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

[Ilikemilkshake]

Snip

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

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

this Pretty much proves it was indoctrination

heres the thread

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that there's nothing concrete about the theory but given that everything fits about the indoctrination theory apart from maybe Stargazer, given its all speculation anyway, that hole might aswell be plugged by speculating that Stargazer isn't even human.

I'll fully admit alot of this is probably just grasping at straws but i don't really care at this point, I've already gotten over how bad the ending was, at this point i'm just having fun debating about it.

 

[Substitute Troll]

Mostly because it reeks of desperation.

"Nooooo, the ending wasn't really Bioware dropping a dollop of doggy doo on top of my ice cream, it was actually a clever and subversive twist!"

I can sympathize with such notions, oh can I ever sympathize, but I'm not buying into them.

It does make a certain degree of sense, but I'm pretty sure that's due to the endings being changed fairly late in the development process. They were originally planning for Shepard to get indoctrinated at some point in the game, then swapped it out for the assorted bullshit without bothering to remove the old clues and foreshadowing.

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?

No, that's not the case for me. I'm not trying to justify Bioware making an ending that doesn't give you any answers whatsoever. I think the indoctrination theory is right because it makes sense. Considering everything the article said, and then think about the last scene after the "destroy" ending. Shepard didn't get to the conduit, he was shot by Harbinger, then he woke up after the hallucination. This opens up for more content I guess, atleast in a way that isn't retarded or requires the ending to be retconned.

I really hope they add to ME3, but not with petty DLC, they would need to make a fullblown expansion.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

Annnnnd that was the over-all point of the topic that I linked which contained my points against both theories: all that really matters is that you plug up the holes with whatever works for you personally so you can move on from "The Rage" that accompanied the ending. The only concrete fact we have about the ending is that there was supposed to be more. Maybe not definitive answers to every questions, but definitely more to go on.

 

[SS2Dante]

snip

Yes, it explains a lot of things, but it opens up huge plot holes. For example, if you get a really low War Asset score, you ONLY get presented with the 'Destroy' option. So, why would the Reapers only give you the option to destroy them, and no others? It makes less than zero sense. Also, you only get the 'Synthesis' ending if you get over 3000 War Asset score, indicating that it's supposed to be the rarer choice. Again, makes little sense.
Another point is the Stargazer scene at the end. You get it no matter which decision you make, so it stands to reason that all choices prevent the Reapers from killing everybody. This again conflicts with the Indoctrination theory, since two of the options should lead to defeat.

Now for the second part.
The literal interpretation of the ending makes little sense, and is therefore not a good ending. The Indoctrination interpretation does fill in a few holes, but it makes others and also makes little sense.
So far, Bioware have had little to say on the matter. I currently hold ME3 as one of the best narratives I've ever seen, read or played. I'm not nearly as bitter as many. But they still messed up the ending. We wanted closure, rather than space magic and wild theories.
Appreciated if you could actually respond to this, as well as edit the OP to include the ploholes I mentioned.

Lol, this came up in the post above.

If you've got a really low war asset score the Reapers don't need you indoctrinated. They don't fear or respect you, and are not actively trying to indoctrinate you. Hence the fact that it's easier to break the thrall.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the Stargazer scene involves humans. Information and even species can survive the cycle, and as another poster pointed out Liara is storing your story on a device, in case you fail. It could be during the next cycle. Even in one there were rumours of the Reapers which survived from the Prothean cycle.

Since this causes no problems I can't see them as plotholes.

Edit - the fact that it was such a good narrative is what made me suspicious. These errors are not small, or minor, or anything. They're huge problems. People really believe Bioware, famous for this story and the detail in it, would suddenly make a million huge mistakes, RIGHT after getting hit by Harbingers beam? Don't buy it. A mediocre ending I'd understand, but not a broken one.

So, in order to get the second-best ending, you have to suck at the rest of the game? That sounds somewhat suspicious. And true, these isn't any proof to show that Stargazer is actually human, but really? When the fans have to construct such a theory that it involves the worst players getting rewarded, the better players being punished, the epilogue actually being aliens rather than humans, Bioware really did make somewhat of a mess of the whole thing.

However, I am rather happy that you answered me. That alone gives you more credibility than those who just ignore everyone else's opinion. But I digress.

Should I have a free reign in explaining it literally, I could go like this:

TIM was aboard the Citadel because he fled there, intending to activate the Crucible to take control. You an Anderson made it there because your armour was essentially destroyed, so the Alliance couldn't track you, so they though everyone was dead. Joker ran away because, really, a single frigate, without any support, in a battle with dreadnoughts all-round? he wouldn't stand a chance, so he retreated to act more of a command-centre, much like the Alliance intended if you read the Codex. So, when said coloured light was approaching, damaging any ship in the way, he tried to save the Normandy by fleeing.
The squad end-up on another planet because it was the only place they could land with roughly half an engine left, it being a garden world being left to chance. The mass relay explosions don't destroy the galaxy because all their energy is used in projecting the multicoloured light. And the extra scene is simply because that was the one ending where Shepard was told he wouldn't definitely die, it was just implied.
Oh, and the Catalyst was just that. The Catalyst.

There, all explained. Not very well, of course, but as well as any explanation as I've seen for the Indoctrination theory. Now, if the epilogue was different for the different ways of putting Shepard in the thing Liara made, I'd be impressed.

I'm here for a discussion, not to just insist I'm right hence my replies

Second-best ending? I assume you're referring to the fact you don't get indoctrinated if your army sucks. But that's the point - your army sucks. The reapers don't need you indoctrinated because they're kicking its ass, and the Crucible won't get into position in time (if it doesn't get easily destroyed). Worst of all - you wake up and have to see your own failure. At least in the other endings you die blissfully unaware, dreaming of a garden paradise your crew are in.

Ok, from your explanation - how did TIM flee to the Crucible, when its under Reaper lockdown? How does Anderson get ahead of you in the corridor with no other doors or exits? And Really? You REALLY believe Joker and the crew of the Normandy ran away, leaving Earth behind? As said in the podcast - nah, they'd ram the reapers before they'd do that.

Ok, the Mass Relays thing - in the dlc we were clearly told when they blow up it's a hell of an explosion, but whatever ok we'll let that go, cos honestly I'm getting tired

The ending scene - where is it? The citadel blows up, no chance in HELL Shepard survives that. You could argue that he/she did before, but it's also made clear that that's only because (s)he was in full armour, and that still took 2 years to heal. The rubble is dull grey and piled everywhere - aka London. Shepard FELL from space to land in London? No chance.

I appreciate that you understand that these explanations aren't convincing, but look at them closely and you'll see they're downright ridiculous.

EDIT - Jokers mass thingy - well, they have to be. He's sure as hell not on Earth at the end, and the only way to get there is an FTL jump. Either way, he HAS to have run away from Earth and jumped to another Reaper controlled system.

