Seems i didn´t miss much, when i stopped watching the series.
I love the reimagined series (in case you couldn't tell by me constantly using its slang), but I'm not gonna claim you don't have to turn off most of your brain to enjoy it even moreso than usual in most science fiction not called Star Wars.
It depends on what you mean by "peace."
If you mean that everybody is happy and becomes friends, then you would need a lot. We'd have to be shown that the Reapers are attempting to solve a real and serious problem that could possibly make the Harvest necessary. Something like how in an old plot idea, using Mass Effect technology was leading to the death of the galaxy itself. Then the Reapers are trying to preserve themselves as well as others.
We'd have to be able to show the Catalyst that it's wrong and it has to accept this. Then there would have to be some plan going forward. Finally, there would have to be some way to turn off Indoctrination.
thx. I complety agree with that. Let me recall the original ending: It was about dark energy eating everything including our galaxy and the biotics / element zero / the biotic of the humans could prevent that if the reaper harvest all of them? Do i recite it correcly or do i miss something?
I love the reimagined series (in case you couldn't tell by me constantly using its slang), but I'm not gonna claim you don't have to turn off most of your brain to enjoy it even moreso than usual in most science fiction not called Star Wars.
Like Mass Effect, the entirety of BSG wasn't that bad except for the poor endings (and cancellations; Caprica and Blood and Chrome). I like the philosophy and conflict between the humans and synthetics which is well-fleshed than in the ME trilogy. I take Number Six over EDI at any day. The first two season was solid but it was the third and fourth that it became convoluted. Normally, I just skip several scenes and focus on important arcs. Similar to ME, they tried to take the attention away from the ending by focusing on not-sequels but still they failed at reviving the show. Seems like the lead writers became too focused on developing the cylon mythology that the ambiguity didn't work anymore and people stop caring about the characters or the story.
That being said, badly written endings in scifi/fantasy isn't the death sentence for me, especially when I like parts of it that keep me invested. Badly written fiction in general however... really not worth my time.
thx. I complety agree with that. Let me recall the original ending: It was about dark energy eating everything including our galaxy and the biotics / element zero / the biotic of the humans could prevent that if the reaper harvest all of them? Do i recite it correcly or do i miss something?
That's not the original ending :
http://www.eurogamer...-trilogy-ending
"Again it's very vague and not fleshed out, it was something we considered but we ended up going in a different direction."
And Drew talking about the ending of Mass Effect 3 :
https://twitter.com/...282584155590656
"From what I hear, the basic concept of the original ending is there, though some details may have been tweaked".
thx for the links Angol fear.
What did every thing about Leviathan by the way?
I mean aside from the dlcs gameplay and the cool voice.
Did the further explanation help anthying? I´d say mainly no.
At the same time however i liked the concept from hobes that was in: No Ruler = Chaos. The reaper rule to create order.
Do we need a goverment, to controle everyone? Would we be fine without it? Who should rule the galaxy in the end? Not the reaper for sure, but who then, shepard? the humans? the council? someone else? Nobody?
thx for the links Angol fear.
What did every thing about Leviathan by the way?
I mean aside from the dlcs gameplay and the cool voice.
Did the further explanation help anthying? I´d say mainly no.
At the same time however i liked the concept from hobes that was in: No Ruler = Chaos. The reaper rule to create order.
Do we need a goverment, to controle everyone? Would we be fine without it? Who should rule the galaxy in the end? Not the reaper for sure, but who then, shepard? the humans? the council? someone else? Nobody?
But existence is born of both order and chaos. Order is Slavery to Chaos's free will. Without Chaos Life would not flourish and develop. Without Order there would be no rules. You cannot have one without the other. Stagnation would result without Chaos and pretty much see organic life wither away and die out....Without Order we would have no rules of governance.
Leviathan being organic would represent Chaos. The Reapers being Synthetic would represent Order. The UNiverse being created in the battle between order and chaos.
No side is on its own is right. No side on its own can end the cycle. There is another way.
