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

[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.

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?

No other major issues, though hoping Bioware will confirm/deny it soon. And as long as DLC gives us some actual info on how everything ended, then I'll be happy. Otherwise, it kinda ruins it for fan-made productions. No more art about Earth rebuilding, no more fanfics about Shepard settling down, no nothing.

Been a delight discussing. Now, I've still got work to do, so farewell. Until next time...

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

The Indoctrination Theory makes a lot of sense - in fact I suspected that child all along and while I did not go into the obsessive amount of detail with my little suspicion, what I've heard is fairly well thought out.

However. IF the theory does turn out to be the truth - it is very poorly executed indeed to have it be so questionable and only serves to reinforce my position that the ending does not provide anything that resembles closure of an epic trilogy.

So I guess the short version of my feelings on the Indoctrination Theory are: Yes, maybe, but still.


... also, making the "don't be indoctrinated" option red, which has through the series indicated the renegade choice combined with the data that Bioware/EA must have about how many players attempt pure paragon runs (which, looking at their discussion of the new reputation system seems to have been a lot) is a bit of a dick move all around, especially since we get no indication of a firm result thereafter.

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

It is an explanation, but it goes entirely against the whole "take earth back this is the final battle fight or die trying" idea. it's pretty much established that if we fail we all die. Retreat seems like an insane thing to do in those circumstances.

 

[xorinite]

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.

My doubt relies on the fact that they have consistantly had other peoples perspectives, being other peoples perspectives in the past.
You have no substantial evidence that this isn't from an outside perspective. You don't even have an example for precedent of -any- previous time in the story where one characters perspective was the halluincation or imagining of another characters perspective.
You get characters imagining things from their own perspective, but not from other peoples randomly a milion miles away.
Your hypothesis relies upon an assumed story telling device which is unpresedented. Mine again relies upon presedent.

(although in any case the ending is terrible, either without warning violating the consistant precedent or without warning violating the established philosophy and canon. Either way in my book its a bloody awful ending)

 

[newwiseman]

I think Shepard had been undergoing slow indoctrination since Mass Effect 1. Your exposed to the same artifact that drove Saren toward total indoctrination, your rebuilt by Cerberus who is clearly experimenting with indoctrination and husks, and then the child delusions in Mass Effect 3.

I fine with the indoctrination theory because if you take it all the way back to the beginning, the whole trilogy becomes a bit of a FU, instead of just the last 10 minutes of the third game. Oh and Saren becomes a foreshadowed reflection of Shepard with the whole you can make him realize he has been indoctrinated.

 

[SS2Dante]

I have two problems with the Indoctrination Theory.

1. Why is there that whole clip with the Normandy? Was Shepard just hallucinating his friends happy or something? It doesn't make sense in either ending, and is honestly my least favorite part of the endings. Why the hell is my team abandoning the fight? I still don't get it at all.

2. Bioware is just not smart enough to pull this off. And if they were, there is NO WAY they'd have the restraint to not tell anyone about it. Indeed, it doesn't make any sense to not include it in the game in the first place.

Ok, briefly: you know how throughout the game your squadmates all expressed a desire to go somewhere far away and live peacefully? The final cutscenes are Shepard imagining the results of his/her choices. The normandy somehow ends up somewhere else, on a beautiful paradise planet, with all your squad aboard, even the ones who were with you in London. That's why in the fight ending you get the extra scene of Shepard waking up in the rubble of London - he chose to fight against the idea, imagined the happy outcome, and broke the hold. See how this completely explains the continuity errors AND the extra scene in one go?

Apparently the original ending had a bit where you lost control of Shepard by becoming indoctrinated. This got cancelled due to the script leak and the fact that the new mechanic was too difficult to implement. They kept the idea, you see, but due to lack of time probably couldn't do the whole of the new ending. hence the plug about dlc at the end of the game.