 

[Jodah]

I just lack faith in Bioware. I don't think they are cunning enough to pull something like this off. I've been surprised before but it is far easier to believe people are stupid than it is to believe they are brilliant.

 

[SS2Dante]

I just lack faith in Bioware. I don't think they are cunning enough to pull something like this off. I've been surprised before but it is far easier to believe people are stupid than it is to believe they are brilliant.

Very true. However, in this case we have evidence (at least 3 games worth) that they are NOT stupid. People seem to have forgotten that they are the ones who made and stuck to their own in universe rules for 6 or so years. So many plot errors, so close together, combined with the indoctrination theory? Simply can't believe they had a sudden ah...dumbening... right at the end of the final game.

 

[Xangba]

snip

OP, give it up. You can't argue with the almighty Zeel.

OT: It'd be nice if it's true, but I'm not going to believe it was or wasn't intended without official statements (and no not any cryptic crap either, hard fact official statements). Until then I'll just ignore the given ending, and use my own imagination to expand on the indoctrination theory.

 

[Jodah]

I just lack faith in Bioware. I don't think they are cunning enough to pull something like this off. I've been surprised before but it is far easier to believe people are stupid than it is to believe they are brilliant.

Very true. However, in this case we have evidence (at least 3 games worth) that they are NOT stupid. People seem to have forgotten that they are the ones who made and stuck to their own in universe rules for 6 or so years. So many plot errors, so close together, combined with the indoctrination theory? Simply can't believe they had a sudden ah...dumbening... right at the end of the final game.

I see what you're saying I've just seen even more surprising things that ended up being true. Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic. Don't get me wrong, I would love if the indoctrination theory is true. I would actually replay the game in that case. I just don't feel it is true until it happens.

 

[SS2Dante]

I just lack faith in Bioware. I don't think they are cunning enough to pull something like this off. I've been surprised before but it is far easier to believe people are stupid than it is to believe they are brilliant.

Very true. However, in this case we have evidence (at least 3 games worth) that they are NOT stupid. People seem to have forgotten that they are the ones who made and stuck to their own in universe rules for 6 or so years. So many plot errors, so close together, combined with the indoctrination theory? Simply can't believe they had a sudden ah...dumbening... right at the end of the final game.

I see what you're saying I've just seen even more surprising things that ended up being true. Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic. Don't get me wrong, I would love if the indoctrination theory is true. I would actually replay the game in that case. I just don't feel it is true until it happens.

True. I did consider calling it the indoctrination interpretation in the post, since I don't believe it needs Biowares confirmation to make more sense than the version most people believe, but I do get what you're saying.

Hell, perhaps in a few months you'll replay the game with this in mind and interpret it differently - I know the dream sequences utterly changed for me when I did.

 

[SS2Dante]

snip

OP, give it up. You can't argue with the almighty Zeel.

OT: It'd be nice if it's true, but I'm not going to believe it was or wasn't intended without official statements (and no not any cryptic crap either, hard fact official statements). Until then I'll just ignore the given ending, and use my own imagination to expand on the indoctrination theory.

It took me too long to realise that, alas

And cool, fair enough.

Seriously though, not ONE person has given me a plot hole caused by this 'conspiracy theory'. Making me more comfortable in my understanding of it.

 

[Da Orky Man]

snip

Yes, it explains a lot of things, but it opens up huge plot holes. For example, if you get a really low War Asset score, you ONLY get presented with the 'Destroy' option. So, why would the Reapers only give you the option to destroy them, and no others? It makes less than zero sense. Also, you only get the 'Synthesis' ending if you get over 3000 War Asset score, indicating that it's supposed to be the rarer choice. Again, makes little sense.
Another point is the Stargazer scene at the end. You get it no matter which decision you make, so it stands to reason that all choices prevent the Reapers from killing everybody. This again conflicts with the Indoctrination theory, since two of the options should lead to defeat.

Now for the second part.
The literal interpretation of the ending makes little sense, and is therefore not a good ending. The Indoctrination interpretation does fill in a few holes, but it makes others and also makes little sense.
So far, Bioware have had little to say on the matter. I currently hold ME3 as one of the best narratives I've ever seen, read or played. I'm not nearly as bitter as many. But they still messed up the ending. We wanted closure, rather than space magic and wild theories.
Appreciated if you could actually respond to this, as well as edit the OP to include the ploholes I mentioned.

Lol, this came up in the post above.

If you've got a really low war asset score the Reapers don't need you indoctrinated. They don't fear or respect you, and are not actively trying to indoctrinate you. Hence the fact that it's easier to break the thrall.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the Stargazer scene involves humans. Information and even species can survive the cycle, and as another poster pointed out Liara is storing your story on a device, in case you fail. It could be during the next cycle. Even in one there were rumours of the Reapers which survived from the Prothean cycle.

Since this causes no problems I can't see them as plotholes.

Edit - the fact that it was such a good narrative is what made me suspicious. These errors are not small, or minor, or anything. They're huge problems. People really believe Bioware, famous for this story and the detail in it, would suddenly make a million huge mistakes, RIGHT after getting hit by Harbingers beam? Don't buy it. A mediocre ending I'd understand, but not a broken one.

So, in order to get the second-best ending, you have to suck at the rest of the game? That sounds somewhat suspicious. And true, these isn't any proof to show that Stargazer is actually human, but really? When the fans have to construct such a theory that it involves the worst players getting rewarded, the better players being punished, the epilogue actually being aliens rather than humans, Bioware really did make somewhat of a mess of the whole thing.

However, I am rather happy that you answered me. That alone gives you more credibility than those who just ignore everyone else's opinion. But I digress.

Should I have a free reign in explaining it literally, I could go like this:

TIM was aboard the Citadel because he fled there, intending to activate the Crucible to take control. You an Anderson made it there because your armour was essentially destroyed, so the Alliance couldn't track you, so they though everyone was dead. Joker ran away because, really, a single frigate, without any support, in a battle with dreadnoughts all-round? he wouldn't stand a chance, so he retreated to act more of a command-centre, much like the Alliance intended if you read the Codex. So, when said coloured light was approaching, damaging any ship in the way, he tried to save the Normandy by fleeing.
The squad end-up on another planet because it was the only place they could land with roughly half an engine left, it being a garden world being left to chance. The mass relay explosions don't destroy the galaxy because all their energy is used in projecting the multicoloured light. And the extra scene is simply because that was the one ending where Shepard was told he wouldn't definitely die, it was just implied.
Oh, and the Catalyst was just that. The Catalyst.

There, all explained. Not very well, of course, but as well as any explanation as I've seen for the Indoctrination theory. Now, if the epilogue was different for the different ways of putting Shepard in the thing Liara made, I'd be impressed.

