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

[RangerDruid]

It's an interesting interpretation of the material, But here's my take on why this theory doesn't work.

1. The epilogue.

2. Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the Prothean VI on Thessia is able to detect the presence of reaper indoctrination, and it actively vocalises this. It never found Shepard to be indoctrinated.

3. If Shepard died at the laser beam, there would have been a game over screen, you know, because you can still be killed by the enemies near the transport beam, and the illusive man himself. So yeah the final confrontation was 'real' and not some kind of dream.
(oops, made it sound like a poem )

 

[SS2Dante]

snip, snip Severus snip, Dumbledore.

Like I said, you seem to be assuming that every cycle goes like ours. It doesn't. No other race ever got warning of them, that we know of, before the Citadel was jumped to. Governments were cut off, armies were destroyed before being mobilised. People didn't know they HAD to fight the reapers till it was too late to fight. The point of ME3 is that even with advance warning uniting the galaxy to fight them is still a seemingly impossible task.

I'm not making that assumption. I am simply suggesting, based upon direct evidence of past and present dead reapers and inference from the fact that reaper reproduction requires them to engage in genocidal wars lasting perhaps centuries at a time to gather the required people paste that they have a non-zero rate of attrition which limits their potential population growth.

Their population growth is a zero point ratio to civilizations destroyed, with attrition of just one reaper per cycle the reapers numbers would be dwindling towards extinction. Which I also thought might end up being their motivation. Their numbers dropping and desperate to find the right people paste to make more reapers having failed so far.

Oh and despite the warning, the fleets of each species still weren't mobilised anyway. (Ah yes, "reapers" ) yet they managed to hold the reapers off for a good long while anyway.

To me it appears the child isn't real. There is no evidence at all he is. Give me some one way or the other, or we're both just theorizing. We're both basing this on our default stance, nothing more.

Theres no evidence that I am real. I am actually a complex artificial intelligence designed to process tax returns, and I am on break. Can you provide me with evidence that I am real, other than that of your senses?

No then no more is required for the absurd god child, I know you don't want him to be real, I don't want him to be real. He is more horrific to me than the entire army of reapers. I long for the harsh metallic grating voice of harbinger threatening to tear me apart. Oh well, no instead I have some brat rattling on about perhaps he can do this, and maybe he can do that.

You've given me the lasers being slightly different. And the prothean change in 2. Hardly loads. Also, yes, essentially. The point is that they back of from convention a little bit to increase drama, they don't just chuck it out the window. That is why your beam plot hole exists. It's small, and doesn't effect much. My plot holes actually destroy any semblance of plot cohesion. That is the difference. One is expected, the other is not.

Which as I stated means that indoctrination theory itself relies upon my theory being true, yet then makes additional assumptions.

Also shepherd being instantly vaporized would have made a considerable difference. Maybe its not indoctrination. Maybe its purgatory and heaven. Shepherd died when hit by the beam, everything after is purgatory, if you pick red you wake up.. sure.. in hades.

why not its just as left field as everything else.

Game creation is notoriously something you work on 'cos you want to. These people lived and breathed ME for years. They cared about it more than you or I EVER will. What you describe is ludicrous, and STILL doesn't explain the EXTRA, NON NECESSARY SCENE. if they wanted to leave work they would leave, not take the time to put in an extra ending no-one would EVER have noticed wasn't there.

What I described is corporate practice. Companies are not fixed entities as you think of them.
They are pools of writers, programmers, artists and musicians which have a rate of outflow and inflow.
Many of these people haven't lived it for years, many are much newer to it. Only two of the original mass effect writing staff remain. The rest HAVE left.

If I have a broom and I replace the handle, then I replace the head.. is it still the same broom as before?

Again, poor communication does explain that extra scene just fine. This isn't the first game you had something non-nonsensical thrown in just to stir up the ant nest a little with the possibly. Oh maybe he is alive, when its most likely an off cut from another cut scene that the video editor slapped in there.

So does Mordin

You mean that guy who agreed we should sabotage the genophage cure because Wreav can't be trusted?
Or the guy who gave his life to cure the genophage because Wrex and/or Eve can be trusted.
anyways what about him?

So you are really arguing that the majority of players in Mass Effect would not associate renegade with the 'bad' choice?

I am not. I am saying regardless of what the majority of players think paragon/renegade is not equal to good/evil. Sometimes people would consider the renegade option the right one, sometimes people would consider the paragon option the right one. It just depends if you are more like Picard of more like Dirty harry.

I have explained the endings before. EVERY member of your crew at some point has a conversation with you where they say they want to go somewhere far away, somewhere peaceful, where they can relax and be at peace. The ending cutscene is Shepard imagining his choice causes that. This is why they all end up miraculously far away, together, on a beautiful paradise world, no matter what ending you choose. You always believe it to be right.

So Shepherd imagines the person he loves most in the universe abandoning him to die stranded on an alien world what if it was tali, well I know I had long conversations about Tali building a house on the homeworld, but whatever I think in my imaginings she would be happier dying on a random alien world and never EVER getting what she has wished for her entire life, ho ho, thats what I think would make her happy.

What did he bash his head real hard like the avatar in ultima 8? that was how we explained all the plot holes in ultima 9, the avatar bumping his head.

Occams razor takes into account the number of suppositions but not the combined statistical probability of each of it's component assumptions. That is why I find it unsuitable for this discussion. You assume a small number of improbable event's, I posit a larger number of probable ones. Apples and oranges, unless we want to start getting into hyper maths

Not really. I assume trees, you assume apples.
Well, while apples need trees, trees don't need apples.
You need my position of the developers didn't make the game properly, to get to your position of, which is why you can't actually tell that they wanted the ending to be about indoctrination.

Its all of my assumptions of making a poorly told ending due to time/energy/deodorant constraints, plus additional ones.

You're stating that the only way to disprove your theory is if past event's didn't happen? Also, you missed the simple one: dlc. That's the only true proof one way or the other.

DLC won't really be proof either. Its possible they will realize that this ending sucked so bad it needs to be addressed as cheaply as possible which means salvaging what is already there, or someone sitting up suddenly behind their big desk sniffing the air and asking
"what is that smell.. its.. like.. paper, old warm sweaty paper.."
$_$ *kaching* and then the DLC comes.

The things I listed could have falsified my proposal, you still haven't told me what would have falsified yours.
Additionally since your proposal requires mine also be correct I don't see how mine considered contentious by you here.

Edit: I should state, this doesn't mean I wouldn't purchase such DLC, but it would have to add substantially to the game (like broken steel) if they wanted to convince me to part with my cash.
While I am mildly in favor of price discrimination using DLC as a concept, I am loath to purchase it.. usually.
Edit 2: I would be extra reluctant in this case, it would have to be impressive, not just.. and now the endings fixed if they want me to pay, since I feel the ending should have been complete before release.

A non-zero rate of attrition doesn't stop infinite growth. The rate has to balance the rate of growth, and like I've said, from the evidence we've got, the Reapers seem to have lost only 3 members of the species in the previous cycles. This doesn't balance the rate at all. As I said, you seem to assume that other cycles have managed to kill a reaper. In our cycle this is only done through united, coordinated military action, something the Reapers deliberately stopped in every other cycle. Besides this, you are ignoring the smaller 'Reapers' (can't remember the name they're given) that accompany the main species.

They were given several years warning, as well as Prothean tech (from the asari and reaper artefacts), as well as the fact that the majority of the Reaper fleet hit Earth.

Your analogy is false. I cannot prove you are not real because I cannot step outside myself to be impartial. When analysing a piece of media we can be sure of the rules and conventions, and can apply then appropriately. This is why things like Fight Club, or the 'Ben' episodes of Scrubs work so well. it is the staging of the scenes that interests me most, as they are rather unusual from a cinematography standpoint.

What theory? The fact that the lasers aren't as super deadly as they were in the earlier games? I've already explained why this is expected, and besides it's not a theory, it's observed. I'm well aware that at that range if the lasers were as dangerous as they were in one, Shepard would have died instantly, no matter what interpretation. For drama, however, this is sacrificed.

Also, fine, use your death interpretation. Show me how the options conform to your fake death theory. You will not be able to construct any argument I can't tear down instantly. That's why this theory is so convincing. Usually you'd expect flaws to be obvious.

Your argument is self-defeating with regards to staff. Either the new people don't care as much as the old or they do. You posit that these are both true. That they cared for 99.9% of the game then suddenly didn't care AT ALL. The fact that Jack shows up later(if you didn't save her) as a phantom is evidence of the plot consistency and effort. Either that, or the rest of the writers suck but the two original employees kept them in line. Then took a sick day when writing the ending. or something. There is no consistency in this argument.

If it's nonsensical then it would be placed in the other endings by default, not placed only in a specific category of ending.

I don't see the problem with that logic. Changed parameters. Mordin bases his views on how much pain his choices will cause, not by some mystic view of 'right' and 'wrong'.
By the way, all propositional logic is based on tautologies. Any first year university science course will teach you that.

I agree it's nuanced, but that's not what we're discussing. My original point is that since the majority of players, even those playing renegade, view the red choice as the "evil" one, they are very deeply programmed not to pick it. That is why the others are both blue, rather than being blue-green-red.