But existence is born of both order and chaos. Order is Slavery to Chaos's free will. Without Chaos Life would not flourish and develop. ...
No side is on its own is right. No side on its own can end the cycle. There is another way.
Okay, makes sence. You say its the balance of both that makes sense? With "another way" do you mean anything in particular? Synthesis? Or something different?
No side is on its own is right. No side on its own can end the cycle. There is another way.
Both creators and created must complete their half of the equation. The geth cannot solve for peace alone.
Legion. Mass Effect 2
Okay, makes sence. You say its the balance of both that makes sense? With "another way" do you mean anything in particular? Synthesis? Or something different?
Not taking sides.
Had an interesting brain fart while playing ME3 again last night.
Look at the game from Cerberus's point of view. (in fact look at ME2 + ME3 from Cerberus's point of view) What are Cerberus trying to do? Cerberus are taking strategic positions. Why would Cerberus take these positions? What would they have to gain from having a foothold? In whose interests is it for Shepard to liberate these positions? Why would Cerberus try to make their own Husks? There is much more going on here than just Humanity fighting against the reapers. There is a long game in play here that we are missing because we concentrate too much on Shepards story. There is a much wider game at play. What about us?
You have this scenario. On one side you have an organic overlord (who has remained hidden), on the other a synthetic one (harbinger..... not starjar). The Players are stuck in the middle. We are being manipulated for what is in effect a huge game of chess. Do our decisions matter?
Which decisions will allow the antagonists to remain on the board? Right through ME3 you can hear Hackett talk about using the crucible to 'Destroy the Reapers' so why on earth would YOU change your mind when the game shows that after all the death and struggle we have the power to wipe them out, and let them survive?
Did you focus, or did you become indoctrinated?
thx for the links Angol fear.
What did every thing about Leviathan by the way?
I mean aside from the dlcs gameplay and the cool voice.
Did the further explanation help anthying? I´d say mainly no.
At the same time however i liked the concept from hobes that was in: No Ruler = Chaos. The reaper rule to create order.
Do we need a goverment, to controle everyone? Would we be fine without it? Who should rule the galaxy in the end? Not the reaper for sure, but who then, shepard? the humans? the council? someone else? Nobody?
Leviathan is a tough one to judge for me.
Personally I didn't like it. This is because at the time I first played it, I had already finished Mass Effect 3. This coloured my judgement as it seemed like nothing more than a retroactive attempt to prop up the existence of Hologram Kid.
Looking back at it these days though and it's pretty fun content. The investigation angle is a welcome change, though it needed more fleshing out. The locations are interesting and the notes you find on the crashed ship are really quite disturbing.
It also supports the Catalyst/Reapers idea that synthetics will always rise up against their creators because that it exactly what they did to the Leviathans.
Simply put I suppose, Leviathan is a good DLC that was released at the wrong time and became worse for that.
Leviathan is a tough one to judge for me.
Personally I didn't like it. This is because at the time I first played it, I had already finished Mass Effect 3. This coloured my judgement as it seemed like nothing more than a retroactive attempt to prop up the existence of Hologram Kid.
Looking back at it these days though and it's pretty fun content. The investigation angle is a welcome change, though it needed more fleshing out. The locations are interesting and the notes you find on the crashed ship are really quite disturbing.
It also supports the Catalyst/Reapers idea that synthetics will always rise up against their creators because that it exactly what they did to the Leviathans.
Simply put I suppose, Leviathan is a good DLC that was released at the wrong time and became worse for that.
thx for your answer. So you think the choices made more sense, because both Leviathan reported synthetics raising aginst their creator and the reaper where too. You think if it where originaly included it might have benefited the ending?
I am not sure what i think. Partly i think i agree.
At the same time, the option that geth and quadrians can cooperate still makes the ending broken to me, because the reason to choose synthesis is no longer requried. Only a peace like the geth/quadrians did, would be needed between shepard & friends and the reaper.
To me the confrontation of the "starchild" is still missing. Even thought, i´d love a peacefull solution with the reaper, i guess, as long as it is written satisfactory.
