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

[AD-Stu]

I haven't read the novel, hence me not voicing an opinion on this. HOWEVER, I will point out the difference in the medium - books versus games. They use the tools most effective to each situation: in the book, it's more effective to have them trapped inside their own mind as you can SEE inside their mind. In a game, you want the player to directly feel the emotions of the character they play. Therefore the indoctrination happens to the player, slowly and subtly.

The indoctrination process shouldn't change across media though. How it's conveyed, sure, but not the process itself. People who are being indoctrinated are either trapped inside their own minds or they're not - established lore across multiple media says they are.

Which is exactly my point: you can't cherry pick this stuff. If the growl is meant to be a sign of indoctrination, something Shepard hears inside his/her head instead of an actual, audible growl that could have come from dozens of other plausible, literal sources, and it's something the player hears, then the player should see and hear all sorts of other signs of indoctrination too.

Again: the indoctrination theory takes a very loose interpretation of the lore, and marries it with a very specific, highly subjective interpretation of events in the game.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying there's no real evidence to support it and even if it does turn out to be the case, "the entire game was an indoctrination dream" is an even worse resolution than the literal one we got.

Also, do you see the irony of insisting people read an article when much of your argument is based on the content of a book that you haven't bothered to read?

 

[xorinite]

big snip.

Again, not really arguing about the main story arc.

Yeah but I still contend it reflects a development 'degeneration' which supports my hypothesis about the ending.

Shepard does see the child. I'm not sure I've said this to you (forgive me If I'm repeating) but the premise is that the child is never real. No one ever sees him, the scenes are deliberately staged so that it is Shepard alone who ever talk, sees, or interacts with the boy on any level.

Sure, I thought that when I saw him in the vent, was he real? They do wait for him to board only shutting the door after he stands up.
However, hes only in the game for such a short period of time and if I am right hes only been shoehorned in to give shepherd some forced emotional grief. Again just as consistent with mine as yours.

Shepard doesn't know about Paragon or Renegade. The player does. Therefore the player sees the two colours and associates one of them with the 'bad ending'.

The suggestion was that they switched colors to indicate to shepherd that his preferred option is the one not destroying the reapers, but that only makes sense for a paragon shepherd, for a renegade shepherd switching the colors like that makes the reapers seem suicidal.

If the devs wanted to show this as is suggested, why not switch colors intelligently. Make the reapers desire match the renegade/paragon color the player most favored. Then that color change argument would fit just fine, however without that its confirmation bias.

Actually, the Prothean appearance change is explained in the dlc I believe
But the analogy is not the same. I'm not claiming the whole game, or even a small part of it, was a dream. I'm saying one point, spanning about 12 minutes, with a definite end and definite beginning, are a dream. They contain the entirety of the inconsistency, and can easily and elegently be explain various other things that happen throughout the game.

Bah, rationalized, or explained away you mean.
Oh sure, the protheans are an ideology not a species, hogwash!
Trust me, its animation modeling that decided the change from tentacle hands and disproportionate limbs to basically humanoid with bug heads.

I know what you are suggesting, everything from either the time shepherd got blasted, or from the crystal floor was the dream. I wish they were the only inconsistent parts of the story, sadly they are not, just the most flagrant.

Here's another example of plot holes fitting my hypothesis. The cannons reapers fire are liquid hot metal propelled at a relativistic speed. They can cut through shields on dreadnoughts and slice them in half, as easy as the proverbial hot knife through butter, yet shepherd just gets a bit of a nose bleed and what appears to be really bad indigestion from the way he clutches his gut as he walks.

Harping on this point for a little longer. At the start of the game the cannons act like you would expect liquid metal at relativistic speeds to behave. It hits stuff, the stuff violently explodes due to the sudden kinetic to thermal to kinetic change, by the time we get to Rannock the weapons don't do that they have become just a laser. Consistent with my story degeneration hypothesis I say.

Way I see it, I have 2 non-provable hypotheses:

1. The people who make mass effect suddenly forgot how to make mass effect.
2. The indoctrination theory.

The odds of the first are (I believe) very low compared to the odds of the other. hence my decision.

You know, you summed it up nicely, but my conclusion is exactly opposed. I find the former the more likely based upon the host of smaller but equally weird design choices in the game. Oh and I have looked it up a little more, it seems the rumors have more weight to them. Only 2 of the writers from the original mass effect wrote for this one. Perhaps that explains the steady change between games. Same thing happened with origin, after ultima 7 they just seemed to stop knowing how to write ultimas..

 

[Asita]

Like I said, if you have low war assets Shepard dies. They aren't actively trying to indocrinate you because you're beaten.

