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

[Asita]

Not sure of this has been mentioned yet but...

Isn't the kid at the start of the game playing with a model of the Normandy?

Wasn't the Normandy still classified?

Yep, not to mention it's a stealth ship so.. that part didn't make sense plus why does the Normandy have it's name on the side in huge bold font?? It's a stealth ship for dangerous missions so why display the name of the Normandy? XD

Eh, it's specs were classified, its existence was not. The interview in ME1 asked about it, remember? It was kinda a big deal because it was a joint project between the Turian and human governement? Besides, you could buy Normandy models in Mass Effect 2.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I'm trying not to think about all of the endings really. The first makes no bloody sense, comes right out of nowhere, and the whole indoctrination theory is just people desperatly trying to come up with an explination for the hastily put together mess so that they can have some form of closure, which depresses me, that's how bad the endings are, people are doing everything that they can to get something better, even if that something is "it was all just a dream".

The indoctrination theory isn't really a case of "it was all just a dream" but rather, "the rubbish ending was just a dream." That's the sort of "dream" ending that I can support!

I'm not sure now, after reading all these theories. I'm still holding out hope that all along Bioware has just been trolling us with a fake ending and will release the true ending as DLC. But my hope and faith in Bioware is dwindling. For now, I'll cling to the indoctrination theory like the obsessed Mass Effect fanboy that I am.

 

[mdqp]

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.

The scene is stupid even if you say so, because if they aren't interested in controlling you, than the option that shouldn't be available is actually the control one (that should be the indoctrination one). It also doesn't make sense to have the middle-ground option, if that's the reasoning (what do the Reapers gain from it? You also state that it's all playing in Shepard's head, so why more than 2? Either agains the Reapers or with the reapers, the third option is weird, and I think it's actually harder to get than the option to destroy them, which makes even less sense). Also, since we seem to agree that this only happens in Shepard's mind in your theory, you should ALWAYS get the same options, Shepard thinks he/she is trying to stop the Reapers, why should it matter? If the Reaper can influence the possible choices, they would always leave you with the control one.

The fact that this solves everything, doesn't mean that is right. I can explain everything with "it was all a dream since ME1". Every incongruency? A dream! Of course, this isn't the answer, but I am sure that if I try hard enough, I can put together enough coincidences to prove any theory I can come up with. "The story is bad" is a lot easier than "the story is full of almost invisible hints, is complex as hell and employs even more Deus-ex Machinae than the other theory".

 

[xorinite]

Snip, you know you should learn to snip too..

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.

Seriously flawed logic there, same as arguing that the earth can't be more than ten years old or the solar system would be packed to pluto by rats based on how often they reproduce. It assumes zero attrition.
If they really only gain new reaper per species they conquer with a high probability of failure they should be extinct by now. I mean we have evidence that reapers have died in the past and present so your assumption of zero attrition is simply incorrect.

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.

Well, firstly I don't see how this demonstrates degeneration of the story hasn't occured and secondly its based on a demonstrably incorrect premise.

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.

I'm willing to say its definitively stupid. Quotes from developers indicate it was supposed to go on a long explanation about the reapers, but that was cut in favor of giving you your ending options instead.

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.

I would argue that an overall increase in small inconsistencies and plot hole frequencies are a strong indicator of an overall degeneration in story telling.

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.

That fits easily into my model. Its not that you have bad writers its that you have most of the writers replaced. Sure Tolkien could probably write an epic Shepherd, Garrus bonding scene, but he wouldn't be able to continue the original plot narrative since he wouldn't necessarily know what it was.

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.

I'd say incomplete ending, and what is there isn't good enough on its own. I don't think you will get much argument from people who think as I do that the ending is sufficient in any case, with indoctrination or without.

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.

Which is where we ultimately differ. You believe that incompetence cannot be this grand. I say oh, it can it absolutely can. People really can be this incompetent.

Edit: Actually with a little more thought, we don't even really differ on this. I mean even the indoctrination theory rests on the assumption that the story telling in ME3 was so incompetent that we have to assume its indoctrination because they couldn't communicate it effectively.

Without enough time to finish the ending scenes the way they wanted it, they had to piece together whatever they had for shipping time. However.. they didn't have anything like enough. I'm guessing they simply didn't manage their time properly.. but fans wanted it so they cut off a section from the beginning of the cut scene after shepherds hit by the reaper cannon and about to get up.. the original cutscene made was shepherd getting out of rubble, finding his two squadmates dead.. then what you see currently.

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 )

Only if you believe the star kid. He may be real, but he may be lying or.. Oh I don't know simply wrong.

Edit: Also.. since when has being renegade been evil? I punched admiral gerral in the gut, that was a renegade option. why did I do it, he almost got us killed, and nearly screwed the agreed upon mission up.
Why this is renegade if renegade is evil, I mean punching Zaeed when he did the same thing in his loyalty mission was a paragon interrupt. No apparently agreeing with mission threatening attacks on the geth by a 'bosh-tet' is paragon, while opposing it is renegade.. hmm, seems like another inconsistency to me.
In 1 and 2 renegade options weren't presented as good or evil, merely dirty harry over captain picard, and if you aren't familar. Dirty harry was one of the good guys.

You know, someone else here has said it, a theory is only considered strong if it is falsifiable. It seems with this indoctrination hypothesis its set up to be unfalsifiable. I know what I would expect to see if the writing was on course and on par. The same writers (turns out only two of the original writing cast remains) consistent lore with weapons, races and technology, consistently good casting choices etc, yet none of the criteria required to falsify my postion are presented.

is this indoctrination hypothesis even falsifiable?