Anyone else have feelings regarding this?
Which decisions will allow the antagonists to remain on the board? Right through ME3 you can hear Hackett talk about using the crucible to 'Destroy the Reapers' so why on earth would YOU change your mind when the game shows that after all the death and struggle we have the power to wipe them out, and let them survive?
Did you focus, or did you become indoctrinated?
I admit i do not understand the last part. Maybe you can clearify it for me with a few different words?
I try to answer on what i understand:
- If you as shepard chooses an option that does not serve the needs of Hackett / Anderson, I´d say you have become indoctrinated. However in the end Hackett/ Anderson do not need the reaper dead, thats just their favorite strategy. They need safty for earch. If there is a solution that achieves that and everybody get his needs met. I d say nots not indoctrination, its a mutual solution.
I found an article that goes into that direction:
http://narrativefirs...ero-and-villain
If i would have 100% understood it, i´d give you the short version, but i didn´t, i am still trying to get every aspect.
I admit i do not understand the last part. Maybe you can clearify it for me with a few different words?
I try to answer on what i understand:
- If you as shepard chooses an option that does not serve the needs of Hackett / Anderson, I´d say you have become indoctrinated. However in the end Hackett/ Anderson do not need the reaper dead, thats just their favorite strategy. They need safty for earch. If there is a solution that achieves that and everybody get his needs met. I d say nots not indoctrination, its a mutual solution.
I found an article that goes into that direction:
http://narrativefirs...ero-and-villain
If i would have 100% understood it, i´d give you the short version, but i didn´t, i am still trying to get every aspect.
I was actually thinking as little more 'outside the box' so to speak.
Any reapers or reaper artifacts that are left behind will indoctrinate those around them. That was pretty much nailed by the derelict reaper mission. Shepard knows this, yet willingly collects reaper artifacts for Hackett to study. So who actually is in the right here? The Alliance who are scooping up reaper tech, or Cerberus who are scooping up reaper tech? The only difference is the Alliance are not murdering people and turning them into husks.
Both sides gathering Reaper tech. Both sides becoming indoctrinated.
Sorry dorktainian but I really don't see this in the story. Just like IT, it's a fascinating concept but it just isn't told here. Even if there may (and I stress may, I think what you are picking up on is something else entirely, see below) be a plot like this, it's simply not told very well. If what you say is supposed to be part of the plot, the writer should have spent some time fleshing it out and actually make it the plot. Now that the trilogy is done, that the story is over, it doesn't work anymore to retroactively introduce a story arc into ti that wasn't addressed, let alone finished. It doesn't really lead to a satisfying conclusion and it sure as hell doesn't improve what has been written.
Besides, II very much doubt this was the intention of the writers. My theory is that we are simply picking up on writing inconsistencies (because let's be honest, Cerberus' actions within the plot make pretty much zero sense without massive head canon addition). Like IT, we want to make sense of these inconsistencies because we still do enjoy the characters, some specific plot arcs and the background of the universe. If we can imbue the mess that is the main plot with some greater meaning, than this may improve the experience for us. That's not necessarily a bad thing and for whom it works, it may do the trick (I do it sometimes myself) but I think in the end, when discussing the quality of the story from a literature analysis point of view (as is the premise of this thread), we have to work with what is actually in the text/game/medium. And I am sorry but this isn't.
Clearly the writers just used indoctrination as a convenient plot device without actual rules by the time of ME3. NPCs are indoctrinated without cause (Udina), others are immune despite frequent exposure (Shepard's team). Sometimes we gather artifacts (N7: Cerberus Lab) other times it's too dangerous (Arrival, collector tech), sometimes we even casually put up reaper artifacts as art (Bryson's office) because now we've got "shielding" (Leviathan).
There is simply no pattern there, no logic. It's all about the drama and the action. Even if they were to somehow retroactively insert such a plot element into the trilogy through Andromeda, it would be tagged on because there were no plans for this by the time ME3 was made.
thx. I complety agree with that. Let me recall the original ending: It was about dark energy eating everything including our galaxy and the biotics / element zero / the biotic of the humans could prevent that if the reaper harvest all of them? Do i recite it correcly or do i miss something?