They only die stranded on an alien world if it's literal. Since its not, the entire sequence is in dream logic. The normandy miraculously jumps away, miraculously survives an explosion, and miraculously lands on a planet that humans can breath on. It's also miraculously beautiful. Everyone is miraculously there, and for some reason smiling. This is incredibly basic symbology. It baffles me anyone can take it literally.

Actually, your point about Tali is perfectly valid. I'll admit that, if Tali appears in the end scene, that goes against my theory, as her "perfect place" is indeed Ranoch. The characters that appear seem to be created from your love interest and the squad you had, or your love interest and EDI, depending on whether you picked green/blue or red. I'm gonna go back and replay, using Liara (romantic interest) and Tali as my squadmates in London (gotta love narrative difficulty ). If my theory holds up Tali should NOT appear in the end sequence.

I wonder how that is effected if Tali is your romance? Can anyone tell me?

What are you talking about? My position directly contradicts yours. My theory states that not only can Bioware make FANTASTIC games, but that in this game they've made one of the most brilliant endings in gaming history. I rely on their past record as evidence of this. You rely on the idea they went crazy while making this game.

Your position on dlc is ridiculous. You seem to think any dlc would be retconning, when it would simply be confirmation of a theory already back up by a LOT of inconsistencies in the game. So, if Bioware had originally intended this, you wouldn't believe them?

I've listed in various posts things that would falsify my proposal. I've also said in this post that Tali being in the end scene would be a pretty big dent in my logic. Furthermore, when looking up the endings to present as evidence, I was halfway through admitting that they didn't line up with my theory AT ALL, when I noticed the page I was on was only telling you what they judged the "best" ending, not the choices you have. Any ending that does not match my theory is also a good contradiction.

(for clarity, the thing that threw me was that at medium war assets (around 3000-4000), the choices were arbitrarily split between allowing you to choose control and fight. Not allowing both flies in the face of my theory. It was then that I realised that they only gave you what they thought was the best ending. Doing more digging, I confirmed that at medium level you can choose both, but not synthesis. Had you been able to choose synthesis, that would have been another hole.)

Ok, about this ending. You realise that for it to be successful, it cannot be on the disk? If they did the whole indoctrinated sequence then revealed it instantly it becomes a cheap gimmick, or people get angry they couldn't continue if they chose green or blue. However, waiting for a month or two lets people cool down and react more favourably to being tricked.

EDIT - Ron, Ron, Ron Weasley!

 

[Zorg Machine]

I think it makes sense even though "Admittedly, in order to accept this theory you have to take in all the potential clues and still take a leap of faith. But when you add it all up, it does make sense." stinks of desperation. I see the logic in the argument but the thing is, that means that Shepard didn't make it into the citadel and the reapers have probably managed to kill everyone before Shepard wakes up again. Even if the hallucination takes place in a second, it still leaves us without a proper ending...if this really is the ending Bioware are evil instead of incompetent.

Why would they leave us with a game that ends just before the critical moment if not to sell us additional DLC? and if they don't sell us the DLC, it's even worse! In that case the ending (if you chose red explosions) is basically, "you managed to figure out that the child was a douche, now Shepard is alive and maybe he manages to save the galaxy...but you will never know." and that is true bullshit

 

[boag]

SNIP

Its nice to see a debate going on, but the fact of the matter is, that there are clues to indoctrination and thematic key events that would foreshadow it, but the only reason people can accurately now say indoctrination is real, is because Bioware just came out and said it was something that was planned for the ending and got cut.

Spoiler: now enjoy this manguard comic to lighten the mood.

 

[SS2Dante]

Of course he's indoctrinated! But in the slow, creeping way. You ask how I know he told the truth. Like I said, after he sets up this facility Sovereign realises he suspects and forces him to get the cybernetic implants to enhance the indoctrination. If he was always under Reaper control that makes no sense, as Sovereign wouldn't have needed to do that. Plus, he kills himself if you're good enough. Couldn't have done that trapped in his own body.

You're missing the whole "unreliable narrator" bit. He says Soverign only gave him the implants towards the end of the game, and you're taking him at his word. But can you trust that word? I certainly don't think you can.

Particularly since it's plain as day that he's got implants from the very beginning of the game - do you see any other turians with tubes running into the backs of their heads and glowing blue mechanical bits in their faces?

With regard to talking him into killing himself, it's established that the mind trapped within the body can sometimes regain control for brief periods, particularly if the motivation to do so is strong - again, the novel goes into that in more detail.

You see, now you are speculating just as much as I am.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vsl_TNEeGxg#t=141s

"Maybe you're right. Maybe there is..." <---- this phrasing makes no goddamn sense if he's trapped in his mind. What, the outer Reaper shell is being swayed by your arguments? The inner Saren apparently already knows he's under their power according to you. There should be no confusion, just a binary switch between controlled and free(briefly). We don't see that at all. It all comes down to the differences between mediums. Imagine trying to write a book using the games way of indoctrination. The ENTIRE book would have to be like the end of ME3, with a huge plot dump at the end to explain how reality was different from what your character believed.

Also, if they are trapped within their own mind, why does indoctrination speed vary? If there comes a point where they become trapped, that's it. They are completely under Reaper control. Why, then, does it take time, and why, if this process is sped up, does the person become braindamaged and husk like, while the slowly indoctrinated ones last years? Sorry, but this view of it makes zero sense.

 

[anthony87]

SNIP

Its nice to see a debate going on, but the fact of the matter is, that there are clues to indoctrination and thematic key events that would foreshadow it, but the only reason people can accurately now say indoctrination is real, is because Bioware just came out and said it was something that was planned for the ending and got cut.

See this is what's confusing me. They cut out the indoctrination plotline which means.....Shepard must be indoctrinated at the end of the game?

 

[boag]

SNIP

Its nice to see a debate going on, but the fact of the matter is, that there are clues to indoctrination and thematic key events that would foreshadow it, but the only reason people can accurately now say indoctrination is real, is because Bioware just came out and said it was something that was planned for the ending and got cut.

See this is what's confusing me. They cut out the indoctrination plotline which means.....Shepard must be indoctrinated at the end of the game?

They cut out a segment where you lose control of shepard due to indoctrination, yet kept the rest of the little clues in there.

basically, they cut out the last bits of the game.

 

[Asita]

SNIP

Its nice to see a debate going on, but the fact of the matter is, that there are clues to indoctrination and thematic key events that would foreshadow it, but the only reason people can accurately now say indoctrination is real, is because Bioware just came out and said it was something that was planned for the ending and got cut.

Spoiler: now enjoy this manguard comic to lighten the mood.

In fairness that doesn't point to "it's real" as much as it does "Bioware considered and dropped a similar notion". In all seriousness, this is perhaps the only instance I know of where people point to cut content as evidence of what they believe is currently canon. In fact, content being cut is usually indicative of the exact opposite.

For instance, in Scrubs the Janitor was originally planned to be a figment of JD's imagination. This is reflected in the early episodes of the series by how the Janitor doesn't interact with any characters other than JD. This of course went out the window in later seasons, as reflected by the character's increased interaction with other members of the cast. In various drafts of Final Fantasy VII, Sephiroth would have been presented as Aerith's brother, or her lover (or both, actually...there are more than a few drafts, apparently) and Jenova was originally a gene present in everyone and a key part of Aerith's power. There was originally supposed to be only one Big Sister in Bioshock 2, which was to be a little sister from the first game who'd been unable to adapt to surface life. Conker in Conker's Bad Fur Day was originally going to kill himself at the end of the game. Shaak Ti had two death scenes filmed for Revenge of the Sith and one for Genndy Tartakovsky's Clone Wars miniseries, none of them were used (canonically, she survives for at least another decade). Mass Effect 2 originally had Legion and Liara recover Shepherd's body in the tutorial stages, and at some point in development Mordin had biotic powers (and was a viable option for the barrier section of the final mission, though whether or not he would have faired better than Miranda is probably very much up for debate). Now some of these obviously clash with the eventual result, others could still fit in quite nicely, but the one constant with them is that they are not canon, or at the very least it cannot be assumed to be canon despite appearing in an earlier draft. What may or may not have been cut usually has little impact ont the canon of the final product.

 

[boag]

SNIP

Its nice to see a debate going on, but the fact of the matter is, that there are clues to indoctrination and thematic key events that would foreshadow it, but the only reason people can accurately now say indoctrination is real, is because Bioware just came out and said it was something that was planned for the ending and got cut.

Spoiler: now enjoy this manguard comic to lighten the mood.

In fairness that doesn't point to "it's real" as much as it does "Bioware considered and dropped a similar notion". In all seriousness, this is perhaps the only instance I know of where people point to cut content as evidence of what they believe is currently canon. In fact, content being cut is usually indicative of the exact opposite.

understand this, it was cut yes, it was planned yes, the fact that it no longer is part of it doesnt invalidate the theory or every little thing pointing it out, had the game been clear about the indoctrination maybe it would have been better received, we dont know.

As is we have a direct statement that it was part of it, we have a direct statement that TIM was going to be a Saren 2.0, everything about indoctrination fits.

However debating wether its real or not is completely pointless, for 2 reasons, Bioware didnt put it the resolution that would prove it, and Bioware already stated that it was cut.

It doesnt change the end product, it does however give some sort of closure to people who find the idiotic endings completely lacking in terms of an epilogue, and a total shift in key thematic elements.

