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

[boag]

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

depending on your end EMS Score you get

Joker

Joker +1 Squadmate

Joker +2 Squadmates

Joker +LI +1 Squadmate

Synthesis only

Joker + EDI +LI +1 Squadmate

 

[Ifrit7th]

I don't believe it because it would show tremendous foresight on Bioware's part. As I recall, The Final Hours pretty much said they had to throw something together quickly, and something this deep and methodical wouldn't just come about spur of the moment.. Also, every reason I've seen so far for it just seems like grasping at straws to make some sense of such a disjointed ending.

I applaud peoples effort to try and make sense of things, but right now it just seems to me like an enormous exercise in self-delusion and denial.

 

[Carlos Storm]

This version seemed to make so much sense that I simply can't believe the literal ending.

Yes, that's what happens when you are presented with an ending that flies in the face of canon. You start believing wild theories because it's better than accepting what you're presented with

 

[xorinite]

Nope, out of snip based puns, perhaps its for the best

(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.)

I wouldn't infer you were running, wouldn't make any sense to me anyway.
You asked why I didn't believe, you didn't demand I convince you, or that claim that you could convince me so there is no imperative on either of us to convince the other. We can disagree just fine.

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.

Really? suddenly I'm tempted to throw away the apples and oranges and bring out the devils avocados.

I mean, maybe shepherd really is that stupid. Maybe its the reapers projecting that thought into his mind, maybe they don't know better, maybe that's evidence its from an outside source and not part of his mind. Lots of ways it could still work, even though I don't find it believable and neither should Shepherd.

Edit: additional, could just be a plot hole too. IT could be true, and has a plot hole inconsistent with its story. I'm not convinced of course.

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

I think on Angry Joes 10 reasons the ending sucks video, at 4:50-4:55 you can see her on the planet there, now you don't have to gibbed her to a LI to see it.

 

[mdqp]

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.

You misread (or didn't explain yourself properly): you said that the VI can't read low level indoctrination, so this means that you are saying that the VI reads it as binary (either is high and it sees it, or not), this, despite the nature of the indoctrination, as you presented it (you are assuming that the VI reads it at the exact level that fits with your idea, neither more or less sensitive). You are saying mild, but your Shepard is seeing ghosts, having nightmares, and in the end imagines a whole unreal experience, which speaks of something more than mild (and if it is mild, than the ending has no meaning, because Shepard could still fight the indoctrination. It has to be a turning point, necessarily close to the edge, for it to be meaningful, at least in the mind of Shepard). If you claim that the indoctrinaction works at distance and develops this quickly over such short periods, I don't know what to say.

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.

Probably the Reapers targeting can't find the stealth vehicle Normandy, especially considering the whole hell going on out there. If they had a clear shot, they would have simply killed you, if they have a minimum degree of intelligence. We don't know anything about what the Reaper could target, or what could happen before it fires, not in such a scenario (I actually thought that one of the shuttle would have managed to escape, for example). I don't believe that subconscious plays seer.

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.

But I didn't speak about the child. I am telling that he has no visions outside of the dreams of anything unusual, after Earth, for a long time (if we believe your theory). Why would it stop at that? Why he can't have some visions of Turians or Asari? Why doesn't he get other symptoms? It doesn't look like the indoctrination is doing its job, most of the time. Only by playing detective, one gets a certain amount of (arguable) hints, and even those are open to debate.[/quote]

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.

Why would you be hopeless, if they aren't trying? What, Shepard can gauge perfectly the chances of his winning the reapers (that should always be 0, unless the prothean final weapon works), and gets depressed because of it? The in-game mechanic is one thing, but I don't think Shepard does it with this in mind (it's always a desperate attempt). Plus, you are arguing that only by getting all possible endings one can gather enough infos to make an educated guess about the meaning of the game? That isn't sound writing. There are only three options, and synthesis is usually high on the points you need to make, the fact that the game defaults to control or destroy means nothing, it's just a connection with 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.

You wrote this, and it seems to me that it contraddicts the facts, and your position later on (if I misread/misunderstood, I apologize):

"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."

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.