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

My doubt relies on the fact that they have consistantly had other peoples perspectives, being other peoples perspectives in the past.
You have no substantial evidence that this isn't from an outside perspective. You don't even have an example for precedent of -any- previous time in the story where one characters perspective was the halluincation or imagining of another characters perspective.
You get characters imagining things from their own perspective, but not from other peoples randomly a milion miles away.
Your hypothesis relies upon an assumed story telling device which is unpresedented. Mine again relies upon presedent.

Um, huh? I just pointed out that we stay with Shepard in his/her dreams. That's what everything after Harbingers beam is. A dream. Hence the sudden dream logic that people are angry about. Sorry, but unless you can prove to me that throughout the game we've always been totally non-biased in view I don't understand your argument.

As I said before, it's symbolism. Everyone ends up happy, far away, on a garden paradise, just like they wanted. Just like Shepard wanted to give them.

Ok, if you believe this is all literal, how do you explain the extra scene in the red ending?

EDIT - I may have been unclear, I believe the extra scene in the red ending is literal, but in my interpretation it makes sense for it to be so. If everything before it was literal it makes zero sense.

 

[Ziame]

i dont believe it because i didnt get that extra scene you speak off.

 

[SS2Dante]

i dont believe it because i didnt get that extra scene you speak off.

Here ya go Ziam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw2U7P5nIbY (5.40)

Note how the ending is almost exactly the same. The only difference is that the reapers fall down if you choose red And the bubble is red.

But then that extra scene...

Btw - did you choose the red ending? how was your EMS score? Cos you should have gotten the extra scene.

 

[xorinite]

Um, huh? I just pointed out that we stay with Shepard in his/her dreams. That's what everything after Harbingers beam is. A dream. Hence the sudden dream logic that people are angry about. Sorry, but unless you can prove to me that throughout the game we've always been totally non-biased in view I don't understand your argument.

As I said before, it's symbolism. Everyone ends up happy, far away, on a garden paradise, just like they wanted. Just like Shepard wanted to give them.

Ok, if you believe this is all literal, how do you explain the extra scene in the red ending?

Yes so what? We stay with Shep in his dreams. So?

Its shepherd imagining his own dreams. Its not Shepherd having a dream about being joker seducing EDI -that- would be prescedent.

Again, the presedent is when you see something from someone ELSES perspective its from their perspective not someone else imagining it from their perspective.

When we see Wrex talking about Wreavs death, or Mordin up in the tower curing the genophage or the normandy flying in and firing missiles into soveregn that is the third person watching other non-shepherd characters -not- shepherd imagining what those characters are doing. That is the consistant precdent.

I've told you why I don't buy indoctrination hypothesis, you haven't provided me with any precedent to back up this sudden new story telling device. Until you do, my 'rushed/lazy developers' hypothesis has a lot more experience based presedent (eg DA2) and I will stick with that.

Oh and how do I explain the extra scene. The same way I explain the scene with the old man and the kid. Lazy/rushed developers. It explains everything without any new assumptions required. They had some footage from a cutscene they had wanted to use earlier.. couldn't do it too rushed to get everyting in place. So they salvaged assets and sliced a piece of that into the end without time to double check it all made sense.

Remember you asked why I didn't believe it I'm just explaining my reasons for not buying the indoctrination hypothesis.

Edit: Oh and symbolism. Well everything can be symbolism, but you have to demonstrate a presedent. The pillars of the earth means something symbolic today, but once it meant literal pillars. How do you therefore tell if piece of work is using it symbolically or not you look for precedent of previous symbolic use.

 

[Asita]

Once again - please read the article and look at the evidence. It makes MORE sense than the ending's as most people understand them. That shouldn't happen. Not EQUAL sense, MORE sense. It explains things clearly and methodically. Even if it wasn't Biowares intention (doubtful) ithe indoctrination theory is rendered true by this fact.

Frankly, that doesn't mean diddly in the scheme of things. Allow me to use a different example for a minute. Ever read Bleach? Kubo gave a little reveal about the Espada being 'aspects of death', which makes no sense whatsoever for many different reasons. A fan suggested that they were instead aspects of the main villain's psyche and gave a very very lovely analysis of the surrounding circumstances that is far more consistent and actually would make many of the scenes beautifully symbolic.