 

[SS2Dante]

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?

a)You misunderstand the reading of the indoctrination process. I'll say again - the Reapers are NOT creating this reality. SHEPARD is. It's not a rebellion, it's the mind showing us the indoctrination process in visual terms. Therefore no matter the intensity of the indoctrination we always see it the same, because the indoctrination process is always the same. It would make no sense if it changed. What changes are the choices (how Shepard reacts to the process).
b) This problem you have comes from the mistaken interpretation. As I said, the choices are based on how weak Shepard is, based on your collectors base choice, and how much of a threat he is, based on your EMS. Do you think this is a large leap? Considering it explains every single possible combination of EMS and choices?

Double think? The positions are as follows - low EMS, the Reapers do not try hard. Hence you only get the fight or control. High EMS, they are trying hard, because they are unable to physically kill you and fear your army. Reapers do not need to 'target' someone for indoctrination, since they do it through sound waves and such. They cannot be distracted in the way you believe I am implying. You are misunderstanding my position. When I say they can't focus on you I mean they can't physically attack just you. They're busy with mako's and stuff

Ok, Andersons and the Illusive Man. Did you really not see the symbolism in that scene?(there's actual material evidence for this one, give me a moment). Two characters that logically should not be there together at that time, one standing for corruption, the other the heroic father figure? Listen to what you've said:

"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."

This is exactly what happens, and what I've said happens. You defeat the indoctrinated part of you, but the effort destroys the last of your will (THIS is the material evidence. Watch the scene again. Shepard shoots Anderson in the lower left stomach. After Anderson dies, your Shepard puts his hand onto his stomach in the same position, and pulls it away. His hands are now COVERED in blood. The blood was not there before, nor was your Shepard wounded in that region.).

Anderson dies and you are instantly railroaded into the final scene, which as I've explained is the choice to give into the Reapers, but this time far more appealing. This has been my position from the very start, I'm not twisting it at all. Go back and check.

Actually, arguments like "Dumbledores not dead" are what made me believe this. They're always flimsy and easily destroyed. In Dumbledores case, people were ignoring the fact that Avada Kedavra is always lethal. Always. We see it happen. Snape says the words out loud. See? Easy to take down. Furthermore, this theory is a bad parallel, because I'm trying to explain existing plotholes. Dumbledores death had no reason to be interpreted, as it was perfectly sensible in the narrative. The endings of ME3 are not. Not even close. Basically I'm not trying to add stuff here, I'm trying to take away all the fake bits.

You say it doesn't make sense for the red blue endings to be missing in any scenario? Like I said before, you are overestimating how much indoctrination has actually happened. They are TRYING to get Shepard, beginning with the child, but hallucinations and agreement with their goals are a hell of a distance from each other. You are ignoring the idea that the Reapers are not actively putting the pressure on Shepard at this level of EMS. You are removing the argument from context.

Hey, I love TLA too. Can't wait for Legend of Korra.

Ok, I appreciate that you think the ending was bad, but what you're ignoring is that the partitions exist. Do you believe the designers were so rushed that they rolled a dice to determine them? A team of programmers probably spent a few weeks on this sequence. They could have shortened the time considerably by simply leaving all three options in, no matter your EMS. This is logically better, if they didn't care or have a reason to make the partitions anything special. But it IS partitioned. Someone did take the time to carefully decide the cutoff points and variables that decide your ending. Lazy design DOES NOT explain this.

Em, honestly yes that last bit may have been directed at someone else. You may not have noticed but the thread got rather busy Was trying to respond to everyone. Apologies!

 

[Savagezion]

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.

Again, this doesn't improve the ending. The game has no ending. You still have plot holes in there and lack of closure with final events. The game ends without an ending. Below is a pretty good video about what is still wrong with the "ending". Indoctrination theory only solves #8 and a small, tiny, faction of #9. #10 has some parts invalidated by it but bucks up against it in other parts.


#1-7 are still entirely valid. I think a company "clever" enough to do as you suggested could avoid these problems. Like having your crew not mysteriously abandon your ass, the hero, just to doom your "breathing" butt on the planet that was just obliterated with no hope of survival. I also like that he points out that "twist" endings have become the new trend since Shamalyan showed up with The 6th Sense. I just like that point. A lot of people keep claiming everyone is crying because we didn't get our cliche "Star Wars medal scene" because a vague nod in the general direction of "The Next Day" is so much more mature and totally not a modern cliche. I am not saying those are your words, by the way. That is just the general message being floated out there.

If they can write something that is so intentionally clever, I think they could do better on the "sweet" part of the "bittersweet" to at least offer some consistency and it would be nice if we got more than some random dude talking to his random grandson. I guess our relationships with our crew just isn't important according to Bioware. I guess closure isn't important to such clever writing, character resolution is for babies, and consistency doesn't matter to the "sweet" part of an ending.

There are still problems with the ending. Indoctrination Theory supports the bitter part of the ending to make it consistent with lore, yes. But as for the "sweet" part it still has every hole accounted for. That stuff makes up 70-80% of the complaints. I personally, don't care if indoctrination theory is correct or not because that only solves a small part of what is wrong with the ending.

 

[lampuiho]

May I ask then why you think you get an extra scene if you choose the red ending?

This is pretty simple. In the green and blue endings, you see Shepard "disintegrate" on screen, so there's no way he/she possibly could have survived. In the red ending, there's a small chance that Shepard may have survived (assuming the extra scene takes place on the Citadel and not back on Earth), so the extra scene seems more plausible.

Look carefully at the ARMOR please

Besides, the indoctrination thing, while slightly better, would still leave the endings awfully inconclusive and unsatisfying. If Shepard was tripping on Reaper brain juice the whole time, then what the fuck really happened?

