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

[SS2Dante]

Because the only people who've ever talked about it are fans who came up with the idea as a desperate attempt to not admit that the ending we got was really all Bioware planned to give us on launch day.

-Hold the line.

As I've said to others, please read the article and then point out the flaws in the idea.

Kirrahe rocks

 

[SS2Dante]

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"

And your sole argument against the theory is pointing out the stupid parts that no one even believes in. You've done a poor job refuting any of the arguments universally accepted by people who believe in the indoctrination theory.

I find it interesting how Bioware felt it was important to show Shepard holding his wound and looking at his bloody hand after Anderson dies, and the wound is for some reason at the exact same place where he shot Anderson. Could be a coincidence, but it could also be Bioware teasing us.

How the SHIT did I miss that? I'll go back and double check. Yeah, no-one else seemed to find it weird that you don't mention to Anderson about shooting him. Not even an I'm sorry. You barely react at all when you do it

You beautiful person. You're totally right. Now not only is Shepards hand NOT covered in blood before that, but he doesn't ever touch Anderson. Furthermore, there's a bullet hole in his armour. right where Anderson was shot.

THIS is what I mean. This fits the theory perfectly. No tailoring needed, it just works. THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN if it's made up.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Snip

Here's a quote of Boag linking me to a topic which contains the link to the proof that Indoctrination was intended but cut from the ending:

Bioware just stated that the sequence where shep was indoctrinated was left out.

this Pretty much proves it was indoctrination

heres the thread

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.354425-Bioware-allows-the-release-of-The-Final-Hours-of-Mass-Effect-3-a-tell-all-app-for-2-99-WTF#14074722

As for Star Gazer, it could be a race in the next Cycle, but still: Shepard fails if he/she picks 2 out of the 3 possible endings. Why would Star Gazer be touting the heroic failure of an ancient being who tried but ultimately never stood a chance against the Reapers? Yeah, it's a fun story to hear about how Shepard stopped Saren and the Collectors, but ultimately those are non-points considering that he/she essentially only won 2 battles but got his/her ass kicked when the real war finally arrived. Not really a legend of a grand savior that people would pass down. Beyond that: I'm pretty certain that the Star Gazer mentions something about peace being achieved thanks to Shepard no matter which ending you pick. I could be wrong on this though, don't remember every line from that scene, but yeah, Star Gazer is the big fat elephant in the room to the Indoctrination theory.

There's one thing you're forgetting. At one point Liara comes to your room and says she's been working on something to leave behind incase you fail and she asks you how you want to be remembered... It could be that the next cycle has discovered this information cache and perhaps even beat the reapers themselves.

"Could be", indeed. Then again, it could be two human descendants talking about how Shepard saved their species. We've once again fallen into the realm of speculation. There's no way to prove that Star Gazer is a surviving human or a surviving member of the next cycle, though the evidence seems to lean towards the former.

The fact of the matter is that the ending is just a huge mess due to what Hudson butchered out of it. There's no way to prove it one way or another and apparently that was the original intention, but there was much more evidence to support the Indoctrination theory which sticks with the theme of the rest of the game (James mentioning a strange humming sound, and of course if you didn't know Shepard was at least partially Indoctrinated after that first dream-sequence then you're just not paying attention to what's been said about Indoctrination in the previous two games, particularly ME 2). However as I mentioned in the topic of mine that I linked a couple posts back, the butchered up ending ruined any chance we had for getting answers, or at least a stable theory with no holes in it. I fully agree that the Indoctrination theory is very sound, ALMOST everything fits, but Star Gazer is a big middle-finger waved in the face of the theory. He's the loose end that just doesn't fit.

I have a theory. There was a bit in ME3 when someone said the Reapers were ignoring the Yharg because they were a primitive species. Why wouldn't it make sense that a primitive species ignored by the reapers found the data cache left behind by Liara? Hell Joker could have analysed primitive species ignored by the reapers and flown off to give them the time capsule.

Personally I believe in the indoctrination theory, it just makes sense!

Also watch this, its easier than reading and adds more data

 

[boag]

Indoctrination ending - so far noone has given one.

I'm going to ask a question here and I do so as someone who has only played the original Mass Effect but knows a fair amount about ME2 from spoilers and some of ME3, but particularly having seen the endings in their entirety and reading quite a few of the theories and discussions on them. Why, if Harbinger is right there and can easily just kill Shepard (and seemingly tries to by blasting him) would he bother trying to indoctrinate him? To what end? To stop him from destroying the Reapers? Because killing him seems easier when he's right there and you just need to shoot him.