Spoiler: See here if you're curious as to the details

--- Yammy is Aizen's rage and an expression of brute force; for most of his life, Aizen's crushed that down and used his intellect instead of his overwhelming power, so Yammy seemed like the weakest and most ignored of the Espada. But at the end of his campaign, Aizen gave up on subtle plans for overwhelming power and when THAT didn't work, descended into barely coherent rage, which in turn shows Yammy grow explosively. Just as Aizen's anger and brute-force tactics were ultimately much less effective than his intelligence, Yammy was defeated easily by Byakuya and Kenpachi despite his power.

--- Aaroniero was Aizen's greedy and manipulative nature made manifest; Aaroniero's desire for power and endless evolution is a mirror of Aizen's own agenda, and playing The Good Captain to manipulate others is a trick right out of Aizen's book.

--- Szayel was Aizen's Mad Scientist tendencies manifested, but also his cowardly, slimy side. Szayel shared Aizen's tendency to use science to try and render himself perfect and experimenting on others mostly because he could, but Szayel also relied a lot on underhanded tactics and sacrificing others to keep himself in the game, a trait Aizen shared but did not rely on to the same degree. Being an incomplete fragment of Aizen's intelligence was the reason Szayel was always a Smug Snake while Aizen gradually devolved into one.

--- Zommari was the part of Aizen prone to becoming Drunk with Power, initially purged to try and keep Aizen from becoming Drunk on the Dark Side before his master-stroke and to avoid letting his victories go to his head. Aizen did a good job at this for a little while, but ultimately he wasn't able to resist the intoxication of the Hogyoku's power and wound up becoming drunk on his own power anyway.

--- Grimmjow is Aizen's destructive and predatory side made flesh; the part of Aizen that reveled in using his power to devastate anything around him. Aizen again manages to repress this for a while, but his obvious glee as he takes on the Gotei 13 by himself makes it hard to hide.

--- Nnoitra is the personification of Aizen's self-loathing and despair. Aizen knew on some level he was a Complete Monster and couldn't help but hate himself on some level as his more vile deeds kept piling up. Eventually, this part of Aizen that knew he would never really be anything but a monster was purged and formed Nnoitra, who sought oblivion.

--- Ulquiorra was Aizen's nihilism and Evil Cannot Comprehend Good tendencies. Aizen saw himself as an Ubermensch, and the thought patterns of lesser shinigami were ultimately alien to him. Given what Ichigo thinks of Aizen's deeds and desires, one could assume that he chose to cross the Moral Event Horizon so many times on a basis no more complex than "why not?"

--- Harribel was the last vestige of Aizen's inner goodness and nobility that he used to craft the "Captain Aizen" persona. She held the morals Aizen gave lip service to but had never really believed in and had genuine concern for her followers while Aizen couldn't care less. Aizen judged this aspect of his nature weak and useless despite abundant evidence to the contrary and pointlessly sacrificed it with his equally pointless murder of Harribel.

--- Barragan was Aizen's arrogance and god complex, but also a manifestation of Aizen's fears of his own mortality. Aizen pretended to have no fear, but one of the reasons he was so elated when he merged with the Hogyoku was that he no longer needed to be afraid to die; when it seemed like he might be killed even with all that power, Aizen completely lost his composure in fear and impotent rage. Barragan's immense power derives from Aizen's immense arrogance and plans of godhood being such an integral part of his being, and for his fear of death being his strongest, perhaps his only fear.

--- Starrk/Lilinette was the manifestation of Aizen's loneliness and resentment of his own power, the side that Ichigo claimed to see but Aizen never really demonstrated. Starrk was incredibly powerful but not evil because, like Harribel, he was manifested from an ignored element of Aizen's psyche unrelated to his Complete Monster nature. If Aizen at his core wanted to be normal, Starrk carried that to its extreme; Starrk wanted to be weak and surrounded by friends and had nothing but resentment and apathy for his immense power. Since this wish to be normal was even stronger than Aizen's desire to be god, Starrk was more powerful than even Barragan.

