Poll: The indoctrination theory: do we really need it?

[dreadedcandiru99]

I think this video is one of the best explanations I've seen for why the ME3 ending is terrible. (Yes, it's deliberately Plinkettish, but I'm fine with it, being a Plinkett fan myself. There's no cat rape in this, at least.)


Anyway, at about the 30:00 mark in the video, this guy starts talking about how Bioware could fix the ending. He doesn't really go into the indoctrination theory, other than to observe that it sorta-kinda feels like an Ass Pull [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPull]. After reviewing some of the examples on that TV Tropes page, I think I get where he's coming from.

I've read about the IT myself, and on the one hand, yeah, I can see how it would work, but on the other hand: what would using it mean in practice? It'd mean that, after the first fifteen-minute sequence on the Citadel turns out to be a Reaper-induced fever dream, Bioware would have to add a second, "real" Citadel sequence.

Video Guy had a less complicated idea: remove the Star Child scene. Bioware shouldn't try to "clarify" it, or even justify it--that scene is where most of the problems lie, so they should just completely take it out.

That made me wonder: instead of making a new ending in which the game essentially spends its final moments repeating itself, what if Bioware did the original Citadel sequence right? For example, Shepard beams up to the Citadel, there's the final confrontation with the Illusive Man, Anderson's (perfect, IMHO) death scene happens, Hackett calls to say the Crucible's not firing--and then, as the fleet keeps the Reapers at bay, Shepard has to find a way to trigger it (while trying not to bleed to death). The final result depends on the war assets you found, as well as the decisions you made throughout the series. The Star Child scene never happens. And that's it. No indoctrination theory needed.

I think that'd be a much simpler solution, and I'm sure that the less work Bioware has to put into an alternate ending, the more likely we are to get one.

Thoughts?

EDIT: The guy made a video specifically about the indoctrination theory. He still doesn't care for it. This one's much shorter.


EDIT #2: PaganAxe found a post listing a few more problems with the IT [http://iamrodyle.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/why-i-hate-the-indoctrination-theory-with-a-fiery-passion/].

 

[Terminate421]

The theory makes things more satisfying for whats left of the ending. Besides, it makes sense if one thinks about it. It also means ending DLC is on the way.

 

[boag]

The theory makes things more satisfying for whats left of the ending. Besides, it makes sense if one thinks about it. It also means ending DLC is on the way.

indeed, I for myself only embraced it because I am hoping that Bioware will make use of it to actually make a dramatic ending with it. The Idea is too good to be thrown out.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There's sufficient evidence there to support indoc theory if Bioware ever decided to go that way, which they almost certainly won't. The problem with it is it AGGRESSIVELY retcons what they already have, and they've wasted a lot of time and energy standing behind what they already have, so it's extremely unlikely that they're going to do a tabula rasa on it at this point. I suspect we'll get something that attempts to add context and clarity to the Star Child. Whether or not that leads to a satisfying ending, we'll see. I suspect a best case scenario is we'll get a poor ending that we can live with, as opposed to an atrocious ending that decimates the fan base.

 

[Aircross]

The theory makes things more satisfying for whats left of the ending. Besides, it makes sense if one thinks about it. It also means ending DLC is on the way.

As Yahtzee said in his Deus Ex: Human Revolution review about leaving what was supposed to be a conclusion as a cliffhanger (lol oxymoron, conclusion cliffhanger), "...anyone who pulls that shit deserves to have their hands cut off and sold back to them for 1200 Microsoft Points."

If Bioware releases DLC for an ending, then it's as good as saying that they screwed up.

 

[Terminate421]

The theory makes things more satisfying for whats left of the ending. Besides, it makes sense if one thinks about it. It also means ending DLC is on the way.

As Yahtzee said in his Deus Ex: Human Revolution review about leaving what was supposed to be a conclusion as a cliffhanger (lol oxymoron, conclusion cliffhanger), "...anyone who pulls that shit deserves to have their hands cut off and sold back to them for 1200 Microsoft Points."

If Bioware releases DLC for an ending, then it's as good as saying that they screwed up.

Its forgivable if the "ending" is free.

