53 réponses à ce sujet

[Franky Figgs]

Need some help with these questions. Please do not think I'm baiting anyone. Even though I already have my answers and some of the questions are leading, what I'm looking for are other sensible views to the problems that got me from point A (this doesn't make sense) to point B (oh, I get it). I can not for the life of me seem to get anyone to follow this train of thought or point out the flaw in it. I probably have follow up questions or answers so this could be a debate (friendly of course). 

 

 

1. A. What exactly is the point of indoctrination to act like a major theme only to be a side note? Or, why isn't this just a game about killing bad guys and dating in space without the extra plot point if it is all just the same?

1. B. So why shouldn't a person incorporate this plot point into understanding the big picture?

 

2. A. How do we know that Saren or TIM were indoctrinated and under control when they claimed they were not? By that I also mean - weren't they indoctrinated because they were aiding the adversary towards its own goals and against all of our better interest?

2. B. Could we then complete disassociate indoctrination from the concept of dream state hallucination and instead apply the in game examples?

 

3. A. How do we know that the Leviathan AI isn't going to control everything after synthesis? Logic being that the Leviathan used organics as thralls and the AI uses Reapers as thralls.

3. B. Do we have an example of anything that is synthesized that is known to be not under control by something?

 

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Excella Gionne]

Indoctrination theory is fascinating if you watch a video on YouTube where it is very persuasive, but the IT theory is flawed...

[SporkFu]

In a synthesis ending leviathan would be synthesized too, thus no need to control anybody. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

1. A. What exactly is the point of indoctrination to act like a major theme only to be a side note? Or, why isn't this just a game about killing bad guys and dating in space without the extra plot point if it is all just the same?
1. B. So why shouldn't a person incorporate this plot point into understanding the big picture?

 
"B" assumes that said plot point (Indoctrination) is part of the big picture in the first place. It may not be.

 

Moreover, not all fans are struggling to understand the big picture without incorporating indoctrination. In truth, I find "Indoctrination" is a quick/lazy conclusion often jumped to by fans when things in the narrative -- ending, or otherwise -- confuse them.
 
 

2. A. How do we know that Saren or TIM were indoctrinated and under control when they claimed they were not? By that I also mean - weren't they indoctrinated because they were aiding the adversary towards its own goals and against all of our better interest?
2. B. Could we then complete disassociate indoctrination from the concept of dream state hallucination and instead apply the in game examples?

 

It's not purely hallucination, but calling any perceived support for the Reapers "indoctrination" is not valid use of the word.

 

You can argue TIM is helping the Reapers by killing your allies, but that does not mean he's actually indoctrinated, and the Reapers themselves would disagree with the notion that he's helping them since they try to destroy Sanctuary once they find out about it. If TIM were indoctrinated before setting up that facility, they never would noy have let it start up, much less progress to the point where controlling the Reapers had some promise. It is in no interest of the Reapers (or Catalyst) for someone else to step in and subvert them. Only people who seem to think it is are destroyers subscribing to "deception"-nonsense and fear any hint of Reapers in their endings.
 

3. A. How do we know that the Leviathan AI isn't going to control everything after synthesis? Logic being that the Leviathan used organics as thralls and the AI uses Reapers as thralls.
3. B. Do we have an example of anything that is synthesized that is known to be not under control by something?

 
The Catalyst/Reapers can already control any/all species in a cycle -- organic or synthetic -- through slow-indoctrination, rapid-indoctination (husks), viruses, software re-write, even destructive-upload into Reaper form. What would another form of control accomplish that these do not already?

 

Oh, seems I've answered your question with a question.

[von uber]

what post did you see today from me with a spider-man reference exactly? Don't worry I'll wait

Won't you just accuse them of being sad?

[AlanC9]

Did anybody else think "Oh boy, another one of those threads " after seeing the thread title?

But as long as I'm here, I'll play
 

1. A. What exactly is the point of indoctrination to act like a major theme only to be a side note? Or, why isn't this just a game about killing bad guys and dating in space without the extra plot point if it is all just the same?
1. B. So why shouldn't a person incorporate this plot point into understanding the big picture?

The point of Indoctrination was to get around a plot problem in ME1. The enemies are gigantic space battleships who want to destroy everybody. And the PC is a space marine. OK, so who does he shoot? Without something like indoctrination, nobody would sign on with the Reapers since what they want is obviously bad for us. It never had anything to do with the intended ending, since they had no idea how it was going to end at the time.
 