The best case scenario is, They wanted indoctrination in there, but completely fucked up the presentation to the point people dont even know what the fuck happens in the end exactly. Anything else added to the final 5 minutes is complete speculation that cannot be proven anymore.

 

[SS2Dante]

You are positing that Shepards mental world doesn't change enough. That, apart from being impractical in execution, is simply your opinion on what indoctrination does. You are saying that the dream is isn't dreamy enough. I don't understand your logic. Shepard is given a view of the entire battle, and earth. You can literally see everything that is at stake. This stays consistent throughout each ending. What else do you want? Floating objects? Upside down stairs?

I'm positing that if the world is a giant metaphor for Shepherd's mental state as IT suggests, then it had horrible execution, which is rendered even worse by the fact that IT's logic necessitates that Shepherd's mental state not be consistent throughout the partitianed branches.

As for what I'd expect, if the scene is intended to be a dream I'd expect some things that seem more out of place than what is just as explainable with poor execution and/or implementation, something that much more overtly implies that the world you see isn't real. If TIM is simply a reconstruction of Saren in Shepherd's mind, have TIM's dialogue slip into Saren's voice from time to time or even better yet, give us a phantom model of Saren which either overlaps or mimics TIM's actions from behind. If Anderson is Shepherd's will, have Shepherd's voice fade in saying the exact same thing as he speaks. Heck, use the slow-mo motion from the dream sequences actually used in the course of the game. Use the static seen during scene transitions in Assassin's Creed (or those blurring extras in the dream sequences) to hint that what we're seeing isn't real...and for pete's sake, if some of the endings actually have Shepherd turning into a husk, have the scene at the end show a husk, because otherwise it's nothing but ill-concieved speculation. There are a LOT of things that could be done to lend credence to the idea, but instead we get a lot of miniscule details that people cherry pick and say that the ending wasn't real. As it is, the indoctrination theory comes off as sloppy because there is no data that truly makes for a strong case and the data we do have (Notably the Final Hours bit) points to a lot of cut content in the final stages of development rather than Shepherd tripping out on reaper waves.

Also, I have said several times now, it is NOT his attempting to rebel. It is him considering the choices given buy the indoctrination. Only in retrospect could it be labelled a personification of choice to rebel. Before this scene, our position is that Shepard is not indoctrinated, unless you chose to keep the Reaper base, and then barely even. Nor is he indoctrinate DURING this scene.

Which thereby invalidates the things IT points to before that scene as evidence, and the last criteria fails to explain the lack of difference in gameplay in ME3 up until that point.

Also, explain these two mutually contradictory positions I am apparently taking. I can see no contradiction in my explanations, so I think we may have crossed wires here. Possibly this is caused by you thinking that I assume physical attack and indoctrination to be the same thing, or have the same requirements with regards to focus? Not sure.

Well the misunderstanding is certainly a possibility, but it's more that you over the course of the argument you've seemed to be altering your premises directly in response to the things I and others have said.

This part is the EASIEST to prove wrong. If you can find me some combination of variables that does not follow the logic I have given, fine, it's wrong. If you have high EMS and cannot do control or something, I am wrong. I did not know all positions at the start, gave my scale for predicting the results, and thus far everything has followed that pattern. Also, if we briefly assume that this theory is correct, can you prove it wrong? Just saying, that if it is actually correct, then there should be no contrary evidence to beat it. Imagine trying to convince me logically that Quirrel did it in Hp 1 Before the end scene it'd be easy to get close to disproving, after the end scene it's be utterly impossible to disprove. I've given my conditions in another post, but thus far the evidence works.

Actully, given the variety of points alluded to this acts more as a gish gallup than an 'easily refutable point'. Everything 'follows the pattern' because the idea was tailor made to explain that pattern (which I maintain is done in a very counterintuitive way). The pattern is not predicted, the concept was built around it. Asking me to show evidence against the pattern of the endings that the hypothesis attempts to explain is like asking me to disprove the plum pudding atomic model by proving that atoms don't exist. Let me turn that question around. If the idea was incorrect, what would you expect to find, bearing in mind that the theory formed specifically to try to explain the scenes in question?

You're missing the point of the Anderson scene. The Illusive man represents the part of Shepard succumbing to the indoctrination, Anderson represents the part that can resist. Because Anderson is alive, you always win. If you allow the indoctrinated part to kill him, you lose as surely as if you'd skipped to the control ending. But the effort of the struggle kills him every time (literally, the indoctrinated part forces you to shoot him. COME ON). Anderson is the last part of you utterly sure that what you're doing is right. That is why in the next scene everything is more palatable. Besides, which, can you explain the blood on Shepards hands?

Again, that doesn't work out. If you want to argue that symbolism then the scenario plays out far better if Anderson, TIM and Shepherd are in a mexican standoff, and shepherd has to choose which of them to kill, or whether to just let things play out. TIM survives and Anderson dies? Shepherd's indoctrinated. Anderson survives and TIM dies? Shepherd successfully fights off Reaper influence. Instead it just pans out like a would-be villain killing your mentor rather than a personification of your inner conflict. Even more oddly, despite the idea that the Reapers are trying harder to convince shepherd to live, those sources I've seen imply that you can only really save Anderson from TIM at high EMS levels (he still bleeds out though). (And a further monkey wrench in the idea is that you can actually get TIM to commit suicide under the right circumstances rather than executing Anderson)

As for the blood...I might consider looking in a mirror, honestly. Levity aside, Shepherd enters the scene in a pretty bad state, bloody, bruised, limping. The most probable

Again, you misunderstand. Shepards iron conviction is gone. Shepard has no 'will'. WE are Shepards will. Without Anderson, we see the whole thing differently. This is key to the whole theory - it's not about tricking Shepard, it's about tricking US.

If the ending's truly about tricking the userbase, then I am obliged to take an even darker opinion of the writer's ability, as the first obligation of writers is to tell a story, not troll their readers in the conclusion, especially in an otherwise straightforward narrative.

Ending before the climax does? How?

According to IT and by your own testamony, Shepherd never makes it to the crucible, and the game effectively ends with Harbinger's attack. Everything after that is fluff with all but the destroy options also bearing the insult of having the same end result (Read: instead of 6 mildly different endings, we get six mildly different endings MASKING an even lesser variety in how things played out in the real world). Under IT, the game ends during the final assault on earth, in the middle of that same battle, without so much as offering closure on how the battle turns out, how the Reapers are actually beaten (if they even are), to say nothing of whatever aftermath may or may not exist. Essentially, IT posits something akin to if Return of the Jedi ended with a fade out as Luke was being electrocuted by the Emperor. In its attempt to make sense of the mess that is the conclusion we were given it forgets that the very premise of their interpretation takes place during the final assault rather than after it and thereby all events that it posits takes place at an even less convenient point in the story, ultimately offering less closure than the ending it tries to supplant.

Ah, right, sorry, had this conversation before with other, people, keep forgetting which bits I've talked about with whom. There is only one situation my theory says that you could not get the option for blue. Apart from this I agree, blue should always be a choice. The one time you don't get blue should be at low EMS, having saved the collector base. This is the only situation where your Shepard has willpower and they are not actively trying to indoctrinate you. Conversely, if you kept the Collector base, you've got low willpower, so you should only get the blue ending.

I'm guessing that first 'save' was meant to be 'destroy'
Either way though, I debate the logic, given the apparent attitude of the Reapers towards Shepherd in ME2. Do recall that in addition to the various pieces of dialogue Harbinger had which actually addressed Shepherd by name, they also had the Collectors buy Shepherd's spaced body from the Shadow Broker. This does not fit the profile of a group that's indifferent to him and even with low war assets, Shepherd had proven over the course of three games (at that point) to be a rather persistent (and likely unprecidented) thorn in their side.

I tried to link to a guide that shows the ending you can get, but every one I've seen seems to be wrong. They either show ONLY the 'best' option at each war asset level, or don't show the split between the collector base choices. Here's the 3 I saw.

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings

http://www.justpushstart.com/2012/03/mass-effect-3-endings-guide/

http://www.rarityguide.com/articles/articles/1739/1/Mass-Effect-3-Endings-Guide---HEAVY-SPOILERS/Page1.html

(as I read the second one I was on the verge of admitting my theory had just developed a huge hole. Then I noticed that it said on my game type (over 5k, collector base kept) only the DESTROY option. Since I know I can choose all 3, waiting for a more comprehensive guide.

Probably a good idea, though offhand I'd venture to guess that you could just assume that any option also includes the most recent variant of the destroy/control options in addition to the one alongside the war assets. The guides always read as 'this level unlocks this option' to me

Sorry, but you're speaking to a computer scientist here. Trust me, these partitions are not simple if then else statements, or CASE statements. The amount of testing alone necessary to make sure the right endings happen correctly every time is...large. *sweats just thinking about it*

Isn't that mostly testing to make sure that the game increments your war assets correctly rather than making sure that the right endings proc under the right circumstances (which you ostensibly could test in isolation by manually setting the war asset variable), though? Call me crazy, but I think we might be talking about two different things here.