You could argue that they may try to use him to disrupt their enemies, but is there anything in the game that indicates they stand a chance without the Crucible or whatever it's called? That's the biggest problem I have with explanations of the indoctrination idea to be honest. Sure, it might make sense to try and indoctrinate Shepard when he's running around the galaxy trying to stop you, but when you're right there and can actually just blow him away, it makes more sense to just blow him away.

But honestly, I fall more in the camp that feels it's fans grasping at straws to find some more satisfying ending than they got, even though the whole thing being an indoctrination dream and not happening is worse on many levels because it had almost no meaning whatsoever, especially since you never find out for sure, and simply leaves everything except the supposed fight for Shepards soul exactly as it was before this scene. People are still dying fighting Reapers and nothing has been resolved. You could do an ending that involved indoctrination far better than this while getting the closure fans wanted. No matter which side you fall on this was still a poorly written pile of crap instead of a conclusion.

the working idea is, that the reapers might actually be scared of losing this war, and will try to use all assets presented to them as a means to win it.

Shepard, the Player Character, has had a humongous knack for not only fucking up 3 reapers, but accomplishing the impossible. By taking that threat and turning it into an asset, it woudl be logical to think the tide might be turned and moral would crumble since so many people either revere or fear shepard.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

Here's a quote of Boag linking me to a topic which contains the link to the proof that Indoctrination was intended but cut from the ending:

Bioware just stated that the sequence where shep was indoctrinated was left out.

this Pretty much proves it was indoctrination

heres the thread

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.354425-Bioware-allows-the-release-of-The-Final-Hours-of-Mass-Effect-3-a-tell-all-app-for-2-99-WTF#14074722

As for Star Gazer, it could be a race in the next Cycle, but still: Shepard fails if he/she picks 2 out of the 3 possible endings. Why would Star Gazer be touting the heroic failure of an ancient being who tried but ultimately never stood a chance against the Reapers? Yeah, it's a fun story to hear about how Shepard stopped Saren and the Collectors, but ultimately those are non-points considering that he/she essentially only won 2 battles but got his/her ass kicked when the real war finally arrived. Not really a legend of a grand savior that people would pass down. Beyond that: I'm pretty certain that the Star Gazer mentions something about peace being achieved thanks to Shepard no matter which ending you pick. I could be wrong on this though, don't remember every line from that scene, but yeah, Star Gazer is the big fat elephant in the room to the Indoctrination theory.

There's one thing you're forgetting. At one point Liara comes to your room and says she's been working on something to leave behind incase you fail and she asks you how you want to be remembered... It could be that the next cycle has discovered this information cache and perhaps even beat the reapers themselves.

"Could be", indeed. Then again, it could be two human descendants talking about how Shepard saved their species. We've once again fallen into the realm of speculation. There's no way to prove that Star Gazer is a surviving human or a surviving member of the next cycle, though the evidence seems to lean towards the former.

The fact of the matter is that the ending is just a huge mess due to what Hudson butchered out of it. There's no way to prove it one way or another and apparently that was the original intention, but there was much more evidence to support the Indoctrination theory which sticks with the theme of the rest of the game (James mentioning a strange humming sound, and of course if you didn't know Shepard was at least partially Indoctrinated after that first dream-sequence then you're just not paying attention to what's been said about Indoctrination in the previous two games, particularly ME 2). However as I mentioned in the topic of mine that I linked a couple posts back, the butchered up ending ruined any chance we had for getting answers, or at least a stable theory with no holes in it. I fully agree that the Indoctrination theory is very sound, ALMOST everything fits, but Star Gazer is a big middle-finger waved in the face of the theory. He's the loose end that just doesn't fit.

I have a theory. There was a bit in ME3 when someone said the Reapers were ignoring the Yharg because they were a primitive species. Why wouldn't it make sense that a primitive species ignored by the reapers found the data cache left behind by Liara? Hell Joker could have analysed primitive species ignored by the reapers and flown off to give them the time capsule.

Personally I believe in the indoctrination theory, it just makes sense!