2. A. How do we know that Saren or TIM were indoctrinated and under control when they claimed they were not? By that I also mean - weren't they indoctrinated because they were aiding the adversary towards its own goals and against all of our better interest?
2. B. Could we then complete disassociate indoctrination from the concept of dream state hallucination and instead apply the in game examples?

Sure, they can be disassociated. The whole dream state thing was made up out of whole cloth by IT advocates in the first place. It sounded cool so Bio incorporated it into the Leviathan DLC. If you don't own Leviathan then Indoctrination never involves dream states in your game.
 

3. A. How do we know that the Leviathan AI isn't going to control everything after synthesis? Logic being that the Leviathan used organics as thralls and the AI uses Reapers as thralls.
3. B. Do we have an example of anything that is synthesized that is known to be not under control by something?

A. We don't. We don't know they won't control everything in Destroy either

B. Depends on what you mean by synthesised. Saren has cybernetic upgrades? Well, so does Shepard.

[AlexMBrennan]

1. B. So why shouldn't a person incorporate this plot point into understanding the big picture?

How about you go look up "theory" on Wikipedia rather than making inane threads like this? The simple answer is that a theory that explains everything explains nothing. Sure, I can't prove you wrong but your "theory" is completely meaningless. Once you've done your homework and understand the words you are using, there might be some point in continuing this argument. 

 

2. A. How do we know that Saren or TIM were indoctrinated and under control when they claimed they were not? By that I also mean - weren't they indoctrinated because they were aiding the adversary towards its own goals and against all of our better interest?

I'd consider Sovereign physically taking over his robotic body parts after Saren breaks free of his mind control as a pretty big hint that he might not have been acting on his own accord. 

 

3. A. How do we know that the Leviathan AI isn't going to control everything after synthesis? Logic being that the Leviathan used organics as thralls and the AI uses Reapers as thralls.

We don't. This is called "perfect solution fallacy". 

 

3. B. Do we have an example of anything that is synthesized that is known to be not under control by something?

Assuming for the moment that you mean green zombies by "anything that is synthesized" (again, actual words do have actual meaning, and blindly using them for new things you just thought of hinders discussion), then no - Synthesis has not been an option before, and when we activate the beam it apparently has to convert the entire galaxy at once.

 

The epilogue makes it clear that this isn't the case, but that's obviously an indoctrination induced hallucination intended to keep the sheep happy being organic batteries. 

[Abelas Forever!]

1. A. What exactly is the point of indoctrination to act like a major theme only to be a side note? Or, why isn't this just a game about killing bad guys and dating in space without the extra plot point if it is all just the same?

1. B. So why shouldn't a person incorporate this plot point into understanding the big picture?

 

2. A. How do we know that Saren or TIM were indoctrinated and under control when they claimed they were not? By that I also mean - weren't they indoctrinated because they were aiding the adversary towards its own goals and against all of our better interest?

2. B. Could we then complete disassociate indoctrination from the concept of dream state hallucination and instead apply the in game examples?

 

3. A. How do we know that the Leviathan AI isn't going to control everything after synthesis? Logic being that the Leviathan used organics as thralls and the AI uses Reapers as thralls.

3. B. Do we have an example of anything that is synthesized that is known to be not under control by something?

 

1. I think that indoctrination is important theme even though ending might not be about indoctrination like IT theory suggest it to be and I do believe in IT theory but I don't think that theme thing proves anything. Indoctrination is the way how reapers defeat their enemies that is the reason why it exists. It's just one thing that exists. It may or may not be anything else.There are many plot elements in the end that don't mean so much even if you might think they might mean.

 

2  I think that Saren and TIM acted very differently than they normally did so I guess Shepard suspected that they were indoctrinated. I'm not sure did Benezia confirm that Saren was indoctrinated but because she was indoctrinated so why not Saren.I think that In Citadel dlc it was confirmed that TIM was indoctrinated. Of course they couldn't admit that they were indoctrinated because they didn't know it. They could have aid  the enemies because of many reasons. Saren thought that it was the only way to survive and TIM thought that he could defeat the reapers by controlling them. But we don't know why they ended up helping reapers. Were they indoctrinated before they became allies of the reapers. If you are suggesting that Shepard's dreams are not a sign of a indoctrination then it could be like that or it could be that they are sign of a indoctrination because you see different people who has been indoctrinated and the process has been very far away so we don't know are they sign of an indoctrination or just other nightmares.

