Why do you not believe the indoctrination theory? *Major Spoilers*

[Conza]

EDIT - PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING
http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/
Just to stop me having to repeat stuff

*reads article and continues*

Ok, so after the ending of Mass Effect 3, I was presented with the indoctrination theory/interpretation of the ending. This version seemed to make so much sense that I simply can't believe the literal ending.

To make sure we're all on the same page, here's a short article explianing this view of the ending - http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/

I've noticed that a lot of people reject this idea, though. Can I ask why? For me, the two endings can be contrasted in terms of plot holes.

Literal ending - Who is the Catalyst, how did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel, how did the Illusive man get on the Citadel, why did Joker run away, how did your squadmates all end up on the Normandy from earth, why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions, how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet. Also, (and this is key) the extra scene you get if you choose the destroy ending. Any others I've missed?

Indoctrination ending - so far no one* has given one.

So, can anyone explain to me why they still believe the literal ending, or give me a plot hole caused by the indoctrination ending? It just seems if we have these two endings one is more convincing than the other.

Well before reading the article I didn't fully believe it, now I'm not sure.

I suppose the best answer is, that Bioware probably isn't that smart, and if they are, where the fuck is the end of my game that I paid more than full price for? *Reminded to make a thread on that*.

I picked the 'renegade' option, though I had no idea wtf I was doing, I just got lucky (I didn't even know jumping off the (catalyst) metal cliff was an option, and picked right out of pure luck..

It's possible that, there'll be a 'free' new ending, someone on the BioWare facebook page aparrently said 'we're all keeping our save games' in response to someone else else asking if they should keep their own.

Still, on the fence now, not sure I quite buy that BioWare would but a very big dent in their best franchise ever, possibly 'the' best video game franchise ever, but they might. If they did this intentionally, at this moment it seems like a mistake.

 

[Neonsilver]

I really like the indoctrination theory. It's a good explanation of the ending and if that is what BioWare intended, they are genius.

But I can't believe it. I'll go with Occam's razor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor] and the simplest explanation I see is they ran out of money, time, motivation or good ideas. That would explain why all endings are almost identical. The ending just looks lazy.

 

[SS2Dante]

big snip.

Again, not really arguing about the main story arc.

Yeah but I still contend it reflects a development 'degeneration' which supports my hypothesis about the ending.

Shepard does see the child. I'm not sure I've said this to you (forgive me If I'm repeating) but the premise is that the child is never real. No one ever sees him, the scenes are deliberately staged so that it is Shepard alone who ever talk, sees, or interacts with the boy on any level.

Sure, I thought that when I saw him in the vent, was he real? They do wait for him to board only shutting the door after he stands up.
However, hes only in the game for such a short period of time and if I am right hes only been shoehorned in to give shepherd some forced emotional grief. Again just as consistent with mine as yours.

Shepard doesn't know about Paragon or Renegade. The player does. Therefore the player sees the two colours and associates one of them with the 'bad ending'.

The suggestion was that they switched colors to indicate to shepherd that his preferred option is the one not destroying the reapers, but that only makes sense for a paragon shepherd, for a renegade shepherd switching the colors like that makes the reapers seem suicidal.

If the devs wanted to show this as is suggested, why not switch colors intelligently. Make the reapers desire match the renegade/paragon color the player most favored. Then that color change argument would fit just fine, however without that its confirmation bias.

Actually, the Prothean appearance change is explained in the dlc I believe
But the analogy is not the same. I'm not claiming the whole game, or even a small part of it, was a dream. I'm saying one point, spanning about 12 minutes, with a definite end and definite beginning, are a dream. They contain the entirety of the inconsistency, and can easily and elegently be explain various other things that happen throughout the game.

Bah, rationalized, or explained away you mean.
Oh sure, the protheans are an ideology not a species, hogwash!
Trust me, its animation modeling that decided the change from tentacle hands and disproportionate limbs to basically humanoid with bug heads.

I know what you are suggesting, everything from either the time shepherd got blasted, or from the crystal floor was the dream. I wish they were the only inconsistent parts of the story, sadly they are not, just the most flagrant.

