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

[ResonanceSD]

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

Most get started with drunk hill billies living near US Air Force Experimental Aircraft ranges, if we're being serious.

Zomg! I saw some UFO's man! Right near an air force base which tests new aircraft!! ALIENZ BRO.

-_- please.

 

[Darh Abdomino]

Besides, the indoctrination thing, while slightly better, would still leave the endings awfully inconclusive and unsatisfying. If Shepard was tripping on Reaper brain juice the whole time, then what the fuck really happened?

Obviously, something that HAD to be better than the ending.

 

[SS2Dante]

Part with good ideas? Sorry, I don't understad. Clarify?

the simplest explanation I see is they ran out of money, time, motivation or good ideas.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, all I wanted to say is why they may have run out of money or time.

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.)

Don't know if you want to be sarcastic. If the endings are satisfying is subjective, but a majority seems to think it isn't. And that isn't the topic.

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.

I know something about programming myself and I see 3 variables that are affecting this scene. One is the chosen ending, the next one is war assets and the last one is Shepards gender.
But actually it seems the gender doesn't matter in this scene, the armor looks the same for both (just looked at the scene on youtube and I can't see a difference).
Since they won't test every possible niveau for the war assets it isn't that much to test and it's nothing they have to do extra for this single scene. That test has to be done anyway for the endings.
Even if they worked hard for about 5 seconds, it doesn't change the fact that most of the endings are identical.

Ah, ok. but again, there is a lot of extra stuff in the endings that doesn't need to be there. If they were running out of money or time they would simply have left out the extra red scene for example. Also, they were running out of money or time, yet immediately got to work on the Prothean dlc? It was day one. If they truly were forced into making the crappy ending they could simply have rewritten it with free dlc.

True, apologies. Trying to answer everyone and having new guys ask the same questions over and over got my fingers tired and mind frustrated I agree about satifying being objective, however I would state a preliminary requirement for a satisfactory ending is that it doesn't contain about 8 huge plot holes. HUGE ones. I'm not saying the ending was 'bad', I'm saying it's too broken to be accidental.

As do I. Computer scientist. Let me tell you, you're GROSSLY oversimplifying it. To give a basic, non computery example, you are missing a variable (yeah shepards gender is just a model swap, not really a variable in this case). Whether or not you destroyed the collector base is a deciding factor in what ending you get (I have explained in other posts why this is exactly in lie with the theory). Also, the war asset score changes the ending every 500 or so points. This means, for any half-decent computer scientist, every 500 points we have to test the new score, the boundaries above and below it, and at random intervals in between. For every combination of war asset, choice, and collector base decision. Absolute minimum number of test cases comes out to about 7*3*2 = 41 tests. (this is an example calculation, it's horrifically primitive, but you get the idea). It is NOT a simple set of IF ELSES or a CASE statement, please trust me on that

I realise that the endings are identical. Thats why the extra scene is so bizarre. According to the starkid, Shepard should have died as he is partly synthetic (never mind the citadel blowing up). It actually makes more story sense to leave that scene out. So why put it in? it makes just as little sense in this ending as the others, so if they just wanted a little bit of hope they could have put it in the other 2 endings. Instead, they've spent time and money putting this scene in at THIS level of war assets and at THIS choice. Incompetence or being rushed directly states that this scene should not exist.

 

[SS2Dante]

I can see your reasoning (athiest ) but it is not me using this to support anything, it is you who are using it. You have said that this VI would sense Shepards indoctrination. I am saying we have nowhere near the evidence for that, therefore it is not solid grounds for dismissal or confirmation of this theory.

Fair enough, individual taste

Arrival was the dlc prologue to 3. (in arrival by the way, the main plot point is that destroying a Mass Relay causes an explosion so big that the entire system containing it is destroyed. Why did this not happen in 3?).

As for indoctrination targeting Shepard in this was (we are on the same page here, right? Indcotrination theory states the child never existed, but has always been the Reapers trying to get you to lose hope), let me show you an entry from the codex definition of indoctrination

"Reaper 'indoctrination' is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, ?reprogramming? the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper?s resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

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."