And under that interpretation the entire sequence after harbinger is completely and utterly superflous, adding nothing to the story if your war assets are below a certain level. To use it at all under those circumstances would be just plain bad writing which in no way alludes to the conclusion you're drawing from it. Going off the indoctrination theory's key premise that the entire sequence was very deliberate, the fact that it does not noticeably change whether the reapers are actively trying to indoctrinate you or don't care enough to pay you any mind becomes a very glaring point against the notion. More damningly still, the 'death after Harbinger's attack' version would be - by FAR - the easiest ending to make. Reaction shot to Harbinger's attack, show Shepherd's battered armor and/or broken helmet, fade to black. It really is that easy and really is no obligation to go beyond that given that this is definitively a bad ending. The "Shepherd just dies" interpretation doesn't work with what we're given.

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.

That it's a constant process is certainly true, but here's what you're neglecting: according to the indoctrination theory, the sequence after Harbinger is a personification of the process which is either being sped up spectacularly at that point or neglected entirely. The damning thing is that despite that, the differences between the scenarios are miniscule. To clarify: I'm not talking about the differences between the options, I'm talking about the scene itself, the lead-up to and interaction with the Catalyst. If you want to posit that there was a difference in the effort being exerted to indoctrinate Shepherd, that should be reflected in the scene, and it isn't.

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.

It does nothing of the sort, and it's that kind of logic that makes me draw the comparisons to the "Dumbledore's not dead" fiasco in the first place. When you make claims like that it looks like you're determined to present your hypothesis as un-disprovable, which renders any hypothesis less than useless as without criteria that permit it to be wrong it becomes clear that no objective criteria are used as support. With that in mind the entire concept gets painted as a desperate desire for what you saw not to be true rather than an objective piecing together of clues.

That you're railroaded with low war assets does not indicate that you're indoctrinated, as taking an alternate route with the collector's base railroads you into the exact opposite path. You save the collectors base and have <1750 war assets? You get railroaded into the Control option. You destroy the collectors base and have <1750 war assets? You get railroaded into the Destroy option. For your "that's proof that you were already indoctrinated!" to hold water, the option you're railroaded into with <1750 war assets and a destroyed collectors base would have to include a choice between destroy and control, as the process would by necessity be well underway to the point that control would seem a viable option. Only then could you point as the control-railroading as evidence of indoctrination, as otherwise the lack of choice in the destroy-railroading casts more than a little doubt on that notion.

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.

That's an assumption and in light of the various assignments through the series a very poor one to make. After all, when you talked to him on Virmire, Menos Avot claimed to have been experimented on for about 6 days, and he was pretty far gone...though not as much as his compatriots, who ostensibly were there for roughly the same time period and there's no indication that they were ever directly exposed to Sovereign.

 

[Madkipz]

EDIT - PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING
http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/
Just to stop me having to repeat stuff

Ok, so after the ending of Mass Effect 3, I was presented with the indoctrination theory/interpretation of the ending. This version seemed to make so much sense that I simply can't believe the literal ending.

To make sure we're all on the same page, here's a short article explianing this view of the ending - http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/

I've noticed that a lot of people reject this idea, though. Can I ask why? For me, the two endings can be contrasted in terms of plot holes.

Literal ending - Who is the Catalyst, how did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel, how did the Illusive man get on the Citadel, why did Joker run away, how did your squadmates all end up on the Normandy from earth, why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions, how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet. Also, (and this is key) the extra scene you get if you choose the destroy ending. Any others I've missed?

Indoctrination ending - so far noone has given one.

So, can anyone explain to me why they still believe the literal ending, or give me a plot hole caused by the indoctrination ending? It just seems if we have these two endings one is more convincing than the other.

1) if the indoctrination theory is correct then EA has essentially sold even the collectors edition folks an incomplete game with no ending.

2) Bioware aren't very clever.

3) Why do we have that entire scene with the Normandy escaping if it was all a dream?

 

[Xpheyel]

You're assumptions rest on the false premise that ALL life is destroyed at the end of every cycle. It is not. Some species are left alive. Therefore you could defeat the Reapers with no problem in this scene.

No I'm not, and no you can't. I know primitive races aren't reaped.

You created the "the Stargazer is an alien in a subsequent cycle" theory. Or even "the Reapers missed some humans". If that is true in every ending, you've lost in every ending. Including the best red ending. The Reapers have reaped the advanced races. This dude's race evolves or discovers advanced technology and finds out about and venerates the mook that fought the Reapers and the Reapers won. The next cycle may have chance thanks to the warnings but the earth, the rest of the advanced galaxy, Shepard, and your companions are totally screwed. And the Reaper fleet is still out in dark space for Stargazer's race to get advanced enough to squish. The current cycle was lost. Shepard lost. If you get up in the rubble in some DLC, you've still already lost. The post credit sequence tells you so.