Here's another example of plot holes fitting my hypothesis. The cannons reapers fire are liquid hot metal propelled at a relativistic speed. They can cut through shields on dreadnoughts and slice them in half, as easy as the proverbial hot knife through butter, yet shepherd just gets a bit of a nose bleed and what appears to be really bad indigestion from the way he clutches his gut as he walks.

Harping on this point for a little longer. At the start of the game the cannons act like you would expect liquid metal at relativistic speeds to behave. It hits stuff, the stuff violently explodes due to the sudden kinetic to thermal to kinetic change, by the time we get to Rannock the weapons don't do that they have become just a laser. Consistent with my story degeneration hypothesis I say.

Way I see it, I have 2 non-provable hypotheses:

1. The people who make mass effect suddenly forgot how to make mass effect.
2. The indoctrination theory.

The odds of the first are (I believe) very low compared to the odds of the other. hence my decision.

You know, you summed it up nicely, but my conclusion is exactly opposed. I find the former the more likely based upon the host of smaller but equally weird design choices in the game. Oh and I have looked it up a little more, it seems the rumors have more weight to them. Only 2 of the writers from the original mass effect wrote for this one. Perhaps that explains the steady change between games. Same thing happened with origin, after ultima 7 they just seemed to stop knowing how to write ultimas..

Actually, I've though about it and I'm going to stand by my idea that there was no possible way to defeat the Reapers without a Crucible (By the way, Crucible means "hard test" ) style plot point. Aside from the fact that in all stories like these the overall arc isn't that strong (Look at Lord of The Rings. Plenty of people have asked why they didn't just fly the eagles to mordor in the first place), there's another glaring issue:
Ok, lets accept that Sovereign was beaten with half of a single human fleet. (probably more than half but let's err or your side)
Let's also accept that the Reapers harvest every 50,000 years. They don't ALWAYS create a new Reaper, so I'll again lower that number. Lets say we have one new Reaper every 100,000 years.
Let's also assume the Reapers have only existed for a billion years (the universe is estimated to be 13.5ish billion years old).
By this calculation there are ten thousand Reapers in existence. Even if you say the Reapers are only 5 million years old, that means there are STILL at least 50 of them.
Number of fleets in the galaxy - less than 20.
Prepared or not, without some form of Crucible plot point the galaxy is boned.

This argues against the argument of plot degeneration. Also, as I said, the main judge of stories is not in the overall arc, it's in the scenes that make it up. I think everyone can agree that right up until Harbingers laser the scenes were just as well written as the previous titles.

I will agree the child is consistent in both. That's generally the point of imaginary characters in this sort of twist - they appear to be perfectly in place. Neither of us can say definitively anything more about the child though.

Oh, trust me I do agree about the Prothean change

Also, I can agree with the Prothean laser change. That however, is a fairly common occurrence in narratives like this. The previous super weapon loses some of it's sting through sheer plot necessity. I'm not saying it's pretty, but I will say it's quite a common thing to happen (for example, the creator of Buffy specifically stated he did this in the last episode because the drama was more important than the small plot point). The thing is that that is a small inconsistency, absolutely nothing compared to the glaring ones we are discussing.

See, this is what confuses me. Believe me I agree games can completely fall apart between sequels (Prince Of Persia Warrior Within, and FFX-2 still burn to this day ) but Mass Effect 3 is not a badly written game. It' not even a mediocre game. The story, characters and scenes are phenomenally written throughout the whole of 3. At worst most people will agree it was very well written, EXCEPT for the last bit. If the whole of the game was weird, or their were various inconsistencies of this magnitude throughout the game I'd agree with you. But there are not. You say there were to of the original staff still kept. Did they take a sick day when writing the ending? Were the writing staff not involved in the final scenes, just the whole of the game before it? No. Ridiculous.

I'll repeat; my problem is not that it's a bad ending, it's that it's a broken one. Too broken for anyone to miss, with even the most cursory glance, never mind someone spending years on it.