Battle is not won by one man. Apparently, when Shepard fainted, the other people were still fighting. The fleets from all sources were still firing on the reapers. You get to see Shepard alive if you have enough war assets because the battle would end quickly enough.

 

[SS2Dante]

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

I can see your reasoning (athiest ) but it is not me using this to support anything, it is you who are using it. You have said that this VI would sense Shepards indoctrination. I am saying we have nowhere near the evidence for that, therefore it is not solid grounds for dismissal or confirmation of this theory.

Fair enough, individual taste

Arrival was the dlc prologue to 3. (in arrival by the way, the main plot point is that destroying a Mass Relay causes an explosion so big that the entire system containing it is destroyed. Why did this not happen in 3?).

As for indoctrination targeting Shepard in this was (we are on the same page here, right? Indcotrination theory states the child never existed, but has always been the Reapers trying to get you to lose hope), let me show you an entry from the codex definition of indoctrination

"Reaper 'indoctrination' is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, ?reprogramming? the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper?s resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of 'being watched' and hallucinations of 'ghostly' presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim?s body to amplify its signals, manifesting as 'alien' voices in the mind."

Ghostly presences. The first time you see the boy is when the Reaper fleet arrives on Earth. (If this is all new to you please read the article, because taken out of context...blegh). The child is symbolic (and not subtly either. The only two things he says are "you can't save me" and "everyones dying")

 

[lampuiho]

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.

Again, this doesn't improve the ending. The game has no ending. You still have plot holes in there and lack of closure with final events. The game ends without an ending. Below is a pretty good video about what is still wrong with the "ending". Indoctrination theory only solves #8 and a small, tiny, faction of #9. #10 has some parts invalidated by it but bucks up against it in other parts.


#1-7 are still entirely valid. I think a company "clever" enough to do as you suggested could avoid these problems. Like having your crew not mysteriously abandon your ass, the hero, just to doom your "breathing" butt on the planet that was just obliterated with no hope of survival. I also like that he points out that "twist" endings have become the new trend since Shamalyan showed up with The 6th Sense. I just like that point. A lot of people keep claiming everyone is crying because we didn't get our cliche "Star Wars medal scene" because a vague nod in the general direction of "The Next Day" is so much more mature and totally not a modern cliche. I am not saying those are your words, by the way. That is just the general message being floated out there.

If they can write something that is so intentionally clever, I think they could do better on the "sweet" part of the "bittersweet" to at least offer some consistency and it would be nice if we got more than some random dude talking to his random grandson. I guess our relationships with our crew just isn't important according to Bioware. I guess closure isn't important to such clever writing, character resolution is for babies, and consistency doesn't matter to the "sweet" part of an ending.

There are still problems with the ending. Indoctrination Theory supports the bitter part of the ending to make it consistent with lore, yes. But as for the "sweet" part it still has every hole accounted for. That stuff makes up 70-80% of the complaints. I personally, don't care if indoctrination theory is correct or not because that only solves a small part of what is wrong with the ending.

Well, NO.

It solves all the plot holes.

#1 Those are the visions you see after Shepard thinks he/she saved Earth. Shepard wants them escape and stay alive.

#2 The one you see alive is the one Shepard loves because it was all in Shepard's head. Shepard wanted to see him/her alive.

#3 You can see the energy was sent away. This is unlike having an asteroid hitting the mass relay before it stops working. Plus you are still having dreams but sensical ones.

#4 You have no idea how many ships all the races have in the whole galaxy.

#5 War assets to destroy the reapers and save your own ass. And once again the ending was really Shepard's dream

#6 You get to become a legend. How bad is that?

#7 There is a happy ending. You survive the beam attack and continue fighting against reaper's control.

#9 You're being indoctrinated. Do you think you can oppose that? Not unless you're determined to destroy them.

#10 It mattered. Either you survive or indoctrinated and die.

 

[Neonsilver]

Part with good ideas? Sorry, I don't understad. Clarify?

the simplest explanation I see is they ran out of money, time, motivation or good ideas.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, all I wanted to say is why they may have run out of money or time.

Yes their are, and they all finish in a satifying way. Except for Shepards story and the overall galaxy. This is odd. (by the way, games aren't created beginning to end, they didn't do the ending 'last', that's a crazy scheduling idea.)

Don't know if you want to be sarcastic. If the endings are satisfying is subjective, but a majority seems to think it isn't. And that isn't the topic.

It could be created and animated by a single person yes. but it's an FMV, not using the in game engine (it's too detailed, and the Shepard in game model doesn't have dog tags). No way in hell one artist could do that in a day. Plus, then the programmers have to insert it in and test every possible combination of variables that effect this situation. That in itself is at least another day. (trust me, programmer )

People do not just put stuff in games 'for the lulz'. Every decision is a serious time/money sink.

I know something about programming myself and I see 3 variables that are affecting this scene. One is the chosen ending, the next one is war assets and the last one is Shepards gender.
But actually it seems the gender doesn't matter in this scene, the armor looks the same for both (just looked at the scene on youtube and I can't see a difference).
Since they won't test every possible niveau for the war assets it isn't that much to test and it's nothing they have to do extra for this single scene. That test has to be done anyway for the endings.
Even if they worked hard for about 5 seconds, it doesn't change the fact that most of the endings are identical.

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

The scene is stupid even if you say so, because if they aren't interested in controlling you, than the option that shouldn't be available is actually the control one (that should be the indoctrination one). It also doesn't make sense to have the middle-ground option, if that's the reasoning (what do the Reapers gain from it? You also state that it's all playing in Shepard's head, so why more than 2? Either agains the Reapers or with the reapers, the third option is weird, and I think it's actually harder to get than the option to destroy them, which makes even less sense). Also, since we seem to agree that this only happens in Shepard's mind in your theory, you should ALWAYS get the same options, Shepard thinks he/she is trying to stop the Reapers, why should it matter? If the Reaper can influence the possible choices, they would always leave you with the control one.

