refer to Shepard as male, that does not indicate any bias whatsoever.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. High Profile Indoctrination
Shepard is not your standard footsoldier - Shepard is a unique individual, possessing both a strong vitality (mental/physical) and the ability to realize that vitality through resources (political connections, fame, squadmates, etc.). This means that his indoctrination cannot be compared to Cerberus soldiers or that random dude that killed Dr. Bryson in the Leviathan DLC.
In other words, Shepard is a high profile individual. We know of two other high-profile individuals who were indoctrinated - Saren and The Illusive Man (TIM). Let's look briefly at their stories.
Saren: While I did not play ME1, the way I understand it, Saren was used by Sovereign since Sovvy needed an organic avatar to carry out the small scale actions. Saren, as a Spectre, was also in the unusually useful situation of being able to (initially) command resources while being given unquestioned secrecy and privacy. Saren also, as a Spectre, was knowledgable about a lot of the inner workings of the Council. Still, Saren was forced to operate on the fringes of society, and he required an "indoctrinated" army of Geth to be useful in combat. Once Saren was found out, and his actions affected the galaxy as a whole, people worked together to stop him. Saren also was lucky because the galaxy at the time was not suspicious; by ME3, people get suspicious of indoctrination easily and are much more aware.
TIM: Background information in the books apparently shows that TIM got indoctrinated by implanting himself with Reaper technology in order to better understand the Reapers. Though TIM always operated on the fringe of society with Cerberus, he continues to do so in ME3, and he relies on an indoctrinated army to support him. Everyone works against him anyways.
We can notice three commonalities in each of the above situations. Note that both Saren and TIM were powerful individuals, both as people and in terms of the resources and capabilities they commanded.
1. These individuals were forced to operate on the fringes of society.
2. These individuals required an indoctrinated-style army to support them.
3. Upon their indoctrinated actions, the galaxy worked against them.
Shepard, as even more of a high profile individual than Saren and TIM, is given less freedom to operate on the fringes. His squadmates won't follow him if he suddenly acts suspicious and hinders allied efforts. And despite whatever is going on in the galaxy, if they believe Shepard is indoctrinated, while they may or may not kill him, they definitely will separate him from the War Effort and make sure he cannot do any damage - even as a precautionary measure if they're not completely sure of Shepard's indoctrination. More on this in the next section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Indoctrinating Shepard - The Benefits
Let's suppose, for a second, that the Reapers DID succeed in indoctrinating Shepard. What could Shepard accomplish? I'm going to look at a few possibilities and suggest why using an indoctrinated Shepard may not be as easy as it seems.
Here, I am operating under the assumption that Shepard is more difficult to indoctrinate than your average person. This is an assumption I developed from in-game observation, and while not exactly fact, it seems to be an accepted idea here on the forums.
1. The Reapers can use Shepard, physically, to hinder the War Effort.
This is the idea that Shepard, alone, can cause vast amounts of damage in terms of physical capability. I think we can split this up into four main parts - fighting, sabotage, espionage, and assassination.
FIGHTING: This is the idea that Shepard can pick up a gun and win ground fights. The problem with this is that Shepard, while an exemplary soldier, is not the Master Chief - there are no "hard" qualities that make Shepard stand out, and, most importantly, Shepard can just as easily be killed by explosives or aerial/orbital bombardment. The Reapers also are in no hurry to get more ground troops - they have a steady supply coming from their harvests. It's very likely, also, that Shepard will be killed by other exemplary soldiers (such as his squadmates) if he picks up a gun and shoots for the Reapers. By its nature, Shepard would be exposed by this action, making it a one-time thing. This idea does not make sense.
SABOTAGE: This is the idea that Shepard can take out high-value targets such as security networks, anti-air guns, fuel stations, etc. - key, strategic things that would hinder the War Effort. There are a few problems with this again. First, it would be much easier to get a person inside the facility, like a maintenance or other low worker, to become indoctrinated and do the deed. Second, doing this would expose Shepard's indoctrination immediately (for various reasons), so it would be a one-time deal. Third, the Reapers have other, more efficient methods for several of the high-value targets - orbital bombardment, hacking, blockades, and so forth - that they could use.
ESPIONAGE: This is the idea that the Reapers can know what Shepard knows physically in his brain, as information is power. The problem with this is that it would be easier for them to indoctrinate other people or hack computers to get that information.
ASSASSINATION: This is the idea that Shepard could take out high-value individuals, like Admiral Hackett, to hinder the War Effort. Again, this has a few problems. First, it would immediately expose Shepard, making it a one-time deal. Second, it would be much easier to indoctrinate someone else close to Hackett - like his assistant/aide/whatever - and get that person to do the deed.
2. The Reapers can use Shepard, politically, to hinder the War Effort.
This is the idea that Shepard's influence, rather than his soldiering capabilities, can be utilized against the War Effort. This has some immediate problems as well. First off, all the main missions in the single player campaign are Shepard doing things for other people, either on Hackett's orders or other politicians' orders. For Shepard to not carry out these missions as expected would be suspect, and given the state of the war and Shepard's known experiences, people may suspect him to be indoctrinated. To be better safe than sorry, they'd probably imprison him until they learned more, thereby decreasing his use.
There are two main ways, I think, the Reapers could use Shepard in this fashion.
