Because if true it would be just as shit, petty and unfulfilling as the actual ending, if not more so. Making this thing canon would be literally the only way they could make the actual ending worse.
Why do you not believe the indoctrination theory? *Major Spoilers*
- Thread starter SS2Dante
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe in the indoctrination theory and I believe Bioware planned it all along!
Take that you haters!
Especially those of you who don't think Bioware is clever enough...that makes no sense! Why shouldn't they be clever enough? Is it because they fooled you and you're all jealous and like 'oh yeah it can't be real cos it's too clever' WHAT THE FUCK!?
The clues are all there! Indoctrination has been a major point in the entire Mass Effect series! Listen to the codex after the ending...it's so blatantly obvious!
/rant.
Take that you haters!
Especially those of you who don't think Bioware is clever enough...that makes no sense! Why shouldn't they be clever enough? Is it because they fooled you and you're all jealous and like 'oh yeah it can't be real cos it's too clever' WHAT THE FUCK!?
The clues are all there! Indoctrination has been a major point in the entire Mass Effect series! Listen to the codex after the ending...it's so blatantly obvious!
/rant.
The endings are what they are. Having an indoctrination ending is just lame and a "oh it was just a dream" type thing which sucks. Accept it. The ending was disappointing. Get over it. There is more disappointing stuff in this world than a game.
Eh, the first two definately have some of the best story telling. I think I can point to an effective down turn in the third one. At least in areas of the overall plot. (I've even heard some rumors that there were only two writers retained between 2 & 3 which would certainly explain a lot if not everything)SS2Dante said:
In ME1 vigil established the reapers take control of the citadel and using its overrides can effectively cut off all communication and travel between systems, which is how they win. Yet in ME3 its simply they have massive numbers, enough to invade all systems similtanously, so why exactly did they systematically cut off systems like vigil says. On its own not much, but then.. SUDDENLY they find some great big device marked special anti reaper device on mars, which nobody even knows what it does but lets go make it.
but wait, not only do we not know what it does, but we don't even know what the critical component is. Hopefully we will find out somehow. Eventually we find out we had it all along, its the citadel. So we plug unknown device into citadel and something will happen. which according to the indoctrination theory we STILL don't know what it even does.
That isn't a particually good over arching plot. Even compared to the second one (which itself was a step down purely in the overall plot line from the first one)
Anyway massively tangendental, but I felt a twinge the very moment there was a sudden emergence of an unknown device that does something unknown and needs an unknown thing to activate it at the eleventh hour. (in the series, its at hour 1 in the game itself)
Anyway on the dream, yes the dream is literal. literally a dream, Jason from heavy rain shoehorned in to try and give the impression the main character is under extreme psychological strain. They mention what those are, by shepherd blathering about how hes now having bad dreams each time.
However the dreams are shepherds perspective.. of shepherds perspective. Its not Shepherd dreaming hes joker. If it was.. that would be different.
Oh and a very important point. I don't need a reason -not- to believe anything. Not believing things is where I start and until something compells me is where I stay.
I think sudden bad writers/new writers/rushed development etc is to blame because it just explains more. The worsened story, the strange casting choices, the photoshopped tali, poorly implemented fetch quest stuff etc.
EDIT: to your edited point. So? Its shepherds perspective told from shepherds perspective. Its not Jokers, Talis, EDI's, Liaras, perspective told from an imagination inside shepherds head. If Shep were John Dorian id be like, yeah hes imagaining things all the time fine he could have imagined this, but theres no precedent set thus nothing to back it up.