Which is essentially what milkshake said: "Could be that a race in the next cycle finds information on Shepard and that's why they're talking about him/her." To which I would again point out the keywords could be. There might not be any evidence that specifically says the people talking about Shepard in the Star Gazer scene are humans (though come on people...really? They're supposed to be humans. ) there's also no evidence that says that they're not. Regardless, I'm pretty damn certain that, given their size and stature, they are most certainly NOT descendants of the Yharg.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Snip

Here's a quote of Boag linking me to a topic which contains the link to the proof that Indoctrination was intended but cut from the ending:

Bioware just stated that the sequence where shep was indoctrinated was left out.

this Pretty much proves it was indoctrination

heres the thread

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.354425-Bioware-allows-the-release-of-The-Final-Hours-of-Mass-Effect-3-a-tell-all-app-for-2-99-WTF#14074722

As for Star Gazer, it could be a race in the next Cycle, but still: Shepard fails if he/she picks 2 out of the 3 possible endings. Why would Star Gazer be touting the heroic failure of an ancient being who tried but ultimately never stood a chance against the Reapers? Yeah, it's a fun story to hear about how Shepard stopped Saren and the Collectors, but ultimately those are non-points considering that he/she essentially only won 2 battles but got his/her ass kicked when the real war finally arrived. Not really a legend of a grand savior that people would pass down. Beyond that: I'm pretty certain that the Star Gazer mentions something about peace being achieved thanks to Shepard no matter which ending you pick. I could be wrong on this though, don't remember every line from that scene, but yeah, Star Gazer is the big fat elephant in the room to the Indoctrination theory.

There's one thing you're forgetting. At one point Liara comes to your room and says she's been working on something to leave behind incase you fail and she asks you how you want to be remembered... It could be that the next cycle has discovered this information cache and perhaps even beat the reapers themselves.

"Could be", indeed. Then again, it could be two human descendants talking about how Shepard saved their species. We've once again fallen into the realm of speculation. There's no way to prove that Star Gazer is a surviving human or a surviving member of the next cycle, though the evidence seems to lean towards the former.

The fact of the matter is that the ending is just a huge mess due to what Hudson butchered out of it. There's no way to prove it one way or another and apparently that was the original intention, but there was much more evidence to support the Indoctrination theory which sticks with the theme of the rest of the game (James mentioning a strange humming sound, and of course if you didn't know Shepard was at least partially Indoctrinated after that first dream-sequence then you're just not paying attention to what's been said about Indoctrination in the previous two games, particularly ME 2). However as I mentioned in the topic of mine that I linked a couple posts back, the butchered up ending ruined any chance we had for getting answers, or at least a stable theory with no holes in it. I fully agree that the Indoctrination theory is very sound, ALMOST everything fits, but Star Gazer is a big middle-finger waved in the face of the theory. He's the loose end that just doesn't fit.

I have a theory. There was a bit in ME3 when someone said the Reapers were ignoring the Yharg because they were a primitive species. Why wouldn't it make sense that a primitive species ignored by the reapers found the data cache left behind by Liara? Hell Joker could have analysed primitive species ignored by the reapers and flown off to give them the time capsule.

Personally I believe in the indoctrination theory, it just makes sense!

Which is essentially what milkshake said: "Could be that a race in the next cycle finds information on Shepard and that's why they're talking about him/her." To which I would again point out the keywords could be. There might not be any evidence that specifically says the people talking about Shepard in the Star Gazer scene are humans (though come on people...really? They're supposed to be humans. ) there's also no evidence that says that they're not. Regardless, I'm pretty damn certain that, given their size and stature, they are most certainly NOT descendants of the Yharg.

Maybe the Yharg got themselves some genetic engineering ability and a personality check? Have some faith in them man! After all the next shadowbroker escaped from the Salarian homeworld

 

[SS2Dante]

Snip

Here's a quote of Boag linking me to a topic which contains the link to the proof that Indoctrination was intended but cut from the ending:

Bioware just stated that the sequence where shep was indoctrinated was left out.

this Pretty much proves it was indoctrination

heres the thread

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.354425-Bioware-allows-the-release-of-The-Final-Hours-of-Mass-Effect-3-a-tell-all-app-for-2-99-WTF#14074722

As for Star Gazer, it could be a race in the next Cycle, but still: Shepard fails if he/she picks 2 out of the 3 possible endings. Why would Star Gazer be touting the heroic failure of an ancient being who tried but ultimately never stood a chance against the Reapers? Yeah, it's a fun story to hear about how Shepard stopped Saren and the Collectors, but ultimately those are non-points considering that he/she essentially only won 2 battles but got his/her ass kicked when the real war finally arrived. Not really a legend of a grand savior that people would pass down. Beyond that: I'm pretty certain that the Star Gazer mentions something about peace being achieved thanks to Shepard no matter which ending you pick. I could be wrong on this though, don't remember every line from that scene, but yeah, Star Gazer is the big fat elephant in the room to the Indoctrination theory.

