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

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Because it is the wonkiest thing I have ever seen! Have you read some of those threads
"oh look at this random screenshot, it looks like Kaidan/Ashley's armor, ergo, the indoctrination is true"

And your sole argument against the theory is pointing out the stupid parts that no one even believes in. You've done a poor job refuting any of the arguments universally accepted by people who believe in the indoctrination theory.

I find it interesting how Bioware felt it was important to show Shepard holding his wound and looking at his bloody hand after Anderson dies, and the wound is for some reason at the exact same place where he shot Anderson. Could be a coincidence, but it could also be Bioware teasing us.

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

NOTE - sorry if I've already replied to this. Kinda getting lost in the number of people here

The indoctrination DOES change. It is always Shepards subconscious interpretation of the indoctrination process, which is always the same, so why should the area and stuff change? What DOES change is the options you are given - this is completely in line with what we'd expect. If the reapers are pushing hard, or your Shepard is mentally weakened, we get the other options, if they are not we don't. They only push hard if you are an actual threat to them. Remember in my view this entire thing takes a few real life seconds. If your EMS his high then Hammer is still attacking and the Reaper can't focus just on you. if not, it can.

As I said, the scene itself shouldn't change. It's all Shepard creating it, not the Reapers. That's why the first corridor resembles the Collector base (Anderson actually TELLS Shepard this), and the confrontation with the Illusive man resembles Saren. Shepard is creating it from memories. Once Anderson dies (your strength) you lose more control and simply see the default 'indoctrination' room. The strength of the indoctrination and your Shepards mental state controls the available options.

Actually you're right about how I phrased that last time, sorry, I was up late and had been typing for ages, didn't mean to go all preacher-ey. I'll state right now what I need to disprove this - a plot hole. Something that simply goes against the logic of this theory. As I've said, conspiracy theories aren't hard to debunk, and in 30 something hours of gameplay I fully expected a contradiction to exist. So far no-one has given me one.

Your railroading of the choice is NOT such a pot hole, because it's exactly what you'd expect. if it was some other choice it might have been a killer, but the fact that it only happens with low EMS and the Collector base is far to big a coincidence. My assumptions ere are as follows:

Choices in this game carry through (duh)
The choices given are based on Shepards mental strength.

It's about options: you essentially get the same choice at the end of 2 - if you choose to keep the collector base you are already letting yourself slip. At the end of this game, ONLY if you have low EMS do you get this. Your Shepard sees no other options. If you have a bigger army you see the other option, fight. If you chose to destroy the Collector base in 2 your mental strength it still high, so you don't see it. This fits the indoctrination theory.

It also raises a question: how do these partitions work in the literal theory? Why the subdivisions of choices? Take this low EMS score thing. Why the division between fight and control? The starkid can do both. Indeed, your EMS should be utterly irrelevant to the endings. But it's not. Someone took the time to code up all these different possibilities. Why?

And indoctrination in general is not well established. I'm discussing this matter with another poster, who says in the novels people always know they're being indoctrinated, as they get trapped in their own mind. This contradicts ME1, but it shows that indoctrination as a concept is quite loose-weave and variable.

 

[SS2Dante]

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 - how did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel: when you speak to him he says he didn't come in at the same point as you

how did the Illusive man get on the Citadel - he was on it all along (you know, when they moved it from citadel space to Earth)

why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions - so many possible explanations, maybe the energy from the destruction is what sends the beam of destruction/synthesis/whatever to the next relay

how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet - they had just enough thruster power to stop them crashing at full speed? you don't see the Normandy actually crash

I've answered all these points before, please see the other posts. None of these explanations make sense. i'll answer one and you can look for the others in the posts.

Jokers crash - the ship was making a jump. It had to have been, because they're outside the Sol system at the end. So either the ship got hit and exploded midjump, or they got out the jump with half an engine, and the Mass Relay explodes, killing them. No way in hell they survive. (Arrival specifically says that the explosion is like a supernova)

 

[SS2Dante]

Because it is the wonkiest thing I have ever seen! Have you read some of those threads
"oh look at this random screenshot, it looks like Kaidan/Ashley's armor, ergo, the indoctrination is true"

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Well when the boy disappears from inside the vent you can hear a sort of groaning sound. It was said in one of the Mass Effect books that when someone is resisting indoctrination, a groaning sound can be heard. It may just be a coincidence, but it's more logical than the boy just happened to leave at that exact moment.