ehh i never noticed the things like the black tendrils while talking to the illusive man or the trees appearing when you turn round after getting the shit kicked out of you, but i will say the humming can't be the normandy the normandy is a silent ship, that is the whole point, remember tali not being able to sleep, and in the dreams whenever you run up to the child i could of sworn there was the reapers growl (hum?) so if this is real i will have massive respect for bioware as it is incredibley clever, but even if it isn't real it will help me enjoy the game a bit more and allow me to replay it without the fear of the horrible endings
The indoctrination theory is just plain fan fiction that people use to make themselves believe that what happened is not the real ending and there is a secret hidden meaning to the end of the game. The ending is the ending. I have come to accept that (no matter how much I don't want to). I mean yea you have the plot hole list but that does not matter it's the ending. Stop trying to think up hope. If it was real by now someone would have found out about it, if Bioware meant to put it in the game. Don't get me wrong I hated the ending thought there were to many plot holes and even more questions I want to ask. But that is the ending.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that going off the logic that the red ending was symbolic of rebelling against the indoctrination process it makes no sense that the breathing would only occur if you chose that option with high war assets. If this was truly in his mind, and that was truly a rebellion, then that option should result in the same 'breath' scene regardless of your war assets. Instead it only occurs if you choose the destroy option with over 4000 war assets the latter of which should be completely irrelevant to Shepherd's mental state.SS2Dante said:
That, my friend is something we call a plot hole. Do recall, my position is that the Indoctrination Theory has the same canonical standing as "Dumbledore's not dead", and that the ending suffered greatly for being rushed.SS2Dante said:
Sorry, but that doesn't mesh with the idea you're supporting. Were that truly the case then the low-war assets ending would have had to be radically different than the 'dream' variations to draw support for that interpretation. If the star-child is a personification of the reapers' indoctrination process then logically it should not exist in a variation where they don't care enough to try to indoctrinate you. You can't have the your cake and eat it too. (it's also worth noting that the destruction option is hardly a given with low war assets either. The ending you're shoehorned into with low assets (Read: Below 1750) is directly dependent on your choice to either destroy or preserve the collector base. If you preserved it, you get shoehorned into the control option. If you destroyed it, you get the destruction ending).SS2Dante said:
Eh, no. 'Complete' indoctrination is a husk state, or the state of the Collectors (needing augments to function effectively due to mental degredation). Beneziah was only at a point where she was loyal to Saren's cause, a mental shift leading her to believe that his words made sense to her. Additionally, that justification falls flat when one takes into account that the indoctrination theory also states that at the end of ME3 the reapers are actively trying to indoctrinate Shepherd, speeding the process along as they were noted to be capable of as early as ME1. With that in mind, time holds little-to-no meaning in this context, even were we to ignore the difference in mental prowess between a human and an asari matriarch.SS2Dante said:
No. I hold that claim to be no more inviolate than I do any claim made by a politician. They tell you a lot about intention, but their capacity to follow through is a different matter entirely, and it's hardly the first time that a given developer has failed to follow through with production hype. Do I expect more from Bioware? Yes, and that's why the ending has me so annoyed. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to latch on a fan theory I view as flawed simply because I don't want to believe that the truth is what all available evidence points to.SS2Dante said:
Because, whilst it is an interesting idea (one I'd like to see developed more even), it still doesn't seem quite concrete enough for me. It just reads like people trying to create some crazy theory out of the fact that the ending provided just plain wasn't very good.
Quick question: everybody keeps bringing up the "black tentacles" across your vision when you confront TIM like they're evidence for indoctrination. These are showing the Illusive Man controlling you, which he overtly does, forcing you to shoot Anderson. They already have a clear meaning and purpose, why are people talking like they don't?
If the indoctrination theory is true, then why does having less EMS give you more chance to resist?
Seriously if Red is the 'bad' choice for the reapers when you have high EMS, why is it suddenly not a problem if you have low EMS because the game doesn't give you the get indoctrinated choices.
Totally inconsistent with itself and still not an ending even if its true.
Indoctrination theory is pure fanwank.
Seriously if Red is the 'bad' choice for the reapers when you have high EMS, why is it suddenly not a problem if you have low EMS because the game doesn't give you the get indoctrinated choices.
Totally inconsistent with itself and still not an ending even if its true.
Indoctrination theory is pure fanwank.
Yeah, that's why I find Joker's actions so nonsensical. I get why people choose to chalk it up to indoctrination hallucinations, but I don't buy that for two reasons:SS2Dante said:
1. As far as I know, indoctrination is never supposed to be so...elaborate. I thought the most elaborate visions anyone ever gets were the kind in Shepard's nightmares, and even then, only in the later stages.
2. The vision of the Normandy crashing on a random planet isn't exactly my idea of "inspiring" or "calming". I'm not sure why the Reapers would even bother showing Shepard something so random and nonsensical.
So while I think that Sheppard was indoctrinated by the time he got to the Citadel (unless you choose the "Destroy" option) I still have chalk up a lot of the ending's stranger points to bad writing.
I agree about the overall plot, though I confess I can't think of another way to have the Reapers defeated, considering it took the whole alliance fleet to beat one Reaper.xorinite said:
The idea that vigil says is not that that's HOW they win, it's that this speeds up the process of victory because they don't have to deal with resistance (by cutting off it's head in the first strike).
The psychological strain of the dreams was what I first thought they were, but once you think about it in indoctrination terms the symbolism becomes much clearer. Shadows, voices whispering, ghosty child? More effective as indoctrination than strain. Hell, I'm fine with it being both.
We don't have any evidence we're seeing that final scene as Joker either. No-one even says anything. What we do have are a sudden fuck-tonne of errors introduced in like 12 seconds.
You're perfectly right, sceptical is the best state of mind for any belief. However, my problem is that you aren't sceptical about the literal ending at all - it is your base position. I was sceptical of it, due to the sudden change of direction, weighed the plot holes against that of the other theory, and found the other theory far more rational.