Ghostly presences. The first time you see the boy is when the Reaper fleet arrives on Earth. (If this is all new to you please read the article, because taken out of context...blegh). The child is symbolic (and not subtly either. The only two things he says are "you can't save me" and "everyones dying")

It can sense Indoctrination. You are arguing (with no evidence) that it can only if it is heavy indoctrination. Thus, you are bringing a theory without anything to back it up on the table. My theory says that it can sense indoctrination. That's it, there are no hints as to why it shouldn't sense low-level indoctrination, as it would be as dangerous as high-level, given the importance of that data. As we can take it only at face value, it stands that it can recognize indoctrination.

The child is a "ghostly" presence only at the ending. It looks a normal child to Shepard at the beginning. If the Reapers were capable of making you see children, they would be able to make you see a bridge where there isn't one, and make you fall and die. They could manipulate you so completely that anything wouldn't make sense, they could twist dialougues with your crew, push you in the direction they want since the beginning. I argue that this is simply a little too much. Not many of the other symptoms seem to show on Shepard, for 99% of the game.

I do have evidence. Reapers constantly indoctrinate anything in contact with them. Absolutely any time spent with a reaper means you are slightly indoctrinated (By the way, it's not a binary transition. You are not "fine" and "indoctrinated".) Shepard has been around Reaper tech a lot, as have the crew. It is a safe assumption they have all been hit mildly by the indoctrination. Your argument is based on the idea that it's a binary state, which it is not.

A little child no-one else seems to see, who utters only a few words of hopelessness and despair? I can point out about a thousand horror movies with the exact same level of ghostly child.

And for the last time, it is not a deliberate Reaper thing. They don't do mind control. The child is them enhancing Shepards feelings of hopelessness and despair, and is personified by SHEPARD, not them.

 

[SS2Dante]

Not trying to offend here, it's just so far no-one has taken any of the theory and actually examined it.

Like you, I feel like I am pissing into the wind. The people who say we are wrong just will not accept the evidence we put before them, despite it being plainly obvious for all to see.

I only really looked into the Indoctrination Theory today and, while would have never spotted the evidence had it not been laid out in that article you posted and a very good video I watched earlier, I have to say that it makes a lot more sense than the sodding ending itself does.

Yes I am sad that the ending was such arse-seepage that we have to come up with theories like this, even though this one holds a hell of a lot of water!

I would also like to say this: No matter if BioWare intended this to be the case or not, it really is a no-brainer for them now. With this theory, the people who came up with it have pretty much written BioWare out of a corner. While I still assert that the ending needs to be expanded on rather than outright retconned, BioWare could do worse than to roll with the Indoctination theory as the evidence, which certain trolls refuse to accept, is already right there, in the game as it stands.

I'm not saying it would be a small and easy task to make because I am 99% sure it would take a lot of work but I sill maintain that I am not entitled by asking for it because we were promised it.

If BioWare intended this theory to be the case, the evidence is there after all, and we worked it out then aint we just the smart-arses? If not but BioWare went "Eureka! That's it!" and ran with it anyway then I'd still be happy.

While I would like a happy ending (or one that gives me hope) as I put in a hell of a lot of effort, an ending that makes sense and gives me closure would do!

Hey, someone who seems to think the same as me! I was getting lonely

Also, about them expanding and not retconning. I feel this is paramount. I will be pissed the fuck off is they do release dlc that confirms the theory and people start complaining that they've retconned the ending And I KNOW people will

 

[Penguin_Factory]

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.

The indoctrination theory is interesting, as a lot of fan theories tend to be, but ultimately I just don't care about the plot holes. The ending was epic, emotionally satisfying and surprising. That's all I wanted, and I got it.

 

[PiCroft]

I read through that article and watched the youtube vid regarding it. It seems to be Loose Change levels of supposition and confirmation bias.

I mean, picking up the presence of warning signs and danger signs around the kid, Vega saying "can you hear a humming sound?" in the Normandy cargo bay presumably surrounded by machinery are circumstantial at best and are the kinds of leaps in logic that the Loose Change conspiracy theorists used to point to "puffs of smoke" from collapsing buildings being "demolition charges".

I kind of hope it is the truth and DLC is forthcoming, but after Final Hours and the news that ending had more dialogue, including explanatory stuff that was cut because the writer said "You don't need to explain the Reapers" it is an excercise at straw-grasping.