For all that it makes sense of a lot of what happens in the story, however, that interpretation is rendered completely moot by the fact that none of the official sources directly support it and some actively deny it. As hard as it can be to swallow, the sad fact is that sometimes fans can come up with better explanations than the authors themselves.

Again - can someone PLEASE explain the extra cutscene with the red ending? Without the indoctrination theory it shouldn't be there. With it, it HAS to be there. Lo and behold. I can't see any other explanation that makes even a lick of sense.

Besides the fact that the red ending is the only one which doesn't explicitly show Shepherd's body disintigrating and thus the only logical place to put it? It doesn't make much sense in the indoctrination theory either as the 'breather' ending only occurs with very high war assets, at which point the indoctrination theory states that the reapers are really, REALLY trying to mess with Shepherd's head. Ironically, were the indoctrination theory to be true, it would make more sense to get this follow-up for any of the destruction endings, as the surrounding circumstances would be all-but identical save for how much influence the reapers were trying to exert. Additionally, the 'overcoming indoctrination' concept being symbolized by a breather is further flawed by virtue of lore established as early as the first game, which pointed out several key details:

1) While Reapers could speed or slow the process of Indoctrination, one constant was that the greater the influence they exerted, the less capable the individual became. That was why Saren maintained as much free will as he did, they needed him to remain competent, and this was further noted in Mass Effect 2, when Mordin noted that the sheer extent of the collector's modifications were due in no small part to their increasing inability to care for themselves
2) Reaper indoctrination is not something one can simply fight his/her way out of. This was perhaps best demonstrated by Matriarch Beneziah in the first game who - despite having one of the most powerful minds in the ME series - could still only manage to fight off the indoctrination process for a few moments before she quickly reverted. And mind you, she - like Saren - had remained very competent and thereby implied to have been subjected to the slow subtle process of indoctrination rather than the focused method you suggest above. The only person in the entire series who seems to have overcome the process is Shiala, who herself notes that she still felt the effects of indoctrination as late as Mass Effect 3, but was able to fight it due to the effect the Thorian's own indoctrination process had on her body. Even assuming the indoctrination theory, the breath at the end would only point to shepherd's survival, whatever damage the indoctrination process had done to his mind would still be present, and that he would eventually lapse again, making the idea rather nihilistic on reflection rather than the victory indoctrination theory presents it as.

More damningly, however, the premise of this variant would actually be a worse ending than what is given, as it fails to even resolve the Reaper conflict, presents even less closure than the literal reading of the ending and would still have suffered horrible execution that would have completely and utterly failed to adequately imply the conclusion you're espousing (which is as based on circumstancial evidence as that whole 'Dumbledore's not dead' fiasco).

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.

As someone who dabbles in writing myself, I have absolutely no problem believing that, especially if the original leaked endings (which tied in the Dark Energy plotline repeatedly alluded to in ME2) are to be believed (which point to a rather notable writing shift rather late in production). Honestly, the ending as it stands is a mess and the indoctrination theory particularly falls flat when the final cinematics point to one obvious conclusion: The ending was rushed. There really is no other explanation for the sheer similarity of the endings when the writers had repeatedly gone on about how they wanted to make the endings diverge into wildly different conclusions (Casey Hudson) and how being "forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets" was not an option (Mike Gamble) and how they specifically denied that it would have a "Lost" ending that leaves fans with more questions than answers (Mike Gamble), that the game would be the definitive ending to Shepherd's tale[footnote]The cliffhanger nature of the 'wake-up' as the indoctrination theory describes it is only workable if there is follow-up work continuing Shepherd's story. Whereas the breath at the end of it via the literal interpretation is simply an example of the good old Finger Twitch Revival which unlike the former does not require a continuation as it occurs after the conclusion rather than during/before it[/footnote]. No matter how you slice it, the simple fact of the matter is that the ending was very poorly done, and not even the indoctrination theory manages to salvage that.