If there is NOT a subsequent cycle, the Reapers are ultimately defeated in every ending. Shepard's indoctrination state does not matter. Somehow, the galaxy is saved anyway. Just not by Shepard in the blue and green endings. The Reapers have to be neutralized somehow for there to not be a cycle. You've already won. If Shepard gets up in the rubble in some DLC, you've still already won. The post credit sequence tells you so.

The only way you can have it both ways is if the same stargazer scene means completely different things in different endings depending entirely on what you've read into it.

I can't accept that, so I don't believe the indoctrination theory.

 

[thelonewolf266]

Snip

Just thought I would address a small thing that you talked about.The Prothean never looked like the tentacle head things on Ilos, people just assumed they did.It is explained in the DLC that the Base on Ilos was hidden under the city of an extinct species called the inusannon(Presumably wiped out in a previous cycle)in order to stop the Reapers from discovering them.

 

[Dfskelleton]

It's really funny actually. If anyone ever wondered how conspiracy theories get started, well this is how.

The fact alone that people are getting so frustrated about it that they're coming up with theories about the game's ending is real humor.
I'm probably sounding like a dick right now, and I'm sorry, but GET OVER IT. I know, your series didn't end the way you wanted, and that sucks. I would be mad too if I played through an entire series only to have a crappy finale. I would be pissed. But I wouldn't whine about it nonstop. I wouldn't come up with complex, goofy theories about the ending in a futile attempt to make myself feel better. I wouldn't write a fanfiction ending and petition it to become canon. I would say "That game had a really crappy ending.", and if anyone asked me "How was ME3?", I would say the same, and I would move on and hope that whatever I play next does better.

 

[Savagezion]

It depends on what you mean by "believe". IT is a plausible an elegant explanation for the end of ME3, which otherwise makes little sense, so in that respect I believe that it's true. However I'm becoming more skeptical that Bioware intended it.

I can certainly understand your position, and I suppose that at this point it really is that time will tell. I simply find it hard to believe that Bioware, after making 3 games praised for incredible storytelling, would suddenly lose all of this 5 mins before the end. Plus, so far noone has pointed out ANY flaws in the indoctrination idea - every new thing seems to support it.

Anyway, even if no DLC is released, I still think that this ending makes more sense than taking it literally. It's a lot sadder, but it's more true to the universe. Thanks for replying!

What the indoctrination people need to understand is that even if it were true, it doesn't improve the ending. It just makes it different. It is even shitty for the same reasons. Indoctrination theory in no way really effects the big complaints. Even if the indoctrination theory is true, it was poorly written due to the fact people have to add all that shit up and STILL just believe that is the ending. STILL the game gives no closure. Even if dismiss that that is poor writing and that hiding the message in the game from your audience is a good idea and just assume that is the correct assessment, we have no clue what that even means as to what actually happened.

In the end, indoctrination theory is just fans that are trying as hard as they can to justify not only Bioware, but disappointment in the title. They refuse to be disappointed so bad that they will grasp at things that still offer no definitive answer. That is the problem with the ending of Mass Effect is it isn't an ending, it just ends. There is no definitive anything.

Indoctrination Theory doesn't change anything so there is no reason to care one way or the other. The fact remains either way that you have no clue what the hell just happened. Or in the case of the indoctrination theory what really happened.

 

[burningdragoon]

I haven't read the novel, hence me not voicing an opinion on this. HOWEVER, I will point out the difference in the medium - books versus games. They use the tools most effective to each situation: in the book, it's more effective to have them trapped inside their own mind as you can SEE inside their mind. In a game, you want the player to directly feel the emotions of the character they play. Therefore the indoctrination happens to the player, slowly and subtly.

The indoctrination process shouldn't change across media though. How it's conveyed, sure, but not the process itself. People who are being indoctrinated are either trapped inside their own minds or they're not - established lore across multiple media says they are.

Which is exactly my point: you can't cherry pick this stuff. If the growl is meant to be a sign of indoctrination, something Shepard hears inside his/her head instead of an actual, audible growl that could have come from dozens of other plausible, literal sources, and it's something the player hears, then the player should see and hear all sorts of other signs of indoctrination too.

Again: the indoctrination theory takes a very loose interpretation of the lore, and marries it with a very specific, highly subjective interpretation of events in the game.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying there's no real evidence to support it and even if it does turn out to be the case, "the entire game was an indoctrination dream" is an even worse resolution than the literal one we got.

Also, do you see the irony of insisting people read an article when much of your argument is based on the content of a book that you haven't bothered to read?

I'm all for poking holes in the Indoctrination TheoryTM even though I find it interesting. Sooner it is debunked the sooner we can forget about it (or at least the impact of the eventual reveal would be bigger if we just forget about it).