The fact that this solves everything, doesn't mean that is right. I can explain everything with "it was all a dream since ME1". Every incongruency? A dream! Of course, this isn't the answer, but I am sure that if I try hard enough, I can put together enough coincidences to prove any theory I can come up with. "The story is bad" is a lot easier than "the story is full of almost invisible hints, is complex as hell and employs even more Deus-ex Machinae than the other theory".

Look, have you read the article? It explains all of this.

First - the middle option (synthesis). Even though it's blast is green, it's actually shown during the choosing scene as blue, as if it was just as paragon as control. The synthesis ending involves creating a new species - one that's a combination of synthetics and organics. the pinnacle of evolution. Their is already a species like this is the Mass Effect universe. REAPERS. THIS option is you falling totally. The control option is the easiest way to fall, because you still believe you are in control of them. The synthesis option has you actively accept their philosophy.

Ok, you say the control option shouldn't be available if you have low EMS - this applies to the synthesis ending, just as you say. As I explained, control is the easiest way you fall. It happened to Saren, Beneziah(she believed she could control Saren) and the Illusive Man. Therefore you cannot get the synthesis ending with low EMS, but you can get the control one. They aren't actively trying, but all Reapers broadcast indoctrination waves all the time, they can't stop it. So, yeah, swap control for synthesis and I and the theory agree.

Also, your idea that "it's all just a dream" is a false comparison. The only reason that that is works in the majority of cases is that it occupies a large chunk of the narrative, so we lack perspective. We then have to trawl through and look for various interpretations, all conflicting and overlapping. This theory only posits a tiny fraction of the game, with a definite start and end, and containing far more glaring plot holes than the rest of the series combined. the interpretation fits perfectly, with zero contradictions. Saying the rest of ME after 1 is a dream makes just as much sense as saying the rest of ME is NOT a dream. Saying this is true makes MORE sense than the original interpretation.

 

[mdqp]

I can see your reasoning (athiest ) but it is not me using this to support anything, it is you who are using it. You have said that this VI would sense Shepards indoctrination. I am saying we have nowhere near the evidence for that, therefore it is not solid grounds for dismissal or confirmation of this theory.

Fair enough, individual taste

Arrival was the dlc prologue to 3. (in arrival by the way, the main plot point is that destroying a Mass Relay causes an explosion so big that the entire system containing it is destroyed. Why did this not happen in 3?).

As for indoctrination targeting Shepard in this was (we are on the same page here, right? Indcotrination theory states the child never existed, but has always been the Reapers trying to get you to lose hope), let me show you an entry from the codex definition of indoctrination

"Reaper 'indoctrination' is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, ?reprogramming? the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper?s resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of 'being watched' and hallucinations of 'ghostly' presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim?s body to amplify its signals, manifesting as 'alien' voices in the mind."

Ghostly presences. The first time you see the boy is when the Reaper fleet arrives on Earth. (If this is all new to you please read the article, because taken out of context...blegh). The child is symbolic (and not subtly either. The only two things he says are "you can't save me" and "everyones dying")

It can sense Indoctrination. You are arguing (with no evidence) that it can only if it is heavy indoctrination. Thus, you are bringing a theory without anything to back it up on the table. My theory says that it can sense indoctrination. That's it, there are no hints as to why it shouldn't sense low-level indoctrination, as it would be as dangerous as high-level, given the importance of that data. As we can take it only at face value, it stands that it can recognize indoctrination.

The child is a "ghostly" presence only at the ending. It looks a normal child to Shepard at the beginning. If the Reapers were capable of making you see children, they would be able to make you see a bridge where there isn't one, and make you fall and die. They could manipulate you so completely that anything wouldn't make sense, they could twist dialougues with your crew, push you in the direction they want since the beginning. I argue that this is simply a little too much. Not many of the other symptoms seem to show on Shepard, for 99% of the game.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Again, this doesn't improve the ending. The game has no ending. You still have plot holes in there and lack of closure with final events. The game ends without an ending. Below is a pretty good video about what is still wrong with the "ending". Indoctrination theory only solves #8 and a small, tiny, faction of #9. #10 has some parts invalidated by it but bucks up against it in other parts.


#1-7 are still entirely valid. I think a company "clever" enough to do as you suggested could avoid these problems. Like having your crew not mysteriously abandon your ass, the hero, just to doom your "breathing" butt on the planet that was just obliterated with no hope of survival. I also like that he points out that "twist" endings have become the new trend since Shamalyan showed up with The 6th Sense. I just like that point. A lot of people keep claiming everyone is crying because we didn't get our cliche "Star Wars medal scene" because a vague nod in the general direction of "The Next Day" is so much more mature and totally not a modern cliche. I am not saying those are your words, by the way. That is just the general message being floated out there.

If they can write something that is so intentionally clever, I think they could do better on the "sweet" part of the "bittersweet" to at least offer some consistency and it would be nice if we got more than some random dude talking to his random grandson. I guess our relationships with our crew just isn't important according to Bioware. I guess closure isn't important to such clever writing, character resolution is for babies, and consistency doesn't matter to the "sweet" part of an ending.

There are still problems with the ending. Indoctrination Theory supports the bitter part of the ending to make it consistent with lore, yes. But as for the "sweet" part it still has every hole accounted for. That stuff makes up 70-80% of the complaints. I personally, don't care if indoctrination theory is correct or not because that only solves a small part of what is wrong with the ending.

I took a look at your video, and here were my thoughts:

Spoiler: Spoilered

Part 1 is taken care of by "dude, it's a hallucination". Shep wants Joker and crew to survive. This applies to 2 and 3 (Mass Relay explosion), and besides even the video maked admits it could be a different type of explosion that DOESN'T murder everyone. Lots of people would still die though, thanks to the sudden and unexpected loss of the mass relays.

Plot hole number 4 (the Stranded Victory Fleet) isn't so much a plot hole as a "What happened to the Mouse?" situation, because it doesn't work at all against established canon. Also, for someone who's such a stickler for canon, "hundrids of different races"? We don't even have 50 races mentioned in the series, and Shep didn't recruit all of them anyway.

Number 5 (What's up with not seeing all my War Assets in action?) is a good point though, and a serious flaw in the ending even if Bioware waves it's magical free DLC that reveals the ending was [indoctrinated]Shep.

Number 6 (no closure) and # 10 (player choice didn't matter as promised) WOULD be taken care of if there's magic Bioware free DLC, but otherwise this is totally valid. #7 (another Twist Ending? Really?) is mostly complaining, and not a horrific way to end the series.

Now, as you said #8 is totally solved by the Indoctrination Theory, #9 is pretty much solved (if you go with destroy, you are saying "hey, what you're saying is lies and doesn't make sense. I'm killing all of you, now and forever!", and if you go with the other two options Shepard is falling prey to indoctrination and is at least partially accepting the Reaper King's BS.)

Yeah, the ending wasn't perfect even if the Indoctrination Theory is established as canon and Bioware releases magic [free]DLC, but the two things it doesn't cover (What happens to the Victory Fleet & What about not seeing my War Assets in action?) are MOSTLY minor points comparatively.

 

[Asita]

a)You misunderstand the reading of the indoctrination process. I'll say again - the Reapers are NOT creating this reality. SHEPARD is. It's not a rebellion, it's the mind showing us the indoctrination process in visual terms. Therefore no matter the intensity of the indoctrination we always see it the same, because the indoctrination process is always the same. It would make no sense if it changed. What changes are the choices (how Shepard reacts to the process).

I never said the reapers were creating it. I said that according to IT it was the embodiment of his efforts to rebel. A personification of the struggle, if you will. With that in mind, Shepherd's mental state would logically effect the mental world in general rather than just miniscule details. What I'm saying is that given the radical difference in effort IT claims the reapers are spending trying to indoctrinate Shepherd, the consistency of his mental world makes no sense, especially given the inverse relationship between mental capabiltiies and indoctrination. And seriously, you just took the opposite position with your argument again. Literally, in the last post of yours that I responded to you said, and I quote: "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.". That's exactly what I was talking about when I said you were employing double-think. You are expousing two mutually exclusive premises as support for the same argument at the same time. Pick a stance and stick with it. You don't get to jump back and forth between them like that.

b) This problem you have comes from the mistaken interpretation. As I said, the choices are based on how weak Shepard is, based on your collectors base choice, and how much of a threat he is, based on your EMS. Do you think this is a large leap? Considering it explains every single possible combination of EMS and choices?

Yes, I do think it's a large leap, based on Bible Code logic, no less. As to the last rhetorical question, allow me to posit one of my own: Hypothetically speaking, what criteria wouldn't IT be able to justify? For comparison: How would you prove that you aren't in the Matrix right now? It's not that IT explains anything, it's that IT is an undisprovable hypothesis and thus anything can be shoehorned in and called 'supporting evidence' (despite the fact that if a hypothesis cannot be disproved then rationally no objective evidence for it exists)

Double think? The positions are as follows - low EMS, the Reapers do not try hard. Hence you only get the fight or control. High EMS, they are trying hard, because they are unable to physically kill you and fear your army. Reapers do not need to 'target' someone for indoctrination, since they do it through sound waves and such. They cannot be distracted in the way you believe I am implying. You are misunderstanding my position. When I say they can't focus on you I mean they can't physically attack just you. They're busy with mako's and stuff

You mean despite the fact that you were just directly attacked by a reaper before this supposed head-trip? Really?
And again, I'm noticing cognitive dissonance here. You were the one who posited the distraction in the first place, remember? And I quote: "If your EMS his high then Hammer is still attacking and the Reaper can't focus just on you. if not, it can." Those are your words, from the last post I responded to. As I said, you are treading over your own arguments and espousing mutually contradictory positions to try to make this idea work.

Ok, Andersons and the Illusive Man. Did you really not see the symbolism in that scene?(there's actual material evidence for this one, give me a moment). Two characters that logically should not be there together at that time, one standing for corruption, the other the heroic father figure? Listen to what you've said:

"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."

This is exactly what happens, and what I've said happens. You defeat the indoctrinated part of you, but the effort destroys the last of your will (THIS is the material evidence. Watch the scene again. Shepard shoots Anderson in the lower left stomach. After Anderson dies, your Shepard puts his hand onto his stomach in the same position, and pulls it away. His hands are now COVERED in blood. The blood was not there before, nor was your Shepard wounded in that region.).

Problem is that only justifies one variation, and its symbolism is rendered completely irrelevant in others due to the lack of option to follow through. Here's the thing, if the embodiment of your will is destroyed by the embodiment of indoctrination, the symbolism ONLY works if you succumb to that indoctrination. If you don't, then the scene is rendered meaningless in that context as your will is still alive. And the point is further muddied by the fact that you can only ever progress if you kill the Illusive Man, regardless of Anderson's fate. If you could only choose the reaper-unfriendly options if Anderson lived, then you might have a point. But that's not what happens which very strongly implies a certain line attributed to Freud: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". A confrontation like that does not have to be a metaphor and should not be viewed as such if you have to cherry pick endings like you do in this case to make the symbolism work.

