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

[DustyDrB]

The ending was great! Repears destroyed. Geth and Quarian left to try to rebuild both the homeworld and their partnership. Almost all the species in the galaxy brought together with a newfound respect for each other (even the Rachni). These alliances could very well break down quickly and start a new conflict, but things are good for now.

And Shepard gets to go chill with Liara on his own planet. When people come to him for help, he refuses. Putting up air quotes, he says, "Ah yes,'Problems'...we have dismissed these claims". Then he goes surfing.

 

[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"

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[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"

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[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"

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

Ignoring the fact that Bioware has come out and confirmed that the Indoctrination theory is correct and that it was just unclear because Hudson cut out like, 80% of the real ending, here is a quote from a thread I made explaining the a couple of the problems with the Indoctrination theory as presented in the endings that we were given (I made this topic before hearing about how Bioware had confirmed the Indoctrination).

First I'd like to tackle the issue of the mirror writing on the Citadel. That is likely just a texture issue. Go back and play Mass Effect 1 and look at the walls in the Normandy (particularly those in the elevator) and you'll see plenty of mirror writing as well. Surely you won't try to say that Shepard was Indoctrinated before even meeting Sovereign.

Next, the issue of the infinite ammo pistol. This is likely just a game device seeing as how you've already technically beaten the game (by making your last stand against the swarm of Brutes, Banshees, and Marauders by the mobile missile platforms). The reason your pistol has infinite ammo is likely the same reason every cutscene in which you and your squad have weapons drawn, it's always the standard assault rifle...even characters that can't equip assault rifles (like Liara) are packin' one. Just as the assault rifles have no real impact on the story, nor does having infinite ammo.

Now, onto the Indoctrination Ending.
<spoiler=Just In Case>From what I've heard, the Indoctrination ending implies that there's only one truly correct way to end the game: Destroy All Synthetics seeing as how it's the only ending that Shepard can survive. The rest of the theory is that the other two options are traps within Shepard's mind that would lead to death/failure due to Indoctrination. This raises a few questions.

If picking Control or Synthesis is the wrong, then what's the deal with the ending movie? Why do the Reapers fly away? Wouldn't Shepard making the wrong choice mean that the Reapers win? Wouldn't they continue their rampage? I've seen these questions answered as being the Reapers continuing to placate Shepard with visions that would make him/her happy and think that he/she did the right thing, even Joker's flight and the crashing of the Normandy on a tropical planet are just more Indoctrination visions. Alright, if that's the case, is Star Gazer supposed to be a vision as well? Telling his granddaughter about the heroic adventures and triumphs of Shepard as he/she saved the galaxy from the Reaper threat? Why would the Reapers show a vision of something that apparently happens long after Shepard's death ("And this all happened long, long ago." - Star Gazer)? If the Indoctrination theory is correct, then the only ending that should land you the Star Gazer scene is Destroy All Reapers, yet you get it no matter which ending you pick.

Here's a link to the topic if you were interested, as I mentioned this was just a snippet from the topic.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.354427-Problems-With-Both-ME-3-Theories-SPOILERS-INSIDE#comment_form

 

[boag]

Depends what you mean by closure. If you chose the blue or green endings you give in to the Reapers and become a husk. Pretty obvious what happens after that. Sad ending.

- side note - I love the green ending in this way. Make a new being, the pinnacle of evolution, both synthetic and organic. How did I NOT notice that this describes a Reaper?

If you chose red you get the special scene of Shepard waking up in the ruins of London. Cliffhanger ending.

But if Shepard was hallucinating then how do you know any of that really happened? You can't have it both ways.

And even if I accept that the child stuff was hallucination and the rest was real, that doesn't fix much. A lot of the bullshit occurs during the final ending cutscene.

Again, I can appreciate it can't be proven, but if you don't believe this then how do you explain the inclusion of that extra scene in the red ending?

Like I said.

Incompetence.

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

If the Indoctrination theory is true, and it all points to it having been a part of the ending until it was cut out in favor of Mac Walters shitastic ending.

Then I would assume that everything after getting hit with the reaper beam is a lie, or mental fuckery of the reapers indoctrinating Shepard.

Thematically it fits, since the game is continuously hitting players over the head with Indoctrination and free will talks.