 

[DrWilhelm]

Personally I don't think the Star Child needs to go. Rather I feel that the scene should be reworked to allow Shepard to point out the flaws in it's logic, exposing it as a liar. Perhaps the Star Child then morphs into Harbinger ('cos how weird is it that Harbinger never says a damned word despite never shutting up in ME2). Cue brief exchange where Shepard realises that Harbinger is scared, or as close to scared as is possible for a Reaper. Aprehensive maybe. You find a way to activate the crucible, and it sends out a pulse that carries through the relays without destroying them, which causes minor malfunctions in the Reaper systems, similar to how Possessed Saren's death screwed up Sovereign, though not as severe. Weapon misfires, engine stalls and shields alternating on and off. Nothing utterly crippling, but enough to give the assembled fleets an edge.

Based on your war assets, the Reapers either win, you manage a bleak, highly pyrrhic victory, or you take the Reapers down without crippling losses. Preferably with various shades inbetween, and preferably involving a cutscene that changes significantly based on your choices throughout the games. Cue reuniting with any surviving crew members for some sweet, sweet closure. The mystique of the Reapers is maintained, and we get the possibility for a relatively happy ending if the player works his ass off. Just as is possible in Mass Effect 2.

I personally don't like the indoctrination theory, if only because of the implication that it was always the intention to withold the real ending for cash. I find that possibility terribly foreboding for the future of the industry.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Indoctrination theory is false for one simple reason. (Just for the record I haven't played Jade Empire or NWN) Bioware doesn't do subtlety. They do morally grey, but they don't do subtle. FFS, the good guys in DA:O are called Grey Wardens, in a game all about ambiguous choices. The only time they have done anything subtle was KOTOR, and they fully explained the twist afterwards. Indoctrination assumes an unprecedented level of subtlety.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

Personally I don't think the Star Child needs to go. Rather I feel that the scene should be reworked to allow Shepard to point out the flaws in it's logic, exposing it as a liar. Perhaps the Star Child then morphs into Harbinger ('cos how weird is it that Harbinger never says a damned word despite never shutting up in ME2).

Yeah, there probably should have been a final confrontation with Harbinger. And it couldn't be a fight, obviously, because Shepard's down to a pistol, no shields, no armor, and a hole in his/her gut. In my hypothetical Star Child-free version, I figured that Shepard would need to find a way, not just to activate the Crucible, but to get the Crucible's energy to just take out Reapers (as opposed to the Reapers, the relays, the Normandy, etc.). Like, maybe he/she could've gotten on the radio and called Harbinger out ("Hey, I'm still alive, I'm up here, you missed me again, how come the immortal unstoppable death machine can't freaking aim, nyah nyah!"), and lured it up to/into the Crucible somehow, then channeled the beam of space magic through it in order to destroy it and the other Reapers.

As for the Catalyst, if it's not the Star Child, I think it should've actually been the Citadel itself--or more precisely, the Citadel's hidden mass relay. Shepard could've activated it and used it to connect the Crucible to the entire mass relay network, in order to distribute the Reaper-killing space magic. The war assets could've come into play here, too: if you didn't find enough Crucible parts, it misfires, destroying the relays and most of the galaxy in the process.

I personally don't like the indoctrination theory, if only because of the implication that it was always the intention to withold the real ending for cash. I find that possibility terribly foreboding for the future of the industry.

Seconded. I'm willing to pay for an alternate ME3 ending--but only because it's Mass Effect, and only because it's Bioware. And this will be the first and last time I do it.

 

[Erttheking]

If it means we can slip in an ending that makes me actually want to put that game back in my xbox to do something besides play multiplayer then yes, the indoctrination theory is our best friend.

 

[Catfood220]

Yeah, there probably should have been a final confrontation with Harbinger. And it couldn't be a fight, obviously, because Shepard's down to a pistol, no shields, no armor, and a hole in his/her gut.

Yeah but its the best pistol in the game, it takes down Marauder Shields in a few shots. Despite the disadvantages, I reckon Shepard has never been in better shape to take down a Reaper on his/her own.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

Yeah, there probably should have been a final confrontation with Harbinger. And it couldn't be a fight, obviously, because Shepard's down to a pistol, no shields, no armor, and a hole in his/her gut.

Yeah but its the best pistol in the game, it takes down Marauder Shields in a few shots. Despite the disadvantages, I reckon Shepard has never been in better shape to take down a Reaper on his/her own.