 

3. There is no need to control anybody because the organics and synthetics are united and that is the new solution and using reapers was the old solution which expired when Shepard chose the synthesis ending.

[Franky Figgs]

Thank you for all of your answers. I have, I hope, good responses. I could not figure out how to get this many quotes in this forums layout so here it is with a number of new post.

 

 

Indoctrination theory is fascinating if you watch a video on YouTube where it is very persuasive, but the IT theory is flawed...

All of the youtube videos I've seen have been about the character hallucinating the whole ending. This is the very bane of anything I every try to say about the topic. It has made sure that every time I say “Indoctrination Theory” everyone seems to know everything I have to say about it and I have to explain very long and hard how THAT theory isn't what I mean. Real world indoctrination is inculcating ideas into a person without those ideas being critically examine. That’s much closer, if not exactly, the concept that ought to be considered in ME's “Indoctrination Theory”

 

In a synthesis ending leviathan would be synthesized too, thus no need to control anybody. 

The Leviathan AI controls the Reapers, as shown, against the will of the Leviathans. I hope to eventually argue the point that the Leviathan AI seeks to control organics with the cooperation of their own will. 

[Franky Figgs]

HYR 2.0, on 10 May 2014 - 3:38 PM, said:

B" assumes that said plot point (Indoctrination) is part of the big picture in the first place. It may not be.

True. But the question was, why shouldn’t a person incorporate it? The answer to that question wouldn’t be - because it’s not a central theme. I’m doubtful that a good answer exist.  I'm willing to be wrong however.

 

It's not purely hallucination, but calling any perceived support for the Reapers "indoctrination" is not valid use of the word.

 

 

You can argue TIM is helping the Reapers by killing your allies, but that does not mean he's actually indoctrinated, and the Reapers themselves would disagree with the notion that he's helping them since they try to destroy Sanctuary once they find out about it. If TIM were indoctrinated before setting up that facility, they never would noy have let it start up, much less progress to the point where controlling the Reapers had some promise. It is in no interest of the Reapers (or Catalyst) for someone else to step in and subvert them. Only people who seem to think it is are destroyers subscribing to "deception"-nonsense and fear any hint of Reapers in their endings.

Indoctrination does not logically work by a person admitting they are indoctrinated and then doing the thing they were indoctrinated to do. It’s subversive to the person indoctrinated. We get the dialog wheel option to accuse Saren and TIM of being indoctrinated but they naturally argue against it. So we get to see case examples of what indoctrination looks like through Saren and TIM. And what it looks like is someone finding the their own justifications to work towards the adversary’s goals which hold little to no value in individual life. More to the point - The Catalyst actually said it controlled TIM, which despite his best efforts meant that TIM’s mission was failed to begin with. It’s purpose was described by Javik who had experienced this all before – to promote infighting as a strategy to divide and conquer.

 

The Catalyst/Reapers can already control any/all species in a cycle -- organic or synthetic -- through slow-indoctrination, rapid-indoctination (husks), viruses, software re-write, even destructive-upload into Reaper form. What would another form of control accomplish that these do not already?

The other form it could want is the form it said it tried before but failed. And it said that it failed because organics were not ready and it can not be forced. Control that is not forced is upon someone is control that is given up by free will.   

 

[Franky Figgs]

AlanC9, on 10 May 2014 - 4:38 PM, said:

The point of Indoctrination was to get around a plot problem in ME1. The enemies are gigantic space battleships who want to destroy everybody. And the PC is a space marine. OK, so who does he shoot? Without something like indoctrination, nobody would sign on with the Reapers since what they want is obviously bad for us. It never had anything to do with the intended ending, since they had no idea how it was going to end at the time.

 

As the team that made the game are so tight lipped about it what you and I think about how it was produced is irrelevant. I’m simply dealing with the story at hand with the pieces we were given and it seems they add up better for me than they do for you.

 

Sure, they can be disassociated. The whole dream state thing was made up out of whole cloth by IT advocates in the first place. It sounded cool so Bio incorporated it into the Leviathan DLC. If you don't own Leviathan then Indoctrination never involves dream states in your game.

Thank you so much. It can be disassociated and it should be. Now with that association gone how could the central theme of indoctrination have been wrapped up?

