ME3 Indoctrination theory analysis

[Athinira]

When shepard looks away, he hears a reaper growl, the exact noise you hear when a reaper indoctrination is broken.

"when a reaper indoctrination is broken" - Explain please. When and where have you heard this growl elsewhere (include all significant occurrences, including in ME 1+2), and I'll be happy to go review it.

Also when the boy is at the shuttle, NO ONE acknowleges him, no soldier helps him get on, which consdiering they were in a rush they would have picked him up and thrown him on. Instead no one goes up to him and he gets on the shuttle by himself.

And there is a very simple explanation for this: The boy is focal point of the cinematic with him and Shephard having eye contact, and therefore any interference with the boy from the outside world would break the intended effect of the 'emotions' (for lack of a better word) the cinematic is intended to convey. After eye contact is broken, BioWare decided to have the boy crawl on the shuttle himself, but that might as well have been a soldier grabbing him (that's a 50/50 choice by the cinematic designers, either solution works once the eye-contact part has done it's effect).

In short: Reasoning lies in cinematography design. It's neither the first cinematic (or "shot" if you include real movies, TV-series etc.) to use that principle, and it's neither the last.

And Indoctrination is described as:


It describes that indoctrination can cause people to see hallunications of ghostly presecens. The boy says when Shepard tells him to come is: "You can't help me.." Which is odd for a child to say when hell is breaking loose and then wierd to vanish just as Anderson appears. Because had the boy gone with Shepard, Anderson wouldn't see the boy and would think that Shepard was being indoctrinated which would have exposed it.

The last part is just your personal assumption. And i also see nothing wrong with a child being scared in the situation at hand of coming out of a hiding place.

Also, as the codex description says, indoctrination can cause people to SEE hallucinations or ghostly presences, it says nothing about hearing them or talking to them (or reliving them in dream sequences). See, this is part of what i was talking about people not paying attention to how indoctrination actually works from the first two games. If you go back to Mass Effect 2 and look at how the scientists on the Dead Reaper reacted to their hallucinations, it was VERY different.

Shephard lacks ALL the other side effects of indoctrination.
- No voices in the back of the head
- No headaches
- No doubt in his/hers resolve to fight the reapers or how to fight them
- No other "potential" hallucinations

Also it seems odd that at the end, that the Cataylst paints Destroying the Reapers as evil and is the only ending you can possibly survive and tries to make the other two other options seem better as those two you do die no matter what which means the indoctrination worked.

Because you people, once again, made an (incorrect) assumption: That the red energy wave means "evil".

Given that the Reapers are an active threat that has killed billions of people, there is hardly anthing evil in destroying them. Red was 10 times more likely to be selected because it signified 'destruction' (of the Reapers) rather than signifying 'evil'.

Many people, including me, would argue that the truly evil option is the synthesis option, given that you enforce something upon the entire galaxy they didn't ask for (see the Deus Ex i did there? ), but that's besides the point. Point is that the assumption that the red energy wave means it's the 'evil' option is your own personal assumption. That one is all on you.

Also on the Datapad App for the ipod which connects to your game, after you beat the game, you get a message no matter which ending.

http://www.examiner.com/video-game-in-honolulu/mass-effect-3-ending-message-photo

Now how would you get this message if the endings had happened like they showed?

Pretty hard for anyone to say what that means (especially for me considering i don't know if Ashley or Kaidan was killed in that particular playthrough back in ME1). But anyway, i would like to know which connection you exactly draw by that message, because beyond the point that the small development team behind the App is likely to be different than the one developing the real game (meaning that misconceptions and inaccuracies, or just plain unintended information might sneak in), i still don't see that message in any way indicating anything about indoctrination. The app is unlikely to be entirely correlated to the game and the message might just be intended as a reward on the app for beating the game, without having anything to do with the real story, because if it did, it would likely have been in the actual game and not the app )

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Shephard lacks ALL the other side effects of indoctrination.
- No voices in the back of the head
- No headaches
- No doubt in his/hers resolve to fight the reapers or how to fight them
- No other "potential" hallucinations

I'd almost agree with you. But there are a few things to keep in mind here:
1. The "growl" is mentioned in one of the novels as a side effect of breaking through indoctrination.
2. Shephard suffers from vivid nightmares (complete with Reaper growls) throughout the game, which is another sign of indoctrination. This is mentioned by the Cerberus scientists in the derelict reaper as occuring during initial indoctrination.
3. Lots of conversations with Hackett, Anderson and the crew, especially during the first half of ME3, is Shephard wondering if she actually has what it takes to facedown and defeat the entire reaper armada.