There's one thing you're forgetting. At one point Liara comes to your room and says she's been working on something to leave behind incase you fail and she asks you how you want to be remembered... It could be that the next cycle has discovered this information cache and perhaps even beat the reapers themselves.

"Could be", indeed. Then again, it could be two human descendants talking about how Shepard saved their species. We've once again fallen into the realm of speculation. There's no way to prove that Star Gazer is a surviving human or a surviving member of the next cycle, though the evidence seems to lean towards the former.

The fact of the matter is that the ending is just a huge mess due to what Hudson butchered out of it. There's no way to prove it one way or another and apparently that was the original intention, but there was much more evidence to support the Indoctrination theory which sticks with the theme of the rest of the game (James mentioning a strange humming sound, and of course if you didn't know Shepard was at least partially Indoctrinated after that first dream-sequence then you're just not paying attention to what's been said about Indoctrination in the previous two games, particularly ME 2). However as I mentioned in the topic of mine that I linked a couple posts back, the butchered up ending ruined any chance we had for getting answers, or at least a stable theory with no holes in it. I fully agree that the Indoctrination theory is very sound, ALMOST everything fits, but Star Gazer is a big middle-finger waved in the face of the theory. He's the loose end that just doesn't fit.

I have a theory. There was a bit in ME3 when someone said the Reapers were ignoring the Yharg because they were a primitive species. Why wouldn't it make sense that a primitive species ignored by the reapers found the data cache left behind by Liara? Hell Joker could have analysed primitive species ignored by the reapers and flown off to give them the time capsule.

Personally I believe in the indoctrination theory, it just makes sense!

Which is essentially what milkshake said: "Could be that a race in the next cycle finds information on Shepard and that's why they're talking about him/her." To which I would again point out the keywords could be. There might not be any evidence that specifically says the people talking about Shepard in the Star Gazer scene are humans (though come on people...really? They're supposed to be humans. ) there's also no evidence that says that they're not. Regardless, I'm pretty damn certain that, given their size and stature, they are most certainly NOT descendants of the Yharg.

Quite possibly. However, the Protheans managed to have a survivor with almost no notice. Humanity as been aware of the Reaper presence for years. It's not difficult to imagine a hidden colony somewhere.

 

[Murmillos]

The boy is real. When you first make your escape and Anderson tells you to shoot the husks climbing up the wall, if you look to the right to the building area where the reaper will eventually blow up (setting up for the location where you have to melee a few husks), if you don't shoot the husks and pay attention to that balcony, you see the child running into the building (before you drop down to that balcony to the reaper blowing the building part up).

Its easily missed because most of your focus is on the husks, and not the balcony below.

Yes I've seen that. Two problems: the door is locked, and also, the building is hit with a bigass explosion. Not buying the kid survives cos he's in the vents, no way. I could concede tat perhaps he was real at first, but after that, no way.

Also, here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w8vra2WF2oY#t=401s

How does the kid appear there? He magically appears on a balcony with no ladder or ramp or anything.

Well, he does kind of show up out of no where, but you could just also say that he was hiding very well in a way that the game engine wasn't showing, or the script hadn't started yet. Not 100% conclusive.

Also, while the door is locked, it does open automatically before he gets there. Meaning the door could automatically open for him, other people need a pass. Again, not 100% conclusive.

Also, depending on how you play the game.. it could be 10 to 30 seconds before you reach the door to where it gets blown open for the player. The video, it was over 45 seconds (but he was showing stuff off) More then enough time for the kid to get in the shaft and hide well enough to avoid the blast. Again, not 100% conclusive.

Captcha: heated debate

 

[mdqp]

It wasn't that "there must be meaning to this!" it was that the ending had too many plot holes to be likely in literal form. As I've said, a crappy ending that made sense would be fine.

You are rejecting the possibility of it being just bad writing, which is the easier one, and thus the more likely (path of least resistance, Occam's razor, etc...).

The prothean VI senses only those who are properly indoctrinated. If it could sense anyone with any level to exposure to indoctrination ALL of Shepards crew would be counted, as they've all been around Reaper tech enough to been hit with the indoctrination waves.

You are making an assumption, based on no facts at all, as far as I know (and even if we think that they have been indoctrinated in the past, in time it might simply wear off, you don't know what the VI possibly checks to control indoctrination, its level of accuracy, etc...).

Ok, you're saying that it's TOO obvious that it's indoctrination?
The point of that last scene is that it is SHEPARD constructing it, not the reapers. The reapers are influencing Shepards subconscious and we see it manifested as the starchild and choices. The fight ending is ALWAYS there (apart from one case I'll explain in a sec) because you always have a choice. Indoctrination isn't mind control, it's mind influencing.