That wasn't fully developed but it was an early idea.
thx for the links Angol fear.
What did every thing about Leviathan by the way? I mean aside from the dlcs gameplay and the cool voice. Did the further explanation help anthying? I´d say mainly no. At the same time however i liked the concept from hobes that was in: No Ruler = Chaos. The reaper rule to create order.
Do we need a goverment, to controle everyone? Would we be fine without it? Who should rule the galaxy in the end? Not the reaper for sure, but who then, shepard? the humans? the council? someone else? Nobody?
Leviathan just explained more what the Catalyst was. I don't really care for it because it was just further explaining stupid idea that is not evidenced by the rest of the game. It's still an optional DLC and not part of the main plot.
As to your final questions, that's a lot of what political philosophy is about and will determine how much you like the Control ending.
But existence is born of both order and chaos. Order is Slavery to Chaos's free will. Without Chaos Life would not flourish and develop. Without Order there would be no rules. You cannot have one without the other. Stagnation would result without Chaos and pretty much see organic life wither away and die out....Without Order we would have no rules of governance.
Leviathan being organic would represent Chaos. The Reapers being Synthetic would represent Order. The UNiverse being created in the battle between order and chaos.
No side is on its own is right. No side on its own can end the cycle. There is another way.
This is true, but we are not shown how Organics are so Chaotic as to need the Order of the Reapers. The Reapers are not right at all and nobody needs them.
Not taking sides.
Had an interesting brain fart while playing ME3 again last night.
Look at the game from Cerberus's point of view. (in fact look at ME2 + ME3 from Cerberus's point of view) What are Cerberus trying to do? Cerberus are taking strategic positions. Why would Cerberus take these positions? What would they have to gain from having a foothold? In whose interests is it for Shepard to liberate these positions? Why would Cerberus try to make their own Husks? There is much more going on here than just Humanity fighting against the reapers. There is a long game in play here that we are missing because we concentrate too much on Shepards story. There is a much wider game at play. What about us?
You have this scenario. On one side you have an organic overlord (who has remained hidden), on the other a synthetic one (harbinger..... not starjar). The Players are stuck in the middle. We are being manipulated for what is in effect a huge game of chess. Do our decisions matter?
Which decisions will allow the antagonists to remain on the board? Right through ME3 you can hear Hackett talk about using the crucible to 'Destroy the Reapers' so why on earth would YOU change your mind when the game shows that after all the death and struggle we have the power to wipe them out, and let them survive?
Did you focus, or did you become indoctrinated?
Cerberus is just trying to set itself up to rule the galaxy after the Reapers, or more precisely, using the Reapers. You explain well why I hate that Control is even an option. It's not set up properly and Shepard just told TIM that Humanity isn't ready. They had a chance to set it up using Admiral Xen's desire to Control the Geth, but they didn't do that.
The player isn't really Indoctrinated because it's a conscious choice. You could make the argument that the player has been convinced or duped at the end if you pick other than Destroy, but even that it will fail because the writers chose to write Control and Synthesis in such a way as to avoid negative consequence
Leviathan is a tough one to judge for me.
Personally I didn't like it. This is because at the time I first played it, I had already finished Mass Effect 3. This coloured my judgement as it seemed like nothing more than a retroactive attempt to prop up the existence of Hologram Kid.
Looking back at it these days though and it's pretty fun content. The investigation angle is a welcome change, though it needed more fleshing out. The locations are interesting and the notes you find on the crashed ship are really quite disturbing.
It also supports the Catalyst/Reapers idea that synthetics will always rise up against their creators because that it exactly what they did to the Leviathans.
Simply put I suppose, Leviathan is a good DLC that was released at the wrong time and became worse for that.