Hey, yeah. I wish I'd had that pistol during the Reaper fight on Rannoch. Maybe the Alliance shouldn't have bothered building that big expensive Crucible. They could've just mass-produced those pistols and welded them to the sides of all the ships.

Also, I guess I need to go find some more indoctrination theory-related stuff, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. I don't think indoctrination has ever depended on the Reapers "tricking" people into doing what they wanted, as the theory implies; they literally rewired your brain and made you do stuff. Fighting it off shouldn't be possible at all. The only character we've ever seen resisting indoctrination was Benezia, but that was because she'd had a thousand years to practice alien psychic stuff--and even she wasn't able to do it for more than a minute or two. (Plus I think she said it took weeks of near-continuous contact with a Reaper to indoctrinate you. Shepard's spent a fair bit of time around Reaper tech, but I don't think it's been that long.)

Besides, if the ending was a hallucination brought on by Harbinger, why would there be a "destroy" option at all? Surely the Reapers wouldn't want Shepard to think that was even a possibility...

 

[Goofguy]

I've come to personally accept the indoctrination theory as MY canon. Sure, it essentially means that there has been no resolution to the Reaper crisis and Shepard is still in London. But at least it does a decent job of explaining the glaring inconsistencies present throughout the last 15 minutes of the series.

Really, we have yet to see an explanation that is even 70% satisfactory so until Bioware tells us something, I'm going to have to go with my interpretation of the least of all evils.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

anc[is]Indoctrination theory is false for one simple reason. (Just for the record I haven't played Jade Empire or NWN) Bioware doesn't do subtlety. They do morally grey, but they don't do subtle. FFS, the good guys in DA:O are called Grey Wardens, in a game all about ambiguous choices. The only time they have done anything subtle was KOTOR, and they fully explained the twist afterwards. Indoctrination assumes an unprecedented level of subtlety.

Pretty much this. I have looked over the theory and have dismissed it with Occam's Razor alone. The fact that this theory requires you to dig so deep to bring about these plot points, some of which are blatantly inferred and not explained by the writing at all leads me to believe that it's false and this shitty ending is just the result of shitty writing and a looming deadline. Bioware is very good about story, it's the one thing they do right in all of the games I have played from them. Until now.. ( I haven't played DA:2 yet)

 

[Grygor]

anc[is]Indoctrination theory is false for one simple reason. (Just for the record I haven't played Jade Empire or NWN) Bioware doesn't do subtlety. They do morally grey, but they don't do subtle. FFS, the good guys in DA:O are called Grey Wardens, in a game all about ambiguous choices. The only time they have done anything subtle was KOTOR, and they fully explained the twist afterwards. Indoctrination assumes an unprecedented level of subtlety.

Pretty much this. I have looked over the theory and have dismissed it with Occam's Razor alone. The fact that this theory requires you to dig so deep to bring about these plot points, some of which are blatantly inferred and not explained by the writing at all leads me to believe that it's false and this shitty ending is just the result of shitty writing and a looming deadline. Bioware is very good about story, it's the one thing they do right in all of the games I have played from them. Until now.. ( I haven't played DA:2 yet)

My big problem with the indoctrination theory is that it just doesn't gel with what I know about indoctrination itself - indoctrination is a subtle process, and doesn't involve things like major, overt visual hallucinations.

My take is that Shepard is critically injured by the reaper beam, but still manages to get close enough the the "conduit" to mentally interface with the Crucible, and everything we see after the beam hits is a dying Shepard's overwhelmed brain desperately trying to make sense of the experience.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

The first thing you need to understand about the Indoctrination Theory is that it was a theory born out of the confusion left by all the plotholes of the as-is ending. The only reason people came up with it was to make sense of things like "How did Anderson get to a platform that only has one path - the one you're walking on - leading to it and you never see him? How did your final squadmates get back up to the Normandy to be in the crash-landing scene at the very end when they were just on the ground making the final charge towards the beam? Stuff like that. Basically things that make a literal interpretation of the ending sequence very hard to believe.

But the IT has a number of holes in it as well, which is why it's just a theory.