The point is, that the scene is stupid, it can't be a plot from the evil mastermind that harvest the organics (a faulty AI is actually a possibility, albeit a cheap twist of the story). Your idea assumes that the choice you make is about becoming a slave of the Reapers or not, rather than choosing the fate of the galaxy, I assume (but then it's stupid desing to tie it to the EMS, in my opinion).

The one case you don't get to fight is if you have an extremely low EMS and you kept the Collector base. In this case you can only do control. You don't get synthesis because the Reapers aren't actively trying to indoctrinate you because your army is defeated, and you don't get fight because your Shepard already began to fall at the end of 2, and without an effective army you see no other choice but to try and control them (aka give in).

Again, a lot of assumptions, that you believe in because you think that it has to make sense. You are trying to read the symbolic meanings behind it, but then you are forced to admit that there isn't any material evidence in-game of this, and each one of us could give it a different interpretation. You are rationalizing, not looking at the game objectively.

 

[mdqp]

We're not saying it's the Reaper IFF that does it, its the fact that Shepard has been exposed to lots of Reapers artefacts. Also, in ME1 Saren is convinced he's not indoctrinated. He doesn't say anything about voices or anything, he's convinced he's helping them of his own free will. The only people that are aware of indoctrination are those who are too far gone, or being indoctrinated fast.

It doesn't matter. Saren, matriarch Benezia and the rest (even the scientists studing the Reaper in ME2) took a long time before being affected. If you don't say that it was the Reaper IFF, then I doubt you can even begin to explain it. If you think that the Reapers could do it from a distance, then they would use such a method to conquer the organics without problems.

 

[mdqp]

It's a fighter.

You are right, my bad.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

Pretty sure I heard him mumbling something about T'soni...

Snap

Soooo you're agreeing that the people in the Star Gazer scene are supposed to be humans? Then thank you.

 

[SS2Dante]

The boy is real. When you first make your escape and Anderson tells you to shoot the husks climbing up the wall, if you look to the right to the building area where the reaper will eventually blow up (setting up for the location where you have to melee a few husks), if you don't shoot the husks and pay attention to that balcony, you see the child running into the building (before you drop down to that balcony to the reaper blowing the building part up).

Its easily missed because most of your focus is on the husks, and not the balcony below.

Yes I've seen that. Two problems: the door is locked, and also, the building is hit with a bigass explosion. Not buying the kid survives cos he's in the vents, no way. I could concede tat perhaps he was real at first, but after that, no way.

Also, here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w8vra2WF2oY#t=401s

How does the kid appear there? He magically appears on a balcony with no ladder or ramp or anything.

Well, he does kind of show up out of no where, but you could just also say that he was hiding very well in a way that the game engine wasn't showing, or the script hadn't started yet. Not 100% conclusive.

Also, while the door is locked, it does open automatically before he gets there. Meaning the door could automatically open for him, other people need a pass. Again, not 100% conclusive.

Also, depending on how you play the game.. it could be 10 to 30 seconds before you reach the door to where it gets blown open for the player. The video, it was over 45 seconds (but he was showing stuff off) More then enough time for the kid to get in the shaft and hide well enough to avoid the blast. Again, not 100% conclusive.

Captcha: heated debate

I'll agree that anything about the boy isn't conclusive.

Delighted by 2 new things I just realised/was shown, maybe you'd like to check em out - the fact that ANDERSONS bullet wound on the citadel appears on you right after he dies (aka you shot yourself) and also I just realised I've been describing the choices as Blue Green Red but ACTUALLY the colours in the choice are blue BLUE red. Everything just keeps adding to this idea.

(really? awesome captcha )

 

[SS2Dante]

Snip

Pretty sure I heard him mumbling something about T'soni...

Snap

Soooo you're agreeing that the people in the Star Gazer scene are supposed to be humans? Then thank you.

*Shrug* I'm saying they have a humanish outline. Quite possible they are humans.

(Also, check the post above for the extra stuff I just was made aware of I had no idea about it, and it MAKES PERFECT SENSE. Love this idea )

 

[nomzy]

It's a really cool theory but I don't think Bioware are ballsy enough to do it.
But there was a post somewhere that said it was actually one of the original plans to have Shephard get indoctrinated for the last part (which I guess makes sense as to why everything seems like line up so well for this theory) but it got scrapped (supposedly).
Also here's another analysis:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/why-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3-was-satifying-and-worthy-of-the-series-mass
Food for thought. Or just flame bait w/e.