 

[mdqp]

I do have evidence. Reapers constantly indoctrinate anything in contact with them. Absolutely any time spent with a reaper means you are slightly indoctrinated (By the way, it's not a binary transition. You are not "fine" and "indoctrinated".) Shepard has been around Reaper tech a lot, as have the crew. It is a safe assumption they have all been hit mildly by the indoctrination. Your argument is based on the idea that it's a binary state, which it is not.

What I am arguing, is that it certainly doesn't look mild indoctrination in your theory (multiple visions, invasion of dreams, plus the ending). I am also arguing that it wouldn't make sense if it wouldn't wear off over time (Shepard isn't in constant contact with Reapers tech 24/7, he probably got exposed for hours, not even days). You are also saying that the VI reads indoctrination as binary state, while that isn't the nature of the indoctrination (how convenient that its ability to pick up on indoctrination suits the needs of your theory... Or it might be the other way around, and whenever something goes against your theory, you add something to it that sidesteps the issue).

A little child no-one else seems to see, who utters only a few words of hopelessness and despair? I can point out about a thousand horror movies with the exact same level of ghostly child.

It isn't shown clearly in the game that the others don't see him. You are making an assumption on the few scenes that have the child in it, it isn't a proven fact. If the child had run between Shepard and Anderson, and Anderson wouldn't have reacted to him, than you would have something solid. As far as we can see, it is a child. Also, Shepard doesn't see other imaginary people in the game, why only one? Why nothing on Thessia, for example (there are Reapers there, too). You are presenting as facts your ideas, but if we were taking a stroll, I happen to see a child, I turn over to you to point out where he is, but when I look back he isn't there anymore, would you really think it's a ghost? I know is fiction, but the game doesn't give as many hints as you seem to suggest.

And for the last time, it is not a deliberate Reaper thing. They don't do mind control. The child is them enhancing Shepards feelings of hopelessness and despair, and is personified by SHEPARD, not them.

But the children boards one of the shuttles, how could the Reapers know with certainty that it would explode? Or even Shepard subconscious, if that is what you are implying... If the shuttle simply left unharmed, it wouldn't have meant anything, are the Reapers or Shepard's subconscious metagaming, too? You are too hung up on the children being a sign of indoctrination from the beginning, it's not as stron as you seem to think (well, actually I don't think this theory is strong in general, but this particular point seems really weak).

Another thing. The ending doesn't work the way you explained it elsewhere, though, or else the destroy option would be always present, since you seem to state that the harder you hit the Reapers, the harder they try at indoctrination, but this would clearly mean that the destruction option should actually disappear if they try harder to indoctrinate you, or at least be always present, if it's present when they try their hardest (at least, this is how you explained it last time. If you change your version on this again, I don't know what to think).

On a last note, I sincerely think that people can screw things up badly, even if they have done a good work before (many Star Wars fans are venomous about the Phantom Menace, just to name one thing, but I am sure that history is full of failures from famous well established artists), and I think that even if this theory was right, the ending would be a disappointing mess (it would mean that things in the Mass Effect's universe stand as they were at the moment that Shepard got it on Earth. No closure, no answers, no nothing. The story hasn't been told, it seems exceedingly odd to close it like that. If I have to believe that things weren't good, I am going to go with the simpler answer, that's it.

 

[Varrdy]

Hey, someone who seems to think the same as me! I was getting lonely

Also, about them expanding and not retconning. I feel this is paramount. I will be pissed the fuck off is they do release dlc that confirms the theory and people start complaining that they've retconned the ending And I KNOW people will

Hell even the bit with Joker and the Normandy doing a runner could be part of the ending, just so long as it is put into proper context. How they'd do that, I have no idea - that much I will admit.

Sadly no matter what evidence we present and how eloquently we present our case, there will always be some knob-jockey who will pay it little or no mind and just keep on calling us names for it, which is sadly ironic.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

To me, this theory makes an incredible amount of sense. I have one, and only one, problem with believing it, and it is as follows:

If the indoctrinization theory is correct, then Bioware shipped the game without something that even they thought was a proper ending. If their plan is to release the true ending in the next couple weeks, as DLC, for free, then, um, did they anticipate the bad blood that would result when people refused to believe or accept their ending? Why have they not spoken up in the face of opposition from 95% of their fan base, if they have another ending in the wings?