 

[SS2Dante]

Um, huh? I just pointed out that we stay with Shepard in his/her dreams. That's what everything after Harbingers beam is. A dream. Hence the sudden dream logic that people are angry about. Sorry, but unless you can prove to me that throughout the game we've always been totally non-biased in view I don't understand your argument.

As I said before, it's symbolism. Everyone ends up happy, far away, on a garden paradise, just like they wanted. Just like Shepard wanted to give them.

Ok, if you believe this is all literal, how do you explain the extra scene in the red ending?

Yes so what? We stay with Shep in his dreams. So?

Its shepherd imagining his own dreams. Its not Shepherd having a dream about being joker seducing EDI -that- would be prescedent.

Again, the presedent is when you see something from someone ELSES perspective its from their perspective not someone else imagining it from their perspective.

When we see Wrex talking about Wreavs death, or Mordin up in the tower curing the genophage or the normandy flying in and firing missiles into soveregn that is the third person watching other non-shepherd characters -not- shepherd imagining what those characters are doing. That is the consistant precdent.

I've told you why I don't buy indoctrination hypothesis, you haven't provided me with any precedent to back up this sudden new story telling device. Until you do, my 'rushed/lazy developers' hypothesis has a lot more experience based presedent (eg DA2) and I will stick with that.

Remember you asked why I didn't believe it.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong, I'm glad for this discussion.

What I'm saying is that the ending IS a dream - that's not the real Joker or EDI or Normandy. It's all in Shepards head. Less than a moment has passed since Harbingers beam hit you. The fact that the 'camera' is sometimes outside Shepards head is entirely true, my point is we sometimes DO see from Shepards perspective, and this is one of them.

 

[ABAP]

From what I've read, they have made NO public statements acknowledging the indoctrination theory.

The devs were making cryptic statements on Twitter about the future of Shepard and the Mass Effect universe since the game was released. Mike Gamble said we'd hold onto our ME3 copies forever if we knew what they were working on. Up until Casey Hudson's announcement, Jessica Merizan, the community manager, seemed to playfully encourage all this analysis of the inconsistencies in the ending; for awhile, it seemed like she was at least tacitly in support of the indoctrination theory. The people behind the official Mass Effect twitter won't say whether or not ME3 really is the end of Shepard, and they've said we should definitely keep our saves.

Furthermore, I've heard that it is established in the Final Hours thingy that they considered having Shepard be indoctrinated at some point in ME3, but never went through with it. Maybe it creeped back into the story.

 

[xorinite]

Oh, no, don't get me wrong, I'm glad for this discussion.

What I'm saying is that the ending IS a dream - that's not the real Joker or EDI or Normandy. It's all in Shepards head. Less than a moment has passed since Harbingers beam hit you. The fact that the 'camera' is sometimes outside Shepards head is entirely true, my point is we sometimes DO see from Shepards perspective, and this is one of them.

I just want to make sure you are aware I'm not here to be antagonistic. Just to explain why I don't believe the theory and why I think its just the team being rushed and not being able to put what they wanted together.

I understand you think the ending is a dream from Sheps perspective, but without precedent for this kind of narrative tool there is no reason to suppose this over it actually being from jokers perspective.

Yes there are holes, but the the 'rushed/lazy/suddenly insane/unfamiliar developer hypothesis' predicts these very kind of holes. It is also consistant with wierd casting decisions, photoshopping images, strange new plot devices and poorly implimented questing mechanics.

One thing about theories is when you have two with equal evidence (or lack thereof) the one which explains more consistantly is usually the better of the two.

 

[SS2Dante]

Once again - please read the article and look at the evidence. It makes MORE sense than the ending's as most people understand them. That shouldn't happen. Not EQUAL sense, MORE sense. It explains things clearly and methodically. Even if it wasn't Biowares intention (doubtful) ithe indoctrination theory is rendered true by this fact.

Frankly, that doesn't mean diddly in the scheme of things. Allow me to use a different example for a minute. Ever read Bleach? Kubo gave a little reveal about the Espada being 'aspects of death', which makes no sense whatsoever for many different reasons. A fan suggested that they were instead aspects of the main villain's psyche and gave a very very lovely analysis of the surrounding circumstances that is far more consistent and actually would make many of the scenes beautifully symbolic.