This is exactly how I feel. The gameplay is pretty great, but the story is good up until the crash landing. The meat of it, where you talk with Leviathan is where it dropped off the cliff. It is "nothing more than a retroactive attempt to prop up the existence of Hologram Kid."
If it supports the Catalyst's ideas, then it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. It did it, therefore it will always happen.
Leviathan just explained more what the Catalyst was. I don't really care for it because it was just further explaining stupid idea that is not evidenced by the rest of the game. It's still an optional DLC and not part of the main plot.
Okay, you say that you wished the logic of starchild and his existense would make sense and would be much better incooperated into the rest of the story.?
What i wonder (and ask you), suppose Shepard was a Quarian fight the geth with them. What would have been needed storywise to come to a peace between quarians and the geth?
And would it in principle work with the Reaper too? Or is it impossible story-wise?
The player isn't really Indoctrinated because it's a conscious choice. You could make the argument that the player has been convinced or duped at the end if you pick other than Destroy, but even that it will fail because the writers chose to write Control and Synthesis in such a way as to avoid negative consequence
Just in the interest of showing how cool the IT was back in the day: The fact that the player/Shepard make a conscious choice does not disqualify indoctrination. We are told many times that when indoctrinated, people still feel like they make their own decisions. They are duped into thinking that the decision that benefits the reapers is the right one. This happened to Saren for example and if you read the novel Retribution, you can actually read Grayson's thoughts while he is being indoctrinated. Though he is a bit of a special case, he is in this weird place where he is convinced to do the right thing for himself, although he is of course doing what the reapers want. In so far, the depiction of indoctrination of Shepard might very well look like this.
Of course, you are right though that the epilogues don't very well fit with the idea.
Just in the interest of showing how cool the IT was back in the day: The fact that the player/Shepard make a conscious choice does not disqualify indoctrination. We are told many times that when indoctrinated, people still feel like they make their own decisions. They are duped into thinking that the decision that benefits the reapers is the right one. This happened to Saren for example and if you read the novel Retribution, you can actually read Grayson's thoughts while he is being indoctrinated. Though he is a bit of a special case, he is in this weird place where he is convinced to do the right thing for himself, although he is of course doing what the reapers want. In so far, the depiction of indoctrination of Shepard might very well look like this.
Of course, you are right though that the epilogues don't very well fit with the idea.
I´d Like add: Indoctrination was clearly there (oily shadows etc etc.) The question is, does it make the ending non-real, a dream? or did the choices really happen? Thats aside from the yes/no question wheather there was IT or not. From the actions of bioware, who stated that destroy shepard wakes at the citadel and not london, i assume that Bioware wants us to consider its the REAL ending. Btw: Otherwise: There would be NO Ending, after the IT attempt.
I´d Like add: Indoctrination was clearly there (oily shadows etc etc.) The question is, does it make the ending non-real, a dream? or did the choices really happen? Thats aside from the yes/no question wheather there was IT or not. From the actions of bioware, who stated that destroy shepard wakes at the citadel and not london, i assume that Bioware wants us to consider its the REAL ending. Btw: Otherwise: There would be NO Ending, after the IT attempt.
Wait, we have to separate between IT and indoctrination. IT usually describes the entire theory of Shep being indoctrinated and waking up in London with high EMS destroy. IT itself was a great idea back in the day but since BW never picked up on it, today it just leaves us with an unfinished story.
Obviously, there was some indoctrination-like business going on during the TIM conversation but that just goes to further show the point I made above. Indoctrination is a plot device now that is used for whatever, whenever convenient. Because what does TIM actually do? He doesn't really indoctrinate Shep (Shep can still express his thoughts freely) but he controls both Shep and Anderson like puppets. What is that even? It doesn't follow the rules anymore that were established in ME1. It doesn't follow any rules at all so it's useless to speculate about it.
Wait, we have to separate between IT and indoctrination.
Thx for answereing. No that confusion was not my intend. I used IT as a short form for indoctrination. Which is actually incorrect. Consider all references to be about indoctrination, not IT (indoctrination theory).
Okay, you say that you wished the logic of starchild and his existense would make sense and would be much better incooperated into the rest of the story.?