Moreover, if the plan is to charge an extra ten dollars or so for the proper ending, the one where you push past indoctrination and actually get to see the end of the Reapers, when most of what they left us with wasn't even REAL? Well... let's just say I don't think that would improve their position with their fans.

 

[T-004]

Having read the article and thinking about it properly, I think the Indoctrination theory is right.

It makes far to much sense and isn't in any way a fantasist's leap. I have an idea of whats going on and I think Bioware may have just got us all good and proper.

I expect that this is the cliff-hanger and the true endings (one for each of the 3 choices) will be the last ME3 DLC released and I wouldn't be surprised if it was free.

As for anyone who may respond with the arguement "If there were further endings where are they? Cos they're not on the disc!" I would surmise that due to the prevailence of people who sift through the code of a new game as soon as, if not just before it's released, Bioware decided that the best option was to keep it off the disc and therefore create the greatest publicity coup in gaming history! After all ME3 is being talked about everywhere, which is the greatest form of advertising.

I know a lot of people will probably disagree with me, but this is my belief and if it proves wrong then so be it.

 

[Neonsilver]

Ah, ok. but again, there is a lot of extra stuff in the endings that doesn't need to be there. If they were running out of money or time they would simply have left out the extra red scene for example. Also, they were running out of money or time, yet immediately got to work on the Prothean dlc? It was day one. If they truly were forced into making the crappy ending they could simply have rewritten it with free dlc.

I don't think the Prothean DLC is proof enough that they didn't run out of money. Assume the best of Bioware, so they didn't just cut out part of the complete game to make it into a DLC. Then you can assume that the DLC was a separate project with it's own budget and it's own schedule. In that case it wouldn't take money from the development for the game. It may have taken developers that would have been needed.

True, apologies. Trying to answer everyone and having new guys ask the same questions over and over got my fingers tired and mind frustrated I agree about satifying being objective, however I would state a preliminary requirement for a satisfactory ending is that it doesn't contain about 8 huge plot holes. HUGE ones. I'm not saying the ending was 'bad', I'm saying it's too broken to be accidental.

As do I. Computer scientist. Let me tell you, you're GROSSLY oversimplifying it. To give a basic, non computery example, you are missing a variable (yeah shepards gender is just a model swap, not really a variable in this case). Whether or not you destroyed the collector base is a deciding factor in what ending you get (I have explained in other posts why this is exactly in lie with the theory). Also, the war asset score changes the ending every 500 or so points. This means, for any half-decent computer scientist, every 500 points we have to test the new score, the boundaries above and below it, and at random intervals in between. For every combination of war asset, choice, and collector base decision. Absolute minimum number of test cases comes out to about 7*3*2 = 41 tests. (this is an example calculation, it's horrifically primitive, but you get the idea). It is NOT a simple set of IF ELSES or a CASE statement, please trust me on that

What I actualy meant with the gender is that the extra scene in the destroy ending is the same, no matter if you play femshep or maleshep (not even a modelchange, it's the same armor in the rubble). That makes it questionable if it's Sheppard, I played femshep and the armor doesn't look like a female armor, but maybe it's just broken to the point where you can't tell the difference anymore.
And I only talked about the videos when you picked your ending.
I had high war asset rating when I played so correct me if I'm wrong. I think the ME2 ending decision only affects which bridge is raised when your rating is to low so it doesn't affect the videos.

Yeah, you're right, there are more variables. Counting from the moment you are transported in the room with the catalyst:
- war assets
- ME2 ending
- the ending color
- shepards face
- shepards gender
- whatever decides which squadmates get out of the normandy
- maybe more, those are the obvious ones I see

My main point was that most of those permutations are tested anyway and not extra for every little detail.

I realise that the endings are identical. Thats why the extra scene is so bizarre. According to the starkid, Shepard should have died as he is partly synthetic (never mind the citadel blowing up). It actually makes more story sense to leave that scene out. So why put it in? it makes just as little sense in this ending as the others, so if they just wanted a little bit of hope they could have put it in the other 2 endings. Instead, they've spent time and money putting this scene in at THIS level of war assets and at THIS choice. Incompetence or being rushed directly states that this scene should not exist.