Again - can someone PLEASE explain the extra cutscene with the red ending? Without the indoctrination theory it shouldn't be there. With it, it HAS to be there. Lo and behold. I can't see any other explanation that makes even a lick of sense.

Besides the fact that the red ending is the only one which doesn't explicitly show Shepherd's body disintigrating and thus the only logical place to put it? It doesn't make much sense in the indoctrination theory either as the 'breather' ending only occurs with very high war assets, at which point the indoctrination theory states that the reapers are really, REALLY trying to mess with Shepherd's head. Ironically, were the indoctrination theory to be true, it would make more sense to get this follow-up for any of the destruction endings, as the surrounding circumstances would be all-but identical save for how much influence the reapers were trying to exert. Additionally, the 'overcoming indoctrination' concept being symbolized by a breather is further flawed by virtue of lore established as early as the first game, which pointed out several key details:

1) While Reapers could speed or slow the process of Indoctrination, one constant was that the greater the influence they exerted, the less capable the individual became. That was why Saren maintained as much free will as he did, they needed him to remain competent, and this was further noted in Mass Effect 2, when Mordin noted that the sheer extent of the collector's modifications were due in no small part to their increasing inability to care for themselves
2) Reaper indoctrination is not something one can simply fight his/her way out of. This was perhaps best demonstrated by Matriarch Beneziah in the first game who - despite having one of the most powerful minds in the ME series - could still only manage to fight off the indoctrination process for a few moments before she quickly reverted. And mind you, she - like Saren - had remained very competent and thereby implied to have been subjected to the slow subtle process of indoctrination rather than the focused method you suggest above. The only person in the entire series who seems to have overcome the process is Shiala, who herself notes that she still felt the effects of indoctrination as late as Mass Effect 3, but was able to fight it due to the effect the Thorian's own indoctrination process had on her body. Even assuming the indoctrination theory, the breath at the end would only point to shepherd's survival, whatever damage the indoctrination process had done to his mind would still be present, and that he would eventually lapse again.

More damningly, however, the premise of this variant would actually be a worse ending than what is given, as it fails to even resolve the Reaper conflict, presents even less closure than the literal reading of the ending and would still have suffered horrible execution that would have completely and utterly failed to adequately imply the conclusion you're espousing (which is as based on circumstancial evidence as that whole 'Dumbledore's not dead' fiasco).

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.

As someone who dabbles in writing myself, I have absolutely no problem believing that, especially if the original leaked endings (which tied in the Dark Energy plotline repeatedly alluded to in ME2) are to be believed. Honestly, the ending as it stands is a mess and the indoctrination theory particularly falls flat when the final cinematics point to one obvious conclusion: The ending was rushed. There really is no other explanation for the sheer similarity of the endings when the writers had repeatedly gone on about how they wanted to make the endings diverge into wildly different conclusions (Casey Hudson) and how being "forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets" was not an option (Mike Gamble) and how they specifically denied that it would have a "Lost" ending that leaves fans with more questions than answers (Mike Gamble), that the game would be the definitive ending to Shepherd's tale[footnote]The cliffhanger nature of the 'wake-up' as the indoctrination theory describes it is only workable if there is follow-up work continuing Shepherd's story. Whereas the breath at the end of it via the literal interpretation is simply an example of the good old Finger Twitch Revival which unlike the former does not require a continuation as it occurs after the conclusion rather than during/before it[/footnote]. No matter how you slice it, the simple fact of the matter is that the ending was very poorly done, and not even the indoctrination theory manages to salvage that.

Ok, some of that I've already explained in this thread, so forgive me if my answers are brief.

I'm confused about your idea of the extra scene. You say it suits the other endings better? in the other endings you surrender to indoctrination fully and become a husk. You die, essentially. Why would that require the breather?

And if the citadel is literal, how could you possibly have the breathe scene? Shepard survived the Citadel blowing up in space, then fell to Earth, and was fine? Madness.