Anderson dies and you are instantly railroaded into the final scene, which as I've explained is the choice to give into the Reapers, but this time far more appealing. This has been my position from the very start, I'm not twisting it at all. Go back and check.

Yeah, no. If Anderson embodies your will and the scene is symbolic and metaphorical of Shepherd's mental state, his death necessarily means that Shepherd's will must die with him. That is not what we see, and thus we are necessarily forbidden from interpreting the scene thusly.

Actually, arguments like "Dumbledores not dead" are what made me believe this. They're always flimsy and easily destroyed. In Dumbledores case, people were ignoring the fact that Avada Kedavra is always lethal. Always. We see it happen. Snape says the words out loud. See? Easy to take down. Furthermore, this theory is a bad parallel, because I'm trying to explain existing plotholes. Dumbledores death had no reason to be interpreted, as it was perfectly sensible in the narrative. The endings of ME3 are not. Not even close. Basically I'm not trying to add stuff here, I'm trying to take away all the fake bits.

Actually, you're trying to add quite a bit of unneeded complexity which necessarily culminates with the series ending before the climax does.

You say it doesn't make sense for the red blue endings to be missing in any scenario? Like I said before, you are overestimating how much indoctrination has actually happened. They are TRYING to get Shepard, beginning with the child, but hallucinations and agreement with their goals are a hell of a distance from each other. You are ignoring the idea that the Reapers are not actively putting the pressure on Shepard at this level of EMS. You are removing the argument from context.

No, I'm saying it doesn't make any sense for the BLUE ending to be missing under any circumstances since the key premise of IT is that Shepherd's mind had already been significantly altered by indoctrination and the scene with the catalyst was a visualization of his reaction and ultimate rejection or acceptance of it. When any situation lacks the blue option (which IT presents as reaper-friendly), the concept of the final level being essentially a battle inside the mind falls apart completely, as the effects of indoctrination under that interpretation are completely glossed over despite the fact that IT claims the scene itself is a reaction to indoctrination.

Truth be told, I feel I'm doing a better job of keeping the premises consistant than IT does, which is one of the many reasons I despise the concept.

Hey, I love TLA too. Can't wait for Legend of Korra.

Did you see the leaked episode or did they take it down before you could? Personally I'm a bit skeptical about the changes to the setting, but I'm willing to give it a shot at least.

Ok, I appreciate that you think the ending was bad, but what you're ignoring is that the partitions exist. Do you believe the designers were so rushed that they rolled a dice to determine them? A team of programmers probably spent a few weeks on this sequence. They could have shortened the time considerably by simply leaving all three options in, no matter your EMS. This is logically better, if they didn't care or have a reason to make the partitions anything special. But it IS partitioned. Someone did take the time to carefully decide the cutoff points and variables that decide your ending. Lazy design DOES NOT explain this.

Actually, it likely took far less time than you think. The cinematics are what would take the most time and those use the same footage almost frame for frame. The partitioning itself isn't that difficult in concept, merely a set of nested if-then statements. As someone with a very basic knowledge of programming, I know I could write a code that does something similar in C++ in less than an hour (in basic non-code form: If war assets < 1750, run ending1 (ending1: if collectorbasesaved, run cinematic1 else run cinematic2)....) Honestly, what I think is that they ran out of time, made some slight tweaks to certain frames and identified them as the variants they'd originally planned to make more distinct. Lazy doesn't explain it, rushed most certainly does, especially given the leaked Dark Energy-ending that ostensibly was the original cut, and the fact that retooling the Javik subplot apparently caused a bit of a chain reaction that forced them to reconsider a lot of plot points and crunched them for time which was already scarce.

Em, honestly yes that last bit may have been directed at someone else. You may not have noticed but the thread got rather busy Was trying to respond to everyone. Apologies!

S'alright. Just wanted to make sure.

 

[SS2Dante]

Snip, you know you should learn to snip too..

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.

Seriously flawed logic there, same as arguing that the earth can't be more than ten years old or the solar system would be packed to pluto by rats based on how often they reproduce. It assumes zero attrition.
If they really only gain new reaper per species they conquer with a high probability of failure they should be extinct by now. I mean we have evidence that reapers have died in the past and present so your assumption of zero attrition is simply incorrect.

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.

Well, firstly I don't see how this demonstrates degeneration of the story hasn't occured and secondly its based on a demonstrably incorrect premise.

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.

I'm willing to say its definitively stupid. Quotes from developers indicate it was supposed to go on a long explanation about the reapers, but that was cut in favor of giving you your ending options instead.

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.

I would argue that an overall increase in small inconsistencies and plot hole frequencies are a strong indicator of an overall degeneration in story telling.

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.

That fits easily into my model. Its not that you have bad writers its that you have most of the writers replaced. Sure Tolkien could probably write an epic Shepherd, Garrus bonding scene, but he wouldn't be able to continue the original plot narrative since he wouldn't necessarily know what it was.

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.

I'd say incomplete ending, and what is there isn't good enough on its own. I don't think you will get much argument from people who think as I do that the ending is sufficient in any case, with indoctrination or without.

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.

Which is where we ultimately differ. You believe that incompetence cannot be this grand. I say oh, it can it absolutely can. People really can be this incompetent.
Without enough time to finish the ending scenes the way they wanted it, they had to piece together whatever they had for shipping time. However.. they didn't have anything like enough. I'm guessing they simply didn't manage their time properly.. but fans wanted it so they cut off a section from the beginning of the cut scene after shepherds hit by the reaper cannon and about to get up.. the original cutscene made was shepherd getting out of rubble, finding his two squadmates dead.. then what you see currently.