Let's agree that we don't know enough about their management and scheduling to answer if they had to rush the ending. I see the time and money they saved by reusing big parts of the final scene, you see the time and money they had to put in extra for the little differences. I'm kinda tired of this discussion and without insight in Bioware we can't say for sure what caused the ending

 

[OldNewNewOld]

The indoctrination theory is just a conspiracy theory. Nothing more.
People desperately want to find some connection, they will find a connection. No matter how far fetched it is.

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?

Anderson got ahead of you because he wasn't beamed to the same place and he wasn't badly wounded like you.

Did you even play the game? What did the Prothean VI say in the Cerberus main base? TIM is already on the citadel and he warned the Reaper. That's how he ended up on the Citadel.

Why did Joker run away? As soon as Shepard goes from the ship, Joker is in command of the ship. His job is to keep the ship safe. It wouldn't be so if there was the full crew like in the first part were XO Pressly was the second in charge. Since there was no real second in command, the pilot is the one who is the second in command over the ship. His job is to keep the Normany safe. If he was just standing and looking at the light like and idiot, that would be a plot hole. Him doing his job is not a plot hole.

Also, it was assumed that Shepard is dead. Only one in contact with Shepard were Anderson and Hackett. Hackett probably used a private channel to communicate with Shepard. Ya know, because you don't talk about important stuff on open channels?

The galaxy wasn't destroyed because the Mass Relay's weren't destroyed the same way they were in the Arrival DLC. Probably doe the fact that they were just disabled after the send the energy impulse. It was more of a EMP explosion than a real explosion.

Once Shepard is missed by the Reaper and wounded, one guy says over the radio to all fall back. Lets just use our brain for once. Could it be that the crew got back to the Normandy because it was assumed that everyone else is dead and the only way to beat the Reaper now is to fight them head on? They got back on the Normandy because they were told to.

It never showed that the Normandy exploded. They just showed that the engine was damaged and only the last part of the Normandy was destroyed.

 

[PiCroft]

It's also worth pointing out that the "worst" ending, the one you have to pick if you don't have enough war assets, is "Destroy", the ending that allegedly is Shepard breaking his indoctrination and you don't wake up from it.

 

[Simple Bluff]

The ending doesn't work the way you explained it elsewhere, though, or else the destroy option would be always present, since you seem to state that the harder you hit the Reapers, the harder they try at indoctrination, but this would clearly mean that the destruction option should actually disappear if they try harder to indoctrinate you, or at least be always present, if it's present when they try their hardest.

I know I'm not really part of this debate, but I'd like to address this remark. Assuming the IT is true, the last choice was just a construction of Shepard's mind and the Reaper's indoctrination. Everything that happens here is all in Shepard's mind - thus, what option you actually pick has NO PHYSICAL INFLUENCE (apart from Shepard's will). Also, the Reapers didn't just 'make' this reality. What we see is a struggle between Shepard and the Reapers for control his mind manifested into this three way choice.

Okay, this much is obvious. I just wanted to clearly state it, so you can see in my perspective of the manner.

Now, before I answer your question directly, I'd like to point out that you can be indoctrinated before the last choice, when you confront The Illusive Man and Anderson. Remember that the IT states that Anderson represents Shepard's willpower, and TIM represents the corrupted part of Shepard's mind (the part that's already indoctrinated). In the scene, three possible things can happen:

- TIM executes Anderson. TIM executes Shepard. Game Over.

- TIM commits suicide. Anderson dies soon after. Shepard transported to the God Child.

- Shepard kills TIM before he executes Anderson. Anderson dies soon after. Shepard transported to the God Child.

In the first, only TIM (corruption) is alive. Thus, only the corrupted part of Shepard's mind remains - he is indoctrinated. You are not even given any choice in this case - no red, green or blue option. The game ends there.
The other two, however, yield the same result: Both Anderson (will) and TIM (corruption) are dead. Shepard's mind, for all intents and purposes, is shattered, but not yet indoctrinated (I think this may be why he is so placid when speaking to the God Child). That's why the Reapers can't simply 'remove' the red choice - his mind is still his own, however fragile.