I'm here for a discussion, not to just insist I'm right hence my replies

Second-best ending? I assume you're referring to the fact you don't get indoctrinated if your army sucks. But that's the point - your army sucks. The reapers don't need you indoctrinated because they're kicking its ass, and the Crucible won't get into position in time (if it doesn't get easily destroyed). Worst of all - you wake up and have to see your own failure. At least in the other endings you die blissfully unaware, dreaming of a garden paradise your crew are in.

Ok, from your explanation - how did TIM flee to the Crucible, when its under Reaper lockdown? How does Anderson get ahead of you in the corridor with no other doors or exits? And Really? You REALLY believe Joker and the crew of the Normandy ran away, leaving Earth behind? As said in the podcast - nah, they'd ram the reapers before they'd do that.

Ok, the Mass Relays thing - in the dlc we were clearly told when they blow up it's a hell of an explosion, but whatever ok we'll let that go, cos honestly I'm getting tired

The ending scene - where is it? The citadel blows up, no chance in HELL Shepard survives that. You could argue that he/she did before, but it's also made clear that that's only because (s)he was in full armour, and that still took 2 years to heal. The rubble is dull grey and piled everywhere - aka London. Shepard FELL from space to land in London? No chance.

I appreciate that you understand that these explanations aren't convincing, but look at them closely and you'll see they're downright ridiculous.

EDIT - Jokers mass thingy - well, they have to be. He's sure as hell not on Earth at the end, and the only way to get there is an FTL jump. Either way, he HAS to have run away from Earth and jumped to another Reaper controlled system.

TIM fled to the Crucible long before you got to his base, before it was under Reaper control. Hell, being who he is, he likely knew that Kai Leng had the tracking beacon on, and so got out early. Hence, was on the Citadel when it was towed away.
Anderson got in first, or was deposited ahead of you. Bam.
The Normandy still isn't a full-scale warship, designed for heavy combat. As it was refit to be a command vehicle, it's quite possible the Alliance simply did that.
I just rewatched the end scene. The Citadel does not blow up. Really, it seems that writers wanted to make it abjectly clear that the Citadel simply closes, no explosions included. Except the coloured-light one.

Or, and this is an odd one, I'm seeing the evidence biased because I picked the Synthesis ending, and not just because I like green. Being relatively in favour of transhumanism and such, the idea of synthetic life and organic life coming together to fuse as one race appealed to me. It's quite possible that I don't want to have my choice be the worst one, despite it seeming like one of the better ones.

However, both views still don't explain why Bioware hasn't said anything. As someone else has pointed out, if the indoctrination theory is correct, they should have pointed it out, it would dispel a lot of the hate from them.

And something I only just thought of. Indoctrination takes time, right? As you say, Shepard and friends have been around a lot of Reaper tech. However, in the first game, I think Mordin (maybe someone else) says that any form of mind-control, including indoctrination, leads to a reduced cognitive ability. You slowly lose intelligence and willpower. However, Shepard displays none of these traits, remaining as strong in will and intelligent as before.

EDIT: Apologies, the ending I was looking at was Control. I looked up the Destroy ending, and the Citadel does indeed fall apart. Not quite explode, Shepard could have quite easily survived it, but it certaintly did not stay together.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I'm kind of in the middle ground here. I think everything that happens post-Harbinger beam does actually happen, but I also think that Sheppard is indoctrinated by that time. The idea that the whole thing is a hallucination is just way to elaborate for me. That's the one part that DOES seem like a desperate attempt to retcon the "Star Child". I think that all the plot holes/twists are just the result of lazy writing, but if Shepard is indoctrinated, then at least his sudden and complete reversal of moral reasoning makes some kind of sense.

You know, that bit with Joker would be really easy to explain, too. They just need one line from Hackett telling the fleets to get everyone they can and run for it if they see the Crucible preparing to fire. It would make sense: Once it goes off, it's either to destroy the Reapers or it isn't. Either way, there's no point in waiting around to find out, especially considering that whatever it does will most likely involve destruction on a massive scale. One quick cutscene of Joker picking up your squad (along with showing a few casualties based on the player's performance)as the Crucible prepares to fire and we're good to go.

Hackett giving an order that, if the Crucible is about to fire, every ship is to collect it's passengers from the war torn earth and run? Leaving the Crucible defenceless? Either it fires with barely any warm up (no time to run) or it fires with a long warm up (Reapers can destroy it).

Ok, how about this - here's the 3 options you get from the child.

Control (blue/paragon) - take control of the Reapers. Think we can all agree this is how the Illusive man was indoctrinated?

Synthesis (neutral) - combine all life into a new version of life, both synthetic and organic. The pinnacle of evolution. THIS DESCRIBES A REAPER. Notice in the end video nothing appears to have changed with regards to life.

Destroy/Fight (red/renegade) - this choice is presented as the evil one, since it entails killing millions of innocents. It's also the only one that doesn't result in Shepard dissolving into nothing. This ending gives an extra cutscene of Shepard waking up in rubble.

The evil choice is the only one that doesn't involve giving up and dissolving into nothing. It is also the only one with the extra cutscene. If you don't believe the indoctrination theory how do you explain it?

Well, the bit about the Crucible is fair enough, but I still think my version is better then the complete lack of explanation for Joker's cowardice that the game gives. And as for your question...I agree that the "renegade" option is only presented as such because of Sheppard's indoctrination. Basically, I agree with you about that.

 

[SS2Dante]

snip

Yes, it explains a lot of things, but it opens up huge plot holes. For example, if you get a really low War Asset score, you ONLY get presented with the 'Destroy' option. So, why would the Reapers only give you the option to destroy them, and no others? It makes less than zero sense. Also, you only get the 'Synthesis' ending if you get over 3000 War Asset score, indicating that it's supposed to be the rarer choice. Again, makes little sense.
Another point is the Stargazer scene at the end. You get it no matter which decision you make, so it stands to reason that all choices prevent the Reapers from killing everybody. This again conflicts with the Indoctrination theory, since two of the options should lead to defeat.

Now for the second part.
The literal interpretation of the ending makes little sense, and is therefore not a good ending. The Indoctrination interpretation does fill in a few holes, but it makes others and also makes little sense.
So far, Bioware have had little to say on the matter. I currently hold ME3 as one of the best narratives I've ever seen, read or played. I'm not nearly as bitter as many. But they still messed up the ending. We wanted closure, rather than space magic and wild theories.
Appreciated if you could actually respond to this, as well as edit the OP to include the ploholes I mentioned.

Lol, this came up in the post above.

If you've got a really low war asset score the Reapers don't need you indoctrinated. They don't fear or respect you, and are not actively trying to indoctrinate you. Hence the fact that it's easier to break the thrall.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the Stargazer scene involves humans. Information and even species can survive the cycle, and as another poster pointed out Liara is storing your story on a device, in case you fail. It could be during the next cycle. Even in one there were rumours of the Reapers which survived from the Prothean cycle.

Since this causes no problems I can't see them as plotholes.