I do agree about the possibility of the ending having been changed. Thing is, according to this theory, they got the stuff they'd already done out the door and added this clever, but sudden, ending on. This gives them time to work on the proper ending.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see about that then, but the semi-official statement (albeit since rescinded) that 'there are no plans to change the Mass Effect 3 ending at this time' would seem to be a strong point against that idea. Of course, that could be explained as interdepartmental miscommunication, but all the same I like to work with the available data.

EDIT - didn't see it, no. Gonna wait till it's officially out. Very excited

Well, word of warning: the Last Airbender world pretty much went Steampunk. The police force is awesome though.

You are missing the point of IT - the ending is meant to indoctrinate the PLAYER. If the player realised this was all a dream while playing it loses all of it's brilliance and becomes dull and predictable - something we've seen many times in games. The point of the sequence is to get you to WILLINGLY choose to side with the reapers. Seriously, every colour ending is just a rephrasing of what we already knew were the options, in more appealing terms.

Now, you are not understanding the Anderson symbol. This is shepards sense of right. Her moral compass, if you will. It's the part of her still fighting. You cannot choose to side with the Illusive man because you can SEE the right path, as Anderson is alive. Once Anderson is gone, you lose the part of you with any clarity. Choosing blue in the child room IS siding with the illusive man, while fighting is represented by Anderson (as seen in the childs descriptions)

Ok, you ask for tangible evidence besides the fact that the themes match IT in every way. Fine. Now, in IT, as we have discussed, Anderson is your moral guide, the unindoctrinated part of you seeing through the ruse, and the illusive man is the indoctrinated part (just setting the scene ).

Watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VBHY44zOe4s#t=446s (time linked)
Look at Shepards left hand. Dirty, but no blood, right?

Now here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VBHY44zOe4s#t=494s (time linked)
Shepard shoots Anderson in his lower left stomach, yeah? (and look at Shepards reaction. No shock, fear or anger. Just a shake of the head)

Almost there (sorry, different video, other one didn't go up to this scene)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tkZsHJTl7g4#t=84s (time linked)
This is just to show you Shepards hands still have no blood. He doesn't touch Anderson at all.

Finally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tkZsHJTl7g4#t=146s (time linked)
Andersons head drops, he dies...Shepard puts his hand to his lower left stomach and his hands are suddenly COVERED in blood. Come on. His indoctrinated side killed his good side, the blood is literally on Shepards hands, and Shepard receives the wound. You now have no good side to show you the right path. You are weakened.

Look, if that doesn't convince you as tangible evidence I don't know what will. Sloppy design? No way. There is no reason at all for the blood part to exist.

Ok, everyone seems to think indoctrination is binary. You are or you are not. This is patently untrue. Remember the video logs when you went to get the Reaper IFF? People see ghosts, forget things, take on each others memories. Indoctrination is slow and starts with visions that pull you deeper in. This has been established for at least half the series, I haven't played ME for a while so can't remember how it's described then. The point of IT is that Reapers found a slight crack and are using it to try and widen it. The child represents your fears that you will fail. He enhances your sense of impending doom. Then come the nightmares, which get steadily worse.

Seriously, you keep going on about the lack of difference, and I keep explaining that the choices are the difference. They are the entire point of the scene, the entire reason for it to exist. The citadel parts are consistent because you have Anderson. I don't know how I can make this clearer.

I think at some point we have, because I've examined my arguments and there are no contradictions that I can see. Possibly that's because I'm examining them, but if you can see what it was post and I'll respond. The problem I'm encountering is that I'm having to explain symbols a lot, so keep using different words for them (Anderson for example, I have described as your strength, moral compass, will, etc Symbolically they are all synonyms (in this context) but taken literally some people have been getting confused)

You assume I know everything about ME3. I do not. There are 16 possible endings, I have seen 3 and heard of another 2. That gives you 11 ways to take IT down. You know my criteria for the endings, check them. I have only played full Paragon. Any Renegade options that contradict my theory would work. Thats the beauty of the game being so large and complex - I cannot possibly have seen EVERYTHING and tailored the theory to match. It rests on a very small set of assumptions and all evidence so far has conformed to the predictions made.

I'll give you something currently being tested (or at least, hopefully people will read and test). By my theory Tali should never appear in the ending scene, as her "happy place" is defined as being on Rannoch. Shepards imagination is putting everyone in their happy place (childish phrasing ). Therefore you shouldn't have her on that planet at the end. Now, I'm going to test that once I get off this, but I can't test it if she's your romance (femshep). I need someone else to do that. It goes against the logic of my theory, so puts a pretty big dent in it if true.

Also, to an extent what you're saying is true, but as I said, the point of IT is to use the medium (gaming) to it's fullest potential by having US be the ones who fall. This means that the initial assumptions must indeed have been created by people looking for an alternative explanation. However, in the world of logic this is completely acceptable. One cannot use basic maths to prove all maths, you need to make an assumption at some point to progress. (I'm making a loose point here, I realise that this little argument could very quickly spiral out of control, I'm just hoping you get the point I'm trying to put across.)

On the contrary, the idea of the ending is that it's either a loss or a cliffhanger. The notion of DLC renders the idea of an "ending" in games to be ill-defined. This is completely different from your ROTJ comparison, in which we know for a fact that it IS the final part of the final instalment. No resolution in that film would be awful because their is no possibility of any resolution at all, whereas in this game (and ONLY this game) we get a plug for dlc at the end. If you look at the red ending, it's actually rather similar to the 3/4 mark of most films or books. To give an example from TLA, look at the the ending of part 3 of the end movie. I can't remember what happens, but I'm willing to BET that's the part thats all bleak and our heroes seemingly defeated. Best laid plans. This trope is used in almost all dramatic structure, all this game has done is made it a cliffhanger.

Indeed Shepard is. They want Shepard as a means of controlling humanity. Half the military would follow Shepard, not the admirals, if it came down to it. This is completely unnecessary, however, if humanity and co have a small army that's being defeated. How small? it'd have to be damn tiny if they no longer feel the need of you. And that's what's in the endings. the only way to not have the indoctrination choice is with the smallest about of EMS.

Yeah, it might be. It'll probably be a while before the guides become really comprehensive. Or perhaps they really are just unclear

The system relies on more variables than just your war assets, but the thing is you have to test every combination of choices together. This multiplies disturbingly quickly. I did a(very rough) low estimate in another post and I got 41 tests needed to make sure it all proceeds correctly.

I'm ignoring everything from Bioware right now. Reports are contradictory, and besides, if my theory is right, they NEED to stay silent until the dlc is released for it to work (I'm not crazy though, if we go 2, MAYBE 3 months without dlc I'm totally wrong about all this). Now - and this really is just me being a conspiracy theorist here, I won't associate any logic with it except "it's what I'd do" - I suspect that the dlc leak about "The Truth" was not accidental (I know they denied it later). Besides the motivation - which I'm sure you can imagine - what really caught my attention was the name The Truth. Someone making up this stuff could have named it anything, or called it an "alternative ending" or a "fixed ending" but instead they called it "The Truth". Again, I won't claim this is anywhere near infallible, it's shaky at best, but it is the sort of thing people cunning enough to make the IT theory ending would do.

Yeah, the world seems to have advanced rather fast, still, the trailer looked really good.

 

[Asita]

understand this, it was cut yes, it was planned yes, the fact that it no longer is part of it doesnt invalidate the theory or every little thing pointing it out, had the game been clear about the indoctrination maybe it would have been better received, we dont know.

It doesn't invalidate it, no but its existence as cut content adds no weight to claims about the finished product either, and if it must be interpreted as anything the fact that the defining scene of that subplot was cut out points more towards it being a scrapped concept than anything else.

As is we have a direct statement that it was part of it, we have a direct statement that TIM was going to be a Saren 2.0, everything about indoctrination fits.

However debating wether its real or not is completely pointless, for 2 reasons, Bioware didnt put it the resolution that would prove it, and Bioware already stated that it was cut.

It doesnt change the end product, it does however give some sort of closure to people who find the idiotic endings completely lacking in terms of an epilogue, and a total shift in key thematic elements.

The best case scenario is, They wanted indoctrination in there, but completely fucked up the presentation to the point people dont even know what the fuck happens in the end exactly. Anything else added to the final 5 minutes is complete speculation that cannot be proven anymore.

Now that last part I can definitely agree with.

 

[xorinite]

I hope this isn't the post mdqp was going to marry, or there won't be any kids since its getting the *snip*

Seriously, I am running out of snip based jokes.

A non-zero rate of attrition doesn't stop infinite growth. The rate has to balance the rate of growth, and like I've said, from the evidence we've got, the Reapers seem to have lost only 3 members of the species in the previous cycles. This doesn't balance the rate at all. As I said, you seem to assume that other cycles have managed to kill a reaper. In our cycle this is only done through united, coordinated military action, something the Reapers deliberately stopped in every other cycle. Besides this, you are ignoring the smaller 'Reapers' (can't remember the name they're given) that accompany the main species.

If you only want to base things on whats seen reapers have never managed to successfully reproduce, we haven't seen it occur once, so no evidence they ever reproduced successfully ever, thus their numbers have been declining since their origin.

If however you are going on what the only indicator for indoctrination theory, inference, seeing three dead reapers indicates there may be many unseen dead reapers, seeing reapers attempting reproduction and failing may infer reproduction can work sometimes.