 

[SS2Dante]

We're not saying it's the Reaper IFF that does it, its the fact that Shepard has been exposed to lots of Reapers artefacts. Also, in ME1 Saren is convinced he's not indoctrinated. He doesn't say anything about voices or anything, he's convinced he's helping them of his own free will. The only people that are aware of indoctrination are those who are too far gone, or being indoctrinated fast.

It doesn't matter. Saren, matriarch Benezia and the rest (even the scientists studing the Reaper in ME2) took a long time before being affected. If you don't say that it was the Reaper IFF, then I doubt you can even begin to explain it. If you think that the Reapers could do it from a distance, then they would use such a method to conquer the organics without problems.

What do you mean? Besides the Collector Base, the numerous Reapers Shepards fought, the artefact in Arrival, and the other indoctrinated people? (indoctrinated people can indoctrinate others). 3 years of that. And I'm not saying Shepard is under the thrall, I'm saying a slight crack has appeared, and this is how they TRY to indoctrinate you.

Also, in the last scene, Harbinger is standing right beside you.

 

[SS2Dante]

It wasn't that "there must be meaning to this!" it was that the ending had too many plot holes to be likely in literal form. As I've said, a crappy ending that made sense would be fine.

You are rejecting the possibility of it being just bad writing, which is the easier one, and thus the more likely (path of least resistance, Occam's razor, etc...).

The prothean VI senses only those who are properly indoctrinated. If it could sense anyone with any level to exposure to indoctrination ALL of Shepards crew would be counted, as they've all been around Reaper tech enough to been hit with the indoctrination waves.

You are making an assumption, based on no facts at all, as far as I know (and even if we think that they have been indoctrinated in the past, in time it might simply wear off, you don't know what the VI possibly checks to control indoctrination, its level of accuracy, etc...).

Ok, you're saying that it's TOO obvious that it's indoctrination?
The point of that last scene is that it is SHEPARD constructing it, not the reapers. The reapers are influencing Shepards subconscious and we see it manifested as the starchild and choices. The fight ending is ALWAYS there (apart from one case I'll explain in a sec) because you always have a choice. Indoctrination isn't mind control, it's mind influencing.

The point is, that the scene is stupid, it can't be a plot from the evil mastermind that harvest the organics (a faulty AI is actually a possibility, albeit a cheap twist of the story). Your idea assumes that the choice you make is about becoming a slave of the Reapers or not, rather than choosing the fate of the galaxy, I assume (but then it's stupid desing to tie it to the EMS, in my opinion).

The one case you don't get to fight is if you have an extremely low EMS and you kept the Collector base. In this case you can only do control. You don't get synthesis because the Reapers aren't actively trying to indoctrinate you because your army is defeated, and you don't get fight because your Shepard already began to fall at the end of 2, and without an effective army you see no other choice but to try and control them (aka give in).

Again, a lot of assumptions, that you believe in because you think that it has to make sense. You are trying to read the symbolic meanings behind it, but then you are forced to admit that there isn't any material evidence in-game of this, and each one of us could give it a different interpretation. You are rationalizing, not looking at the game objectively.

I'm not rejecting the possibility of bad writing, however I think this less likely than the other explanation. What you are asking me to believe is that a team who are famous for writing and in game continuity KEPT UP THIS SKILL for about 99% of the game then suddenly went batshit crazy during the most important part of the story. If the entire game was badly written I'd agree, but it's not. Just this scene, explained by indoctrination.

I'm making an assumption based on evidence. Vigil was able to sense Sarens indoctrination. The Prothean VI was able to sense Kai Lengs indoctrination. The only two cases we have to examine were both indoctrinated to a pretty high level. Also, I make no claims about how it actually works. My point is you said that this contradicts the idea Shepard was cracking. It does not, neither of us have enough info to make our claims.

How is the scene stupid? And the point about EMS is that if you have a low score (weak army) the reapers don't NEED to indoctrinate you. They know you'll die anyway. That's why it's all partitioned the way it is. If you read it literally the partitioning of choices to ems score and Collector base decisions makes no sense at all.

I agree that if you take it one at a time it's a stretch, but if you look at all the unexplained stuff in the game you realise this solves ALL of it. Every single weird part of the game is explained if you go by the indoctrination theory as an assumption. Not one single plot hole or contradiction. That's too much of a coincidence. You want to talk about Occams razor? Explain to me why the theory explains things that happen both right at the beginning of the game, the end of the game, and in all the dream sequences and various other parts. All neatly and elegantly. Then explain to me the extra red scene.