Edit - the fact that it was such a good narrative is what made me suspicious. These errors are not small, or minor, or anything. They're huge problems. People really believe Bioware, famous for this story and the detail in it, would suddenly make a million huge mistakes, RIGHT after getting hit by Harbingers beam? Don't buy it. A mediocre ending I'd understand, but not a broken one.

So, in order to get the second-best ending, you have to suck at the rest of the game? That sounds somewhat suspicious. And true, these isn't any proof to show that Stargazer is actually human, but really? When the fans have to construct such a theory that it involves the worst players getting rewarded, the better players being punished, the epilogue actually being aliens rather than humans, Bioware really did make somewhat of a mess of the whole thing.

However, I am rather happy that you answered me. That alone gives you more credibility than those who just ignore everyone else's opinion. But I digress.

Should I have a free reign in explaining it literally, I could go like this:

TIM was aboard the Citadel because he fled there, intending to activate the Crucible to take control. You an Anderson made it there because your armour was essentially destroyed, so the Alliance couldn't track you, so they though everyone was dead. Joker ran away because, really, a single frigate, without any support, in a battle with dreadnoughts all-round? he wouldn't stand a chance, so he retreated to act more of a command-centre, much like the Alliance intended if you read the Codex. So, when said coloured light was approaching, damaging any ship in the way, he tried to save the Normandy by fleeing.
The squad end-up on another planet because it was the only place they could land with roughly half an engine left, it being a garden world being left to chance. The mass relay explosions don't destroy the galaxy because all their energy is used in projecting the multicoloured light. And the extra scene is simply because that was the one ending where Shepard was told he wouldn't definitely die, it was just implied.
Oh, and the Catalyst was just that. The Catalyst.

There, all explained. Not very well, of course, but as well as any explanation as I've seen for the Indoctrination theory. Now, if the epilogue was different for the different ways of putting Shepard in the thing Liara made, I'd be impressed.

I'm here for a discussion, not to just insist I'm right hence my replies

Second-best ending? I assume you're referring to the fact you don't get indoctrinated if your army sucks. But that's the point - your army sucks. The reapers don't need you indoctrinated because they're kicking its ass, and the Crucible won't get into position in time (if it doesn't get easily destroyed). Worst of all - you wake up and have to see your own failure. At least in the other endings you die blissfully unaware, dreaming of a garden paradise your crew are in.

Ok, from your explanation - how did TIM flee to the Crucible, when its under Reaper lockdown? How does Anderson get ahead of you in the corridor with no other doors or exits? And Really? You REALLY believe Joker and the crew of the Normandy ran away, leaving Earth behind? As said in the podcast - nah, they'd ram the reapers before they'd do that.

Ok, the Mass Relays thing - in the dlc we were clearly told when they blow up it's a hell of an explosion, but whatever ok we'll let that go, cos honestly I'm getting tired

The ending scene - where is it? The citadel blows up, no chance in HELL Shepard survives that. You could argue that he/she did before, but it's also made clear that that's only because (s)he was in full armour, and that still took 2 years to heal. The rubble is dull grey and piled everywhere - aka London. Shepard FELL from space to land in London? No chance.

I appreciate that you understand that these explanations aren't convincing, but look at them closely and you'll see they're downright ridiculous.

EDIT - Jokers mass thingy - well, they have to be. He's sure as hell not on Earth at the end, and the only way to get there is an FTL jump. Either way, he HAS to have run away from Earth and jumped to another Reaper controlled system.

TIM fled to the Crucible long before you got to his base, before it was under Reaper control. Hell, being who he is, he likely knew that Kai Leng had the tracking beacon on, and so got out early. Hence, was on the Citadel when it was towed away.
Anderson got in first, or was deposited ahead of you. Bam.
The Normandy still isn't a full-scale warship, designed for heavy combat. As it was refit to be a command vehicle, it's quite possible the Alliance simply did that.
I just rewatched the end scene. The Citadel does not blow up. Really, it seems that writers wanted to make it abjectly clear that the Citadel simply closes, no explosions included. Except the coloured-light one.

Or, and this is an odd one, I'm seeing the evidence biased because I picked the Synthesis ending, and not just because I like green. Being relatively in favour of transhumanism and such, the idea of synthetic life and organic life coming together to fuse as one race appealed to me. It's quite possible that I don't want to have my choice be the worst one, despite it seeming like one of the better ones.

However, both views still don't explain why Bioware hasn't said anything. As someone else has pointed out, if the indoctrination theory is correct, they should have pointed it out, it would dispel a lot of the hate from them.

And something I only just thought of. Indoctrination takes time, right? As you say, Shepard and friends have been around a lot of Reaper tech. However, in the first game, I think Mordin (maybe someone else) says that any form of mind-control, including indoctrination, leads to a reduced cognitive ability. You slowly lose intelligence and willpower. However, Shepard displays none of these traits, remaining as strong in will and intelligent as before.

EDIT: Apologies, the ending I was looking at was Control. I looked up the Destroy ending, and the Citadel does indeed fall apart. Not quite explode, Shepard could have quite easily survived it, but it certaintly did not stay together.

Lol I was halfway through posting the youtube link before I saw your edit. Remember that Shepard has no helmet.

Ok, so why is TIM still alive and functioning? Everyone else is dead, he should be too, or a full husk.
Anderson specifically states he "followed you up". Makes no sense, since everyone was supposed to be dead, and anyway, where did he come out? He says he's in a room just like yours, one that reminds him of "your description of the collector base" (notice that this is immediately followed by a confrontation that mirrors that of Saren in ME1. It's Shepards mind trying to use the past experiences to defend itself)
The taking of Earth was all-or-nothing. No retreat, no surrender. No fleeing the System

I love your description of the green ending by the way. Don't you see? There's ALREADY a race that matches your description. REAPERS. This is you giving in and helping them create more REAPERS. That's why I think it's so brilliant (I chose green too btw).

AS to your last point, Shepard is having nightmares and headaches all through 3, as well as (if you go by my theory) seeing things (the child). Here are the relevent bits from the Codex description of indoctrination (which, btw, was added ONLY in this game) (see article for the full thing).

"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.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper?s 'suggestions' can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe.

Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years."

I think this answers your last point, right? Shepards indoctrination is slow and insidious, compounded by Shepards strong will. Also - ghostly presences and superstitious awe? The boy and the Catalyst-child.

 

[xorinite]

bluntly, my reason is that there is insufficiant evidence to back up the indoctrination theory over the 'they were lazy/rushed and made a terrible ending' theory I ascribe to.

Some spoilers ahead

Spoiler

We see joker fleeing the battle, and his events on another planet. This isn't from shepherds perspective. We see the mass relays firing and the citadel blowing up, that isn't from inside shepherds head. So if hes indoctrinated or not it wouldn't affect OUR perspective.. Why?

Because this isn't a first person story, so to suddenly switch to a first person narrative structure makes no sense.