Oh and smaller reapers are called 'epic combat storytelling device reapers for awesome giant worm fights' not a subtle name, but its one I think fits them quite well. Srsly, kalros for the win.

They were given several years warning, as well as Prothean tech (from the asari and reaper artefacts), as well as the fact that the majority of the Reaper fleet hit Earth.

Which they completely ignored anyway, so no difference. The protheans said they got their technology from some previous race too, and that everyone had from races before. Other civilisations managed to kill reapers with little more than big mass accelerators so its hardly required.

Your analogy is false. I cannot prove you are not real because I cannot step outside myself to be impartial. When analysing a piece of media we can be sure of the rules and conventions, and can apply then appropriately. This is why things like Fight Club, or the 'Ben' episodes of Scrubs work so well. it is the staging of the scenes that interests me most, as they are rather unusual from a cinematography standpoint.

You cannot prove anything is real, outside of your own existence, other than from use of your senses. You cannot analyse a piece of media other than from use of your senses.

Why is god child real, for the same reason that other characters only shepherd interacted with and we never saw again were real. Because they are inferred to be real until something brings their reality into doubt, like say.. evidence.

What theory? The fact that the lasers aren't as super deadly as they were in the earlier games? I've already explained why this is expected, and besides it's not a theory, it's observed. I'm well aware that at that range if the lasers were as dangerous as they were in one, Shepard would have died instantly, no matter what interpretation. For drama, however, this is sacrificed.

Which is confirmation bias, you ignore plot holes which don't conform to your theory, but accept those which do as evidence in its favor.
Either you notice the descrepency with your treatment of such plot holes, or you don't.

Also, fine, use your death interpretation. Show me how the options conform to your fake death theory. You will not be able to construct any argument I can't tear down instantly. That's why this theory is so convincing. Usually you'd expect flaws to be obvious.

Easy, hes dead everything after hes dead is his oxygen deprived brain imagining things. You see, the afterlife in mass effect is based upon punishment or oblivion. If you were good you simply cease to be, if not you go to hell. Its pretty sinister really.

I mean if you are incompetent and fail to get war assets, then its okay your options don't matter because you cannot be held to a higher moral standard. If however you showed competence, then you are held to a higher standard which is why if you pick bad you go to hell.

This is hinted at by thane when he dies, praying you pick the right options. Come on, falsify the unfalsifiable if you think its so easy, I can make up any range of nonsense excuses the easiest to grab are shepherd has oxygen deprivation, or the deities in mass effect are mysterious and work in mysterious ways.

Your argument is self-defeating with regards to staff. Either the new people don't care as much as the old or they do. You posit that these are both true. That they cared for 99.9% of the game then suddenly didn't care AT ALL.

Caring is irrelivant. Its their ability to produce a story which is consistant with the established narrative. I could take over from George R R Martin and do my damn best to finish A song of ice and fire, caring as I do for the series but it would end up being hack writing because I wouldn't know the narrative stuff he has in his head. Maybe he could write it all down for me and I could do my best with it, but there would be holes, if I was also rushed... then bigger and bigger holes would emerge.

I mean look at the last mass effect book, which unlike the others and mass effect 1 and 2 was not written by the same lead writer, what did we get something that fans universally panned as having gaping plot holes and had to be revised.

The fact that Jack shows up later(if you didn't save her) as a phantom is evidence of the plot consistency and effort. Either that, or the rest of the writers suck but the two original employees kept them in line. Then took a sick day when writing the ending. or something. There is no consistency in this argument.

Jack showing up means that new writers replacing all the original writers won't affect the overall narrative?
Come on, you really think people are like circuit components?
People are not that easily replaced, especially not writers. You can't just march into a story replace the writers and expect consistency in the narrative that was being delievered.
You can't even do that with technical staff. You ever tried to take over coding from someone else having to relearn everything and then continue it? Invariably bugs crop up.

If it's nonsensical then it would be placed in the other endings by default, not placed only in a specific category of ending.

That depends on when it was produced, by who and when. Its like cerberus, work is broken up into task orientated groups. Some will do well, others not so well. Some will be complete well before crunch time, others will be rushed at crunch time and unable to complete.

I don't see the problem with that logic. Changed parameters. Mordin bases his views on how much pain his choices will cause, not by some mystic view of 'right' and 'wrong'.
By the way, all propositional logic is based on tautologies. Any first year university science course will teach you that.

A tautology is only valid if it doesn't include assumptions.
Saying A = A is a perfectly valid tautology, it makes no assumptions about A.
Saying organics will always fight synethics because organics will always fight synthetics is not the same, it is a circular logic fallacy because unlike a true tautological statement it inclues an assumption in the form of an untested overarching generalisation which we know to be false.

I agree it's nuanced, but that's not what we're discussing. My original point is that since the majority of players, even those playing renegade, view the red choice as the "evil" one, they are very deeply programmed not to pick it. That is why the others are both blue, rather than being blue-green-red.

I don't care what the majority of players view colors to mean.
If shepherd has been a consistant renegade, assigning red to an option would make him WANT to pick it, which would make the reapers suicidal.
Its like saying, well the majority of people know eating fatty food is bad for you, thus the reapers covered the option they don't want you to pick in cakes.
Okay, what if in your playthroughs Shepherd consistently demonstrated a love for cake, why assign the cakes where you don't want him to go?
If its produced by his imagination, then what he suddenly went off cake, if its produced by the reapers, why not say.. oh, not even mention the cake path.

They only die stranded on an alien world if it's literal. Since its not, the entire sequence is in dream logic. The normandy miraculously jumps away, miraculously survives an explosion, and miraculously lands on a planet that humans can breath on. It's also miraculously beautiful. Everyone is miraculously there, and for some reason smiling. This is incredibly basic symbology. It baffles me anyone can take it literally.

So Indoctrination theory not only rests on my idea of bad writing, but also on shepherd being a complete moron with next to no imagination. Or rather, with just enough imagination that it works. Well, that's lucky. I mean if he had a smidge less he would imagine them say.. just appearing in a green field together, if he had a smidge more he would say, imagine them not crashing at all but landing carefully.

Actually, your point about Tali is perfectly valid. I'll admit that, if Tali appears in the end scene, that goes against my theory, as her "perfect place" is indeed Ranoch. The characters that appear seem to be created from your love interest and the squad you had, or your love interest and EDI, depending on whether you picked green/blue or red. I'm gonna go back and replay, using Liara (romantic interest) and Tali as my squadmates in London (gotta love narrative difficulty ). If my theory holds up Tali should NOT appear in the end sequence.

I wonder how that is effected if Tali is your romance? Can anyone tell me?

I had her as a LI, and she stepped out on an alien world with joker.
Apparently if you love her, you want her marooned on an alien planet never able to ever take off her suit, rather than safe on the homeworld as she has wanted the entire time you have known her and shared a beautiful story about the house she was going to build.

What are you talking about? My position directly contradicts yours. My theory states that not only can Bioware make FANTASTIC games, but that in this game they've made one of the most brilliant endings in gaming history. I rely on their past record as evidence of this. You rely on the idea they went crazy while making this game.

Nope, my position is they failed to make a good ending, then I expand as to why I think this. Your position is, they failed to make a good ending, because it didn't effectively communicate that you were indoctrinated.

I don't say they went crazy while making this game. I say they got rid of talented people and thus deprived themselves of their own creative assets, and or rushed it. We know they rushed it from things they have said about having to cut lots of stuff.

We know they changed almost the entire writing staff, including the lead writer. Other indicators.. Oh, how about.. Mass effect: deception. They got rid of that same lead writer and what did we get from it, if that isn't an indicator that you can't simply chop and change with human beings I don't know what is.

Your position on dlc is ridiculous. You seem to think any dlc would be retconning, when it would simply be confirmation of a theory already back up by a LOT of inconsistencies in the game. So, if Bioware had originally intended this, you wouldn't believe them?

Again, lack of evidence against is not evidence for. Claiming inconsistencies back up your position is just wishful. They only demonstrate one thing, that the story is inconsistent, they do not demonstrate a reason why, and neither effectively have you.

I've listed in various posts things that would falsify my proposal. I've also said in this post that Tali being in the end scene would be a pretty big dent in my logic. Furthermore, when looking up the endings to present as evidence, I was halfway through admitting that they didn't line up with my theory AT ALL, when I noticed the page I was on was only telling you what they judged the "best" ending, not the choices you have. Any ending that does not match my theory is also a good contradiction.

Yes, but anything can match up being indoctrinated, as can any ending can match up being in a dream. I mean this could all be a dream from the moment we touched the prothean beacon, or nothing is real its all a story told by some granpa, nothing can disprove that it isn't.

Maybe Shepherd is just really stupid, that is why he imagined tali being marooned on an alien world, this stupidity is demonstrated by a severe lack of understanding of chess.
See, now it fits. Anything can be shoehorned into it as far as I can tell.

(for clarity, the thing that threw me was that at medium war assets (around 3000-4000), the choices were arbitrarily split between allowing you to choose control and fight. Not allowing both flies in the face of my theory. It was then that I realised that they only gave you what they thought was the best ending. Doing more digging, I confirmed that at medium level you can choose both, but not synthesis. Had you been able to choose synthesis, that would have been another hole.)

Sometimes its shepherds imagination, sometimes its what the reapers think shepherd would like which ever confirms the theory at the time?