Also, bad writing does not explain the red scene. Taken literally in the red scene Shepard dies. No way Shepard survives the Citadel blowing up. In Space. Without a helmet. Then falling to Earth. Onto a pile of rubble. If this was just a little tease, then it should have happened in the other endings as well. Some kind of hint Shepard was still alive, somehow. If the game was rushed, why put it in? It's useless literally, serves no purpose but to create more plot holes, yet a team of people probably spent a full week animating it and specifically inserting it into THAT position under THOSE circumstances. That is why I believe my hypothesis more likely. There's too much, too close, too fast. It's not incompetence here, it's active sabotage.

EDIT - missed my response about the colouring thing.

Making the change based on your character wouldn't work. What about players with equal paragon and renegade? What about ones who're very close? The implementation would be difficult.
Furthermore, as I said, it's about the player. Like it or not, Renegade is essentially the evil choice. Cruel, mean and vindictive. They result in the most death (mostly, not saying it's clear cut, but a lot of the time it is). Red was chosen for this because we use red all the time in our society. Danger signs. Blood. Enemy. Evil. Hate. All are linked to the colour red. Any player playing Renegade still know that the 'good' option is the 'good' option - they just aren't playing as good. That's fine. What it does mean is that in the ending, the player KNOWS the red choice is the 'evil' one. They're deliberately rebelling. This is completely consistent with what I said. Anyone choosing the destroy option who doesn't believe the indoctrination theory isn't deeply into the fantasy, since it is the objectively worst choice to make. And they know it is.

(By the way, I get annoyed at people who pick the red ending but don't believe the indoctrination theory. Either the starkid is real or not. If he is real then controlling them is NOT a problem, because you're not doing what the Illusive Man did, because you CAN actually control them. Those who say they think it's a way of falling are contradicting themselves. Sorry, rant over )

 

[SS2Dante]

EDIT - PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING
http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/
Just to stop me having to repeat stuff

Ok, so after the ending of Mass Effect 3, I was presented with the indoctrination theory/interpretation of the ending. This version seemed to make so much sense that I simply can't believe the literal ending.

To make sure we're all on the same page, here's a short article explianing this view of the ending - http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/

I've noticed that a lot of people reject this idea, though. Can I ask why? For me, the two endings can be contrasted in terms of plot holes.

Literal ending - Who is the Catalyst, how did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel, how did the Illusive man get on the Citadel, why did Joker run away, how did your squadmates all end up on the Normandy from earth, why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions, how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet. Also, (and this is key) the extra scene you get if you choose the destroy ending. Any others I've missed?

Indoctrination ending - so far noone has given one.

So, can anyone explain to me why they still believe the literal ending, or give me a plot hole caused by the indoctrination ending? It just seems if we have these two endings one is more convincing than the other.

1) if the indoctrination theory is correct then EA has essentially sold even the collectors edition folks an incomplete game with no ending.

2) Bioware aren't very clever.

3) Why do we have that entire scene with the Normandy escaping if it was all a dream?

Indeed they have. Hence the plug for dlc at the end, which none of the other games had.

They made Mass Effect And ME2. Why does everyone seem to forget that the thing people had such high hopes for was created by people who had previously matched or exceeded these hopes?

I've answered that before, honestly can't be bothered typing it out again. it shouldn't be too hard to find if you look a few posts up. Sorry, but my fingers are tired

 

[SS2Dante]

You're assumptions rest on the false premise that ALL life is destroyed at the end of every cycle. It is not. Some species are left alive. Therefore you could defeat the Reapers with no problem in this scene.

No I'm not, and no you can't. I know primitive races aren't reaped.

You created the "the Stargazer is an alien in a subsequent cycle" theory. Or even "the Reapers missed some humans". If that is true in every ending, you've lost in every ending. Including the best red ending. The Reapers have reaped the advanced races. This dude's race evolves or discovers advanced technology and finds out about and venerates the mook that fought the Reapers and the Reapers won. The next cycle may have chance thanks to the warnings but the earth, the rest of the advanced galaxy, Shepard, and your companions are totally screwed. And the Reaper fleet is still out in dark space for Stargazer's race to get advanced enough to squish. The current cycle was lost. Shepard lost. If you get up in the rubble in some DLC, you've still already lost. The post credit sequence tells you so.

If there is NOT a subsequent cycle, the Reapers are ultimately defeated in every ending. Shepard's indoctrination state does not matter. Somehow, the galaxy is saved anyway. Just not by Shepard in the blue and green endings. The Reapers have to be neutralized somehow for there to not be a cycle. You've already won. If Shepard gets up in the rubble in some DLC, you've still already won. The post credit sequence tells you so.