OVERT POLITICAL ACTION: This would be obvious stuff, like Shepard suddenly getting up and giving a speech that the Reapers are everyone's "salvation through destruction" and saying things like "Harbinger is my bro". The problem is that such obvious things would not be accepted by the public (people aren't that gullible), and Shepard's squadmates and the militaries would immediately suspect his indoctrination, cutting him off from the War Effort.
COVERT POLITICAL ACTION: This would be stuff like sabotaging political discussions (e.g. talking s**t to politicians and upsetting them, delaying political compromises). There are two problems with this. First, as it is Shepard's job to deal with this, Hackett may just send along an ambassador and have this trained ambassador do the negotiating and have Shepard to the fighting. Second, if it is a really serious thing, Hackett, being smart, may suspect indoctrination and remove Shepard from the War Effort. Both of these reduce Shepard's influence and usefulness to the Reapers.
3. The Reapers can use Shepard to hinder the War Effort by lowering morale.
This is the idea that the loss of a hero demoralizes people. However, in terms of lowering morale, I think indoctrination and death would pretty much give the same loss of morale, that the mighty Shepard succumbed or fell to the Reapers. Given what is now known about indoctrination, nobody would blame Shepard, but they would be sad. I think here, though, death would be just as effective, given the costs.
4. The Reapers can use Shepard, biologically/scientifically, to improve themselves.
This is based off of ME2's Harby quote where he says to preserve Shepard if possible. Note the "if possible" though. While Shepard is unique, I don't think he's super unique as an individual - at least compared to some people the Reapers must have faced in a billion or so years - but he's just lucky. He's lucky to have a diverse galaxy, to have the Crucible fully planned (so the focus is only on building it), lucky to have the Protheans delay the signal...etc. His resistant attempts would make him a good study, sure, but this brings up the next part.
To the Reapers, harvesting someone keeps them alive, scientifically (this is supported by how Javik says DNA stores memories - the Reapers likely use this to learn about people and "keep them alive"). Thus, to the Reapers, harvesting Shepard would be the same as indoctrinating him in terms of scientific research, and it's much easier to harvest Shepard (overwhelm with physical force). On top of this, though, they can even learn a lot from his dead body through the DNA. And even then, the stuff they can learn may not be that big of a deal, as Shepard is just one anomaly. One out of a billion or so years apparently. To us, that might be the sign of being special, but to a machine, it's an anomaly, an outlier.
This makes some sense, but it should not be that big of a deal to waste so many resources on indoctrination. Harvesting or killing would be more efficient.
5. The Reapers, especially
Again, this does not make sense. The personal vendetta is brought about by the reason above (4) whereby Shepard is more resistant - but not immune - to indoctrination. Machines are inherently about efficiency, and it would make more sense for Harby to realize Shepard is a threat, and seek to neutralize that threat in the most efficient way possible. There are also a bunch of other Reapers - and, of course, the Catalyst - who, without personal vendettas of any kind, should seek to eliminate Shepard.
One of the key things here is that, for the above situations, the other options available to the Reapers - harvesting or killing - are more efficient and can accomplish pretty much the same thing, combined with indoctrinating easier targets or using other methods to achieve Reaper goals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Indoctrinating Shepard - The Costs
Benefits are only one side of the equation; costs are the other. There are three main problems indoctrination has versus killing - it takes longer, requires more resources, and give Shepard time to continue the war.
1. Indoctrination takes a long time.
Poor Harbinger has been trying to indoctrinate Shepard since ME2, and it's taking forever. Killing would be quick and decisive - if/when Reaper ground troops realize they're fighting against Shepard, the Reapers/Catalyst controlling the troops should be on the lookout and immediately fire lasers at the area until the ground is turned into glass. Quick and efficient. Given Shepard's resistance, indoctrination efforts take a long time, and the Reapers are better off indoctrinating others in a shorter amount of time to carry out their work.
2. Indoctrination takes more resources.
As a consequence of a long amount of time, indoctrination takes more resources for the Reapers, with little (or no) extra benefit. In addition to time, the Reapers must consequently keep Shepard in some form of Reaper contact, and it takes resources to do that (e.g. loss of Reaper troops that could be otherwise avoided).
3. Indoctrination allows Shepard to continue the War Effort longer than killing Shepard does.
Following from the first two reasons, this is a huge detriment. In addition (i.e. separate from) to just taking a long time and more resources, during this time, Shepard is hindering the Reapers in decisive, large-scale victories brought about through his political influence and soldiering abilities, combined with a large amount of just luck. Killing Shepard early on would stop his actions with little cost to the Reapers (use the massive Reaper lasers to do the job). Shepard is a fighter, and any extra moment he is alive has the potential for drastic reprecussions against the Reapers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, to me, indoctrinating Shepard just doesn't make sense. Given Shepard's influence and spotlight, Shepard can't do much if he was indoctrinated without being discovered. It doesn't make sense that the Reapers would carry out a personal vendetta to such a degree that they would drastically reduce their efficiency. Killing Shepard solves the problem quicker and at a lower cost.
Again, I have to restate this - this is my OPINION and I am not saying it is right (i.e. fact). I just wanted to share. Indoctrinating Shepard just does not make sense for me from the Reapers' standpoint.
Modifié par JShepppp, 30 novembre 2012 - 07:52 .
Retour en haut