 

A. We don't. We don't know they won't control everything in Destroy either

Thank you again. And so all speculation about what the epilogues inform us about what is or isn’t under control should be a moot point. Then if and how one could come to that conclusion should be based on the evidences that line up before the epilogues.

 

B. Depends on what you mean by synthesised. Saren has cybernetic upgrades? Well, so does Shepard.

I would argue that Saren tipped the scales of cybernetic upgrades to being synthesized with Reaper tech. His body did reanimate and go full husk after he killed himself. Doesn’t seem like “upgrade” category to me. Shepard is also under control by the player playing him or her.

[Franky Figgs]

AlexMBrennan, on 10 May 2014 - 5:22 PM, said:

How about you go look up "theory" on Wikipedia rather than making inane threads like this? The simple answer is that a theory that explains everything explains nothing. Sure, I can't prove you wrong but your "theory" is completely meaningless. Once you've done your homework and understand the words you are using, there might be some point in continuing this argument

I promise you I’m not trying to be a bad person. I know I can’t prove that to you and you’ll treat me as I deserve, but if you’d like to reply we can continue this debate, otherwise here are the last words on your comments:

 

I'd consider Sovereign physically taking over his robotic body parts after Saren breaks free of his mind control as a pretty big hint that he might not have been acting on his own accord. 

The words, thoughts and doubts coming out of him were his and not Sovereigns. After he died, yes he went full husk.

 

We don't. This is called "perfect solution fallacy".  

To the question: How do we know that the Leviathan AI isn't going to control everything after synthesis? Your answer: We don't. Is the point I like to make as well. The follow up question, which I'm sure we might disagree on the answer is: Ought we consider the possibility?

 

Assuming for the moment that you mean green zombies by "anything that is synthesized" (again, actual words do have actual meaning, and blindly using them for new things you just thought of hinders discussion), then no - Synthesis has not been an option before, and when we activate the beam it apparently has to convert the entire galaxy at once.

Synthesis as presented in ME isn't real. The composite difference between green zombies and husks are purely fictional. The concept of merging organic and synthetic parts was introduced in the visions on Eden Prime in the very first game and it's been a reoccurring thing since then. True, the word “synthesis” wasn't used until the Catalyst said it at the very end. So since we can not do a physical test to measure the difference as it’s fictional we have to go by the concept or the semantics. I hope you can understand why I choose the concept over the semantics even though you have not. (why so bitter btw?)

 

The epilogue makes it clear that this isn't the case, but that's obviously an indoctrination induced hallucination intended to keep the sheep happy being organic batteries. 

You just said that we could not know if Leviathan AI was going to control everything or not? But you’ve made a counter point that we can if we assume what we see in the epilogue are control free societies.

Consider this for an Indoctrination Theory epilogue then: It’s not a hallucination. We actually see people experiencing a control induced utopia.

[Franky Figgs]

SilentShadows, on 10 May 2014 - 5:26 PM, said:

1. I think that indoctrination is important theme even though ending might not be about indoctrination like IT theory suggest it to be and I do believe in IT theory but I don't think that theme thing proves anything. Indoctrination is the way how reapers defeat their enemies that is the reason why it exists. It's just one thing that exists. It may or may not be anything else.There are many plot elements in the end that don't mean so much even if you might think they might mean.

 

Point well taken. People can add false meanings and so it's important to interpret things as objectively as possible. This is my attempt, to interpret the story within the context of fictional story telling using the stories internal logic as objectively as possible. I admitted up front that I felt I had answers to the questions I was asking so when I raised the question - why was this central theme absent in it's final beat; though it may just be nothing, is it impossible that it's actually there? If that can be admitted I can carry on to my next point.

 

2  I think that Saren and TIM acted very differently than they normally did so I guess Shepard suspected that they were indoctrinated. I'm not sure did Benezia confirm that Saren was indoctrinated but because she was indoctrinated so why not Saren.I think that In Citadel dlc it was confirmed that TIM was indoctrinated. Of course they couldn't admit that they were indoctrinated because they didn't know it. They could have aid  the enemies because of many reasons. Saren thought that it was the only way to survive and TIM thought that he could defeat the reapers by controlling them. But we don't know why they ended up helping reapers. Were they indoctrinated before they became allies of the reapers. If you are suggesting that Shepard's dreams are not a sign of a indoctrination then it could be like that or it could be that they are sign of a indoctrination because you see different people who has been indoctrinated and the process has been very far away so we don't know are they sign of an indoctrination or just other nightmares.