The only way you can have it both ways is if the same stargazer scene means completely different things in different endings depending entirely on what you've read into it.

I can't accept that, so I don't believe the indoctrination theory.

Assumption: stargazer is an alien species, or surviving humans. Doesn't matter which.

If you killed the Reapers, they can be both. Either they are humans or some other species that was evolving at the time. No problem there.

If you lost against the Reapers, they can STILL be both. Either they are surviving humans like the prothean, or they are those same aliens that were evolving at the time.

The rubble scene equally applies to both. I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps I have misunderstood? Or perhaps you are implying that the Stargazer is telling the same story in each ending? He is not, the ending is different. Therefore the meaning of his words changes slightly depending on the ending, as well as his position in space and time. We have no information at all.

 

[SS2Dante]

It depends on what you mean by "believe". IT is a plausible an elegant explanation for the end of ME3, which otherwise makes little sense, so in that respect I believe that it's true. However I'm becoming more skeptical that Bioware intended it.

I can certainly understand your position, and I suppose that at this point it really is that time will tell. I simply find it hard to believe that Bioware, after making 3 games praised for incredible storytelling, would suddenly lose all of this 5 mins before the end. Plus, so far noone has pointed out ANY flaws in the indoctrination idea - every new thing seems to support it.

Anyway, even if no DLC is released, I still think that this ending makes more sense than taking it literally. It's a lot sadder, but it's more true to the universe. Thanks for replying!

What the indoctrination people need to understand is that even if it were true, it doesn't improve the ending. It just makes it different. It is even shitty for the same reasons. Indoctrination theory in no way really effects the big complaints. Even if the indoctrination theory is true, it was poorly written due to the fact people have to add all that shit up and STILL just believe that is the ending. STILL the game gives no closure. Even if dismiss that that is poor writing and that hiding the message in the game from your audience is a good idea and just assume that is the correct assessment, we have no clue what that even means as to what actually happened.

In the end, indoctrination theory is just fans that are trying as hard as they can to justify not only Bioware, but disappointment in the title. They refuse to be disappointed so bad that they will grasp at things that still offer no definitive answer. That is the problem with the ending of Mass Effect is it isn't an ending, it just ends. There is no definitive anything.

Indoctrination Theory doesn't change anything so there is no reason to care one way or the other. The fact remains either way that you have no clue what the hell just happened. Or in the case of the indoctrination theory what really happened.

It makes the ending very clever, and as INTERACTIVE entertainment it makes a bold move. I'd say that's a better ending. Getting two thirds of you players to side with the Reapers, despite warnings about indoctrination? Clever. Something you could only do in game form.

 

[SS2Dante]

i dont believe it because i didnt get that extra scene you speak off.

Here ya go Ziam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw2U7P5nIbY (5.40)

Note how the ending is almost exactly the same. The only difference is that the reapers fall down if you choose red And the bubble is red.

But then that extra scene...

Btw - did you choose the red ending? how was your EMS score? Cos you should have gotten the extra scene.

chose red. EMS I had high, far past max bar.

Hmm, either you missed it or your game glitched, or you've made some choice noone has taken into consideration. As far as I know if you have over 5k you always get that ending. Double check? If it's not a glitch I'd be interested to know why.

 

[SS2Dante]

EDIT - PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING
http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/
Just to stop me having to repeat stuff

*reads article and continues*

Ok, so after the ending of Mass Effect 3, I was presented with the indoctrination theory/interpretation of the ending. This version seemed to make so much sense that I simply can't believe the literal ending.

To make sure we're all on the same page, here's a short article explianing this view of the ending - http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/

I've noticed that a lot of people reject this idea, though. Can I ask why? For me, the two endings can be contrasted in terms of plot holes.

Literal ending - Who is the Catalyst, how did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel, how did the Illusive man get on the Citadel, why did Joker run away, how did your squadmates all end up on the Normandy from earth, why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions, how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet. Also, (and this is key) the extra scene you get if you choose the destroy ending. Any others I've missed?