1: If indeed the final sequences are just indoctrination hallucinations going on within Shepard's mind, then first and foremost that means that no matter what ending you pick, the story isn't actually over. If it's just Shepard fighting against Harbinger's will with a 1 out of 3 chance of breaking free of indoctrination, that means that even if he does break free he's still laying broken and bloody on the ground on Earth and the Reapers are still...well, Reaping. No one ever made it to the Citadel. No one ever opened the arms. The Crucible was never plugged in. Shepard fails to destroy the Reapers. Which leads into

2: What's up the the Star Gazer scene? Even if you assume that 1 is wrong and that Shepard breaking free of Indoctrination suddenly ends the war, that would mean that you've still got a 2 out of 3 chance of making the wrong choice and losing. So say you make one of the wrong choices and lose to Indoctrination....that would mean the Reapers win. So should Star Gazer kinda...not exist?

And finally, 3: It's been said that the ending movie with the beam shooting through the relays and the Normandy crashing on some tropical planet is just a final dream granted to Shepard in order to placate him into believing he did the right thing. Alrightt, fair enough...so what about if he makes the "right" choice and destroys all synthetics, thus breaking free of Indoctrination? Wouldn't that mean there should be no vision? And even if there is, why would they show him such a vision if he's already broken free of the Indoctrination?

As I said, the IT was a theory created to make sense of the plotholes in the ending that prevent the ending from being taken in a literal sense. That said, however, the ending with its plotholes makes more sense than the Indoctrination theory due to the outcome. I just can't imagine them ending the series before the war with the Reapers was over, and that would have to be true in order for the IT to be true.

So, and I know it's a long-winded way to get to this point, as to the question of "Do we NEED the IT?" I'd say kinda-sorta. It does indeed patch up a lot of the holes (and there's a very well made youtube video that fully explains how the IT can be extrapolated through ME 1, 2, and 3), but is it a perfect fit? No.

Personally, here's how I would have written the ending.

<spoiler=A brief and very simple tweeking of the current ending>As suggested in the OP: I would completely eliminate the Space Timmy sequence. Really I'd keep much of the ending the same. Shepard gets lazer blasted but manages to get back up. He proves his worth to the gate-keeper known as Marauder Shields, and gets to the Citadel. The scene with Anders and TIM plays out as should be complete with the father-son chat at the end. Hacket - seeing the arms of the Citadel open and scanning for Shepard's biometrics - radios to say the Crucible isn't working. Shepard actually makes it to the console and pushes the button to fire the Crucible.

The Crucible sends out some kind of signal that essentially wipes the Reaper's hard drives (for lack of a better phrase) leaving them completely emptyy and lifeless. This signal is channeled through the Citadel and through the Citadel it is channeled through the realys to cover the entire galaxy. Howeve Shepard doesn't survive his injuries and dies shortly after ensuring the defeat of the Reapers. Cue the ending sequence.

The ending sequence would be a military hero's funeral with eulogies provided by the surviving squadmates from 1, 2, and 3 along with some of the more important side-characters. The speeches given would reflect the decisions you made. Once the funeral is over, cut to the text-box slides Dragon Age: Origin's style that explain what each race did in the years that follow (like how DA explained what your decision with the dwarves caused, what your decision with the dalish caused, etc). Roll credits. Pretty sure that ending would be nice and neat and satiate everyone's desire for closure on their decisions.

 

[Outcast107]

2: What's up the the Star Gazer scene? Even if you assume that 1 is wrong and that Shepard breaking free of Indoctrination suddenly ends the war, that would mean that you've still got a 2 out of 3 chance of making the wrong choice and losing. So say you make one of the wrong choices and lose to Indoctrination....that would mean the Reapers win. So should Star Gazer kinda...not exist?

I will say that I have a few theories about the Star Gazer.

1) If indeed we did lose and the reaper harvest us, then the SG scene is just the next cycle. Sure they look human but doesn't mean they are. Remember Liara made a machine to tell the story of Shepard and warn about the Reapers. It seem a lot of people either forgot about this or just don't add it up.

2) The game was told by a story teller(Or at least the 3rd game) and the last part of it is what he got wrong. Since he said "there are some parts that are lost in time." I don't like this as much, but hey bioware is crazy like that.

3) We did beat the reapers and it was just a little show case that Shepard legend is still being told. It doesn't have to do with ANYTHING of the IT but just give a small "yay" that Shepard is now a legend and a hero.