Someone else who's read the books says that a person who hears this is already aware they're being indoctrinated so I'm not using it for evidence, as it gets a bit complicated crossing the book/game threshhold. I find the staging of that scene more interesting. Why force Anderson out the room? Why have the child disappear, instead of run away or something? Why does the kid vanish the INSTANT Anderson says "Shepard!". And why does Shepard say nothing?

 

[RagTagBand]

Indoctrination Theory is elegant and possibly one of the greatest meta-game Role playing twists in the history of gaming, possibly even literature itself...If its true.

I would LOVE it to be true, and even if it isn't true Bioware would be fucking stupid not to go "Well, it seems like the fans have not only fixed most of the plot holes, they've given us a convenient Retcon option and made us out to be Geniuses...we should just go with this and say they were right".

I have to main problems with it.

1. Pre-meditated Genius is less likely than an unintended failure - It is simply more likely that Bioware, faced with an incoming deadline and still not having an ending (they hadn't finished the damn thing until AFTER their initial release date), simply hashed it quickly and inevitably fucked it up. The idea that EA would let them release a game with an incomplete ending, an ending they KNEW would piss off EVERYONE, Putting their profits at extreme risk for the sake of art and immersion? No. I'm sorry that is absurd. I'd love it to be true, EA would have made up for literally everything bad they've ever done ever by doing it, but the very notion that they would do such a thing is the very pinnacle of desperation.

2. The post-credits scene with the man and the child - This scene only makes sense, only makes sense if the endings you saw were the genuine, non-hallucinated, non-indoctrinated endings. I cannot figure how this tiny scene, thats no more than 2 minutes long, could possibly fit into indoctrination theory without taking a huge leap of illogical faith.

If someone who has thought about I.T more than me has an answer for how that ending scene could fit into I.T without having to rely on some shit explains-nothing cop out answer like "Shepard just dreamed that bit, just because", then please, I'd love to hear it.


Thats it. Other than that Indoctrination theory is one of the most intriguing things i've ever heard.

 

[SS2Dante]

Because it is the wonkiest thing I have ever seen! Have you read some of those threads
"oh look at this random screenshot, it looks like Kaidan/Ashley's armor, ergo, the indoctrination is true"

And your sole argument against the theory is pointing out the stupid parts that no one even believes in. You've done a poor job refuting any of the arguments universally accepted by people who believe in the indoctrination theory.

I find it interesting how Bioware felt it was important to show Shepard holding his wound and looking at his bloody hand after Anderson dies, and the wound is for some reason at the exact same place where he shot Anderson. Could be a coincidence, but it could also be Bioware teasing us.

How the SHIT did I miss that? I'll go back and double check. Yeah, no-one else seemed to find it weird that you don't mention to Anderson about shooting him. Not even an I'm sorry. You barely react at all when you do it

 

[SS2Dante]

Indoctrination Theory is elegant and possibly one of the greatest meta-game Role playing twists in the history of gaming, possibly even literature itself...If its true.

I would LOVE it to be true, and even if it isn't true Bioware would be fucking stupid not to go "Well, it seems like the fans have not only fixed most of the plot holes, they've given us a convenient Retcon option and made us out to be Geniuses...we should just go with this and say they were right".

I have to main problems with it.

1. Pre-meditated Genius is less likely than an unintended failure - It is simply more likely that Bioware, faced with an incoming deadline and still not having an ending (they hadn't finished the damn thing until AFTER their initial release date), simply hashed it quickly and inevitably fucked it up. The idea that EA would let them release a game with an incomplete ending, an ending they KNEW would piss off EVERYONE, Putting their profits at extreme risk for the sake of art and immersion? No. I'm sorry that is absurd. I'd love it to be true, EA would have made up for literally everything bad they've ever done ever by doing it, but the very notion that they would do such a thing is the very pinnacle of desperation.

2. The post-credits scene with the man and the child - This scene only makes sense, only makes sense if the endings you saw were the genuine, non-hallucinated, non-indoctrinated endings. I cannot figure how this tiny scene, thats no more than 2 minutes long, could possibly fit into indoctrination theory without taking a huge leap of illogical faith.