Indoctrination ending - so far no one* has given one.

So, can anyone explain to me why they still believe the literal ending, or give me a plot hole caused by the indoctrination ending? It just seems if we have these two endings one is more convincing than the other.

Well before reading the article I didn't fully believe it, now I'm not sure.

I suppose the best answer is, that Bioware probably isn't that smart, and if they are, where the fuck is the end of my game that I paid more than full price for? *Reminded to make a thread on that*.

I picked the 'renegade' option, though I had no idea wtf I was doing, I just got lucky (I didn't even know jumping off the (catalyst) metal cliff was an option, and picked right out of pure luck..

It's possible that, there'll be a 'free' new ending, someone on the BioWare facebook page aparrently said 'we're all keeping our save games' in response to someone else else asking if they should keep their own.

Still, on the fence now, not sure I quite buy that BioWare would but a very big dent in their best franchise ever, possibly 'the' best video game franchise ever, but they might. If they did this intentionally, at this moment it seems like a mistake.

If you're not sure you can keep checking this thread, various arguments have been made and I have respended, guess you can check which you find more convincing.

Also, THANK YOU for reading the article, more than half the people on this came on and hadn't read it, so I couldn't have an actual debate with them. So, cheers

Ok, I'm no marketer, and may be talking out my ass here, but I think it's safe to say, the people who buy ME3 are the people who played at least ME2, right? For the majority of there sales anyway. So not matter what rumours about the ending, we were always gonna buy it, because we were already hooked in. I mean, the worst thing you can say is: the game was great for 30 hours then bad for 10 minutes. Not a deal breaker.

What this HAS done is generate a whole bunch of media attention. People who've never heard of ME have heard of this controversy. Imagine if they release a dlc in a month or 2 and suddenly everyones talking about the super clever ending of ME3 and how it had them fooled etc. Again, more media attention, more sales.

Possible view of it, anyway. Marketing generally devolves into witchcraft

 

[SS2Dante]

I haven't read the novel, hence me not voicing an opinion on this. HOWEVER, I will point out the difference in the medium - books versus games. They use the tools most effective to each situation: in the book, it's more effective to have them trapped inside their own mind as you can SEE inside their mind. In a game, you want the player to directly feel the emotions of the character they play. Therefore the indoctrination happens to the player, slowly and subtly.

The indoctrination process shouldn't change across media though. How it's conveyed, sure, but not the process itself. People who are being indoctrinated are either trapped inside their own minds or they're not - established lore across multiple media says they are.

Which is exactly my point: you can't cherry pick this stuff. If the growl is meant to be a sign of indoctrination, something Shepard hears inside his/her head instead of an actual, audible growl that could have come from dozens of other plausible, literal sources, and it's something the player hears, then the player should see and hear all sorts of other signs of indoctrination too.

Again: the indoctrination theory takes a very loose interpretation of the lore, and marries it with a very specific, highly subjective interpretation of events in the game.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying there's no real evidence to support it and even if it does turn out to be the case, "the entire game was an indoctrination dream" is an even worse resolution than the literal one we got.

Also, do you see the irony of insisting people read an article when much of your argument is based on the content of a book that you haven't bothered to read?

Actually, it doesn't. The lore in the games directly contradicts this view, as it renders much of Sarens plot points in ME1 incomprehensible. Saren specifically believes he is NOT indoctrinated, which is why he gets worried when you tell him he might be. That's why he sets up a research lab to study indoctrination. Sovereign saw this and gave him the implants. If Saren was trapped inside his own mind, none of this would made sense. He'd already know he was indoctrinated.

The lore in the game states again and again that a person, at least at first, is unaware they are being indoctrinated.

As you can see I'm not cherry picking. I haven't used the growl in my arguments because I haven't read the book and besides, it really could be coincidence. It's the staging of that scene that makes it odd to me.

The player does see other signs. That's what the dreams are about. Particularly that last dream - you see another Shepard hug the little boy, and they both smirk at you as they burn. Directly before this, Shepard is examining his N7 helmet and states "I thought I heard it crack in that last fight". That is hardly subtle.

How is worse than the literal one? Besides the fact it is unhappier (which is a very childish way to look at it) it makes more sense and is more consistent with the series lore in every way. I'd say that's a better ending.