BUT I'm also for having some fun, so here we go. You could argue that the "trapped inside your own mind" aspect of being indoctrinated is reflected by us, the players, being forced to watch as our very avatar is forced into decisions we don't want to go through with.

...or something like that. Doesn't really explain any of the dreamstuffs, but I tried conspiracy people, I tried.

 

[AD-Stu]

I'm all for poking holes in the Indoctrination TheoryTM even though I find it interesting. Sooner it is debunked the sooner we can forget about it (or at least the impact of the eventual reveal would be bigger if we just forget about it).

BUT I'm also for having some fun, so here we go. You could argue that the "trapped inside your own mind" aspect of being indoctrinated is reflected by us, the players, being forced to watch as our very avatar is forced into decisions we don't want to go through with.

...or something like that. Doesn't really explain any of the dreamstuffs, but I tried conspiracy people, I tried.

Sure - but the only crappy choice we're really "forced" into is the final one, and it doesn't make sense for that to be indoctrination because all three choices are bad for the Reapers.

Meanwhile, there are dozens of other points throughout the game where the Reapers would be able to advance their cause by forcing Shepard to take a particular action, yet they don't.

Why would the Reapers let Shepard even get as far as the end of the game if they had him/her indoctrinated? For example, there's a point much earlier in the game where you're in the same room as the salarian dalatrass, the turian primarch and the krogan leader - having Shepard kill all three of them (or even better, blow up the whole Normandy with them on it) would have been much more valuable than letting Shepard get all the way to the Citadel at the end.

 

[Deadyawn]

Because it's not better. Making us pay them money for the real ending would be pure evil. If they pulled that then I would feel myself perfectly jusified in hunting every last one of them down and kicking their asses.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Just for future reference, it doesn't do much good to put *Major Spoilers* in a header if you don't say what you're spoiling.

 

[J-Alfred]

I don't play the Mass Effect games, but after talking to my friends who do, it seems what most fans are upset about is that all of the endings take place in the same place, with you just pulling lever one, two, or three to decide which ending you want. Even if there is a vast explanation for the plot holes, my friends are still angry that the everything just winds up with a big ending-choose-o-matic.

In short, even if the indoctrination theory is correct, I don't think it excuses the incredible similarity in the endings.

 

[Outcast107]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

I'll leave this here. It does a pretty well job in explaining a lot. Hopefully this is a true theory (cause to me it explains a shit ton of plot holes)

 

[Ninjat_126]

I think it's possible, that's my theory.

Then again, if it was true, they'd have released the next part already, or rushed it out to dodge the controversy.

 

[Goofguy]

Like I said.

Incompetence.

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

I am very much inclined to agree with you. I went in to that Conduit thinking that Garrus and James had been annihilated by Harbinger with all the others... only to see Garrus merrily hopping out of the crashed Normandy... uh, what?

As I sit here in the hour since I first beat ME3, I try to think what would have been the most ideal ending. There's no denying that there's probably hundreds of different ideas floating around as to how the ending could have been better executed.

Makes you wonder if a more vanilla ending should have just been made, something like DA:O. You know, the Council congratulates and thanks Shepard for beating the Reapers. He/she wanders through a hall talking to his/her surviving squadmates before exiting to meet the hordes of adoring races. End scene with epilogue mentioning how each squadmate and race moved on from the war.

 

[Ziame]

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.

chose red. EMS I had high, far past max bar.

 

[reachingshadow]

I do think the indoctrination theory fits the facts, whether or not it's true is a different matter. I would be completely onboard with it though if Bioware had stated it in game. We went into this game knowing it would be the last adventure of Shepard (despite the universe still being used for future games/books etc). So if the entire game had been building up to Shepard being indoctrinated, great. I would have applauded Bioware and no doubt been impressed by their masterfully subtle storytelling. Except, the game just ended after that terrible ending.
If everything happened exactly how it did right up to and including the three choices, the game should then of gone on to say "aha! you fell for the Reaper trap/ broke free of indoctrination" and then the true ending begins where you actually defeat the Reapers and get some resolution one way or the other. Not ending with a plot hole ridden mess and then trying to advertise DLC.

In short, yes, the indoctrination theory would work for me IF the game actually acknowledged it's existence and then explained what happened after Shepard woke up or was fully indoctrinated. And then ends with some gameplay showing Shepard either rejoining the fight or the galaxy being destroyed by Reapers. But it doesn't, it just ends on that awful note while reminding us to buy DLC.

 

[SosaAddie30]

my roomate's step-mother earned $20644 last month. she makes money on the laptop and got a $551500 house. All she did was get lucky and use the directions reported on this web site CashHuge.com