It is also worth noting that the indoctrination part of the codex suggests that it is possible to "instant indoctrinate", which might be what Harbinger did to Shephard during the endgame. After all, at that point Harbinger doesn't want Shephard as his puppet, he just wants to prevent Shephard from actually succeeding, and as such doesn't care if Shephard is reduced to a gibbering shell of a human within hours.

EDIT: Let me point out that I am not necessarily supporting the indoctrination theory, I am just saying that if they decide to go this way and retcon the ending, Bioware has left themselves some wriggle room.

 

[Merrick_HLC]

Also something to remember is the Codex is also an IN UNIVERSE logic thing.
IIRC in ME2 it mentions Soverign as a SHIP not as a reaper & such.

The entry on indoctrination shows what the Council/ME universe THINKS they know about indoctrination. NOT necessarily how it works 100% of the time.

(Not saying the theory is right, just remember the codex isn't always 100% accurate even in-universe)

 

[Athinira]

I'd almost agree with you. But there are a few things to keep in mind here:
1. The "growl" is mentioned in one of the novels as a side effect of breaking through indoctrination.

Not having read the novels I'll defer to more experienced people on that one who has read them, but I'd like a novel quote on that if you can provide, because it got me curious. I might actually have to read them now )

2. Shephard suffers from vivid nightmares (complete with Reaper growls) throughout the game, which is another sign of indoctrination. This is mentioned by the Cerberus scientists in the derelict reaper as occuring during initial indoctrination.

The Reaper Growls in the Nightmares have nothing to do with indoctrination. They appear when Shephard is close to the boy, making the boy run, symbolizing him trying to escape from them, and then he always flees further away afterwards (making you once again run to catch the little Son of a b****).

You are right that nightmares are mentioned as something the scientists experience as an indoctrination sign, but that alone isn't a very strong indicator. As for your last part:

3. Lots of conversations with Hackett, Anderson and the crew, especially during the first half of ME3, is Shephard wondering if she actually has what it takes to facedown and defeat the entire reaper armada.

...two important things to point out:
1) A lot of that can actually be changed by what you select in conversations. The player has a lot of influence on Shephard in that aspect, and there are many times where you have the option to decide to make Shephard appear as if the war is affecting him (or her) more than it seems, or to keep up the iron-will. The choice is free.
2) It doesn't change the fact that Shephard does NOT give up. Wondering whether or not it's possible to defeat the Reapers is not sign of indoctrination, given that they are indeed an overwhelming and 'overpowered' enemy. Having inclinations towards giving up (or searching for alternative solutions that doesn't work, like what Saren did, or the Illusive Man trying to control them) is a sign. Shephard might do the former (again, depending on your choice in conversations most of the time), but not the latter. He/she never has any inclinations towards giving up, only ever admitting that it was never gonna be an easy fight.

So once again, Shephard is still determined to do what he or she always had set out to do. Indoctrination would have changed that. In fact, if Shephard we're indoctrinated we likely wouldn't be playing the game, because the Reapers would be directing the show. I very much doubt the reapers would willingly let their indoctrinated servant take out two of their destroyers directly (three if you count the one on Tuchanka as well that was killed by Kalros), cure the genophage, destroy their Rachni breeding ground and i could go on about Shephard makes life annoying for the Reapers.

It is also worth noting that the indoctrination part of the codex suggests that it is possible to "instant indoctrinate", which might be what Harbinger did to Shephard during the endgame.

No it doesn't. That point of the codex is actually refined during Mass Effect 1 in regards to how Saren was indoctrinated versus all the test subjects on his research facilities. Rapid indoctrination is not "instant". It's much faster than normal indoctrination, which takes a couple of weeks (a 1-2 week estimate or so), but we are at the very least still talking a few days.