Imagine trying to explain to someone the point of Fight Club or the Usual Suspects, but they haven't seen the ending and you aren't allowed to tell them the end. Everything becomes vague unprovable speculation, but it makes sense. More than the other interpretations. That's what I think this theory does.

 

[Exterminas]

That is a neat interpretation of the ending. Thanks a lot for sharing it.

Fun fact:
It does not matter at all if Bioware intended that. An Authors intention has zero relevance for a reader's interpretation of a given fictional work.

 

[SS2Dante]

I really like the indoctrination theory. It's a good explanation of the ending and if that is what BioWare intended, they are genius.

But I can't believe it. I'll go with Occam's razor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor] and the simplest explanation I see is they ran out of money, time, motivation or good ideas. That would explain why all endings are almost identical. The ending just looks lazy.

In your view, the team who made Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 really well written suddenly forgot how to write in the last and most important part of the game? These are not small flaws. Those I could understand. Instead, it's as if they are actively piling on large plot holes and flaws as fast they can. If it was lazy writing it'd show up elsewhere in the game.

Also, may I ask why you think the red scene has an extra ending? If they ran out of time or whatever it shouldn't be there. It's an extra weeks worth of work for an unnecessary scene that just adds another plot hole. That's not laziness or incompetence. That's EXTRA work, for some unexplained reason.

 

[SS2Dante]

That is a neat interpretation of the ending. Thanks a lot for sharing it.

Fun fact:
It does not matter at all if Bioware intended that. An Authors intention has zero relevance for a reader's interpretation of a given fictional work.

You know, part of me hates that idea, and part of me agrees with it Makes it difficult doing my English course

Generally speaking, I go with the authors intention if it makes sense. However, the literal interpretation doesn't. Therefore the indoctrination theory is my stance, whether intended or not.

 

[SS2Dante]

Like I said.

Incompetence.

The ending was nonsensical 11th-hour bullshit on every level. Bioware dropping the ball in spectacular fashion strikes me as the more plausible explanation for this.

I am very much inclined to agree with you. I went in to that Conduit thinking that Garrus and James had been annihilated by Harbinger with all the others... only to see Garrus merrily hopping out of the crashed Normandy... uh, what?

As I sit here in the hour since I first beat ME3, I try to think what would have been the most ideal ending. There's no denying that there's probably hundreds of different ideas floating around as to how the ending could have been better executed.

Makes you wonder if a more vanilla ending should have just been made, something like DA:O. You know, the Council congratulates and thanks Shepard for beating the Reapers. He/she wanders through a hall talking to his/her surviving squadmates before exiting to meet the hordes of adoring races. End scene with epilogue mentioning how each squadmate and race moved on from the war.

There probably are many theories, but this thread is about discussing the merits of the one that makes most sense. If you could read it, then tell me which parts are wrong?

 

[SS2Dante]

Just for future reference, it doesn't do much good to put *Major Spoilers* in a header if you don't say what you're spoiling.

Um...Mass Effect 3? thought everyone knew what the indoctrination theory was to do with ME. Since we're talking about the entire game I wasn't going to say Ending spoilers or anything.

Anything clearer I can put?

 

[Cranky]

I love the theory, and I'd really accept it if Bioware clarified this. Still, endings were a bit rushed.

 

[Xpheyel]

The rubble scene equally applies to both. I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps I have misunderstood? Or perhaps you are implying that the Stargazer is telling the same story in each ending? He is not, the ending is different. Therefore the meaning of his words changes slightly depending on the ending, as well as his position in space and time. We have no information at all.

Yes, that is exactly the problem. The only way the indoctrination theory can explain it is by making it mean something totally different in a basically arbitrarily chosen ending. In other words, the theory doesn't account for it always being the same. It FORCES mutually exclusive meanings on to the exact same scene.

Taken literally, the same scene means basically the same thing in all endings. While the only basis for believing it means something different in at least one of the endings is the indoctrination theory itself. That is a fundamental flaw in the theory.

 

[Simple Bluff]

Bioware are not that clever.