 

There are fictional attachments to the lore of indoctrination in ME to give clues to what it is. Things like seeing ghostly presences and hearing voices, etc. indeed our avatar Shepard experiences those symptoms. I'll say that we can take our avatar's dialog wheel options at face value and say that we know they were indoctrinated also because we were given the option to call them out on it.

 

3. There is no need to control anybody because the organics and synthetics are united and that is the new solution and using reapers was the old solution which expired when Shepard chose the synthesis ending.

 

It is a solution, but I would argue that control was the whole point. I'll will try to explain in the post below

[Franky Figgs]

To add perspective here is an explanation on why I think that control was the problem and the intended indoctrinated solution - to continue the legacy of controlling others.  When the Leviathan AI explains the organic/synthetic conflict it is describing a conflict from an enthraller perspective. The Leviathan, an organic enthraller, can not control artificial intelligence. In return, on attempt to control them AI rebel to seek their own autonomy. This is why we have a slim but real shot at solving this just before we are introduced to this "galactically intrinsic" problem. Nevertheless the problem is presented. Upon accepting the problem as our own we are accepting a thrall problem and therefor are consenting control be be willing thralls.

 

How can I draw the conclusion that the Leviathan AI is an enthraller like the Leviathan itself? Because of the stories internal logic.

In Mass Effect, AI takes an ontology (nature of reality and existence) from other "parent" species. The example for us to follow was EDI. This is why EDI ask us so many questions and then starts to make declarations for herself that mimic how you answer them. If the internal logic is to remain consistent then the Catalyst's perspective should look identical to the Leviathan. And we can be more sure that it does because it openly states it controls the Reapers.

[AlanC9]

As the team that made the game are so tight lipped about it what you and I think about how it was produced is irrelevant. I’m simply dealing with the story at hand with the pieces we were given and it seems they add up better for me than they do for you.

Better ....how? I wasn't aware I had a problem. Anyway, I simply stated known facts. If you want to ignore them you're free to, of course.

Note that this means I'll find your whole project pointless. Since the endings predate the existence of the Leviathans, and not all of us have Leviathans in our game.... but I'm sure you see where I'm going with that.

However, congratulations on making the first real advance in IT theory in years. So, where are you going with this? You IT guys always take forever to get to the point. This beating around the bush doesn't actually make the argument more convincing, though I suppose it does bore some of the skeptics away.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 mai 2014 - 02:46 .

[Franky Figgs]

Better ....how? I wasn't aware I had a problem. Anyway, I simply stated known facts. If you want to ignore them you're free to, of course.

It's a central theme?

 

I'm aware that the process of making the ME3 ending is shrouded in tells of mismanagement. But the developers have remained silent on how the player is take the ending in. So we are left to our own devises to interpret their work. But I guess you could say it is relevant. If the tells-of-mismanagement are part of how one can interpret the work then one is likely to see the puzzle and call it pretentious. I interpret their silents as a required patience to their experiment.

Also, I see how I replied could come off haughty. I don't think I know better than you, I think my interpretation is better at intellectually satisfying me that yours is at satisfying you. 

 

As far as whether or not indoctrination is a central theme; after thinking about it and not to lose my point in a semantic debate - it is a major theme.

[AlanC9]

I'm aware that the process of making the ME3 ending is shrouded in tells of mismanagement. But the developers have remained silent on how the player is take the ending in. So we are left to our own devises to interpret their work. But I guess you could say it is relevant. If the tells-of-mismanagement are part of how one can interpret the work then one is likely to see the puzzle and call it pretentious. I interpret their silents as a required patience to their experiment.

I didn't say anything about mismanagement. If you've got a case to make there, you'll have to do it on your own.

Also, I see how I replied could come off haughty. I don't think I know better than you, I think my interpretation is better at intellectually satisfying me that yours is at satisfying you. 

That's either awfully arrogant or merely stupid. On what basis are you assuming that my interpretation doesn't satisfy me?

Note that your reply seems to have crossed paths with my edit above. Are you prepared to actually present your theory yet?

[Franky Figgs]

I didn't say anything about mismanagement. If you've got a case to make there, you'll have to do it on your own.
That's either awfully arrogant or merely stupid. On what basis are you assuming that my interpretation doesn't satisfy me?