If someone who has thought about I.T more than me has an answer for how that ending scene could fit into I.T without having to rely on some shit explains-nothing cop out answer like "Shepard just dreamed that bit, just because", then please, I'd love to hear it.


Thats it. Other than that Indoctrination theory is one of the most intriguing things i've ever heard.

Theres a discussion about the Stargazer scene going on here. Check the previous posts, you shouldn't have to go far. Basically, no, Shepard didn't dream it.

Also - I've given my reasoning for the choice, but I ain't a marketer. Basically, the main idea is they have to give some time for people to cool down a bit. That way the ending, when released, isn't a screw you but an "awesome! new content AND the ending now makes sense!". Again, look up a few posts.

 

[Neonsilver]

I really like the indoctrination theory. It's a good explanation of the ending and if that is what BioWare intended, they are genius.

But I can't believe it. I'll go with Occam's razor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor] and the simplest explanation I see is they ran out of money, time, motivation or good ideas. That would explain why all endings are almost identical. The ending just looks lazy.

In your view, the team who made Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 really well written suddenly forgot how to write in the last and most important part of the game? These are not small flaws. Those I could understand. Instead, it's as if they are actively piling on large plot holes and flaws as fast they can. If it was lazy writing it'd show up elsewhere in the game.

Also, may I ask why you think the red scene has an extra ending? If they ran out of time or whatever it shouldn't be there. It's an extra weeks worth of work for an unnecessary scene that just adds another plot hole. That's not laziness or incompetence. That's EXTRA work, for some unexplained reason.

Ignore the part with the good ideas.
Assume they were working on a great ending, but they underestimated the time/work they would need for the ending or everything before the ending. So they don't have the time or money to do what they intended. When they ask if the game could be delayed, they get a NO.
So they cobble something together from what they could finish and put it in the game.

About running out of motivation or good ideas. I'm not an author, but I assume the hardest part in writing a story is finishing it in a satisfying way and in ME there are dozens of different storys to finish.

And about the extra scene,

Spoiler

if you mean the person lieing in the rubble and suddenly breathing in.

I don't think it would take a week to put that together, it could probably be done by a single person.

 

[mdqp]

Look, I hope we all agree that, if taken at face value, the ending is simply nonsensical and ridiculous. The indoctrination theory, however, isn't really that better.

First of all, it started under the assumption that "there must be a meaning to this!", so if you try to come up with a story that puts everything together, it's hard not to find a way (if you are dead set about a conspiracy going on, you will link details that aren't really related, same thing here).
Some people would like for the indoctrination to start from the very beginning of the game, but that would be weird (the prothean VI says you aren't indoctrinated, for example, and there would be troubles about considering how it would have happened, as the story about using collector's tech to reach their base in ME2 doesn't seem that strong to me).

Finally, if you were experiencing an illusion, why would it have to be that suspicious? If you are trying to manipulate someone, you don't appear as child-VI and use extremely faulty logic to convince the other party to do what you want. Also, The child-VI isn't forced to propose the choice of destroying the Reapers, it could simply lie about there being only the "control" and "merge" choices! It could tell Shepard that "control" is "destroy", etc... So we have to assume that if this is indoctrination, either the Reapers are incredibly stupid, or Shepard has never reached the Citadel and is having some kind of dream while unconscious on Earth, which would mean that the story simply has no ending at all. And this without even considering that stupid thing about the stargazer... So I don't think this theory is a good one, either, at least not if I want to be "satisfied" by the ending.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I find it easy to believe in indoctrination theory because it fits more than the actual ending, it has enough evidence to support it and because the game comes from the same company that made KoTOR.

 

[Emiscary]

Because the only people who've ever talked about it are fans who came up with the idea as a desperate attempt to not admit that the ending we got was really all Bioware planned to give us on launch day.

-Hold the line.

 

[mdqp]

Also, I forgot to add: there would be better way to exploit indoctrinated people on the Normandy: I imagine that a sabotage in space is more often than not lethal, and if we go by the assumption that the indoctrination takes place on the Normandy, then it shouldn't be hard to find someone weak-willed among the crew and cause troubles... There are too many flaws if that is the way it worked. Also, indoctrination seems to be much more direct, as far as I saw in the game... You start hearing voices, and then you become a puppet... The strong willed like to believe that they can resist the voices, but they hear them anyway. This doesn't happen to Shepard. Such a degree of control doesn't seem plausible with what is apparent.