Also, rapid indoctrination severely hampers mental functions, leaving the victim an unintelligent being very fast with hardly any intelligent brain functions (for example, the victim would likely be unable to speak anymore, maybe mumble at best). Shephard doesn't experience that.

Equally important, i find it ironic that the supporters of the Shephard Indoctrination theory can't seem to agree on this point. Notice how even you brought up two different versions in your post alone: The one that has Shephard indoctrinated through the entire game, and the one that has Shephard being 'instantly' indoctrinated by Harbinger during a run for the beam. If it's the instant indoctrination version, then the dreams during the game aren't a supporting argument. People just can't make up their mind )

After all, at that point Harbinger doesn't want Shephard as his puppet, he just wants to prevent Shephard from actually succeeding, and as such doesn't care if Shephard is reduced to a gibbering shell of a human within hours.

And this is another point I've made: Why not just kill Shephard then?

Harbinger is there, shooting everything around Shephard with a big fat red laser. Even assuming he could instantly indoctrinate Shephard (with or without resulting massive brain damage), there is no motivation for it, so why bother? To them, Shephard is just an organic that happened to have a little bit of 'luck' along the way, but is meant for destruction or harvesting regardless.

And if Harbinger actually HAD the ability to indoctrinate instantly over distance that way, why haven't they done that with all the human forces while Shephard was out there flying the galaxy thin? Why not eliminate most resistance that way and get the resistance to surrender through indoctrination?

Occam's Razor.

EDIT: Let me point out that I am not necessarily supporting the indoctrination theory, I am just saying that if they decide to go this way and retcon the ending, Bioware has left themselves some wriggle room.

On that we can agree. The more 'uncertainties' you leave in a story, the more wiggle room you have later.

But let me let you in on a little secret: the people who support this theory only do so because it's something they as the fanbase themselves came up with, thinking 'Ah, we got you figured out BioWare'. So basically, they consider the theory better than the actual ending because they consider it their own idea.
However, if BioWare had come out during the ending (after all the bullshit we got) and had revealed Shephard to be indoctrinated throughout the entire game and that most of what players think they accomplished in the game were actually just Shephard dreaming, then they would be raging on BioWare for that shit ending for the simple reason that it suddenly isn't their idea anymore, and then they would actually realize that the indoctrination theory pisses as much on players as the actual ending did and are just as bad (if not worse). Ironic isn't it? )

 

[ThatSwedishGuy]

It's been brought up and as much as I'd like to go and read the Codex entry, I'm just going to ask a few things about this indoctrination thing:

First of all, which has been brought up before, why wouldn't Harbinger just kill Shepard instead of instadoctrinatate him? It makes no sense, he's been a nuisance, especially to Harbinger so you'd think he'd want to get rid of him. Note that they never saw him as a threat, he just irritated them like a mosquito would. If we slap a mosquito out of the air, we don't bother to check if he's alive and if he is, try to convince him to join our side. We presume it dead and if not, it's going to be soon so why bother with it... which is exactly how the ending play out now: Harbinger shoots Shepard and just sort of assumes he'll die or bleed out there, like a mosquito or ant to us.

Second, doesn't indoctrination take time and active signals? Having been in contact with a Reaper isn't enough to indoctrinate someone because then everyone on Eden Prime and your entire squad should at this point be indoctrinated because they've all been in close proximity to a Reaper. Or are you saying there's a Reaper indoctrination device on the ship that only affects Shepard?
Saren was indoctrinated because he spent a lot of time on Sovereign. The people in The Arrival were indoctrinated because they spent a lot of time around the Reaper artifact. Shepard has been around a lot of Reaper tech but never for a long enough period of time to be indoctrinated and from what's been revealed in the game, they can't do it over that long a distance.
There are a lot of inconsistencies in the game's ending but... even if you account for sloppy writing, I think we can chalk a lot of it up to symbolism. The kid symbolize a lot in this game; Earth, innocence, Shepard himself and at one point I was like "Oh, that's going to turn out to be how Shepard looked as a kid and this is his mind telling him it's too late to save Earth or something." Perhaps that's what's so jaunting about the ending to a lot of people, the fact that it's practically completely symbolic once you're hit by that laser. That's what struck me as the oddest thing, the way they just shifted from a fairly down to Earth story with some heavy handed symbolism to suddenly "SYMBOLISM!!!"