 

[Asita]

NOTE - sorry if I've already replied to this. Kinda getting lost in the number of people here

The indoctrination DOES change. It is always Shepards subconscious interpretation of the indoctrination process, which is always the same, so why should the area and stuff change?

Because if we are to assume that a) this is a rebellion against the indoctrination process and b) the effort being spent on the process in the low war assets and high war assets scenarios are different then that must be reflected in those variants for the interpretation to hold up. This is especially true given that IT makes hte entire scene a head-trip, ergo there is no obligation to maintain a consistent backdrop for this scene. Really, in the off-chance that Bioware actually did intend the last scenes to be a Dallas ending like Indoctrination Theory claims the failure to reflect that greater influence in the scene itself actually becomes a greater faux pas than the literal ending.

What DOES change is the options you are given - this is completely in line with what we'd expect. If the reapers are pushing hard, or your Shepard is mentally weakened, we get the other options, if they are not we don't. They only push hard if you are an actual threat to them. Remember in my view this entire thing takes a few real life seconds. If your EMS his high then Hammer is still attacking and the Reaper can't focus just on you. if not, it can.

Doesn't work, and you're exhibiting a bit of double think to maintain this view. On the one hand you're saying that the Reapers are trying harder, and at the same time you're suggesting that they can't afford that distraction. I want you to step aside a moment and think of how many layers of justification you're using (Read: How many times you've had to find additional justifications to justify your justifications) for the sake of insisting that the ending we were given didn't really happen. You actually take it a step further than that though, by later insisting that Anderson is the embodiment of your will...which is an inconsistent premise as that logically requires that his death should railroad you towards more reaper-friendly options as you thereafter lack the will to resist, and being shot by the indoctrinated under those premises has pretty obvious implications. More depressing still is the fact that you're doing so to justify an interpretation that in addition to adding pointless layers of complexity simply for the sake of adding complexity, does an even worse job of offering closure and catharsis than the ending you're insisting isn't real, as it insists that the game ends mere moments after Harbinger's attack. Read: You're arguing that the story ends in the middle of the climax. That's less excusible than what we were given.

As I said, the scene itself shouldn't change. It's all Shepard creating it, not the Reapers. That's why the first corridor resembles the Collector base (Anderson actually TELLS Shepard this), and the confrontation with the Illusive man resembles Saren. Shepard is creating it from memories. Once Anderson dies (your strength) you lose more control and simply see the default 'indoctrination' room. The strength of the indoctrination and your Shepards mental state controls the available options.

Alternatively, that's an invocation of a fairly common (and often very powerful) literary device which calls back to prior events in the storyline. There's no evidence that Shepherd is creating this from memories, and if that was the intent then the execution was spectacularly mishandled.

Actually you're right about how I phrased that last time, sorry, I was up late and had been typing for ages, didn't mean to go all preacher-ey. I'll state right now what I need to disprove this - a plot hole. Something that simply goes against the logic of this theory. As I've said, conspiracy theories aren't hard to debunk, and in 30 something hours of gameplay I fully expected a contradiction to exist. So far no-one has given me one.

...You never did see the 'Dumbledore's not dead' arguments, did you? Because technically noe of those were truly disprovable by fans. Here's how arguments like that work: By focusing on minute details with a great deal of subjective interpretation on top of it, any given point becomes less about data and more about the audience's emotional investment. Essentially, it becomes nigh-impossible to directly question the points as the points made do not exist in the media itself but rather the viewer's perspective of that media.

Let me put it this way: One of the arguments in the "Dumbledore's not dead" fiasco was that everyone stopped tearing up when they heard Fawkes (the phoenix)'s cry, a song in the background. To the arguers, this meant Fawkes was hinting that Dumbledore had faked his death, for which they further cited as evidence the fact that Dumbledore had suggested faking Malfoy's death (and noting how convincing they could make such a trick) within that same book. Tell me, how could one directly point out a flaw in that argument? The answer is, of course, that you can't. The point is pure nonsense, but it can't be directly assaulted as it rests entirely on interpretation of events rather than the events themselves. The best one can do is argue that other options are more likely, but that still fails to definitively say 'that view is wrong'. In the end what it comes down to is not direct disproval, but an application of Occam's Razor: With all else being equal in competing hypothesises, the explanation that requires the least assumptions is to be preferred.

Your railroading of the choice is NOT such a pot hole, because it's exactly what you'd expect. if it was some other choice it might have been a killer, but the fact that it only happens with low EMS and the Collector base is far to big a coincidence. My assumptions ere are as follows:

Choices in this game carry through (duh)
The choices given are based on Shepards mental strength.