What i wonder (and ask you), suppose Shepard was a Quarian fight the geth with them. What would have been needed storywise to come to a peace between quarians and the geth?
And would it in principle work with the Reaper too? Or is it impossible story-wise?
Yes. One of the fundamental rules of story telling is that the events of the story have to lead up to the ending. Even with a surprise twist, the path there can be seen in hindsight.
I'm not sure what you're asking me, so rephrase if I misunderstood. The peace between the Quarians and Geth is mostly fine. It requires Tali and Legion to both be present and the seeds were sown back in Mass Effect 2. As for the Reapers, the fundamental difference is that the Geth were written to be sympathetic, even a little too much so for my tastes. You're meant to feel sorry for them or at least understand them. The story is trying to make the case that they are people as much as any Organic, though Shepard can reject this, and thus deserve to exist. The Reapers do not earn this respect or sympathy. They are bad guys doing bad things and they need to be stopped.
Just in the interest of showing how cool the IT was back in the day: The fact that the player/Shepard make a conscious choice does not disqualify indoctrination. We are told many times that when indoctrinated, people still feel like they make their own decisions. They are duped into thinking that the decision that benefits the reapers is the right one. This happened to Saren for example and if you read the novel Retribution, you can actually read Grayson's thoughts while he is being indoctrinated. Though he is a bit of a special case, he is in this weird place where he is convinced to do the right thing for himself, although he is of course doing what the reapers want. In so far, the depiction of indoctrination of Shepard might very well look like this.
Of course, you are right though that the epilogues don't very well fit with the idea.
True, but the claim or suggestion was that the player was Indoctrinated.
I´d Like add: Indoctrination was clearly there (oily shadows etc etc.) The question is, does it make the ending non-real, a dream? or did the choices really happen? Thats aside from the yes/no question wheather there was IT or not. From the actions of bioware, who stated that destroy shepard wakes at the citadel and not london, i assume that Bioware wants us to consider its the REAL ending. Btw: Otherwise: There would be NO Ending, after the IT attempt.
Oily Shadows referred to the Queen's poor memory of the War, not the Reaper influence. That was described as a "sour yellow note." Also, there is no reason for Shepard to see things as the Queen did. He got a Prothean Cipher, not a Rachnii one. The Queen was using a metaphor Shepard would understand to say things weren't clear. This is a common misconception, so I always point it out when it comes up.
That said, the writers clearly didn't remember a lot of what came before so it's entirely possible they made the same mistake and shadow people in the dreams or the "tentacles" on the screen in the scene with TIM were in fact supposed to be Indoctrination
You're correct that IT would mean that the story isn't over. Also, the Epilogues are written as to be real events. Why would Shepard hear 3rd person narration in his head?
Obviously, there was some indoctrination-like business going on during the TIM conversation but that just goes to further show the point I made above. Indoctrination is a plot device now that is used for whatever, whenever convenient. Because what does TIM actually do? He doesn't really indoctrinate Shep (Shep can still express his thoughts freely) but he controls both Shep and Anderson like puppets. What is that even? It doesn't follow the rules anymore that were established in ME1. It doesn't follow any rules at all so it's useless to speculate about it.
Puppeteering is usually a stage of indoctrination only achieve after visible physical alterations (source: ME Retribution). TIM controlled their bodies without controlling their minds. Which imo demonstrates TIM's fundamental misunderstanding of indoctrination and Control.
Apropos the dreams, here's my explanation (referring to indoctrination only, not IT):
- the dreams are an attempt at indoctrination. Basis: Mass Effect Retribution (Grayson's transformation, esp. the whispers, pp. 54-56, that get louder as the indoctrination progresses), ME2 Arrival DLC (for dreams), Rachni queen in ME1 (shadows)
- Shepard fights the indoctrination by attempting to find the source of the indoctrination.