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 )

Only if you believe the star kid. He may be real, but he may be lying or.. Oh I don't know simply wrong.

Edit: Also.. since when has being renegade been evil? I punched admiral gerral in the gut, that was a renegade option. why did I do it, he almost got us killed, and nearly screwed the agreed upon mission up.
Why this is renegade if renegade is evil, I mean punching Zaeed when he did the same thing in his loyalty mission was a paragon interrupt. No apparently agreeing with mission threatening attacks on the geth by a 'bosh-tet' is paragon, while opposing it is renegade.. hmm, seems like another inconsistency to me.
In 1 and 2 renegade options weren't presented as good or evil, merely dirty harry over captain picard, and if you aren't familar. Dirty harry was one of the good guys.

You know, someone else here has said it, a theory is only considered strong if it is falsifiable. It seems with this indoctrination hypothesis its set up to be unfalsifiable. I know what I would expect to see if the writing was on course and on par. The same writers (turns out only two of the original writing cast remains) consistent lore with weapons, races and technology, consistently good casting choices etc, yet none of the criteria required to falsify my postion are presented.

is this indoctrination hypothesis even falsifiable?

And what rate of attrition would you place on it? We have evidence that perhaps 3 reapers have died in the previous cycles, based on bodies found. They hibernate in dark space between cycles - I cannot think of a safer nest. Furthermore, as machines they have no age limit. Any attrition is negligible, surely? Besides, taking the billion year old idea, for this to work we'd have to assume that at least 850 or so Reaper corpses are floating around for the galaxy to stand any chance. The only reason ANY reapers are dead in this cycle is because of the Prothean warning.

Very well. I'll point out you're making your decision on incomplete evidence, but fine.

Ok. Give me more. Then give me all the small plot holes in ME1 and 2. What we should see is a general trend of more plot holes per hour of gameplay as it goes on, and a demonstrably worse general plot as a result. This does not happen. Also, you are ignoring my point about this being the climax of the story, and the usual changes that take place (besides giving me one small plot hole and telling me there are more). If you want to compare the ME series to some imaginary perfect tale and use that as evidence be my guest, but it convinces no-one. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, hell, even Harry Potter, all include this slight change in lore in the final instalment.

But that is EVIDENCE of a lack of time. If you don't want it to seem poor and rushed you do not include half of a cutscene. Also, I don't buy for a second that that cutscene ever had anything more to it. Wanna know why? (apart from the clear way it hits the credits) Cos Shepard is supposed to die in the Red ending. "You will destroy all synthetics. Even you are partly synthetic". To make it more plausible, all they had to do was NOT implement it. You are proposing ACTIVE stupidity here, not passive stupidity.

What possible reason could you have for not believing him? If it's literal you have no reason not to. Everyone has this vague distrust, but when you're presented with a reason, no-one accepts it. It's weird.

The renegade ending also has features like punching the female reporter in the face, over words. it indulges in unnecessary violence, something paragon never does. It DEFINTELY results in more death. You're arguing semantics here.

I set up this whole thread under that idea. It's easily shown to be false. Give me someone who talks to the kid. Give me a conversation when Shepard mentions the kid, even in passing. Give me any hint AT ALL that the starchild exists. Give me a scene, or sentence, in the ending that goes against the morality of the theory. Give me an explanation for the scenes in the Citadel. Show me where Shepard is at the end of the red. Show me some combination of variables that gives the extra scene in the blue or green. Give me a single end choice that does not fit into the categories I've already stated (with regards to EMS and the collector base). Show me that Shepard was bleeding profusely BEFORE he shot Anderson. Give me a reason the last dream is different from the previous ones. ANY logical gap will do.

Your theory is more unfalsifiable than mine. "They were lazy/stupid/rushed". Despite all the objections, short of dlc, your theory is not falsifiable.

 

[mdqp]

Look, have you read the article? It explains all of this.

First - the middle option (synthesis). Even though it's blast is green, it's actually shown during the choosing scene as blue, as if it was just as paragon as control. The synthesis ending involves creating a new species - one that's a combination of synthetics and organics. the pinnacle of evolution. Their is already a species like this is the Mass Effect universe. REAPERS. THIS option is you falling totally. The control option is the easiest way to fall, because you still believe you are in control of them. The synthesis option has you actively accept their philosophy.

Ok, you say the control option shouldn't be available if you have low EMS - this applies to the synthesis ending, just as you say. As I explained, control is the easiest way you fall. It happened to Saren, Beneziah(she believed she could control Saren) and the Illusive Man. Therefore you cannot get the synthesis ending with low EMS, but you can get the control one. They aren't actively trying, but all Reapers broadcast indoctrination waves all the time, they can't stop it. So, yeah, swap control for synthesis and I and the theory agree.

Also, your idea that "it's all just a dream" is a false comparison. The only reason that that is works in the majority of cases is that it occupies a large chunk of the narrative, so we lack perspective. We then have to trawl through and look for various interpretations, all conflicting and overlapping. This theory only posits a tiny fraction of the game, with a definite start and end, and containing far more glaring plot holes than the rest of the series combined. the interpretation fits perfectly, with zero contradictions. Saying the rest of ME after 1 is a dream makes just as much sense as saying the rest of ME is NOT a dream. Saying this is true makes MORE sense than the original interpretation.

I read the article, but maybe I missed something (anything is possible).

The complete failure is possible only if you do good enough? That's odd, but this is a reasoning done completely out of the game (pure speculation on the meaning of the ending), so, even if I would find it not particularly inspired, I am not going to argue it. It's odd though that it would be the harder than simple indoctrination, as you say that the option to destroy is only available because the Reapers are "distracted" by the fight, if I understand you right. But this means that if you are losing the war, you should be able to embrace their ideas too, which I think is cool by the Reapers (you can't have it to suit your needs that well: either you get too beaten down to react, or you are doing so good that you can actively embrace them. Also, destroying appears before synthesis many times, it doesn't make sense).