Ok, about this ending. You realise that for it to be successful, it cannot be on the disk? If they did the whole indoctrinated sequence then revealed it instantly it becomes a cheap gimmick, or people get angry they couldn't continue if they chose green or blue. However, waiting for a month or two lets people cool down and react more favourably to being tricked.

Says who?
Why cannot it be on the disc.
I mean, if I wanted to communicate that shepherd was indoctrinated and fighting back against it, and if you fall for it, well you die. Then believe me you would have that communicated you would pick correctly at least on the second attempt.
I've played games that had mindtricks in them before, the darkness 2 did it, they did it a whole lot better. Oh and guess what, you could pick incorrectly and stay in your mind altered state, or pick correctly and get the ACTUAL ENDING, it was on the disc!

So now mass effect has worse narrative communication than an FPS?

Edit: fixed quote boxes.

Edit: additional, oh and why is shepherd running into a teleporting beam to the citadel, which he knows is used to ferry victims there. Uh, reapers turn people into people paste, how does he know there isn't a massive wood chipper on the other side.

It would have been better if they, brought back the conduit on from Ilos, maybe it had been moved to be studied, or perhaps its still on Ilos. It would have been a great tip of the hat to people who played the first one. They could even throw in a mako segment to get to the conduit "just like old times" that would even have been worth enduring the horror that is the mako controls.

Also, why did the citadel defence forces do nothing, seems almost like they intended there to be a battle on the citadel.. but it was cut. Would have been fun.

I'd have had the catalyst be a special anti-reaper computer virus that was on the citadel all this time, the crucible is a massive transmitter (which might explain why it looks like a microphone) it would also allow them to explain why Sovereign dropped dead after Saren was killed, he had to try and directly interface and the virus disabled him and that's why his barriers dropped and he disengaged from the tower. I mean why else, because Saren died? that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I hope they don't retcon this indoctrination mess as the explanation for the ending in the DLC they may or may not release, but actually construct something making new assets and materials.

 

[Rawne1980]

The indoctrination theory makes more sense than the literal endings BUT as an ending to a trilogy with no more to come it still makes no sense.

Why?

Because it's the end of the series and we still don't know what the feth happens.

That is how you pave the way for another sequel NOT how you leave the end of a trilogy.

And while Sheps actions or "it was all just a dream" type shit is going on, that doesn't explain why Normandy and crew are hurtling through space and crashing into a planet. Because if it Indoctrination is "just a dream" as people have put it across then there is no reason for the Mass Relays to explode because no-one did sod all.

The problem is, no amount of "theory" will work because it still leaves holes bigger than ladders in a busy hookers tights.

Nothing, not one thing, is explained or finished. It's left hanging in the open.

That is great for a paveway to another sequel but a shit as feth cop out for an ending.

 

[burningdragoon]

You assume I know everything about ME3. I do not. There are 16 possible endings, I have seen 3 and heard of another 2. That gives you 11 ways to take IT down. You know my criteria for the endings, check them. I have only played full Paragon. Any Renegade options that contradict my theory would work. Thats the beauty of the game being so large and complex - I cannot possibly have seen EVERYTHING and tailored the theory to match. It rests on a very small set of assumptions and all evidence so far has conformed to the predictions made.

The "16 endings" reflects the 16 different ways the final mission "Citadel: The Return" can play out. The difference between them is barely worth noting.

if destroyed collector base ->
&nbsp;&nbsp;if lowest EMS ->
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1)You can destroy the reapers, Earth is destroyed
&nbsp;&nbsp;if next tier of EMS
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2)You can destroy the reapers, Earth is destroyed
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(3)You can control the reapers, Earth is ruined but okay
...
and so on. The key is that the each repeat result counts as a separate ending. If you only consider the choice and resulting cutscene to be the ending (like most people), than there are only 7 endings:
Destroy(very bad),
Destroy(bad),
Destroy(good),
Destroy(good, Shep lives),
Control(bad),
Control(good),
Synth


I'll give you something currently being tested (or at least, hopefully people will read and test). By my theory Tali should never appear in the ending scene, as her "happy place" is defined as being on Rannoch. Shepards imagination is putting everyone in their happy place (childish phrasing ). Therefore you shouldn't have her on that planet at the end. Now, I'm going to test that once I get off this, but I can't test it if she's your romance (femshep). I need someone else to do that. It goes against the logic of my theory, so puts a pretty big dent in it if true.


Tali showed up in my ending, but I managed to find a youtube vid of it too, so here you go:
<youtube=4VQSFAagjG0>


On the contrary, the idea of the ending is that it's either a loss or a cliffhanger. The notion of DLC renders the idea of an "ending" in games to be ill-defined. This is completely different from your ROTJ comparison, in which we know for a fact that it IS the final part of the final instalment. No resolution in that film would be awful because their is no possibility of any resolution at all, whereas in this game (and ONLY this game) we get a plug for dlc at the end. If you look at the red ending, it's actually rather similar to the 3/4 mark of most films or books. To give an example from TLA, look at the the ending of part 3 of the end movie. I can't remember what happens, but I'm willing to BET that's the part thats all bleak and our heroes seemingly defeated. Best laid plans. This trope is used in almost all dramatic structure, all this game has done is made it a cliffhanger.

Yes, with the Indoctrination TheoryTM, the ending is either a loss or a cliffhanger. A cliffhanger ending to the 3rd game in a trilogy is incredibly worse than a stupid ending. A cliffhanger ending to the 3rd game in a trilogy with planned DLC conclusion is still incredibly bad with the added bonus of it being a huge slap in the face to everyone who has played it.

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

First of all, Shepard is not 'indoctrinated' in the way everyone seems to think. The way I've described it to others is that the Reapers have found a crack in the armour, and are trying to worm their way in. 'Mild' describes the state Shepard is at roughly, but I'd class it as 'mild mild' at the start of the game unless you kept the collector base. If Shepard was as bad as you think, he'd no longer want to harm the reapers. That's the first step in anyone who I'd class as actually indoctrinated. It begins with wanting to control or use them, then moves to full submission when the process is complete.

And no, I am not. It has ALWAYS been my position indoctrination is the opposite of a binary state (please read back and you will see this). If it was binary then the whole theory would fall apart. In fact, I just read the quote you cited. I said exactly this. Did you misread?

Nor did I say it reads indoctrination at a binary state. I said that YOUR argument says this. I argue that anyone who has been around reaper tech is at least SLIGHTLY indoctrinated (mild mild mild), and therefore since you say it should have picked up Shepard, it also should have picked up the squadmates, who fly around with a reaper IFF. It did not, therefore it must have a cutoff point of indoctrination. Binary, says your argument.

Actually there are two ideas about this. Someone had a look at this and was wondering why the Reaper didn't target the Normandy. You are stationary and well within range, with an open hatch. It's incredibly odd that the Reaper attacked the shuttles when it could have attacked the Normandy (and I imagine every reaper knows the normandy ). This would imply the Reapers know what they are doing to Shepard, and so deliberately attacked the shuttle. This seems less easy to believe than the other idea, that Shepard knew there was no way in hell a small shuttle could fly away from the Reaper standing over it. I think we ALL knew what was happening to that shuttle.

The child is the human personification of Shepards hopelessness and despair. Shepard is unaware the child is not real. Having the child on Thessia would be downright admitting the child is a ghost. After that it loses all power, both to Shepard and to the player. We ARE NOT MEANT to figure this out on our first playthrough. And yes I am aware I am presenting my ideas as facts, but since I assume you've all read the article you know my stance. It would be incredibly tedious to have to repeat my basic premise every time. I'm doing enough repeating as it is.

Speaking of repeating, this question. I've answered this at least 7 times by now. You may not be aware of this, but the only other variable that decides your ending is whether or not you kept the collector base. Now, my premise has always been, as you stated, that the more powerful your army the more force is in the indoctrination, and the more hope you have (hence the surviving under red ending with enough WA). Therefore, on the lowest score of EMS, they are barely trying at all, and you are hopeless. In this state, it defaults down to Shepard's original choice at the end of ME2. If you already began the process of control (keeping the base), control is what you get. If you destroyed it, destroy is the only option you get (fight a losing battle). I want to point out that the fact this is another place the theory could have been broken. If it had been ANY other choice that influenced this situation it wouldn't fit. Instead, we default to essentially the same choice we had in the previous game.

Now, given any higher war assets, we always have both the control and fight, regardless of our collector base choice. This makes perfect sense with IT, but not with the literal ending.

You've accused me of changing my stance twice here. On the first occasion you are patently wrong, and on the other you have either misunderstood or are mistaken. You have an entire thread to look through for proof that this has been my consistant stance. I feel like I need to make a graph of what I expect the endings to be. (by the way, the guides that have given me the endings I have used to justify my theories predictions are rather broken and incomplete. If you can show me any ending at all (there are 16) that doesn't match my theory, it is broken.

The Phantom Menace was a bad film. This was a good game. It was a GREAT game. That's why the ending is so odd and out of place. If the writers were that bad it would be reflected elsewhere. This is not what happened. Instead we have an incredibly well written, epic game, right up till the last few minutes. Everyone has a self-contradictory view of the writers. Either they are good, or they are awful. If they are good, even the most half cocked ending they had wouldn't be full of plot holes. It might be short and disappointing, but it would make sense. if they were bad, this would be reflected at some point other than the few minutes that contain the entirety of the plot errors. You are positing a theory that does not conform to the evidence at all.