Part of the reason I started this thread is that I figured if it's a conspiracy theory I'd get a few good points against the idea, but so far I haven't been given any. That...shouldn't work, if it's fans scrabbling at possibilities, right?
*sigh*
My problem with the indoctrination theory is that it requires you to play very fast and loose with the established lore, cherry picking it for points that support the theory and ignoring bits that don't. At the same time, the theory also requires you to attach very specific meaning to in-game events, in a game where attention to detail hasn't always been the developer's strong point.
Take the "growling" thing, for example. People are using that as evidence.
How many people who subscribe to the indoctrination theory, and use that soundbite as evidence, have actually read the Mass Effect: Retribution novel? Seriously, I'll wait for a show of hands.
*waits*
Not many? Thought not. I've read it. That growling thing is a very minor point - and for it to even happen, Shepard would have to be aware that he/she was being indoctrinated. If he/she wasn't aware, he/she wouldn't be fighting it.
A much more defining characteristic of indoctrination, as told by the Retribution novel and backed up by the experiences of Saren and Benezia in the first game, is that the subject is aware of the indoctrination process as it progresses - they're just trapped inside their own minds while the Reapers take control of their bodies. Outsiders don't necessarily notice the difference, but the person inside the body does. We play the whole game inside Shepard's head, yet we see no evidence of that awareness.
Plus how is "it was all a dream" better than the current ending?!?
My problem with the indoctrination theory is that it requires you to play very fast and loose with the established lore, cherry picking it for points that support the theory and ignoring bits that don't. At the same time, the theory also requires you to attach very specific meaning to in-game events, in a game where attention to detail hasn't always been the developer's strong point.
Take the "growling" thing, for example. People are using that as evidence.
How many people who subscribe to the indoctrination theory, and use that soundbite as evidence, have actually read the Mass Effect: Retribution novel? Seriously, I'll wait for a show of hands.
*waits*
Not many? Thought not. I've read it. That growling thing is a very minor point - and for it to even happen, Shepard would have to be aware that he/she was being indoctrinated. If he/she wasn't aware, he/she wouldn't be fighting it.
A much more defining characteristic of indoctrination, as told by the Retribution novel and backed up by the experiences of Saren and Benezia in the first game, is that the subject is aware of the indoctrination process as it progresses - they're just trapped inside their own minds while the Reapers take control of their bodies. Outsiders don't necessarily notice the difference, but the person inside the body does. We play the whole game inside Shepard's head, yet we see no evidence of that awareness.
Plus how is "it was all a dream" better than the current ending?!?
The only reason that the Reapers didn't kill everyone in Mass Effect 1 by jumping to the Citadel when it functions as a Mass Relay was because the Prothean scientists that survived their cycle stopped the Keepers responding to Sovereigns Signal.If the Catalyst was real and in control of the Citadel and the Reapers like the literal take on ME3's ending would have us believe then why didn't it just activate the Citadel to allow them to use it as a Relay why would it even need the keepers or Sovereign.
Like I said, if you have low war assets Shepard dies. They aren't actively trying to indocrinate you because you're beaten.Asita said:
No, indoctrination is a process that happens regardless of Reapers intent. They can control the speed at which it happens but it ALWAYS happens. Hence, you always see the starchild due to this process, but they don't need to ACTIVELY convince you to join them since you're gonna be killed.
I didn't know about the collector base choice. Don't you see how that supports this idea? if you chose to preserve the collector base you've ALREADY begun to become indoctrinated in the same way as the illusive man, hence the fact that this option is open. If you did not, you are stronger, and do not get this option.
True about 'complete' indoctrination, bad phrasing on my part. Beneziah was far enough gone that she couldn't fight it off fully, or for long. Being around a real reaper, we can assume even the 'background' indoctrination is stronger than Reaper tech. Shepard is nowhere near this stage. Hence the final scene: a big enough crack has appeared and they try to worm their way in through the choice.
And about Bioware statements, again, true, which is why I didn't bring them up as evidence one way or another.
And, assuming this is true, then what? What happens after Shepard wakes up? If this is the 'true' ending then it's even less of an ending that we're presented with now.SS2Dante said:
My point is and I'm fine with you not agreeing with this Is that I don't believe Bioware are incompetent enough to have actually meant the literal take on the ending to be true.As it makes absolutely no sense you don't even need to look at it in detail to see that its all impossible premises and events.So yes I don't think the literal ending is the real one based on my faith in Bioware's ability to make amazing games.The reason I believe the indoctrination theory in its place is that it mostly(I'm the first to admit its not perfect but it is adman clever and cunning way to "end" the series) makes sense.AD-Stu said: