The only possible evidence the 'fuck you' ending gives is that the Star Child speaks three words in a Reaper-esque voice. Otherwise, it all points to it actually happening rather than being a dream.Vrach said:
Is Indoctrination Theory dead
- Thread starter Da Orky Man
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A lesson for all of those who got burned by Indoctrination Theory:
When you hear hoofbeats, think EA, not zebra.
When you hear hoofbeats, think EA, not zebra.
I don't believe the Indoctrination theory is the "true" ending, so to speak, but I prefer it to the intended endings, so I choose to believe it
Okay, here's the problem with Indoctrination theory:
So, Shepard "beats" indoctrination with Destroy. Then he wakes up on Earth.
On Earth.
Half-dead. No one got to the Citadel, no one opened it up, no one connected the Crucible to whatever the "real" Catalyst is, no one destroyed the Reapers.
Shepard "defeats" the Reapers in his mind, but not in reality.
So... how is that a "better" ending?
I have my own "indoctrination theory". Casey Hudson was "indoctrinated" by the 'ol peace pipe after coming off a binge of reading Singularity literature, and then wrote the ending.
Don't get me wrong, the implications of the Catalyst actually being that "Star Child/Master Reaper AI/Part of the Citadel" nonsense blows pretty much everything plot-wise into hell.
My ending is that everything up to Anderson dying is the end. The Citadel opens, the Crucible connects, then BOOM! cut to Destroy ending.
So, Shepard "beats" indoctrination with Destroy. Then he wakes up on Earth.
On Earth.
Half-dead. No one got to the Citadel, no one opened it up, no one connected the Crucible to whatever the "real" Catalyst is, no one destroyed the Reapers.
Shepard "defeats" the Reapers in his mind, but not in reality.
So... how is that a "better" ending?
I have my own "indoctrination theory". Casey Hudson was "indoctrinated" by the 'ol peace pipe after coming off a binge of reading Singularity literature, and then wrote the ending.
Don't get me wrong, the implications of the Catalyst actually being that "Star Child/Master Reaper AI/Part of the Citadel" nonsense blows pretty much everything plot-wise into hell.
My ending is that everything up to Anderson dying is the end. The Citadel opens, the Crucible connects, then BOOM! cut to Destroy ending.
1) he had a chance to save the kid in the vent, their eyes connected just before the kid got onto the shuttle, he watched it blow up with the kid die. Shepards lost a lot of people, but hes never lost a kid.bluesession said:
2) He had cuts and bruises and gashes and wounds all over his body, he wasnt looking at the wound, he was looking at the blood on his hand, because if you recal, the ENTIRE walk to the illusive man he was holding his side in that exact spot so he was already injured there beforehand.
Hope that clears those up!
OT: in my eyes it was never plausible to begin with.
What are you talking about? Bioware folded after Mass Effect 2.
What a shame that they didn't deliver the final part of their trilogy.
/wishful thinking
Ehhh if you want to believe in the indoctrination theory by my guest, it's better than Starchild at least.
What a shame that they didn't deliver the final part of their trilogy.
/wishful thinking
Ehhh if you want to believe in the indoctrination theory by my guest, it's better than Starchild at least.
"And then he woke up and it was all a dream" is literally something my primary school teacher told the class before we were even allowed to write things. Only have a dream if it was really obviously set up from the start.
Yes and if you people actually stopped to think about it, it was dead before the extended cut was released because of one simple reason:
If destroy was really the only way to beat indoctrination, why, if you have too low of war assets, is destroy the only option? If the indoctrination theory was true, the Reapers wouldn't give you the 1 option that sets you free and nothing else. They would make you choose between the other options, not gift you your freedom for actually accomplishing less in the game.
That one point honestly destroys the indoctrination theory even without the EC.
I personally, have managed to make my own conclusions to fill in the plot holes that weren't fixed with the EC. Overall, my conclusions may wildly differ from others and I kind of like that. I am quite happy with the EC and Mass Effect 3 as a whole.
If destroy was really the only way to beat indoctrination, why, if you have too low of war assets, is destroy the only option? If the indoctrination theory was true, the Reapers wouldn't give you the 1 option that sets you free and nothing else. They would make you choose between the other options, not gift you your freedom for actually accomplishing less in the game.
That one point honestly destroys the indoctrination theory even without the EC.
I personally, have managed to make my own conclusions to fill in the plot holes that weren't fixed with the EC. Overall, my conclusions may wildly differ from others and I kind of like that. I am quite happy with the EC and Mass Effect 3 as a whole.
My thoughts exactly. When rejecting all the options though, they made sparklechild's voice be like Harbinger's to troll indoctrination theorists. Like how they removed Marauder Sheilds' shield bar - he is now just Marauder Health.Joseph Harrison said:
I'm not sure if they were trolling, maybe they were just making a nod to the indoctrination theorists. Also I'm pretty sure they made him Marauder Health because people complained that on harder difficulties you had to get several consecutive headshots on Marauder Shields or he would kill you and it was a bit unfair.Richardplex said:
It's as valid as it was before. People are free to interpret a story however they wish, so long as they can back it up. That is the beauty of the story-telling.
Personally, I like to believe it.
Personally, I like to believe it.
Depends on what you mean by dead.
Personally, though I always found it very clever, well-thought out, plausible, and much more satisfying than the pre EC endings, I never believed Bioware actually intended it.
So, now that EC's out and the IT is clearly not included, I'd say yeah in that sense.
AT any rate, nothing stopping people from employing it as their headcanon anyway. After all, since the IT claims it's all a dream sequence anyway, it doesn't matter what EC added to the endings.
Personally, though I always found it very clever, well-thought out, plausible, and much more satisfying than the pre EC endings, I never believed Bioware actually intended it.
So, now that EC's out and the IT is clearly not included, I'd say yeah in that sense.
AT any rate, nothing stopping people from employing it as their headcanon anyway. After all, since the IT claims it's all a dream sequence anyway, it doesn't matter what EC added to the endings.
I find it sad that grown men are so sad with a game that they have to make up plot elements to make themselves feel better.
Its a game. The ending sucked. Get over it.
The ending didn't make the past 3 games un-fun, it just killed my desire to play any new Mass Effect games.
Its a game. The ending sucked. Get over it.
The ending didn't make the past 3 games un-fun, it just killed my desire to play any new Mass Effect games.
It is dead. Pretty conclusively. Could I make inane justifications for how it might still work in the manner of those who make inane justifications for why the plot holes in the literal endings actually make sense? Sure, but I won't. Seeing how the Extended Cut did what I thought impossible and actually managed to make the ending even worse, I'm going to stick a bucket over my head, bang it with spoon, pretend the indoctrination theory is correct, that there is no way to win the game, and refusal is the only ending where they show what really happens. *Bang bang bang bang*