 

[Murmillos]

The boy is real. When you first make your escape and Anderson tells you to shoot the husks climbing up the wall, if you look to the right to the building area where the reaper will eventually blow up (setting up for the location where you have to melee a few husks), if you don't shoot the husks and pay attention to that balcony, you see the child running into the building (before you drop down to that balcony to the reaper blowing the building part up).

Its easily missed because most of your focus is on the husks, and not the balcony below.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Shepard has lost a lot of people, but mostly soliders or other people in the line of duty (or people who set up their own deaths). This time its Shepard feeling the loss of somebody innocent; just mere feet away that he was unable to save. The child dies and that sets up the feeling of hopelessness that the reaper indoctrination is able to slowly wedge itself into.

 

[Okuu_Fusion]

Not sure of this has been mentioned yet but...

Isn't the kid at the start of the game playing with a model of the Normandy?

Wasn't the Normandy still classified?

 

[mdqp]

Not sure of this has been mentioned yet but...

Isn't the kid at the start of the game playing with a model of the Normandy?

Wasn't the Normandy still classified?

It was a normal shuttle like the one on the Normandy, if I remember correctly. Also, I am quite sure that the outside of the ship isn't classified, and anyway it has been going around the galaxy for quite some time already, so it wouldn't be weird if the kid was playing with it.

 

[SS2Dante]

I really like the indoctrination theory. It's a good explanation of the ending and if that is what BioWare intended, they are genius.

But I can't believe it. I'll go with Occam's razor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor] and the simplest explanation I see is they ran out of money, time, motivation or good ideas. That would explain why all endings are almost identical. The ending just looks lazy.

In your view, the team who made Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 really well written suddenly forgot how to write in the last and most important part of the game? These are not small flaws. Those I could understand. Instead, it's as if they are actively piling on large plot holes and flaws as fast they can. If it was lazy writing it'd show up elsewhere in the game.

Also, may I ask why you think the red scene has an extra ending? If they ran out of time or whatever it shouldn't be there. It's an extra weeks worth of work for an unnecessary scene that just adds another plot hole. That's not laziness or incompetence. That's EXTRA work, for some unexplained reason.

Ignore the part with the good ideas.
Assume they were working on a great ending, but they underestimated the time/work they would need for the ending or everything before the ending. So they don't have the time or money to do what they intended. When they ask if the game could be delayed, they get a NO.
So they cobble something together from what they could finish and put it in the game.

About running out of motivation or good ideas. I'm not an author, but I assume the hardest part in writing a story is finishing it in a satisfying way and in ME there are dozens of different storys to finish.

And about the extra scene,

Spoiler

if you mean the person lieing in the rubble and suddenly breathing in.

I don't think it would take a week to put that together, it could probably be done by a single person.

Part with good ideas? Sorry, I don't understand. Clarify?
Yes their are, and they all finish in a satifying way. Except for Shepards story and the overall galaxy. This is odd. (by the way, games aren't created beginning to end, they didn't do the ending 'last', that's a crazy scheduling idea.)

It could be created and animated by a single person yes. but it's an FMV, not using the in game engine (it's too detailed, and the Shepard in game model doesn't have dog tags). No way in hell one artist could do that in a day. Plus, then the programmers have to insert it in and test every possible combination of variables that effect this situation. That in itself is at least another day. (trust me, programmer )

People do not just put stuff in games 'for the lulz'. Every decision is a serious time/money sink.

 

[SS2Dante]

Not sure of this has been mentioned yet but...

Isn't the kid at the start of the game playing with a model of the Normandy?

Wasn't the Normandy still classified?

It was a normal shuttle like the one on the Normandy, if I remember correctly. Also, I am quite sure that the outside of the ship isn't classified, and anyway it has been going around the galaxy for quite some time already, so it wouldn't be weird if the kid was playing with it.

It's a fighter.

 

[SS2Dante]

The boy is real. When you first make your escape and Anderson tells you to shoot the husks climbing up the wall, if you look to the right to the building area where the reaper will eventually blow up (setting up for the location where you have to melee a few husks), if you don't shoot the husks and pay attention to that balcony, you see the child running into the building (before you drop down to that balcony to the reaper blowing the building part up).