I based it on you claiming that they had no idea how it was going to end. I am not interested in trying to defend my position on this one as I believe I have a better point to make.

Here it is I'm trying to be understood and I'm going around misunderstanding everybody. I apologize for offending you.

 

Note that your reply seems to have crossed paths with my edit above. Are you prepared to actually present your theory yet?

This was my intention "what I'm looking for are other sensible views to the problems that got me from point A (this doesn't make sense) to point B (oh, I get it). I can not for the life of me seem to get anyone to follow this train of thought or point out the flaw in it."

 

​I wanted to do this via conversation. And I think I've made some good points to the responses to my questions that paint a pretty clear picture of where this was leading. I've responded to so much that even you posted and the only feed back I have from you is my post is pointless, I'm arrogant or stupid. I get I worded something poorly and so ... maybe we can't get past that. But I am sorry for it. In any case post number 14 lays it out as well.

 

I've tried this before in the past here, but I could never make it past my first point before it got hostile or the conversation was shut down. This time I am hoping to find a way for anyone to concede to one point so I can make it to the next. I don't know... I don't know why. I was hoping things would change over time. If it offends you, though I may not know why, I'll do what I can to not bug you about it. But I will talk about it openly with you if you invite me to or anyone else as long as I'm allowed to.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Indoctrination does not logically work by a person admitting they are indoctrinated and then doing the thing they were indoctrinated to do. It’s subversive to the person indoctrinated. We get the dialog wheel option to accuse Saren and TIM of being indoctrinated but they naturally argue against it. So we get to see case examples of what indoctrination looks like through Saren and TIM.

 

What's your point? Just because people who are indoctrinated don't realize it doesn't mean that every person who doesn't think they're indoctrinated actually are. And people who you think are helping the Reapers are not necessarily indoctrinated either. Shepard can accuse TIM of being indoctrinated come Thessia, but evidence at Cerberus HQ suggests he was wrong. Henry Lawson is in on the Control scheme and there's no reason to think he's indoctrinated, either. If he were, the Reapers would have been able to locate Sanctuary long before they actually did, and he wouldn't have been in mental condition to carry out the work required there (you can actually let Mr. Lawson go off scot-free if Miranda did not survive ME2).
 

And what it looks like is someone finding the their own justifications to work towards the adversary’s goals which hold little to no value in individual life.

 

Javik holds little to no value in individual life. He says he would have tricked the krogan about the cure and that his people sacrificed entire planets merely to slow the Reapers down (not even kill them). For him, genocide is fair game to him to accomplishing his goal of destroying the Reapers. What I've seen from your posts here is that you suspect people with that kind of ruthless attitude are actually indoctrinated thralls killing off others on behalf of the Reapers, and that's also where it's flawed, as sometimes ruthless people are just... ruthless. For that matter, those types are arguably more fit to lead the effort against the Reapers than those who are appalled by such actions.

With the ending, there are lots of folks that think they understand what sacrifice is just because they knowingly killed off the geth and EDI to destroy the Reapers, but they don't. Sacrifice is never that simple, like: trade me [x] and you'll get [y]. You typically don't have the luxury of knowing if what you sacrificed will be worth it in the future, or if it will have been in vain. Javik and the Protheans killed many of their own by choice in fighting the Reapers. Were they all indoctrinated? Is Javik actually an agent of the Reapers, trying to trick you into killing more of your allies?

 

The other form it could want is the form it said it tried before but failed. And it said that it failed because organics were not ready and it can not be forced. Control that is not forced is upon someone is control that is given up by free will.

 

Free-will does not matter; indoctrination physically subverts choice. They don't need anyone to agree when they can make them agree.

And, again, what would this form of control accomplish that their current methods are insufficient for?

[AlanC9]

I based it on you claiming that they had no idea how it was going to end.

OK. But not having an idea how the series was going to end simply isn't mismanagement. Some writers plan out the whole work at the beginning, some don't. Both ways can work, and both ways can fail. As it happens, many of my favorite works were not really planned out, but this sort of thing will always come down to personal taste, which rarely makes for an interesting topic.
 

This time I am hoping to find a way for anyone to concede to one point so I can make it to the next. I don't know... I don't know why. I was hoping things would change over time. If it offends you, though I may not know why, I'll do what I can to not bug you about it. But I will talk about it openly with you if you invite me to or anyone else as long as I'm allowed to.