Talks with EDI about free will and the reference of the Reapers asking for Leaders to come to their superstructures.

The PSTD Commando talking about the horrors she faced with Indoctrinated humans.

The experiments the Illusive man made to power up his Cerberus army.

and so on.

All in all it was probably planned and it was dropped for X reasons.

 

[thelonewolf266]

Actually attempting to have a logical DISCUSSION on the escapist appears to be getting harder and harder.
The point is the indoctrination take on the ending makes sense and there is a lot of evidence to support it.The literal take on the ending makes no sense and seems to be based only on people jumping to the conclusion that Bioware are incompetent despite the fact that a lot of people are very angry due to feeling let down because their story writing in the previous games has been so good.

Oh and I wouldn't bother arguing with Zeel he doesn't understand discussion all he says boils down to I'm right you're wrong deal with it.

 

[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"

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Like I said, I gave you two individual points. The other points are in the ARTICLE. There's a number of them, which is why the article is so long (which you keep complaining about). If you don't want to read them then fine, go away. You keep saying the theory doesn't work based on the fact that you haven't read it.

 

[SS2Dante]

Depends what you mean by closure. If you chose the blue or green endings you give in to the Reapers and become a husk. Pretty obvious what happens after that. Sad ending.

- side note - I love the green ending in this way. Make a new being, the pinnacle of evolution, both synthetic and organic. How did I NOT notice that this describes a Reaper?

If you chose red you get the special scene of Shepard waking up in the ruins of London. Cliffhanger ending.

But if Shepard was hallucinating then how do you know any of that really happened? You can't have it both ways.

And even if I accept that the child stuff was hallucination and the rest was real, that doesn't fix much. A lot of the bullshit occurs during the final ending cutscene.

Again, I can appreciate it can't be proven, but if you don't believe this then how do you explain the inclusion of that extra scene in the red ending?

Like I said.

Incompetence.

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

If the Indoctrination theory is true, and it all points to it having been a part of the ending until it was cut out in favor of Mac Walters shitastic ending.

Then I would assume that everything after getting hit with the reaper beam is a lie, or mental fuckery of the reapers indoctrinating Shepard.

Thematically it fits, since the game is continuously hitting players over the head with Indoctrination and free will talks.

Talks with EDI about free will and the reference of the Reapers asking for Leaders to come to their superstructures.

The PSTD Commando talking about the horrors she faced with Indoctrinated humans.

The experiments the Illusive man made to power up his Cerberus army.

and so on.

All in all it was probably planned and it was dropped for X reasons.

Why do you say it was dropped? The point of this idea is that it happened. Both the synthesis and the control endings are you being indoctrinated fully. The fight ending is you resisting, which is why you get the extra cutscene. Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

 

[endtherapture]

I'd like to believe the indoctrination theory.

But I don't think Bioware are clever enough to pull it off.

 

[Xpheyel]

That's the most unclear part. From what I understand it's a framing device - it isn't dependent on Shepards survival, since the person is telling Shepards story a long time afterwards. It's also important in that it ends with 'one more story...' hinting there's something untold.

See, people keep saying that, but like I said the red ending has an extra scene. It's short, but still probably took a lot of man hours to put in. An additional scene that makes no sense is not something you put in the game if you are rushing.

The thing is, if Shepard was indoctrinated and hallucinating the final choices, why is anyone around to frame the story in the blue and green endings? The Reapers should've got them. Unless, regardless of what you choose, Shepard will dig himself out of the rubble and save the galaxy for reals in some DLC. It basically introduces the same kind of plot spackle moment as a lot of elements of the literal endings. That scene, in spite of being unrewarding, does technically work in the literal interpretation. In all the endings, "the Shepard" has saved the galaxy from the Reapers and someone somewhere survived the cycle to rebuild.

Basically you can only have the indoctrination thing by putting in the same kinds of contradiction it is supposed to resolve.

Plus, Shepard in the rubble could be another reused asset too. This is the plot synopsis I read which includes the possibility:

http://pastebin.com/LXUd4BU1

 

[SS2Dante]

Snip

Ignoring the fact that Bioware has come out and confirmed that the Indoctrination theory is correct and that it was just unclear because Hudson cut out like, 80% of the real ending, here is a quote from a thread I made explaining the a couple of the problems with the Indoctrination theory as presented in the endings that we were given (I made this topic before hearing about how Bioware had confirmed the Indoctrination).