We see events from a third person perspective. When the geth dreadnought was blown up, the quarian fleet bombarded the reaper on rannock, sovereign blown up with missles from the normandy, the collector base going up in smoke, legion shooting that husk that was coming up behind shepherd the first time they met, mordin humming merrily as he cured the genophage, it was ALL from our third person perspective. That is the style this story has been consistantly told in, for jokers scene to be from shepherds brainwashed perspective breaks the style of narrative, frankly again this would lead me to believe the rushed/lazy ending alternative has more weight

Furthermore, the devs have made comments justifying and explaining the god child and going on about him which to me further undermines what to me looks like the desperate denial/barganing phase of grief. Bad endings happen even with bioware, I mean look at what they did with DA2, that wasn't exactly top drawer.

(some editing to make more sense)

 

[Da Orky Man]

snip

Yes, it explains a lot of things, but it opens up huge plot holes. For example, if you get a really low War Asset score, you ONLY get presented with the 'Destroy' option. So, why would the Reapers only give you the option to destroy them, and no others? It makes less than zero sense. Also, you only get the 'Synthesis' ending if you get over 3000 War Asset score, indicating that it's supposed to be the rarer choice. Again, makes little sense.
Another point is the Stargazer scene at the end. You get it no matter which decision you make, so it stands to reason that all choices prevent the Reapers from killing everybody. This again conflicts with the Indoctrination theory, since two of the options should lead to defeat.

Now for the second part.
The literal interpretation of the ending makes little sense, and is therefore not a good ending. The Indoctrination interpretation does fill in a few holes, but it makes others and also makes little sense.
So far, Bioware have had little to say on the matter. I currently hold ME3 as one of the best narratives I've ever seen, read or played. I'm not nearly as bitter as many. But they still messed up the ending. We wanted closure, rather than space magic and wild theories.
Appreciated if you could actually respond to this, as well as edit the OP to include the ploholes I mentioned.

Lol, this came up in the post above.

If you've got a really low war asset score the Reapers don't need you indoctrinated. They don't fear or respect you, and are not actively trying to indoctrinate you. Hence the fact that it's easier to break the thrall.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the Stargazer scene involves humans. Information and even species can survive the cycle, and as another poster pointed out Liara is storing your story on a device, in case you fail. It could be during the next cycle. Even in one there were rumours of the Reapers which survived from the Prothean cycle.

Since this causes no problems I can't see them as plotholes.

Edit - the fact that it was such a good narrative is what made me suspicious. These errors are not small, or minor, or anything. They're huge problems. People really believe Bioware, famous for this story and the detail in it, would suddenly make a million huge mistakes, RIGHT after getting hit by Harbingers beam? Don't buy it. A mediocre ending I'd understand, but not a broken one.

So, in order to get the second-best ending, you have to suck at the rest of the game? That sounds somewhat suspicious. And true, these isn't any proof to show that Stargazer is actually human, but really? When the fans have to construct such a theory that it involves the worst players getting rewarded, the better players being punished, the epilogue actually being aliens rather than humans, Bioware really did make somewhat of a mess of the whole thing.

However, I am rather happy that you answered me. That alone gives you more credibility than those who just ignore everyone else's opinion. But I digress.

Should I have a free reign in explaining it literally, I could go like this:

TIM was aboard the Citadel because he fled there, intending to activate the Crucible to take control. You an Anderson made it there because your armour was essentially destroyed, so the Alliance couldn't track you, so they though everyone was dead. Joker ran away because, really, a single frigate, without any support, in a battle with dreadnoughts all-round? he wouldn't stand a chance, so he retreated to act more of a command-centre, much like the Alliance intended if you read the Codex. So, when said coloured light was approaching, damaging any ship in the way, he tried to save the Normandy by fleeing.
The squad end-up on another planet because it was the only place they could land with roughly half an engine left, it being a garden world being left to chance. The mass relay explosions don't destroy the galaxy because all their energy is used in projecting the multicoloured light. And the extra scene is simply because that was the one ending where Shepard was told he wouldn't definitely die, it was just implied.
Oh, and the Catalyst was just that. The Catalyst.

There, all explained. Not very well, of course, but as well as any explanation as I've seen for the Indoctrination theory. Now, if the epilogue was different for the different ways of putting Shepard in the thing Liara made, I'd be impressed.

I'm here for a discussion, not to just insist I'm right hence my replies

Second-best ending? I assume you're referring to the fact you don't get indoctrinated if your army sucks. But that's the point - your army sucks. The reapers don't need you indoctrinated because they're kicking its ass, and the Crucible won't get into position in time (if it doesn't get easily destroyed). Worst of all - you wake up and have to see your own failure. At least in the other endings you die blissfully unaware, dreaming of a garden paradise your crew are in.

Ok, from your explanation - how did TIM flee to the Crucible, when its under Reaper lockdown? How does Anderson get ahead of you in the corridor with no other doors or exits? And Really? You REALLY believe Joker and the crew of the Normandy ran away, leaving Earth behind? As said in the podcast - nah, they'd ram the reapers before they'd do that.

Ok, the Mass Relays thing - in the dlc we were clearly told when they blow up it's a hell of an explosion, but whatever ok we'll let that go, cos honestly I'm getting tired

The ending scene - where is it? The citadel blows up, no chance in HELL Shepard survives that. You could argue that he/she did before, but it's also made clear that that's only because (s)he was in full armour, and that still took 2 years to heal. The rubble is dull grey and piled everywhere - aka London. Shepard FELL from space to land in London? No chance.

I appreciate that you understand that these explanations aren't convincing, but look at them closely and you'll see they're downright ridiculous.

EDIT - Jokers mass thingy - well, they have to be. He's sure as hell not on Earth at the end, and the only way to get there is an FTL jump. Either way, he HAS to have run away from Earth and jumped to another Reaper controlled system.

TIM fled to the Crucible long before you got to his base, before it was under Reaper control. Hell, being who he is, he likely knew that Kai Leng had the tracking beacon on, and so got out early. Hence, was on the Citadel when it was towed away.
Anderson got in first, or was deposited ahead of you. Bam.
The Normandy still isn't a full-scale warship, designed for heavy combat. As it was refit to be a command vehicle, it's quite possible the Alliance simply did that.
I just rewatched the end scene. The Citadel does not blow up. Really, it seems that writers wanted to make it abjectly clear that the Citadel simply closes, no explosions included. Except the coloured-light one.

Or, and this is an odd one, I'm seeing the evidence biased because I picked the Synthesis ending, and not just because I like green. Being relatively in favour of transhumanism and such, the idea of synthetic life and organic life coming together to fuse as one race appealed to me. It's quite possible that I don't want to have my choice be the worst one, despite it seeming like one of the better ones.

However, both views still don't explain why Bioware hasn't said anything. As someone else has pointed out, if the indoctrination theory is correct, they should have pointed it out, it would dispel a lot of the hate from them.