True I'm just making things up but eh I'm just looking at the game and trying to fit pieces in. I still highly doubt bioware would do a 180 on the ending. With so much plotholes that even a monkey could write a better ending.


(The rant below is not towards you)

Anyways, whatever happens happen. I would be overjoy to see the IT being work in. It doesn't have to go by what the fans are saying. Though I will say this, Shepard wakes up on Earth. He not on the citadel, he couldn't have live through another reenter like that without armor, helmet and etc. And there no way in hell that my shepard would listen to the reapers after all the times I told Tim that We can NOT control the reapers.

What does the kid say? "Oh yeah you can control us." I call bullshit. Shepard is just human as Tim was. There no controlling the reapers. True, their motive could still be the same but they would not just give up that easily and let you have a choice to kill them.

 

[RJ 17]

1) If indeed we did lose and the reaper harvest us, then the SG scene is just the next cycle. Sure they look human but doesn't mean they are. Remember Liara made a machine to tell the story of Shepard and warn about the Reapers. It seem a lot of people either forgot about this or just don't add it up.

I've heard this theory before, that Star Gazer is actually some random species from the next cycle, but I don't buy it. Just real quick regarding the time-capsule, that's assuming the thing lasts and that future species would be able to find/understand it.

As for SG being part of the next cycle, even assuming that it IS part of the next cycle and they ARE able to understand it, why would they have legends about the heroic failure of Shepard? Suppose you pick an Indoctrination choice. That means that if Shepard isn't dead, he/she would go on to commit atrocities and betrayals in the name of the Reapers. If you choose correctly, Shepard still didn't win the war with the Reapers. The Crucible plan still failed. And really all that's left as hope for the next cycle would be the Crucible plans themselves, and Shepard really didn't have much of anything to do with the Crucible itself.

2) The game was told by a story teller(Or at least the 3rd game) and the last part of it is what he got wrong. Since he said "there are some parts that are lost in time." I don't like this as much, but hey bioware is crazy like that.

This actually brings up a point that I've had and that Bioware has kinda-sorta confirmed: they fully intended to make the ending this confusing so that they could sell some DLC that - as Bioware described the DLC they'll release to satisfy their fanbase - "expands beyond the ending of the game". Think about it, what's the last thing SG says? "Well, it's getting late, but ok. One more story." It is entirely possible that this "One more story" will be Shepard (or someone) finishing the war with the Reapers. This actually goes more to support the IT since it implies that the war isn't over by the end of ME3. But I've been playing both sides of the argument since I know that neither can be proven correct but both definitely have their points.

3) We did beat the reapers and it was just a little show case that Shepard legend is still being told. It doesn't have to do with ANYTHING of the IT but just give a small "yay" that Shepard is now a legend and a hero.

Pretty sure that's actually what the scene is supposed to onvey. The SG scene suggests that Shepard WAS successful (no matter which choice you pick since you get this scene with every ending, this goes against the IT) in ending the war and defeating the Reapers. As such legends are still being told about "The" Shepard that broke the galactic cycle of genocide and saved all Organic life.

As for Bioware writing in general, you have to keep in mind: with the release of that "Final Hours of Mass Effect 3" deal that gives you a behind the scenes look at the making of the ending, we learn that Hudson decided to cut a LOT of stuff out of the ending that he deemed "unnecessary". I really can't help but wonder what the response would have been to the ending as it was originally written. The problem is that the literal interpretation and the IT are direct opposites. The IT wonderfully explains everything right up to what happens after you make your choice. The literal interpretation is full of holes until you get to the part where you make your choice, at which point the war is over and Shepard is the savior to be hailed by the entire galaxy which allows for the SG scene.

But really, the strongest evidence that I've seen that it's supposed to be a literal interpretation is actually this video:


I just cannot believe that Bioware - or any game company - could come up with a plotline that subtle and perfect that spans the course of many years put into 3 games.

 

[Don Savik]

When you get to the bare fundamentals of the theory, it basically just pointing at anything that didn't make sense in the third game and going ITS ALL A DREAM!!! Which, is a poor excuse no matter how plausible you think it is. Bioware openly saying "Oh yea, that popular theory that fixes our horrible game so that everyone loves us again? Yea thats canon now." would be pretty spineless to be honest.