- the indoctrination construct - i.e. Reaper influence - is manifested as the boy. This makes sense imo, since, like Leviathan's meta conversations in Shepard's head, the other entity assumes a form drawn from his /her memories. The fact that boy's image again returns manifested as the Catalyst indicates to me that the entire Catalyst conversation also happens in Shepard's head, but that's me getting side-tracked.
- The boy runs away, out of sight, hiding amongst the shadows. Twice, when Shepard gets close to finding the boy, a red light shines, the Reaper chord blares, and the boy runs away again. That could just be a flashback to the boy's death in the shuttle, or it could be signaling Reaper presence.
- Shepard hunts down and finds the source of the indoctrination, which goes up in flames when he finds it. Shepard doesn't seem to know what the dreams are (even though (s)he should, given his / her history), so still looks horrified at the sight. Or perhaps Shepard DOES know that (s)he's fighting indoctrination, but obviously can't confide that to anyone.
- Hunting the source of the indoctrination gets harder later in the game (not really harder, since there's no way to fail the section, but narratively speaking, it's harder) as the "oily shadows" grow thicker, and the whispers louder (after dosing Grayson with red sand, "he could understand the whispers perfectly." This was still relatively early in Grayson's indoctrination since no physical alterations had happened, but that would occur soon; the next stage is "[Grayson] was horrified to discover he was a prisoner in his own body" (59)).
- part of Shepard is slowly becoming indoctrinated, which is why a version of his adult self joins the boy in the third dream. But he fights / finds this source also, and again the Reaper influence is destroyed - even if destroying it means destroying himself / herself. Which to me sets up the Destroy ending with perfect irony: Destroy is chosen by Shepard with the idea of self-sacrifice, and that is actually the one ending where (s)he physically survives. (The Catalyst tells Shepard that (s)he might not survive Destroy, since (s)he is partially synthetic, but that is revealed to be BS if you've talked to EDI about transhumanism.)
So, by the time TIM tries to pull that indoctrination sh*t on the Citadel, an attempt at Control that is based on misunderstood concepts, Shepard has literally been there, done that, and can shake it off.
Sorry, long post.
Puppeteering is usually a stage of indoctrination only achieve after visible physical alterations (source: ME Retribution). TIM controlled their bodies without controlling their minds. Which imo demonstrates TIM's fundamental misunderstanding of indoctrination and Control.
Apropos the dreams, here's my explanation (referring to indoctrination only, not IT):
- the dreams are an attempt at indoctrination. Basis: Mass Effect Retribution (Grayson's transformation, esp. the whispers, pp. 54-56, that get louder as the indoctrination progresses), ME2 Arrival DLC (for dreams), Rachni queen in ME1 (shadows)
- Shepard fights the indoctrination by attempting to find the source of the indoctrination.
- the indoctrination construct - i.e. Reaper influence - is manifested as the boy. This makes sense imo, since, like Leviathan's meta conversations in Shepard's head, the other entity assumes a form drawn from his /her memories. The fact that boy's image again returns manifested as the Catalyst indicates to me that the entire Catalyst conversation also happens in Shepard's head, but that's me getting side-tracked.
- The boy runs away, out of sight, hiding amongst the shadows. Twice, when Shepard gets close to finding the boy, a red light shines, the Reaper chord blares, and the boy runs away again. That could just be a flashback to the boy's death in the shuttle, or it could be signaling Reaper presence.
- Shepard hunts down and finds the source of the indoctrination, which goes up in flames when he finds it. Shepard doesn't seem to know what the dreams are (even though (s)he should, given his / her history), so still looks horrified at the sight. Or perhaps Shepard DOES know that (s)he's fighting indoctrination, but obviously can't confide that to anyone.
- Hunting the source of the indoctrination gets harder later in the game (not really harder, since there's no way to fail the section, but narratively speaking, it's harder) as the "oily shadows" grow thicker, and the whispers louder (after dosing Grayson with red sand, "he could understand the whispers perfectly." This was still relatively early in Grayson's indoctrination since no physical alterations had happened, but that would occur soon; the next stage is "[Grayson] was horrified to discover he was a prisoner in his own body" (59)).