First I'd like to tackle the issue of the mirror writing on the Citadel. That is likely just a texture issue. Go back and play Mass Effect 1 and look at the walls in the Normandy (particularly those in the elevator) and you'll see plenty of mirror writing as well. Surely you won't try to say that Shepard was Indoctrinated before even meeting Sovereign.

Next, the issue of the infinite ammo pistol. This is likely just a game device seeing as how you've already technically beaten the game (by making your last stand against the swarm of Brutes, Banshees, and Marauders by the mobile missile platforms). The reason your pistol has infinite ammo is likely the same reason every cutscene in which you and your squad have weapons drawn, it's always the standard assault rifle...even characters that can't equip assault rifles (like Liara) are packin' one. Just as the assault rifles have no real impact on the story, nor does having infinite ammo.

Now, onto the Indoctrination Ending.
<spoiler=Just In Case>From what I've heard, the Indoctrination ending implies that there's only one truly correct way to end the game: Destroy All Synthetics seeing as how it's the only ending that Shepard can survive. The rest of the theory is that the other two options are traps within Shepard's mind that would lead to death/failure due to Indoctrination. This raises a few questions.

If picking Control or Synthesis is the wrong, then what's the deal with the ending movie? Why do the Reapers fly away? Wouldn't Shepard making the wrong choice mean that the Reapers win? Wouldn't they continue their rampage? I've seen these questions answered as being the Reapers continuing to placate Shepard with visions that would make him/her happy and think that he/she did the right thing, even Joker's flight and the crashing of the Normandy on a tropical planet are just more Indoctrination visions. Alright, if that's the case, is Star Gazer supposed to be a vision as well? Telling his granddaughter about the heroic adventures and triumphs of Shepard as he/she saved the galaxy from the Reaper threat? Why would the Reapers show a vision of something that apparently happens long after Shepard's death ("And this all happened long, long ago." - Star Gazer)? If the Indoctrination theory is correct, then the only ending that should land you the Star Gazer scene is Destroy All Reapers, yet you get it no matter which ending you pick.

Here's a link to the topic if you were interested, as I mentioned this was just a snippet from the topic.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.354427-Problems-With-Both-ME-3-Theories-SPOILERS-INSIDE#comment_form

The Stargazer scene I admit is odd, but notice that Stargazer doesn't say you won. He simply tells a story. Regardless of your ending, he tells his child the story. It's not from your perspective any more.

Apart from that the other problems are not only solved but explained by the indoctrination theory.

Apart from that the other points are cleared up by the

 

[SS2Dante]

That's the most unclear part. From what I understand it's a framing device - it isn't dependent on Shepards survival, since the person is telling Shepards story a long time afterwards. It's also important in that it ends with 'one more story...' hinting there's something untold.

See, people keep saying that, but like I said the red ending has an extra scene. It's short, but still probably took a lot of man hours to put in. An additional scene that makes no sense is not something you put in the game if you are rushing.

The thing is, if Shepard was indoctrinated and hallucinating the final choices, why is anyone around to frame the story in the blue and green endings? The Reapers should've got them. Unless, regardless of what you choose, Shepard will dig himself out of the rubble and save the galaxy for reals in some DLC. It basically introduces the same kind of plot spackle moment as a lot of elements of the literal endings. That scene, in spite of being unrewarding, does technically work in the literal interpretation. In all the endings, "the Shepard" has saved the galaxy from the Reapers and someone somewhere survived the cycle to rebuild.

Basically you can only have the indoctrination thing by putting the same kinds of contradiction it is supposed to resolve.

Plus, Shepard in the rubble could be another reused asset too. This is the plot synopsis I read which includes the possibility:

http://pastebin.com/LXUd4BU1

The point is that the ending cutscenes are in Shepards head. All your squadmates express a desire to go somewhere far away where they can relax and be happy, the final cutscenes are Shepard creating this reality. They all somehow end up far away on a beautiful paradise. That's why it's so full of obvious plotholes.

The blue and green endings simply end with you losing. The implication is the Reapers win, as you've become a husk. The RED ending gives you the extra cutscene because you've broken free, awakening from your dream in London just after Harbinger's blast. CLIFFHANGER