About the war assets, I only just found that out and surely it supports this idea? If you have low war assets the battle is lost. You die, getting just enough time to go through the indoctrination (at this level of war assets you aren't allowed to choose the blue or green, because the Reapers don't need you indocrinated. They know you're a gonner. Hence the lack of a breather.

About your indocrination points:

Yes, you're right. That's the idea, you AREN'T fully indoctrinated, you're being very slowly, throughout the game, influenced. Cracks form (the child, the dreams etc). The end sequence is the culmination of this slow process - give in or keep fighting it.
Benezia was inside Sovereign for weeks, or months. Her indoctrination was complete. She'd already given in, it was only your words that let her briefly fight. Indeed, it's because she was so subtly yet thoroughly indoctrinated that she could briefly break the hold for even that long.

AS to the other points, I get the sense we could argue about writing and the process of ME3's creation for hours with no side saying anything truely provable, except by time. I will say this - if these people specifically stated that they weren't going to have an ending like this, doesn't that hint this is't the ending? Also ties into indoctrination theory.

 

[SS2Dante]

Oh, no, don't get me wrong, I'm glad for this discussion.

What I'm saying is that the ending IS a dream - that's not the real Joker or EDI or Normandy. It's all in Shepards head. Less than a moment has passed since Harbingers beam hit you. The fact that the 'camera' is sometimes outside Shepards head is entirely true, my point is we sometimes DO see from Shepards perspective, and this is one of them.

I just want to make sure you are aware I'm not here to be antagonistic. Just to explain why I don't believe the theory and why I think its just the team being rushed and not being able to put what they wanted together.

I understand you think the ending is a dream from Sheps perspective, but without precedent for this kind of narrative tool there is no reason to suppose this over it actually being from jokers perspective.

Yes there are holes, but the the 'rushed/lazy/suddenly insane/unfamiliar developer hypothesis' predicts these very kind of holes. It is also consistant with wierd casting decisions, photoshopping images, strange new plot devices and poorly implimented questing mechanics.

One thing about theories is when you have two with equal evidence (or lack thereof) the one which explains more consistantly is usually the better of the two.

I completely agree with that last point. The problem I have is that I have 3 games worth of some of the best storytelling in games as evidence they can write. I'm expected to believe that they all suddenly went braindead with less than 8 minutes of game left? Add to this a theory that neatly and elegantly ties all these loose threads together, and actually REQUIRES thse bad decisions to work, and this seems the more likely in my eyes.

But surely by your logic, since the child is shown in Shepards dream, it must be literal? The child was an external character. If the dreams are able to show other characters then they can show Joker and EDI too. It seems like a flimsy reason to not believe, since the whole perspective of the game is schizophrenic at best.

Might I ask about the strange new plot devices? Unless you refer to the catalyst, because in the indoctrination theory that hasn't actually been explained yet.

EDIT - evidence that the world as we see it is SOMETIMES filtered through Shepards perception. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D3NBZ3KTPk

 

[burningdragoon]

I think the idea behind the Indoctrination TheoryTM is very interesting, or at least the concept of the Reapers trying to indoctrinate Shepard is interesting. There are some arguments for it that fit nicely and there are some that are really grasping at straws. I don't believe it at this point, but I accept that it could be true. Either way though, if the Indoctrination TheoryTM does turn out to be true, without post-breath scene content, it's not actually any better.

 

[SS2Dante]

I think the idea behind the Indoctrination TheoryTM is very interesting, or at least the concept of the Reapers trying to indoctrinate Shepard is interesting. There are some arguments for it that fit nicely and there are some that are really grasping at straws. I don't believe it at this point, but I accept that it could be true. Either way though, if the Indoctrination TheoryTM does turn out to be true, without post-breath scene content, it's not actually any better.

Correction: without the post breath scene, it's a whole hell of a lot worse. Shepard becomes a husk and everyone dies. Yay

 

[Nomanslander]

I think it's the best answer to the ending we got. Let's just hope Bioware also comes to this solution....lol