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

hey. would you care to include this video to your first post.
it explains why the indoctrination theory might be possible, has a comparrison of the whole series and it adds some points that are not in the article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck


might help you to not repeat the major points that support this theory for the ones that don't like to read long articles.

I did consider it, as I think the video is well made and I agree with about 98% of what it said. Why I didn't is that I thought it only explained the Illusive man/Citadel part. has it been updated? Also, it amazes me that someone wouldn't want to read the article (total time, perhaps 5 minutes max) and would rather watch the video (total time 21 mins)

But hell, why not. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over about stuff

 

[SS2Dante]

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

They specifically stated that the Prothean dlc was started after the game had gone gold, not at the same as the game was being made. But ok, a theme that'll come up in a sec, you're right, at this point we're arguing about Biowares intentions so...blegh

Ah, I see. Yeah, femshep too. I did wonder, but then I realised the most obvious indicator that it is Shepard. Wait for it...

The fact that we don't see the face.

I love ironies like this. Shepard is the only character who's face can't be put into an FMV because, well, you know. The lack of a face is the distinguishing feature I'm willing to bet if they could, they'd have gone for the faaaar more conventional "Eyes snap open then cut to credits" ending

Yeah, as far as I can tell there are 16 different endings, with a slightly altered video in each case. Who knew :O

I see your point, but in practice it just doesn't work like that. Not testing "every little detail" gets you fired, or breaks consoles :O

Aaaand you and me both, getting tired. I'd agree we're probably just gonna end up going circular.

Before I stop, even if you don't reply, two things - have you seen the point about the blood on Shepards hands on the citadel? I consider it some of the most material evidence yet, and someone only pointed it out yesterday I show someone a few comments up, through youtube.
Also, I'm doing a test to see if Tali shows up in the end video on the planet, cos if she does thats a large dent in my theory. I predict she will not. It'll be interesting to hear from people who romanced her and stuff.

Anyway, nice talking to you

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

Ok, OTHER POSTERS, let's play a game. Can one of the guys I've been talking to for a while answer this post for me? Most of you agree about the plotholes existing so it'd be interesting to see you answer this, just to see our slight change in perspective.

BiH-Kira, sorry to use you as an experiment like this, but I've had this exact discussion with people posting the exact same answers as you, and my fingers are sore. If you look up a bit you'll see 'em.

 

[SS2Dante]

I hope this isn't the post mdqp was going to marry, or there won't be any kids since its getting the *snip*

Seriously, I am running out of snip based jokes.

A non-zero rate of attrition doesn't stop infinite growth. The rate has to balance the rate of growth, and like I've said, from the evidence we've got, the Reapers seem to have lost only 3 members of the species in the previous cycles. This doesn't balance the rate at all. As I said, you seem to assume that other cycles have managed to kill a reaper. In our cycle this is only done through united, coordinated military action, something the Reapers deliberately stopped in every other cycle. Besides this, you are ignoring the smaller 'Reapers' (can't remember the name they're given) that accompany the main species.

If you only want to base things on whats seen reapers have never managed to successfully reproduce, we haven't seen it occur once, so no evidence they ever reproduced successfully ever, thus their numbers have been declining since their origin.

If however you are going on what the only indicator for indoctrination theory, inference, seeing three dead reapers indicates there may be many unseen dead reapers, seeing reapers attempting reproduction and failing may infer reproduction can work sometimes.

Oh and smaller reapers are called 'epic combat storytelling device reapers for awesome giant worm fights' not a subtle name, but its one I think fits them quite well. Srsly, kalros for the win.

They were given several years warning, as well as Prothean tech (from the asari and reaper artefacts), as well as the fact that the majority of the Reaper fleet hit Earth.

Which they completely ignored anyway, so no difference. The protheans said they got their technology from some previous race too, and that everyone had from races before. Other civilisations managed to kill reapers with little more than big mass accelerators so its hardly required.

Your analogy is false. I cannot prove you are not real because I cannot step outside myself to be impartial. When analysing a piece of media we can be sure of the rules and conventions, and can apply then appropriately. This is why things like Fight Club, or the 'Ben' episodes of Scrubs work so well. it is the staging of the scenes that interests me most, as they are rather unusual from a cinematography standpoint.

You cannot prove anything is real, outside of your own existence, other than from use of your senses. You cannot analyse a piece of media other than from use of your senses.

Why is god child real, for the same reason that other characters only shepherd interacted with and we never saw again were real. Because they are inferred to be real until something brings their reality into doubt, like say.. evidence.

What theory? The fact that the lasers aren't as super deadly as they were in the earlier games? I've already explained why this is expected, and besides it's not a theory, it's observed. I'm well aware that at that range if the lasers were as dangerous as they were in one, Shepard would have died instantly, no matter what interpretation. For drama, however, this is sacrificed.

Which is confirmation bias, you ignore plot holes which don't conform to your theory, but accept those which do as evidence in its favor.
Either you notice the descrepency with your treatment of such plot holes, or you don't.

Also, fine, use your death interpretation. Show me how the options conform to your fake death theory. You will not be able to construct any argument I can't tear down instantly. That's why this theory is so convincing. Usually you'd expect flaws to be obvious.

Easy, hes dead everything after hes dead is his oxygen deprived brain imagining things. You see, the afterlife in mass effect is based upon punishment or oblivion. If you were good you simply cease to be, if not you go to hell. Its pretty sinister really.

I mean if you are incompetent and fail to get war assets, then its okay your options don't matter because you cannot be held to a higher moral standard. If however you showed competence, then you are held to a higher standard which is why if you pick bad you go to hell.

This is hinted at by thane when he dies, praying you pick the right options. Come on, falsify the unfalsifiable if you think its so easy, I can make up any range of nonsense excuses the easiest to grab are shepherd has oxygen deprivation, or the deities in mass effect are mysterious and work in mysterious ways.

Your argument is self-defeating with regards to staff. Either the new people don't care as much as the old or they do. You posit that these are both true. That they cared for 99.9% of the game then suddenly didn't care AT ALL.

Caring is irrelivant. Its their ability to produce a story which is consistant with the established narrative. I could take over from George R R Martin and do my damn best to finish A song of ice and fire, caring as I do for the series but it would end up being hack writing because I wouldn't know the narrative stuff he has in his head. Maybe he could write it all down for me and I could do my best with it, but there would be holes, if I was also rushed... then bigger and bigger holes would emerge.

I mean look at the last mass effect book, which unlike the others and mass effect 1 and 2 was not written by the same lead writer, what did we get something that fans universally panned as having gaping plot holes and had to be revised.

The fact that Jack shows up later(if you didn't save her) as a phantom is evidence of the plot consistency and effort. Either that, or the rest of the writers suck but the two original employees kept them in line. Then took a sick day when writing the ending. or something. There is no consistency in this argument.

Jack showing up means that new writers replacing all the original writers won't affect the overall narrative?
Come on, you really think people are like circuit components?
People are not that easily replaced, especially not writers. You can't just march into a story replace the writers and expect consistency in the narrative that was being delievered.
You can't even do that with technical staff. You ever tried to take over coding from someone else having to relearn everything and then continue it? Invariably bugs crop up.

If it's nonsensical then it would be placed in the other endings by default, not placed only in a specific category of ending.

That depends on when it was produced, by who and when. Its like cerberus, work is broken up into task orientated groups. Some will do well, others not so well. Some will be complete well before crunch time, others will be rushed at crunch time and unable to complete.

I don't see the problem with that logic. Changed parameters. Mordin bases his views on how much pain his choices will cause, not by some mystic view of 'right' and 'wrong'.
By the way, all propositional logic is based on tautologies. Any first year university science course will teach you that.

A tautology is only valid if it doesn't include assumptions.
Saying A = A is a perfectly valid tautology, it makes no assumptions about A.
Saying organics will always fight synethics because organics will always fight synthetics is not the same, it is a circular logic fallacy because unlike a true tautological statement it inclues an assumption in the form of an untested overarching generalisation which we know to be false.

I agree it's nuanced, but that's not what we're discussing. My original point is that since the majority of players, even those playing renegade, view the red choice as the "evil" one, they are very deeply programmed not to pick it. That is why the others are both blue, rather than being blue-green-red.

I don't care what the majority of players view colors to mean.
If shepherd has been a consistant renegade, assigning red to an option would make him WANT to pick it, which would make the reapers suicidal.
Its like saying, well the majority of people know eating fatty food is bad for you, thus the reapers covered the option they don't want you to pick in cakes.
Okay, what if in your playthroughs Shepherd consistently demonstrated a love for cake, why assign the cakes where you don't want him to go?
If its produced by his imagination, then what he suddenly went off cake, if its produced by the reapers, why not say.. oh, not even mention the cake path.

They only die stranded on an alien world if it's literal. Since its not, the entire sequence is in dream logic. The normandy miraculously jumps away, miraculously survives an explosion, and miraculously lands on a planet that humans can breath on. It's also miraculously beautiful. Everyone is miraculously there, and for some reason smiling. This is incredibly basic symbology. It baffles me anyone can take it literally.