 

[Jeff Williams]

This is a small little detail I noticed.

I'm starting to believe some of this indoctrinated theory stuff. The catalyst being the little boy makes no sense at all, unless Shepard was screwed up in the head in some way. I see a lot of people saying he is not real, but when you are on earth during the first mission, right before you climb down the ladder to the building you first meet the kid in you can see him running into the building. I saw this while taking on some husk. Would Shepard be hallucinating that in the middle of battle? I don't know if that's a big deal or not but it is something.

Also, if you think of the conversation with the boy, you ask him to come with you, and he says there is no saving him. Is that a sign. You have 3 options in the end, 2 of them involve the reapers surviving in some form, but the other is total destruction.

 

[Jeff Williams]

It's been brought up and as much as I'd like to go and read the Codex entry, I'm just going to ask a few things about this indoctrination thing:

First of all, which has been brought up before, why wouldn't Harbinger just kill Shepard instead of instadoctrinatate him? It makes no sense, he's been a nuisance, especially to Harbinger so you'd think he'd want to get rid of him. Note that they never saw him as a threat, he just irritated them like a mosquito would. If we slap a mosquito out of the air, we don't bother to check if he's alive and if he is, try to convince him to join our side. We presume it dead and if not, it's going to be soon so why bother with it..."

You don't know if Harbinger didn't see Shepard as a threat or not. Just because he said it doesn't mean anything. He could just be talking crap. Indoctrinating Shepard would be the ultimate goal. He is the galaxies biggest savior. Everyone is beginning to see him as the hero who was right from the start. Controlling Shepard would lead to an easier destruction of humans, etc.

 

[KingofMadCows]

The whole indoctrination theory is based on how a lot of stuff doesn't make sense but there's a ton of stuff in the game that don't make much sense.

Like why are the Reapers so dumb? Like the Reaper on Rannoch. Every time it opens up its main weapon, it gets shot, so why did it continue to try to shoot Shepard even though it's getting shot to death? Why not fly into the air and position itself so its main gun is protected and then kill Shepard? Why not just chuck some giant boulders at Shepard? Why not shoot Legion or shoo him away so he can't rescue Shepard, then just walk over to Shepard and step on him? That battle doesn't make much sense so using the logic of the indoctrination theory, I can reason that Shepard was already indoctrinated at that time and he was just hallucinating he killed the Reaper.

Same thing with what happened on Tuchanka, how does a Reaper, which can withstand getting shot by huge bullets that travel 500 miles per second get killed by a giant worm? Why didn't it fly into the air and just nuke the Shroud tower? Maybe Shepard was already indoctrinated there and hallucinated the Thresher Maw killing the Reaper?

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Second, doesn't indoctrination take time and active signals? Having been in contact with a Reaper isn't enough to indoctrinate someone because then everyone on Eden Prime and your entire squad should at this point be indoctrinated because they've all been in close proximity to a Reaper. Or are you saying there's a Reaper indoctrination device on the ship that only affects Shepard?

Sorry for semi-necroing, but I've got to say this.
Did you read the books? There was a man, Greyson, who is mentioned in passing in ME3. Essentially, Cerberus had put Reaper technology inside of him with the end result being Greyson's eventual indoctrination. This was supposed to have happened between ME1 and ME2. Why is it so hard to believe that they put a small piece of some random Reaper artifact inside of Shepherd when they rebuilt him? I mean, hell the Illusive Man eventually did the same thing as did every Cerberus trooper. Maybe Shepherd became mostly resilient to the effects until he actually faced a Capital-ship sized Reaper.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

The main point of the indoctrination theory is that 'Bioware are too good to make the end this bad' but they're not THAT good, every single thing would have to be perfect and not plot holes. They are plot holes, ME2 is full of plot holes too. The only thing that really does support the theory is the 'tell me a story about Shepard' thing but I think this is nothing more than a way of telling you there will be DLC, hence after this is gives you a message to carry on playing and loads your save from before the last mission started.