I can't accept your point about swapping control and synthesis, as I think that without the Reapers trying to subvert you, should have all the options (they don't care about what you do).

My point about the dream is that I can find good excuses for the game, and probably find things here and there that seems to point out at something running deeper (as cracking the plans for the prothean weapon right when you are desperate and not before... It was clearly the Illusive man all along! He is really controlling you! And he is making you believe you killed him! He really implanted something in your brain to control you, he just was really clever in hiding his tracks...).

In all honesty, the problem with your idea is that it would allow the Reapers to control you, without you having any internal fight (all the options presented are good to reach your objective, they are all self-sacrifice first). If they could control people by having them choice what ice-cream they want in their mind, then what's the point? You might think this is different, but actually, it's not: the endings differ in what are your preferences, but they all deal with the same problem and solve it, one way or the other (even if they are all logically flawed). The fact that you identify controlling the Reapers with an evil/indoctrinated choice is just your idea, but it would actually give to all the species some benevolent guardians, ready to defend them, and possible access to incredibly advanced tech. Since you die anyway, it's a choice that it's actually really sound. I doubt that such a self-less act could represent indoctrination.

 

[Savagezion]

Well, NO.

It solves all the plot holes.

#1 Those are the visions you see after Shepard thinks he/she saved Earth. Shepard wants them escape and stay alive.

#2 The one you see alive is the one Shepard loves because it was all in Shepard's head. Shepard wanted to see him/her alive.

OK, so that wasn't real, thus wasn't a real ending. You actually get even less closure than I was giving them credit for.

#3 You can see the energy was sent away. This is unlike having an asteroid hitting the mass relay before it stops working. Plus you are still having dreams but sensical ones.

I just don't buy that this is a different kind of explosion. Nothing but wishful thinking supports that. The blast radius by each explosion supports the destructive nature. Considering the detail paid to fine points of indoctrination theory, I think the power of such shock-waves are extremely easy inconsistencies to spot.
Now, if you are still going with the "he is still dreaming" thing, OK once again less closure than I give them credit for. More and more of what people are calling an "ending" is getting stripped down to "no ending" even further by their own admission.

#4 You have no idea how many ships all the races have in the whole galaxy.

I know how many the game suggested they were sending and it wasn't simply a small fraction of their armed forces. It suggested it was their armed forces. The writing lends credit to the fact that there is a large portion of the galaxy's population at Earth for this battle. There is no evidence that suggests the Quarians aren't extinct if they join you. Wishful thinking is the only defense against this point.

#5 War assets to destroy the reapers and save your own ass. And once again the ending was really Shepard's dream

Again, further confirmation this game had no ending. As well, seems to butt up against indoctrination theory as your survival only depends on war assets and not the choice you make in the indoctrination process. According to the indoctrination theory you should breathe if you pick destroy, assets be damned.

#6 You get to become a legend. How bad is that?

Did you only watch the scene with the grandpa or something? First off, I already knew my ass was a legend when I was the first human spectre that went on to resist the reapers. Before ME3's launch I knew I was a legend. The point behind #7 is that without closure on the characters that made up this experience beside Shepard, the ending is not complete. But hell, we don't even know what happened to Shepard. Hell, we don't even know what happened while Shepard was dreaming all this shit. No closure.

#7 There is a happy ending. You survive the beam attack and continue fighting against reaper's control.

No, there is an ending where you breathe a breath. After that initial breath it is your speculation as to what happens. I could say Shepard wakes up and shoots the rest all organics he sees because the real twist is that the indoctrination still worked and now he his homicidal. Without closure, any crazy idea is valid. No idea is more valid than another.

After all that, there should still be a option to tell the starchild to "fuck off". #9 and #10 still stand despite some parts being viewed differently based on your stance on the indoctrination theory.

 

[mdqp]

Your theory is more unfalsifiable than mine. "They were lazy/stupid/rushed". Despite all the objections, short of dlc, your theory is not falsifiable.

Could someone explain what you mean by unfalsifiable/falsifiable? (I might be misunderstanding, as english isn't my first language -_-).

 

[KingofMadCows]

I don't believe it because it makes no logical sense.

How come the rest of your crew isn't indoctrinated? Some of them have been with Shepard the whole time. Garrus and Tali has been around Reaper tech almost as much as Shepard. Even with the crew members who haven't been around Reaper tech as much, it's been shown that Shepard has exceptional will power, so unless everyone around Shepard is as resilient as him/her, then there'd be other indoctrinated crew members.

Why would the Reapers try to indoctrinate Shepard when they've been trying to kill him all this time? Why didn't they just kill him/her?

How do you distinguish between the parts that make no sense because it's cool and the parts that make no sense because it was meant to be a clue that Shepard was indoctrinated. What happened with the Reaper on Rannoch doesn't make any sense. Why was it stupid enough to try to shoot Shepard even though it was being shot at whenever it opened up its main gun? Why not just walk over and step on Shepard or fly into the air over Shepard so its main gun would be protected? By the logic of the indoctrination "theory," I can say that Shepard was already indoctrinated and hallucinating since that made no sense and shouldn't have happened.

 

[Frotality]

because if it is true, the ending is even worse. now instead of being nonsensical, the ending is more or less non-existent. instead of finishing the fight, the game now ends on some utterly irrelevant and pointless hallucination. without some kind of reveal, or that kind of Sixth Sense backtracking where you can play it again and be like "OMG that was actually a sign of indoctrination!" it is still a terrible, inappropriate ending to the game.