So Indoctrination theory not only rests on my idea of bad writing, but also on shepherd being a complete moron with next to no imagination. Or rather, with just enough imagination that it works. Well, that's lucky. I mean if he had a smidge less he would imagine them say.. just appearing in a green field together, if he had a smidge more he would say, imagine them not crashing at all but landing carefully.

Actually, your point about Tali is perfectly valid. I'll admit that, if Tali appears in the end scene, that goes against my theory, as her "perfect place" is indeed Ranoch. The characters that appear seem to be created from your love interest and the squad you had, or your love interest and EDI, depending on whether you picked green/blue or red. I'm gonna go back and replay, using Liara (romantic interest) and Tali as my squadmates in London (gotta love narrative difficulty ). If my theory holds up Tali should NOT appear in the end sequence.

I wonder how that is effected if Tali is your romance? Can anyone tell me?

I had her as a LI, and she stepped out on an alien world with joker.
Apparently if you love her, you want her marooned on an alien planet never able to ever take off her suit, rather than safe on the homeworld as she has wanted the entire time you have known her and shared a beautiful story about the house she was going to build.

What are you talking about? My position directly contradicts yours. My theory states that not only can Bioware make FANTASTIC games, but that in this game they've made one of the most brilliant endings in gaming history. I rely on their past record as evidence of this. You rely on the idea they went crazy while making this game.

Nope, my position is they failed to make a good ending, then I expand as to why I think this. Your position is, they failed to make a good ending, because it didn't effectively communicate that you were indoctrinated.

I don't say they went crazy while making this game. I say they got rid of talented people and thus deprived themselves of their own creative assets, and or rushed it. We know they rushed it from things they have said about having to cut lots of stuff.

We know they changed almost the entire writing staff, including the lead writer. Other indicators.. Oh, how about.. Mass effect: deception. They got rid of that same lead writer and what did we get from it, if that isn't an indicator that you can't simply chop and change with human beings I don't know what is.

Your position on dlc is ridiculous. You seem to think any dlc would be retconning, when it would simply be confirmation of a theory already back up by a LOT of inconsistencies in the game. So, if Bioware had originally intended this, you wouldn't believe them?

Again, lack of evidence against is not evidence for. Claiming inconsistencies back up your position is just wishful. They only demonstrate one thing, that the story is inconsistent, they do not demonstrate a reason why, and neither effectively have you.

I've listed in various posts things that would falsify my proposal. I've also said in this post that Tali being in the end scene would be a pretty big dent in my logic. Furthermore, when looking up the endings to present as evidence, I was halfway through admitting that they didn't line up with my theory AT ALL, when I noticed the page I was on was only telling you what they judged the "best" ending, not the choices you have. Any ending that does not match my theory is also a good contradiction.

Yes, but anything can match up being indoctrinated, as can any ending can match up being in a dream. I mean this could all be a dream from the moment we touched the prothean beacon, or nothing is real its all a story told by some granpa, nothing can disprove that it isn't.

Maybe Shepherd is just really stupid, that is why he imagined tali being marooned on an alien world, this stupidity is demonstrated by a severe lack of understanding of chess.
See, now it fits. Anything can be shoehorned into it as far as I can tell.

(for clarity, the thing that threw me was that at medium war assets (around 3000-4000), the choices were arbitrarily split between allowing you to choose control and fight. Not allowing both flies in the face of my theory. It was then that I realised that they only gave you what they thought was the best ending. Doing more digging, I confirmed that at medium level you can choose both, but not synthesis. Had you been able to choose synthesis, that would have been another hole.)

Sometimes its shepherds imagination, sometimes its what the reapers think shepherd would like which ever confirms the theory at the time?

Ok, about this ending. You realise that for it to be successful, it cannot be on the disk? If they did the whole indoctrinated sequence then revealed it instantly it becomes a cheap gimmick, or people get angry they couldn't continue if they chose green or blue. However, waiting for a month or two lets people cool down and react more favourably to being tricked.

Says who?
Why cannot it be on the disc.
I mean, if I wanted to communicate that shepherd was indoctrinated and fighting back against it, and if you fall for it, well you die. Then believe me you would have that communicated you would pick correctly at least on the second attempt.
I've played games that had mindtricks in them before, the darkness 2 did it, they did it a whole lot better. Oh and guess what, you could pick incorrectly and stay in your mind altered state, or pick correctly and get the ACTUAL ENDING, it was on the disc!

So now mass effect has worse narrative communication than an FPS?

Edit: fixed quote boxes.

Edit: additional, oh and why is shepherd running into a teleporting beam to the citadel, which he knows is used to ferry victims there. Uh, reapers turn people into people paste, how does he know there isn't a massive wood chipper on the other side.

It would have been better if they, brought back the conduit on from Ilos, maybe it had been moved to be studied, or perhaps its still on Ilos. It would have been a great tip of the hat to people who played the first one. They could even throw in a mako segment to get to the conduit "just like old times" that would even have been worth enduring the horror that is the mako controls.

Also, why did the citadel defence forces do nothing, seems almost like they intended there to be a battle on the citadel.. but it was cut. Would have been fun.

I'd have had the catalyst be a special anti-reaper computer virus that was on the citadel all this time, the crucible is a massive transmitter (which might explain why it looks like a microphone) it would also allow them to explain why Sovereign dropped dead after Saren was killed, he had to try and directly interface and the virus disabled him and that's why his barriers dropped and he disengaged from the tower. I mean why else, because Saren died? that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I hope they don't retcon this indoctrination mess as the explanation for the ending in the DLC they may or may not release, but actually construct something making new assets and materials.

(Ok, I'm leaving in a minute cos I have work to do and am tired, so forgive the lack of response to a lot of your arguments. We're slowly slipping towards a circular argument. I hope you don't think I'm running,as you can see I've been typing a LOT the past two days, and I believe the rest of this post will convince you. Anyway.)

HEEEEEEEEEY. Finally.

Perfect, Tali being there as a love interest I can use. Congratulations sir, that is the first problem I'd consider noticeable in this theory. Now, admittedly it was my claim and not the pure theories (not hard to reason out of) but my understanding of the theory caused this prediction and it doesn't match, so one of us is wrong on some point.

Interestingly, I tested it too, with Tali and my LI as squadmates, and she does not appear at the end, no matter what ending I chose. It replaced her with Garrus who wasn't in my squad, nor ever was, as far as I can remember.

Cool

 

[SS2Dante]

You assume I know everything about ME3. I do not. There are 16 possible endings, I have seen 3 and heard of another 2. That gives you 11 ways to take IT down. You know my criteria for the endings, check them. I have only played full Paragon. Any Renegade options that contradict my theory would work. Thats the beauty of the game being so large and complex - I cannot possibly have seen EVERYTHING and tailored the theory to match. It rests on a very small set of assumptions and all evidence so far has conformed to the predictions made.

The "16 endings" reflects the 16 different ways the final mission "Citadel: The Return" can play out. The difference between them is barely worth noting.

if destroyed collector base ->
&nbsp;&nbsp;if lowest EMS ->
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1)You can destroy the reapers, Earth is destroyed
&nbsp;&nbsp;if next tier of EMS
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2)You can destroy the reapers, Earth is destroyed
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(3)You can control the reapers, Earth is ruined but okay
...
and so on. The key is that the each repeat result counts as a separate ending. If you only consider the choice and resulting cutscene to be the ending (like most people), than there are only 7 endings:
Destroy(very bad),
Destroy(bad),
Destroy(good),
Destroy(good, Shep lives),
Control(bad),
Control(good),
Synth


I'll give you something currently being tested (or at least, hopefully people will read and test). By my theory Tali should never appear in the ending scene, as her "happy place" is defined as being on Rannoch. Shepards imagination is putting everyone in their happy place (childish phrasing ). Therefore you shouldn't have her on that planet at the end. Now, I'm going to test that once I get off this, but I can't test it if she's your romance (femshep). I need someone else to do that. It goes against the logic of my theory, so puts a pretty big dent in it if true.


Tali showed up in my ending, but I managed to find a youtube vid of it too, so here you go:
<youtube=4VQSFAagjG0>


On the contrary, the idea of the ending is that it's either a loss or a cliffhanger. The notion of DLC renders the idea of an "ending" in games to be ill-defined. This is completely different from your ROTJ comparison, in which we know for a fact that it IS the final part of the final instalment. No resolution in that film would be awful because their is no possibility of any resolution at all, whereas in this game (and ONLY this game) we get a plug for dlc at the end. If you look at the red ending, it's actually rather similar to the 3/4 mark of most films or books. To give an example from TLA, look at the the ending of part 3 of the end movie. I can't remember what happens, but I'm willing to BET that's the part thats all bleak and our heroes seemingly defeated. Best laid plans. This trope is used in almost all dramatic structure, all this game has done is made it a cliffhanger.

Yes, with the Indoctrination TheoryTM, the ending is either a loss or a cliffhanger. A cliffhanger ending to the 3rd game in a trilogy is incredibly worse than a stupid ending. A cliffhanger ending to the 3rd game in a trilogy with planned DLC conclusion is still incredibly bad with the added bonus of it being a huge slap in the face to everyone who has played it.

Unfortunate, someone got in with Tali just before you. I've added it to the list in the main post. (btw, I searched youtube looking for an ending like that. Was I being really dense in not finding it?)