- part of Shepard is slowly becoming indoctrinated, which is why a version of his adult self joins the boy in the third dream. But he fights / finds this source also, and again the Reaper influence is destroyed - even if destroying it means destroying himself / herself. Which to me sets up the Destroy ending with perfect irony: Destroy is chosen by Shepard with the idea of self-sacrifice, and that is actually the one ending where (s)he physically survives. (The Catalyst tells Shepard that (s)he might not survive Destroy, since (s)he is partially synthetic, but that is revealed to be BS if you've talked to EDI about transhumanism.)
- Since Shepard successfully finds and destroys the attempts at indoctrination, the Prothean VI does not detect him as an indoctrinated presence.
So, by the time TIM tries to pull that indoctrination sh*t on the Citadel, an attempt at Control that is based on misunderstood concepts, Shepard has literally been there, done that, and can shake it off.
Sorry, long post.
That's some impressive and interesting headcanon, and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. It is an interesting framework to build on for an Indoctrination plotline. It's not what the games did though.
Firstly, I take issue (as far as it being the real story) with how heavily reliant it is on Retribution. A novel is secondary media and is therefore beneath the primary media, which is the games. There should not be any plot integral information in secondary media that is not present in the primary media.
The dreams simply do not align with how Indoctrination is described. As I said in the earlier post, the Rachni Queen's "oily shadows" line referred to her poor memory of the war, not the Reaper influence. That was described as a "sour yellow note." On the derelict Reaper, a scientist sees something moving in a wall, then disappear. There is no description of people seeing clear, vivid hallucinations. You could argue that the shadowy blobs in the dreams are "ghostly presences" as described in the codex, but they are not what I think of when I hear that phrase. Finally, the whispers heard by Indoctrinated subjects are orders or statements about the Reapers being good. Shepard hears quotes from dead teammates.
I have no answer for why the Catalyst looks like the boy other than that the writer thought it would be cool. The fact that it's not addressed at all is one of the dumb things about the ending. While an Indoctrination plot would fit the game, they didn't do that. The boy, with the possible exception of first view on the roof, is a stress induced hallucination and the dreams are representative of the weight on Shepard, possibly foreshadowing his death as well.
That's some impressive and interesting headcanon, and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. It is an interesting framework to build on for an Indoctrination plotline.
Yay for headcanon! Yes, I know that's exactly what it is, and thanks for the compliment.
Firstly, I take issue (as far as it being the real story) with how heavily reliant it is on Retribution. A novel is secondary media and is therefore beneath the primary media, which is the games. There should not be any plot integral information in secondary media that is not present in the primary media.
This is a key place where we differ. When I read the novels for the first time (excluding that other one not written by Karpyshyn), I was shocked at how much world-building / lore / backstory etc. was in the books, and I don't treat them as secondary media.
I blame *some* of the trouble with Mass Effect 3 on the fact that I think BioWare assumed people would treat the books as primary media, and they obviously didn't / don't.
The dreams simply do not align with how Indoctrination is described. As I said in the earlier post, the Rachni Queen's "oily shadows" line referred to her poor memory of the war, not the Reaper influence. That was described as a "sour yellow note." On the derelict Reaper, a scientist sees something moving in a wall, then disappear. There is no description of people seeing clear, vivid hallucinations. You could argue that the shadowy blobs in the dreams are "ghostly presences" as described in the codex, but they are not what I think of when I hear that phrase. Finally, the whispers heard by Indoctrinated subjects are orders or statements about the Reapers being good. Shepard hears quotes from dead teammates.
I have no answer for why the Catalyst looks like the boy other than that the writer thought it would be cool. The fact that it's not addressed at all is one of the dumb things about the ending. While an Indoctrination plot would fit the game, they didn't do that. The boy, with the possible exception of first view on the roof, is a stress induced hallucination and the dreams are representative of the weight on Shepard, possibly foreshadowing his death as well.
Please, stop! You make too much sense! Gimme my headcanon back! lol jk
Retour en haut