And something I only just thought of. Indoctrination takes time, right? As you say, Shepard and friends have been around a lot of Reaper tech. However, in the first game, I think Mordin (maybe someone else) says that any form of mind-control, including indoctrination, leads to a reduced cognitive ability. You slowly lose intelligence and willpower. However, Shepard displays none of these traits, remaining as strong in will and intelligent as before.

EDIT: Apologies, the ending I was looking at was Control. I looked up the Destroy ending, and the Citadel does indeed fall apart. Not quite explode, Shepard could have quite easily survived it, but it certaintly did not stay together.

Lol I was halfway through posting the youtube link before I saw your edit. Remember that Shepard has no helmet.

Ok, so why is TIM still alive and functioning? Everyone else is dead, he should be too, or a full husk.
Anderson specifically states he "followed you up". Makes no sense, since everyone was supposed to be dead, and anyway, where did he come out? He says he's in a room just like yours, one that reminds him of "your description of the collector base" (notice that this is immediately followed by a confrontation that mirrors that of Saren in ME1. It's Shepards mind trying to use the past experiences to defend itself)
The taking of Earth was all-or-nothing. No retreat, no surrender. No fleeing the System

I love your description of the green ending by the way. Don't you see? There's ALREADY a race that matches your description. REAPERS. This is you giving in and helping them create more REAPERS. That's why I think it's so brilliant (I chose green too btw).

AS to your last point, Shepard is having nightmares and headaches all through 3, as well as (if you go by my theory) seeing things (the child). Here are the relevent bits from the Codex description of indoctrination (which, btw, was added ONLY in this game) (see article for the full thing).

"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.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper?s 'suggestions' can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe.

Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years."

I think this answers your last point, right? Shepards indoctrination is slow and insidious, compounded by Shepards strong will. Also - ghostly presences and superstitious awe? The boy and the Catalyst-child.

Ok, fair enough, you're getting close to convincing me. Most of the evidence seems to point towards indoctrination over literal, and latter having glaring plot-holes the size of cities. However, I'm still going to be cautious. Saying that the Stargazer is an alien is a bit far-fetched, given that he looks and sounds human. Also, why did the Reapers give Shepard the chance to destroy them anyway? If he's still lying in the middle of London, then we lost. He never made it to the Citadel nor the Catalyst, therefore everyone is dead. A bit of a jarring ending, I think.
#Otherwise, I'm at least convinced that the literal ending did not happen. We may need adjustments to Indoctrination theory, but it's closer to the truth. You really are a good debater.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116398-Mass-Effect-3-Director-Addresses-Ending-Controversy

And said link above was just posted. Not much in it though, seems to imply that the literal ending happened.

 

[SS2Dante]

bluntly, my reason is that there is insufficiant evidence to back up the indoctrination theory over the 'they were lazy/rushed and made a terrible ending' theory I ascribe to.

Some spoilers ahead

Spoiler

We see joker fleeing the battle, and his events on another planet. This isn't from shepherds perspective. We see the mass relays firing and the citadel blowing up, that isn't from inside shepherds head. So if hes indoctrinated or not it wouldn't affect OUR perspective.. Why?

Because this isn't a first person story, so to suddenly switch to a first person narrative structure makes no sense.

We see events from a third person perspective. When the geth dreadnought was blown up, the quarian fleet bombarded the reaper on rannock, sovereign blown up with missles from the normandy, the collector base going up in smoke, legion shooting that husk that was coming up behind shepherd the first time they met, mordin humming merrily as he cured the genophage, it was ALL from our third person perspective. That is the style this story has been consistantly told in, for jokers scene to be from shepherds brainwashed perspective breaks the style of narrative, frankly again this would lead me to believe the rushed/lazy ending alternative has more weight

Furthermore, the devs have made comments justifying and explaining the god child and going on about him which to me further undermines what to me looks like the desperate denial/barganing phase of grief. Bad endings happen even with bioware, I mean look at what they did with DA2, that wasn't exactly top drawer.

(some editing to make more sense)

Actually it is a type of first person story. Or rather, it's a type of third person (the line gets blurry) - focalised third person. Used a lot by writers like James Joyce. Shepards dreams, you see. Thats Shepards perspective. The ending cutscenes are all symbolic dreams of what Shepard believes his/her choice will bring (everyone ends up happy, far away, on a beautiful planet, just like they say they want to be throughout the game).

Also, when Shepard gets drunk, so do we. When Shepard gets knocked out, so do we. Focalised. They filter the world subtly. I admit, it's not always consistent, but it is there.

 

[SS2Dante]

snip

Yes, it explains a lot of things, but it opens up huge plot holes. For example, if you get a really low War Asset score, you ONLY get presented with the 'Destroy' option. So, why would the Reapers only give you the option to destroy them, and no others? It makes less than zero sense. Also, you only get the 'Synthesis' ending if you get over 3000 War Asset score, indicating that it's supposed to be the rarer choice. Again, makes little sense.
Another point is the Stargazer scene at the end. You get it no matter which decision you make, so it stands to reason that all choices prevent the Reapers from killing everybody. This again conflicts with the Indoctrination theory, since two of the options should lead to defeat.

Now for the second part.
The literal interpretation of the ending makes little sense, and is therefore not a good ending. The Indoctrination interpretation does fill in a few holes, but it makes others and also makes little sense.
So far, Bioware have had little to say on the matter. I currently hold ME3 as one of the best narratives I've ever seen, read or played. I'm not nearly as bitter as many. But they still messed up the ending. We wanted closure, rather than space magic and wild theories.
Appreciated if you could actually respond to this, as well as edit the OP to include the ploholes I mentioned.

Lol, this came up in the post above.

If you've got a really low war asset score the Reapers don't need you indoctrinated. They don't fear or respect you, and are not actively trying to indoctrinate you. Hence the fact that it's easier to break the thrall.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the Stargazer scene involves humans. Information and even species can survive the cycle, and as another poster pointed out Liara is storing your story on a device, in case you fail. It could be during the next cycle. Even in one there were rumours of the Reapers which survived from the Prothean cycle.

Since this causes no problems I can't see them as plotholes.

Edit - the fact that it was such a good narrative is what made me suspicious. These errors are not small, or minor, or anything. They're huge problems. People really believe Bioware, famous for this story and the detail in it, would suddenly make a million huge mistakes, RIGHT after getting hit by Harbingers beam? Don't buy it. A mediocre ending I'd understand, but not a broken one.

So, in order to get the second-best ending, you have to suck at the rest of the game? That sounds somewhat suspicious. And true, these isn't any proof to show that Stargazer is actually human, but really? When the fans have to construct such a theory that it involves the worst players getting rewarded, the better players being punished, the epilogue actually being aliens rather than humans, Bioware really did make somewhat of a mess of the whole thing.

However, I am rather happy that you answered me. That alone gives you more credibility than those who just ignore everyone else's opinion. But I digress.