I see a lot of people saying this and I think it's unfair. There was an episode on Extra Credits where they spoke about a mission in ME2 as an example of how gaming can enrich lives yadda yadda (it was Legion's loyalty mission, if you want to know: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/enriching-lives ).

They go on to analyse the main moral choice in the quest and why it's so prolific, and it turns out to be pretty effing deep. They also go on to show why it's very unlikely to be a fluke. I think it's ample evidence of Bioware's cleverness.

But, in fairness, even without that video it would be unreasonable to say that Bioware can't achieve something like this. They created the Mass Effect universe, and many other universes, complete with a huge backstory and believable characters. You can't do that by accident - it requires genuine shrewdness - something like this certainly wouldn't be beyond them.

(Although you could say they have slipped in recent years and I wouldn't be able to disagree, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.)

Anyway, enough grovelling - on to the topic.

I agree with the indoctrination theory. There are more points of evidence other than the kid - I've seen screenshots of the final cinematic while Shepard is alive: if you choose the green ending, the hue of his eyes become blurred, just like Saren's was (although I admit this is straw grasping - you can't see very clearly even in the best screenshots). If you pick the blue ending, Shepard's eye form a subtle version of the Illusive Man's wierd eye pattern (this is not grasping - you can CLEARLY see this). In the red ending however, Shepard's eyes remain normal. It is worth noting at this point that both Saren and The Illusive Man were both indoctrinated.

There are other, small tidbits to suggest this (like the human - like writing on the catalyst, despite being told you are the only organic to set foot there) but I think the eyes are the strongest evidence. It's easy to overlook, but that sort of thing takes time to do - changing the texture of a charachter model's eye may seem insignificant, but it's a bunch of lines of code they had to edit - and for the sake of what? For like, the 10 seconds we see Shepard's face before he's vapourized?

The Indoctronation Theory still isn't perfect though. The stargazer thing... can be explained, but its very whimsical. And even if the Indoctronation Theory is true, then we still don't get any closure - how does the fight actually end after Shepard awoke, assuming you picked the red ending? The article the OP posted claims it was more the story of the fight for 'one man's soul' rather the the fight to 'save the galaxy', which might be true, but it still doesn't tell us what happened to the Reapers, or our squadmates which are other very important elements.

 

[Justice4L]

Because it is the wonkiest thing I have ever seen! Have you read some of those threads
"oh look at this random screenshot, it looks like Kaidan/Ashley's armor, ergo, the indoctrination is true"

I've never seen people so willing to decieve theirselves. And for what? The slim possibility that Bioware will ammend their mistake? That their virtual hubby will be ressurected? it's pathetic. it speaks ill of their cause when they are so infatuated with gaming romances. I know the ending has problems that extend past the "happy ending" thing. but most people aren't bitching about the overall descent in writing quality they are bitching about BLUE BABEES.


The indoctrination theory is just the overall collapse of their fantasy. They can't handle reality, so they spin together some loopy ass shit to get them over it.

Once again, cool, okay, people are being crazy. Read the article I attached and point out the flaws. There should be some, if people are just being nutty and making shit up. So far not one person here has given me any logical flaws with this theory.

Also, I'm fine with the ending as it is. In my ending I became a husk and the Reapers won. I'm fine with that, because it makes sense. I'm not looking for a 'happy ending'.

I skimmed your article. There is no way in hell I'm reading that psycho bullshit in its entirety. I've seen a good deal of the 'evidence' and its circumstantial at best. There is no evidence that the kid is imaginary or "an attempt to indoctrinate Shepard". The leap from the is to the ought is mind numbing. Why insist in this delusion, I ask you? Was the ending that bad? That you honestly can.not.handle.it?

It's amazing that you are here persisting and trying to recruit people into your illusions. Please, for the sake of your own sanity. step back and reanalyze how you're spinning this.


By the way, if you can't even defend your position without some bullshit article. it might be time to jump ships.

I should point out, in case there's confusion, that it's not my article (as in I didn't write it).

Ok, I'm here for a reasoned argument. if you want to skim my article, not really think about it for a second and call bullshit then I'd prefer you left now. By the way, perhaps you see no reason to believe because you have't READ the article. Possible?

'If you can't defend your position without some bullshit article . it might be time to jump ships'.