Its easily missed because most of your focus is on the husks, and not the balcony below.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Shepard has lost a lot of people, but mostly soliders or other people in the line of duty (or people who set up their own deaths). This time its Shepard feeling the loss of somebody innocent; just mere feet away that he was unable to save. The child dies and that sets up the feeling of hopelessness that the reaper indoctrination is able to slowly wedge itself into.

Yes I've seen that. Two problems: the door is locked, and also, the building is hit with a bigass explosion. Not buying the kid survives cos he's in the vents, no way. I could concede tat perhaps he was real at first, but after that, no way.

Also, here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w8vra2WF2oY#t=401s

How does the kid appear there? He magically appears on a balcony with no ladder or ramp or anything.

 

[SS2Dante]

Also, I forgot to add: there would be better way to exploit indoctrinated people on the Normandy: I imagine that a sabotage in space is more often than not lethal, and if we go by the assumption that the indoctrination takes place on the Normandy, then it shouldn't be hard to find someone weak-willed among the crew and cause troubles... There are too many flaws if that is the way it worked. Also, indoctrination seems to be much more direct, as far as I saw in the game... You start hearing voices, and then you become a puppet... The strong willed like to believe that they can resist the voices, but they hear them anyway. This doesn't happen to Shepard. Such a degree of control doesn't seem plausible with what is apparent.

We're not saying it's the Reaper IFF that does it, its the fact that Shepard has been exposed to lots of Reapers artefacts. Also, in ME1 Saren is convinced he's not indoctrinated. He doesn't say anything about voices or anything, he's convinced he's helping them of his own free will. The only people that are aware of indoctrination are those who are too far gone, or being indoctrinated fast.

 

[SS2Dante]

Look, I hope we all agree that, if taken at face value, the ending is simply nonsensical and ridiculous. The indoctrination theory, however, isn't really that better.

First of all, it started under the assumption that "there must be a meaning to this!", so if you try to come up with a story that puts everything together, it's hard not to find a way (if you are dead set about a conspiracy going on, you will link details that aren't really related, same thing here).
Some people would like for the indoctrination to start from the very beginning of the game, but that would be weird (the prothean VI says you aren't indoctrinated, for example, and there would be troubles about considering how it would have happened, as the story about using collector's tech to reach their base in ME2 doesn't seem that strong to me).

Finally, if you were experiencing an illusion, why would it have to be that suspicious? If you are trying to manipulate someone, you don't appear as child-VI and use extremely faulty logic to convince the other party to do what you want. Also, The child-VI isn't forced to propose the choice of destroying the Reapers, it could simply lie about there being only the "control" and "merge" choices! It could tell Shepard that "control" is "destroy", etc... So we have to assume that if this is indoctrination, either the Reapers are incredibly stupid, or Shepard has never reached the Citadel and is having some kind of dream while unconscious on Earth, which would mean that the story simply has no ending at all. And this without even considering that stupid thing about the stargazer... So I don't think this theory is a good one, either, at least not if I want to be "satisfied" by the ending.

It wasn't that "there must be meaning to this!" it was that the ending had too many plot holes to be likely in literal form. As I've said, a crappy ending that made sense would be fine.

The prothean VI senses only those who are properly indoctrinated. If it could sense anyone with any level to exposure to indoctrination ALL of Shepards crew would be counted, as they've all been around Reaper tech enough to been hit with the indoctrination waves.

Ok, you're saying that it's TOO obvious that it's indoctrination?
The point of that last scene is that it is SHEPARD constructing it, not the reapers. The reapers are influencing Shepards subconscious and we see it manifested as the starchild and choices. The fight ending is ALWAYS there (apart from one case I'll explain in a sec) because you always have a choice. Indoctrination isn't mind control, it's mind influencing.

The one case you don't get to fight is if you have an extremely low EMS and you kept the Collector base. In this case you can only do control. You don't get synthesis because the Reapers aren't actively trying to indoctrinate you because your army is defeated, and you don't get fight because your Shepard already began to fall at the end of 2, and without an effective army you see no other choice but to try and control them (aka give in).