Should I have a free reign in explaining it literally, I could go like this:

TIM was aboard the Citadel because he fled there, intending to activate the Crucible to take control. You an Anderson made it there because your armour was essentially destroyed, so the Alliance couldn't track you, so they though everyone was dead. Joker ran away because, really, a single frigate, without any support, in a battle with dreadnoughts all-round? he wouldn't stand a chance, so he retreated to act more of a command-centre, much like the Alliance intended if you read the Codex. So, when said coloured light was approaching, damaging any ship in the way, he tried to save the Normandy by fleeing.
The squad end-up on another planet because it was the only place they could land with roughly half an engine left, it being a garden world being left to chance. The mass relay explosions don't destroy the galaxy because all their energy is used in projecting the multicoloured light. And the extra scene is simply because that was the one ending where Shepard was told he wouldn't definitely die, it was just implied.
Oh, and the Catalyst was just that. The Catalyst.

There, all explained. Not very well, of course, but as well as any explanation as I've seen for the Indoctrination theory. Now, if the epilogue was different for the different ways of putting Shepard in the thing Liara made, I'd be impressed.

I'm here for a discussion, not to just insist I'm right hence my replies

Second-best ending? I assume you're referring to the fact you don't get indoctrinated if your army sucks. But that's the point - your army sucks. The reapers don't need you indoctrinated because they're kicking its ass, and the Crucible won't get into position in time (if it doesn't get easily destroyed). Worst of all - you wake up and have to see your own failure. At least in the other endings you die blissfully unaware, dreaming of a garden paradise your crew are in.

Ok, from your explanation - how did TIM flee to the Crucible, when its under Reaper lockdown? How does Anderson get ahead of you in the corridor with no other doors or exits? And Really? You REALLY believe Joker and the crew of the Normandy ran away, leaving Earth behind? As said in the podcast - nah, they'd ram the reapers before they'd do that.

Ok, the Mass Relays thing - in the dlc we were clearly told when they blow up it's a hell of an explosion, but whatever ok we'll let that go, cos honestly I'm getting tired

The ending scene - where is it? The citadel blows up, no chance in HELL Shepard survives that. You could argue that he/she did before, but it's also made clear that that's only because (s)he was in full armour, and that still took 2 years to heal. The rubble is dull grey and piled everywhere - aka London. Shepard FELL from space to land in London? No chance.

I appreciate that you understand that these explanations aren't convincing, but look at them closely and you'll see they're downright ridiculous.

EDIT - Jokers mass thingy - well, they have to be. He's sure as hell not on Earth at the end, and the only way to get there is an FTL jump. Either way, he HAS to have run away from Earth and jumped to another Reaper controlled system.

TIM fled to the Crucible long before you got to his base, before it was under Reaper control. Hell, being who he is, he likely knew that Kai Leng had the tracking beacon on, and so got out early. Hence, was on the Citadel when it was towed away.
Anderson got in first, or was deposited ahead of you. Bam.
The Normandy still isn't a full-scale warship, designed for heavy combat. As it was refit to be a command vehicle, it's quite possible the Alliance simply did that.
I just rewatched the end scene. The Citadel does not blow up. Really, it seems that writers wanted to make it abjectly clear that the Citadel simply closes, no explosions included. Except the coloured-light one.

Or, and this is an odd one, I'm seeing the evidence biased because I picked the Synthesis ending, and not just because I like green. Being relatively in favour of transhumanism and such, the idea of synthetic life and organic life coming together to fuse as one race appealed to me. It's quite possible that I don't want to have my choice be the worst one, despite it seeming like one of the better ones.

However, both views still don't explain why Bioware hasn't said anything. As someone else has pointed out, if the indoctrination theory is correct, they should have pointed it out, it would dispel a lot of the hate from them.

And something I only just thought of. Indoctrination takes time, right? As you say, Shepard and friends have been around a lot of Reaper tech. However, in the first game, I think Mordin (maybe someone else) says that any form of mind-control, including indoctrination, leads to a reduced cognitive ability. You slowly lose intelligence and willpower. However, Shepard displays none of these traits, remaining as strong in will and intelligent as before.

EDIT: Apologies, the ending I was looking at was Control. I looked up the Destroy ending, and the Citadel does indeed fall apart. Not quite explode, Shepard could have quite easily survived it, but it certaintly did not stay together.

Lol I was halfway through posting the youtube link before I saw your edit. Remember that Shepard has no helmet.

Ok, so why is TIM still alive and functioning? Everyone else is dead, he should be too, or a full husk.
Anderson specifically states he "followed you up". Makes no sense, since everyone was supposed to be dead, and anyway, where did he come out? He says he's in a room just like yours, one that reminds him of "your description of the collector base" (notice that this is immediately followed by a confrontation that mirrors that of Saren in ME1. It's Shepards mind trying to use the past experiences to defend itself)
The taking of Earth was all-or-nothing. No retreat, no surrender. No fleeing the System

I love your description of the green ending by the way. Don't you see? There's ALREADY a race that matches your description. REAPERS. This is you giving in and helping them create more REAPERS. That's why I think it's so brilliant (I chose green too btw).

AS to your last point, Shepard is having nightmares and headaches all through 3, as well as (if you go by my theory) seeing things (the child). Here are the relevent bits from the Codex description of indoctrination (which, btw, was added ONLY in this game) (see article for the full thing).

"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.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper?s 'suggestions' can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe.

Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years."

I think this answers your last point, right? Shepards indoctrination is slow and insidious, compounded by Shepards strong will. Also - ghostly presences and superstitious awe? The boy and the Catalyst-child.

Ok, fair enough, you're getting close to convincing me. Most of the evidence seems to point towards indoctrination over literal, and latter having glaring plot-holes the size of cities. However, I'm still going to be cautious. Saying that the Stargazer is an alien is a bit far-fetched, given that he looks and sounds human. Also, why did the Reapers give Shepard the chance to destroy them anyway? If he's still lying in the middle of London, then we lost. He never made it to the Citadel nor the Catalyst, therefore everyone is dead. A bit of a jarring ending, I think.
#Otherwise, I'm at least convinced that the literal ending did not happen. We may need adjustments to Indoctrination theory, but it's closer to the truth. You really are a good debater.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116398-Mass-Effect-3-Director-Addresses-Ending-Controversy

And said link above was just posted. Not much in it though, seems to imply that the literal ending happened.

Why thank you. It's nice to have an actual debate with someone

Ok, stargazer - fine, true. However, about the Reapers giving Shepard a chance to destroy them: remember, indoctrination isn't mind control, it's mind influencing. The person always has a choice (even if it's suicide, to escape). The Reapers can't entirely destroy your free will. What they do is make fighting them the bad choice - they give it a renegade colour and tell you it will kill innocents, including your friends.