With indoctrination theory or literal ending, either way it doesn't really explain who built the reapers or the crucible.

The other problem with indoctrination theory is that it means the 'bad' ending is the intended ending rather than incompetence. Why would Bioware make an ending so 'bad' that people would actually go to the FTC/try to sue them and retailers would (apparently) give refunds to customers for being 'dissatisfied'. They couldn't have known it would go this far, but even if it didn't people would trade the game in and not buy DLC, its just a massively terrible business decision.

 

[TorqueConverter]

So why do we all accept ME3 as the final game? Is it unreasonable to assume ME4 opens up with truth about the ME3 ending and then continues the storyline?

They clearly have had every intention of milking you guys for money all along. Removing the sandbox out a sandbox RPG with ME2, cutting content from ME3 and passing if off as day 1 DLC and cutting player decision out of the storyline in ME3 all wreak of indoctrination from EA. They want their own CoD and fan base to milk.

I say this as an outsider as I have only played a bit of ME1 and found it wasn't for me. Am I wrong?

 

[boag]

So why do we all accept ME3 as the final game? Is it unreasonable to assume ME4 opens up with truth about the ME3 ending and then continues the storyline?

They clearly have had every intention of milking you guys for money all along. Removing the sandbox out a sandbox RPG with ME2, cutting content from ME3 and passing if off as day 1 DLC and cutting player decision out of the storyline in ME3 all wreak of indoctrination from EA. They want their own CoD and fan base to milk.

I say this as an outsider as I have only played a bit of ME1 and found it wasn't for me. Am I wrong?

What sandbox content?

 

[JonahGrimm]

Heh. Here's a couple thoughts, guys:

Spoiler

- Why do you immediately go back to your 'casual' clothing after getting blasted by Harbinger? There aren't even any 'back mounts' or spots for them for your weapons. I actually chose pattern 4, FemShep, which has your arms uncovered and cuffs of white fabric at the elbow, and those cuffs were there, and my arms were uncovered.
- Where are the bodies of your friends? (do you think BioWare /wouldn't/ show you dead companions?)
- Why does the VI in TIM's station say 'he'll tell you about the Catalyst because his security protocols are broken'? Remember that before he was willing, until the indoctrinated assassin showed up... why would he even check those subroutines? (I do know that this hints Shep isn't fully indoctrinated by then - I think this is true. Personally, I think you're witnessing final indoctrination in the ending.)
- Why does the 'black mist' when TIM has you look like the 'black mist' from your dream?
- Why do you 'wake up' in the best of all possible endings?
- Why do we not see Harbinger die?
- How did Garrus (who was with me, and theoretically blasted by Harbinger) get off of the Normandy after it crashed? ... how'd he get on it in the first place, if all this is happening so quickly? Since when has Bioware blown continuity that badly?
- How was I able to shoot the Illusive Man if he controlled me fully?
- Why would the 'Catalyst' look like the kid?
- Why can't I ask the Catalyst any real questions - like you can with every other NPC, including Soverign?, when faced with such a huge decision?
- The three kid-dreams match up - loosely - with the three endings. My memory of them is hazy, but the scene of Shepard embracing the kid (the most recent) and then burning seems to reference control, power, and other similar themes in the voices around you. The other two? Only the kid burns. (I shall replay soon just to watch them closely, I think.)

Sure, we all may be wrong- but I think the evidence points that way. More than anything, though, is that this doesn't feel like a BioWare ending. I know, that's subjective - we all knew ME was going to end on a choice (the game is about choice, after all!), but this is a choice when you can't even replay the "Catalyst's" conversation.

Nope. There's some kind of twist coming.

 

[boag]

Heh. Here's a couple thoughts, guys:


- Why do you immediately go back to your 'casual' clothing after getting blasted by Harbinger? There aren't even any 'back mounts' or spots for them for your weapons. I actually chose pattern 4, FemShep, which has your arms uncovered and cuffs of white fabric at the elbow, and those cuffs were there, and my arms were uncovered.

the armor was burned off by Harbingers attack, thats why you are running around in a melted down suit and the clothes you wore under them.