I...I don't even know how to answer that. I'm asking people to discuss the ideas the article brings up. How can I do that without linking it. You want me to type it all out here?

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm asking you to convert ME.

You say I'm being unreasonable, yet won't reasonably argue.

Unbelievable!! You wont even present your own argument and you're getting angry AT ME? ME? AS if I did something wrong.

If you aren't willing to present your argument in your own words. Than why should I reply to you? Why should I read 3 pages of bullshit-a-rama? for what?

All you have to do is summarize the article. summarize the ideas you want to discuss. This is not difficult. Simply linking an article comes off as lazy and kind of douchy.

So no I can't reasonable argue anything until you present your points. Give em' to be straight doctor.

I've linked the article because it explains it all thoroughly and clearly. I didn't want to do a two sentence summary of the idea, since that simply doesn't work. (for example: Would you care to explain to me the twist of Fight Club in a short, summarised form? Give all the evidence you have for the twist. You are not allowed to use any parts after the reveal as evidence)

It does raise the question of why you're replying to me at all. If you don't want to look at the evidence for the indoctrination interpretation why are you here? This thread is about that.

I know it'll sound cheesy, but I really did believe the whole thing was fanboy bullshit till I read the article.

Ok, here, compromise: I'll give you the basic assumption of the argument and one point in favour of the idea about the little boy. If this makes sense to you perhaps you'll read the article. If it doesn't, ok, fine, goodbye.

Assumption - after two years of dealing with Reapers and Reaper tech (including a reaper artefact installed on the Normandy) Shepard's mental barriers have a very slight crack in them at the start of ME3. I don't think that's a crazy assumption, do you?

Point about the boy - not one other person ever looks at interacts with, or otherwise notices the little boy. When you first meet him Anderson is rather conveniently forced into a different room, and the SECOND he returns, the boy disappears. Then, when running to the shuttle, no-one looks at or even helps him into the shuttle.

That was enough to interest me into reading a bit more. If you don't want to, fine, but I'm not typing out another few paragraphs explaining the endgame and the dreams.

What about the soldier going "all-aboard" fist bump as soon as he climbed in the mako? isn't that an acknowledgement of the boy?

Not really. The boy climbs on moments after the last passenger. Like I said, individually the points could be coincidence, it's only when you see them all stuff starts to make sense. For example, the only thing the boy ever says to Shepard is "Everyone's dying', and 'You can't save me'. The premise is that this is the Reapers trying to break Shepard down. (The codex specifically says those who are indoctrinated see ghostly presences).

Like I said, I'm not here to convert people, I'm here to test the argument. If you want to read on and find flaws in it cool, if you don't, it was nice talking to you.

"individually" What are you talking about? You've only given me two very slim points. Anderson doesn't see the boy/he vanishes and the boy isn't acknowledge by anyone. Could this be that there are HUGE FUCKING SENTIENT beings in the sky tearing shit apart like godzilla through tokyo? Isn't that a more reasonable explanation than "INDOCTRINATION!!!!!!!"

1. Anderson of course couldn't see the boy. The kid is in the god damn vents
2. he vanished through the vents. simple.
3. He is acknowledged at the mako scene. He was the last kid to crawl in. Had the kid been an illusion than the solider wouldn't have delayed so long for the "all aboard" bump.



Where are all these points and arguments. if the basis of this theory is "Well it IS possible" then its a shitty theory.

Well when the boy disappears from inside the vent you can hear a sort of groaning sound. It was said in one of the Mass Effect books that when someone is resisting indoctrination, a groaning sound can be heard. It may just be a coincidence, but it's more logical than the boy just happened to leave at that exact moment.

 

[Paul Harvey]

I've noticed that a lot of people reject this idea, though. Can I ask why? For me, the two endings can be contrasted in terms of plot holes.

Literal ending - how did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel: when you speak to him he says he didn't come in at the same point as you

how did the Illusive man get on the Citadel - he was on it all along (you know, when they moved it from citadel space to Earth)

why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions - so many possible explanations, maybe the energy from the destruction is what sends the beam of destruction/synthesis/whatever to the next relay

how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet - they had just enough thruster power to stop them crashing at full speed? you don't see the Normandy actually crash