It's about options: you essentially get the same choice at the end of 2 - if you choose to keep the collector base you are already letting yourself slip. At the end of this game, ONLY if you have low EMS do you get this. Your Shepard sees no other options. If you have a bigger army you see the other option, fight. If you chose to destroy the Collector base in 2 your mental strength it still high, so you don't see it. This fits the indoctrination theory.

No it doesn't fit. Here's the thing: Whether or not Shepherd had succumbed to indoctrination or not, the key criteria in indoctrination theory is that indoctrination had been a constant presence throughout the game, which it uses to explain the kid and the dreams (instead of, you know, survivor's guilt). With that in mind it makes no sense for the apparent indoctrination-friendly option to be completely nonexistent under any scenario. What it comes off as is a streamlining of the endings based on what past actions of Shepherd imply about his character and how he'd react under stress.

It also raises a question: how do these partitions work in the literal theory? Why the subdivisions of choices? Take this low EMS score thing. Why the division between fight and control? The starkid can do both. Indeed, your EMS should be utterly irrelevant to the endings. But it's not. Someone took the time to code up all these different possibilities. Why?

Again: My view is that sometimes a horrible ending is just a horrible ending. I think it was rushed, likely changed very late in the production period and suffered from horrible execution. I'm under no obligation to make excuses for it anymore than I am obligated to defend The Last Airbender despite my enjoyment of the show that spawned it. The thing you seem to be missing here is that I'm not defending the existing ending (honestly, I thought I'd made it clear that I viewed it as sloppy at best), but as I see it, the indoctrination theory lacks support and in the long run is an interpretation that makes the conclusion even worse.

And indoctrination in general is not well established. I'm discussing this matter with another poster, who says in the novels people always know they're being indoctrinated, as they get trapped in their own mind. This contradicts ME1, but it shows that indoctrination as a concept is quite loose-weave and variable.

I feel like you were responding to someone else with this. Care to clarify what about my post made you consider using that line?

 

[mdqp]

I'm not rejecting the possibility of bad writing, however I think this less likely than the other explanation. What you are asking me to believe is that a team who are famous for writing and in game continuity KEPT UP THIS SKILL for about 99% of the game then suddenly went batshit crazy during the most important part of the story. If the entire game was badly written I'd agree, but it's not. Just this scene, explained by indoctrination.

I guess that my vision of the this event is too influenced by the fact that I didn't like the plot and storytelling of ME2 and ME3, then. I thought that ME2 was pretty bad too, and was only saved by some amazing character development. To me ME3 was like ME2, without the same good characters' sub-plots. Probably I am a still a little to bitter about them, though I seriously think that they didn't do a really great job, I am the minority, almost the only one, to think so.

I'm making an assumption based on evidence. Vigil was able to sense Sarens indoctrination. The Prothean VI was able to sense Kai Lengs indoctrination. The only two cases we have to examine were both indoctrinated to a pretty high level. Also, I make no claims about how it actually works. My point is you said that this contradicts the idea Shepard was cracking. It does not, neither of us have enough info to make our claims.

Your evidence says that they are capable of sensing indoctrination. You are assuming that it can only work for deep indoctrination. You are telling me that since I can't demonstrate that God doesn't exist, I have to give the point that it might. Your system has to be tailor-suited to your idea for it to work, I think I have a more solid ground than you on this.

What do you mean? Besides the Collector Base, the numerous Reapers Shepards fought, the artefact in Arrival, and the other indoctrinated people? (indoctrinated people can indoctrinate others). 3 years of that. And I'm not saying Shepard is under the thrall, I'm saying a slight crack has appeared, and this is how they TRY to indoctrinate you.

Also, in the last scene, Harbinger is standing right beside you.

Never saw Arrival (is it a DLC? Anyway, I will assume that my Shepard didn't do it, if I can't remember it), encounters that didn't last days, but only hours, top. Are you saying that the indoctrination was somehow generally "programmed" to exploit any weakness Shepard might have, and that it was somehow triggered by the children? Because if you are telling me that the Reapers planned to give Shepard dreams and visions of that child, I'll have to say that it sounds even more far-fetched. So, Harbinger can control from that distance? I must admit I never read the novels, and I heard someone quoting one of them once, so you might know about this more than me. I don't know exactly how indoctrination works, so I can't say.

In the end, I guess that it just sounds to me too far-fetched, the theme is played too subtly, if that is what's going on. I lost a lot of trust in Bioware thanks to ME2 and DA2, so maybe I have become paranoid! ;p