Oh, I'm not offended by what you've said. If anything, it's funny. Seriously, why even bring up whether my interpretation is satisfying to me? Even if you had been right, it wouldn't mean anything, since just because I didn't like literalism that wouldn't mean that I'd like the stuff you're pushing any better.

There are really only two things IT fans need to avoid on this board. One is believing that people would like the theory if they could only be persuaded to give it a shot. (If I discovered that IT really was Bio's intent I wouldn't like IT; I'd just hate Bioware.) The other thing is believing that people don't like IT because they're stupid. Avoid those and you'll be fine.

[Abelas Forever!]

Point well taken. People can add false meanings and so it's important to interpret things as objectively as possible. This is my attempt, to interpret the story within the context of fictional story telling using the stories internal logic as objectively as possible. I admitted up front that I felt I had answers to the questions I was asking so when I raised the question - why was this central theme absent in it's final beat; though it may just be nothing, is it impossible that it's actually there? If that can be admitted I can carry on to my next point.

 

Of course it's possible that the theme of indoctrination is present in the final moments. But TIM is there and he is indoctrinated but I guess you are talking about the process? Is the process of indoctrination present in the end? Well I think the result of the process is there in the form of TIM.

 

 

To add perspective here is an explanation on why I think that control was the problem and the intended indoctrinated solution - to continue the legacy of controlling others.  When the Leviathan AI explains the organic/synthetic conflict it is describing a conflict from an enthraller perspective. The Leviathan, an organic enthraller, can not control artificial intelligence. In return, on attempt to control them AI rebel to seek their own autonomy. This is why we have a slim but real shot at solving this just before we are introduced to this "galactically intrinsic" problem. Nevertheless the problem is presented. Upon accepting the problem as our own we are accepting a thrall problem and therefor are consenting control be be willing thralls.

 

How can I draw the conclusion that the Leviathan AI is an enthraller like the Leviathan itself? Because of the stories internal logic.

In Mass Effect, AI takes an ontology (nature of reality and existence) from other "parent" species. The example for us to follow was EDI. This is why EDI ask us so many questions and then starts to make declarations for herself that mimic how you answer them. If the internal logic is to remain consistent then the Catalyst's perspective should look identical to the Leviathan. And we can be more sure that it does because it openly states it controls the Reapers.

 

I think that AI is talking in the perspective of someone who has created the solution to a problem and the problem was that organics created synthetics who then killed organics. The solution is flawed because the AI can't understand organics and that they really cannot be preserved in the reaper form. I don't think that the AI seeks for autonomy. It just does what it was created to do and it tries to make the process perfect. I think the process has failed because if I remember right then the AI hasn't been able to create any other reapers with the mind of that species so every reaper has the mind of the Harbinger. Is Shepard there so she/he can become the mind of reaper? Because i think that would make sense because why would reapers let you in CItadel so easily. But then the breathing scene doesn't make any sense because if you failed to became a mind of the reaper it would make sense that you either became a mind of a reaper or die trying.  Or is Shepard there because he/she is being indoctrinated? Or are the options really what the AI tells Shepard they are?

 

I think we both believe in IT theory so it's funny that I'm arguing against you. I believe in IT because for me it's weird that Hacket doesn't know that Anderson made it to CItadel and then there is a scene where TIM makes Shepard shoot Anderson. I think that IT also explains better the situation that Citadel can be used as weapon to destroy the reapers. Why would the AI allow that to happen. I also haven't found any evidence that IT wouldn't be true.

[von uber]

Shepard shooting Anderson always bothers me.

[AlanC9]

Shepard shooting Anderson always bothers me.

Wasn't that supposed to?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

I've said this before, but the best argument against Indoctrination Theory is actually a metagame argument (imo).

 

According to IT theory (as I understand it), Destroy is the only true ending and functions by Shepard waking up after the blast. What this means is that the game, in effect, concludes without any actual confrontation with TIM, without any defeat of the Reapers, or any resolution period.

 

Personally, I think the idea that Bioware would actively make that choice, to conclude ME3 without an official resolution, to be an even worse idea than the current incarnation of the endings.

 

As it stands, IT theory could have been a much more clever idea if Bioware had written ME3 with it in mind. Instead IT feels more like a patch job to fix the fact that the endings do not stand well on their own.

 

 

[von uber]

Wasn't that supposed to?

 

I mean the mechanics of it; how it was supposed to happen. TIM can control Shep's actions now? How?