And...yeah, essentially. In two of the three endings we are blissfully unaware we were indoctrinated and humanity was destroyed, in the third we wake up, seemingly defeated. Unless, say, they hinted that they would release dlc or something

From a marketing standpoint it's brilliant, I think. People who were already gonna buy the game would buy it anyway, just because the endings not great that wouldn't stop you. You get a metric shit-tonne of press. Then, a month or two later, release dlc...BAM. People are suddenly raving about the super clever ending of ME3 and how it had them tricked. MORE press coverage. Sales see a boost from people who see this glowing review.

Of course, I'm not a marketer, so that's just idle speculation.
Um, any other issues about the idea?

EDIT - oops, your link.
Ok, 3 things about anything from Bioware right now.
One: they can't confirm the indoctrination theory right now. It'd make people hate them for giving them an incomplete game, and make them angry they have to wait for the real ending. Whearaes if you hold the course, the real ending becomes a pleasant surprise.

2: Every press release is just *sales mumbo jumbo not-commital we're listening to you*. It never actually says anything

3: This theory actually works as an interpretation (better than the original), so even if Bioware straight up say it's wrong forever...it's still kind of right

 

[xorinite]

Actually it is a type of first person story. Or rather, it's a type of third person (the line gets blurry) - focalised third person. Used a lot by writers like James Joyce. Shepards dreams, you see. Thats Shepards perspective. The ending cutscenes are all symbolic dreams of what Shepard believes his/her choice will bring (everyone ends up happy, far away, on a beautiful planet, just like they say they want to be throughout the game).

Also, when Shepard gets drunk, so do we. When Shepard gets knocked out, so do we. Focalised. They filter the world subtly. I admit, it's not always consistent, but it is there.

Yet.. when the quarian fleet bombard the reaper its from their perspective. When the combined fleet fly throught he relay the first time its from their perspective. When Wrex is driving and we see what he says about Wreav, shepherd isn't even on that transport. Did he develop psychic powers to some stage? Clearly it must have been back before mass effect 1, since we saw Saren's private conversation with Nihlus where he shot him and required a witness to testify to that before shepherd became aware.

Bluntly, they have established in cutscenes when it looks like its from someone elses perspective, its because it is from someone elses perspective.

and what about the post credits stuff?
Shepherd then imagined some credits talking about some wierd company called bioware set and then imagined some old guy and a kid talking about 'the shepherd'? where is the previous precident for this kind of thing in the series, did they just switch style, is it a sudden forth wall breaker?

I have to amplify my previous argument and clarify it.
The evidence for indoctrination theory is unsubstantial and relies upon the assumption of a completely alien story telling mechanic they have not introduced or ever used before.
Where as my 'lazy/rushed ending theory' requires they have been consistant with their style and this sudden inconsistancy is due to being rushed, which by the way the devs confirmed they were rushed at the end (as they always are in -every- developer studio)

Edited for clarity and spelling mistakes.

 

[SS2Dante]

Actually it is a type of first person story. Or rather, it's a type of third person (the line gets blurry) - focalised third person. Used a lot by writers like James Joyce. Shepards dreams, you see. Thats Shepards perspective. The ending cutscenes are all symbolic dreams of what Shepard believes his/her choice will bring (everyone ends up happy, far away, on a beautiful planet, just like they say they want to be throughout the game).

Also, when Shepard gets drunk, so do we. When Shepard gets knocked out, so do we. Focalised. They filter the world subtly. I admit, it's not always consistent, but it is there.

Yet.. when the quarian fleet bombard the reaper its from their perspective. When the combined fleet fly throught he relay the first time its from their perspective. When Wrex is driving and we see what he says about Wreav, shepherd isn't even on that transport. Did he develop psychic powers to some stage? Clearly it must have been back before mass effect 1, since we saw Saren's private conversation with Nihlus where he shot him and required a witness to testify to that before shepherd became aware.

Bluntly, they have established in cutscenes when it looks like its from someone elses perspectivem, its from someone elses perspective.

and what about the post credits stuff?
Shepherd then imagined some credits talking about some wierd company called bioware set in the past man thats some heavty indoctrination and then imagined some old guy and a kid talking about 'the shepherd'?
So they broke the fourth wall without any precident for doing so in the past.

I have to just reiterate my previous point. The evidence in favor of indoctrination theory unsubstantial and relies upon them having a completely alien story telling mechanic they have not introduced or ever used before. Where as my 'lazy/rushed ending theory' requires they have been consistant with their style and this sudden inconsistancy is due to being rushed, which by the way the devs confirmed they were rushed at the end (as they always are in every developer studio)

The Stargazer stuff we've dealt with, not gonna repeat(sorry, getting tired of all this typing. it's up a few posts).

Yes, like I said, it's inconsistent focalised third person. We see both from Shepards perspective and not from Shepards perspective. Since your doubt relies on the fact NEVER uses Shepards perspective, it falls over.

 

[SS2Dante]

Actually it is a type of first person story. Or rather, it's a type of third person (the line gets blurry) - focalised third person. Used a lot by writers like James Joyce. Shepards dreams, you see. Thats Shepards perspective. The ending cutscenes are all symbolic dreams of what Shepard believes his/her choice will bring (everyone ends up happy, far away, on a beautiful planet, just like they say they want to be throughout the game).

Also, when Shepard gets drunk, so do we. When Shepard gets knocked out, so do we. Focalised. They filter the world subtly. I admit, it's not always consistent, but it is there.

Yet.. when the quarian fleet bombard the reaper its from their perspective. When the combined fleet fly throught he relay the first time its from their perspective. When Wrex is driving and we see what he says about Wreav, shepherd isn't even on that transport. Did he develop psychic powers to some stage? Clearly it must have been back before mass effect 1, since we saw Saren's private conversation with Nihlus where he shot him and required a witness to testify to that before shepherd became aware.

Bluntly, they have established in cutscenes when it looks like its from someone elses perspectivem, its from someone elses perspective.

EDIT - wait, what alien storytelling mechanic? if you mean perspective, eh, I guess I've answered. If not, please clarify.

and what about the post credits stuff?
Shepherd then imagined some credits talking about some wierd company called bioware set in the past man thats some heavty indoctrination and then imagined some old guy and a kid talking about 'the shepherd'?
So they broke the fourth wall without any precident for doing so in the past.

I have to just reiterate my previous point. The evidence in favor of indoctrination theory unsubstantial and relies upon them having a completely alien story telling mechanic they have not introduced or ever used before. Where as my 'lazy/rushed ending theory' requires they have been consistant with their style and this sudden inconsistancy is due to being rushed, which by the way the devs confirmed they were rushed at the end (as they always are in every developer studio)

The Stargazer stuff we've dealt with, not gonna repeat(sorry, getting tired of all this typing. it's up a few posts).

Yes, like I said, it's inconsistent focalised third person. We see both from Shepards perspective and not from Shepards perspective. Since your doubt relies on the fact NEVER uses Shepards perspective, it falls over.

EDIT - if by alien storytelling mechanic you mean perspective I've just answered, but if not, please clarify?

ARG double post and quoting errors