... And that's where EMS comes in. I know I'm using wishy - washy symbolism here, but bear with me please. I believe that, while EMS directly quantifies military strength, it may also indirectly represent Sheperds mental strength. A bigger army will make him more confident, supplementing his willpower and desire to fight, whereas a smaller army will have adverse affect on his morale, making him mentally weaker.

This is why the red ending doesn't make Shep wake up if your EMS is low - his destroyed mind, coupled with his own lack of confidence is just too much for him to handle. He dies anyway. But with enough EMS, he knows he still has a chance to win, and finds the strength to get up and finish the fight.

I'm sorry if that was a bit romantisized.

 

[burningdragoon]

New Edit: seems arguing about this isn't quite as relevant anymore: http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/ BioWare is working on something that vaguely implies that the ending we got was the ending it was.

Ok, so that video (edit: this one [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck]) that's popped up here a few times asks some questions at the end that apparently have no answers that then proves the theory is correct. I've decided to answer them:

1. What is the meaning of the dreams?
IF Shep is being indoctrinated, than the dreams being part of the process makes sense. If Shep isn't being indoctrinated, then the dreams being nightmares from the stress of the mission makes just as much sense. Being the one man responsible for uniting the whole damn galaxy while your home is being actively destroyed sounds incredibly stressful to me.

2. Why does nobody notice the boy?
It's not clear either way really. If he was cleary ignored then there'd be something big here, but as is it could go either way.

3. Why would Shepard be immune to indoctrination?
Who said he is and what about the rest of his crew?

4. Why does Harbinger take a special interest in Shepard?
Because Shepard is king badass of the galaxy and because of him the Reapers' assault has been slowed several times before.

5. Why are there trees from the dream around the beam?
I've seen the dream trees and the two trees you see after Harbinger hits you with a death ray. It would be a pretty interesting and subtle clue, but until someone shows a screenshot of a lack of trees before the death ray, it's not a strong point. Also, if you notice the trees and shrubbery blowing the the wind caused by the teleporter beam, you can reasonably include they are there to show wind/force being emitted by the beam. Interesting point and one of the better ones, but not as strong as people would like.


6. Why does your sidearm have infinite ammo?
*sigh* Because it's a video game so shut the fuck up. No, that's harsh, but really this one of the weakest, most straw-grabby points for the theory. I never carried an assault rifle besides the very beginning and yet in several cutscenes my Shepard was shooting one. And that is hardly the only instance of a disconnect between the "reality" between different parts of the game.

7. Why is the beam directly leading to the panel that opens Citadel's arms?
Again, it's a video game and the whole Crucible thing is already a deus ex machina. Not saying it's not dumb taken literally, but it's far from rare for video game level layouts to have some pretty bad logic. Sea also: a very common lack of bathrooms in almost every game ever.

8. Why are corpses everyoen on the Citadel, just like on the Collectors' ship?
Why were there corpses on the Collectors' ship if everyone was just being turned into DNA goop? We know people were being led up through the beam. We don't know what happens after that, so why wouldn't you expect corpses?

9. How did Anderson enter the beam before Shepard?
He didn't. He says he went up right after Shepard. If you want to ask where the hell he was while you struggling to get there, then yeah, that's a more interesting plot hole.

10. Why was Anderson teleported to another location and how did he arrive at the panel first?
We don't know how the thing works, Deus Ex Machina and all. He was obviously not as injured as Shepard so he likely could get up and going more easily the Shep. Why he was in such better shape is a more interesting plot hole than how he got there first.

As for how he got the panel first:

Boom! Other doors. I took this picture yesterday after watching the video for the first time. There's one on the other side two.

11. How did Hackett know that Shepard made it to the Citadel after the entire force had been decimated?
The Citadel arms opened, which meant someone made it. Guessing King Badass was the one who made it is only logical. Edit: not to mention if Anderson went after Shepard, he could have told Hackett Shepard and him made it up sometime between Shepard getting to the beam and Shepard waking up in the Citadel.

12. Why is Shepard bleeding at the same spot Andersone was shot?
It looks that way, yeah. I will admit this is a pretty interesting point. That being said, Shepard was pretty banged up and developers haven't quite got bleeding effects to work in a way that he would slowly get more covered with blood. I would say quickly applying blood to his arm at the last moment to show that he's short on time left is just as likely at this point. Still interesting though.

13. How come the Normandy escapes with Shepard's last two squadmates?
Eh, either it's Shepard's indoctro-fever dream or a terrible plot hole attempting to give a ray of hope to the ending. I could go either way on this one at this point.

14. Wouldn't the explosion of Mass Relays cause super novas like in THE ARRIVAL?
I'm aware of the events of Arrival, but I didn't play it. I also don't remember any mention of it from the Batarians during my play through, but I could be wrong. Anyway, we have evidence of what happens when a relay is destroyed in a certain way. The way the relays are destroyed in the endings, it looks like they were over charged sending the Citadels space magic to the next relay, which means at least the full force of the relay explosion would be dampened. Add in DEM space mcguffin magic and we get some sloppy story telling. Not a bad point for the indoctro-theory but not an especially good one.

15. Why can't Shepard kill the Keepers or Anderson?
See my response to question 6. It's a video game, so shut up.

16. What is the growl that Shepard hears on the Citadel?
Eh, not sure what this one is referring to.

For the record, I like the Indoctrination Theory and think it as some merit. Hell, I even bring up better plot holes to grab onto in my answers, but I do think some people are starting to get too wrapped up and convinced by it.


Now some comments about the day-1 DLC. Paraphrased by me as "Why work on the Prothean Squadmate DLC instead of fixing the ending? They obviously had time to fix it." Day one DLC is designed to a) get some extra money and b) give the developers stuff to do instead of being laid off or moved to new projects. So there is no way this would be completely free for everyone.

What do you think would go over better:
1: They release DLC that is salvaged from old content that didn't make in the final product (for whatever reason) and is worked into the game as bonus/non-essential

or 2: They release DLC that gives that literally completes the game.

Keep in mind that either way it will be sold to non-collectors edition buyers and to used buyers. 2 is very, very bad business. So instead they declare the shitty ending as complete and release the Prothean DLC.

It is possible that they release DLC or a patch that confirms the IT, but the rumor says that was the plan all along, which means it's fundamentally different than day-1 DLC.

 

[Zenn3k]

I'm trying not to think about all of the endings really. The first makes no bloody sense, comes right out of nowhere, and the whole indoctrination theory is just people desperatly trying to come up with an explination for the hastily put together mess so that they can have some form of closure, which depresses me, that's how bad the endings are, people are doing everything that they can to get something better, even if that something is "it was all just a dream".

There is too much pattern that fits with Indoctrination to ignore it.

Its a story point in the game as a whole, the story points about it fit with what is happening to Shepard.

It seems vastly more likely as an explanation than to just assume Bioware completely forgot how to tell a story at the very end of the 3rd game in the series, got everything wrong, and outright went against their OWN Canon to do so.

Bioware just isn't THAT stupid.

 

[Britisheagle]

I'm not opposed to this theory and I must admit that that whole article was a very good read and made me think back. I always thought the child was strange and perhaps a symbol of soething else so it makes sense.

My only critiscm is that I think people are looking into it too much when the actual ending is probably what they showed us, whether it be a poor, inconclusive, confusing ending or not.

I could imagine the devs looking at that article then releasing a statement soon after saying "Yeah, that's what we meant all along!" *shifty eyes* and then run away with our money to quickly rush dlc to confirm this theory.

Maybe I'm wrong though!

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

Indoctrination theory is the only good theory that worked. I know up until Shepard gets lazed I was enthralled, and shortly after I kept thinking "WTF is going on?" with every new cutscene. It's like the current ending was literally stapled on to the end of the game, like something had been there before and was torn off and replaced. It didn't fit with anything that had come before it.

I know that the original ending had been leaked and I didn't read any of it so I don't know what it was supposed to be, but hopefully they do release "The Truth" as a free DLC and it pretty much says "yes it was all a dream, now here's 2-3 missions where you wake up and actually get to kick reaper ass" At least you can reload the save before the ending mission and choose properly. I wasn't happy that my pure paragon chose red.

I just hope Bioware isn't too proud to use an ending compiled by its players. Honestly giving us that good ending is the only thing that will shut us all up haha.