- Where are the bodies of your friends? (do you think BioWare /wouldn't/ show you dead companions?)

right here buddy

- Why does the VI in TIM's station say 'he'll tell you about the Catalyst because his security protocols are broken'? Remember that before he was willing, until the indoctrinated assassin showed up... why would he even check those subroutines? (I do know that this hints Shep isn't fully indoctrinated by then - I think this is true. Personally, I think you're witnessing final indoctrination in the ending.)

because it was probably part of the setup to make the whole indoctrination thing make sense, you know, before bioware scrapped it in favor of Mac Walters shit ending.[/oolor]

- Why does the 'black mist' when TIM has you look like the 'black mist' from your dream?
indoctrination

- Why do you 'wake up' in the best of all possible endings?
you mean the destroy ending? if anything it would be because its the end of the indoctrination

- Why do we not see Harbinger die?
because Bioware cut shit out of the ending to sell it back as DLC(this is an assumption)


- How did Garrus (who was with me, and theoretically blasted by Harbinger) get off of the Normandy after it crashed? ... how'd he get on it in the first place, if all this is happening so quickly? Since when has Bioware blown continuity that badly?

- How was I able to shoot the Illusive Man if he controlled me fully?
- Why would the 'Catalyst' look like the kid?
- Why can't I ask the Catalyst any real questions - like you can with every other NPC, including Soverign?, when faced with such a huge decision?
- The three kid-dreams match up - loosely - with the three endings. My memory of them is hazy, but the scene of Shepard embracing the kid (the most recent) and then burning seems to reference control, power, and other similar themes in the voices around you. The other two? Only the kid burns. (I shall replay soon just to watch them closely, I think.)
space magic, we dont have to explain shit

Sure, we all may be wrong- but I think the evidence points that way. More than anything, though, is that this doesn't feel like a BioWare ending. I know, that's subjective - we all knew ME was going to end on a choice (the game is about choice, after all!), but this is a choice when you can't even replay the "Catalyst's" conversation.

Nope. There's some kind of twist coming.

Ive answered some of your questions, if you want more answers you need to buy the Exclusive DLC to find out the rest... maybe.

 

[Savagezion]

LMAO. That is the best ME3 ending video I have seen yet. My throat and stomach hurt from laughing so hard that I had tears coming out and was in pain and couldn't breathe on the last bit with his Tali expectations. Thank you for posting that one. I had seen that video used before in a lot of spoof material but this one is by far the best.

In case it disappears, it reads "Hardest. Day. Ever. Seriously, if you people knew all the stuff we are planning...you'd, we'll - hold onto your copy of me3 forever."

Not saying I am right but that is exactly what I would be saying too upon mass disappointment and stuff like Amazon handing out free refunds. If the used games industry gets flooded with returned copies, Mass Effect 3 will go belly up. If they can get people to just not release their copies into the used market for a couple months, then it hurt so much. Make promises where you commit to nothing and then in a few months discard the whole project.

Like I said, I am not saying that is what they are doing but if someone wanted to be shady, that is how you would do it. Give people a reason to hold on to their copy out of hope. Because the minute they abandon hope, a million used copies are hitting the shelf and demand in the market dies.

 

[Grivahri]

I find it very hard to believe that it all these things that support the indoctrination theory was simply coincidence on Biowares part. So many things that makes sense if the indoctrination theory is true. Not just the ending but several parts in ME3. Why would the catalyst take the form of the kid that only Shepard saw? Why did he have the same nightmares over and over again? How did the illusive get to the control panel and where from? Was he invisible? Why did the citadel tower look so different than in ME1 and even in the beginning of ME3. How could TIM control you and Anderson? Why is Shepard immune towards indoctrination? Why was the kid the first thing we saw in the game? Why did the kid look straight at Shepard before he got onto the shuttle that was destroyed? Why did you see Harbinger leave after he almost killed you? Why does the ending feel so out of place?