I think we disagree on this being a great game, as I told you before, so I think it's easier to understand why I don't find your theory very likely. Also, I find the ending bad anyway, since it would mean that the authors decided to go on a self-indulgent ego-trip, without bothering to let you know what happens: do the Reapers win or lose? What happens to your crew? What happens to earth? What does the crucible do? Etc... It becomes a journey inside Shepard's mind, and it isn't even the full tour, but a short mix of his fears/hopes and the Reapers indoctrination. You don't know what Shepard will leave behind at all (since the Stargazer always appears, we must assume that your indoctrination doesn't affect the future events at all, making it completely pointless, leaving us in the dark as to what Shepard did to make it possible for the Reapers to lose. Furthermore, how can it be a story told to a child, if the last part happens in Shepard's mind? We have to make other assumptions, concerning the fact that we got to see Shepard's story, why the Stargazer only knows a part of it, but the way it is shown seems to imply that we were playing the story he was telling).

 

[mdqp]

Sorry, double post.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

I'd like to believe it, but it seems lazy as fuck, and unbelievable on Bioware's end. If it was what really happened and it would fix their "godawful" ending on their hands, why didn't they just say it is... at least I hope...

 

[boag]

I don't believe it because it would show tremendous foresight on Bioware's part. As I recall, The Final Hours pretty much said they had to throw something together quickly, and something this deep and methodical wouldn't just come about spur of the moment.. Also, every reason I've seen so far for it just seems like grasping at straws to make some sense of such a disjointed ending.

I applaud peoples effort to try and make sense of things, but right now it just seems to me like an enormous exercise in self-delusion and denial.

I will agree that some of the presented evidence is grasping at straws, but lots of the thematical elements (The game itself is hitting you over the head with Indoctrination happening left and right), lend itself more for it.

The questions in the end is, did Bioware plan it? Maybe we are not certain, and we can either take their word for it or not.

Would the Game ending be better had it been included? From a lot peoples perspective yes it would have.

anything else is passing judgement in hearsay and supposition, and when we start doing that, we might as well start calculating what the odds are of bioware releasing a DLC that lets you have a Harem end where the Normandy creates a Sex charged energy field that turns the reapers into massive lusty tentacle monsters that molest the galaxy and go back to darkspace after the orgy is over.

 

[AD-Stu]

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.

There are a few undeniable facts about Saren:

- He's had implants at least since the first time we see him in ME1 (when he shoots Nihlus). We can see them. They're not a new thing that Sovereign adds at the end of the game.
- He first came into contact with Sovereign around the end of Mass Effect: Revelation. That's 20 years before the events of ME1. Cerberus researchers in ME2 were being indoctrinated by a dead reaper in the space of weeks. If Saren's indoctrination has taken 20 years to take full control of him then it's got to be the most epic slowroll of all time.

The "maybe you're right" line could be explained by the fact that Saren's been indoctrinated for so long that what Shepard is saying almost comes as new information to his dormant inner self, like he's in the process of waking up from a really bad dream.

Or it could be explained by the Rule of Cool, writer laziness or something else.

Which brings me to my biggest problem with the whole indoctrination theory, and most of the rest of this discussion as well: it relies on putting far to much emphasis on minute details, when we don't know if those minute details were included deliberately, were an oversight, or whether they were included for some other completely random reason.

Giving this whole discussion any credence above the level of wild speculation is, IMO, more than a little silly given how unreliable all the information people are relying on is.

 

[Asita]

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.

Actually, the color ending is exactly in line with what we come to expect from moral choices in these games. While it's incredibly easy to think of the Paragon and Renegade options as "Good and Evil" (Partially because they so-often coincide with them) the base concept behind them is your methodology rather than results. Paragon lines up with compassionate actions, renegade lines up with apathtic and/or ruthless ones. While it is initially jarring to see the destruction of the villains viewed as a renegade option and the illusive man's goal as a paragon one, it makes sense when you consider the additional criteria. The destruction of the Reapers by necessity also entailed the annihilation of the Geth, Edi and all other synthetic life (ostensibly including basically every VI, which established canon and fridge logic dicates essentially means the entire armada sent to defend Earth become casualties of war due to the general technological reliance on such programs). The destroy option is a renegade choice because it requires a ruthless decision to end the existence of billions of innocents as collatoral damage. Conversely, the control option is presented as a Paragon choice because it only requires one death: Yours. Thus it is by comparison it ends up being the more compassionate option of the two, ergo paragon.

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)

Except under that interpretation it makes no sense for both to die, especially when you are the one to pull the trigger on TIM despite 'no longer being able to see the right path' as you put it. When you have a shoulder angel and shoulder demon, or competing personality traits or however you want to put it, you do not write that both are destroyed. One triumphs over the other or both are pushed out of sight and out of mind.

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 ).

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking sloppiness, I'm talking about the game itself acknowledging the oddity and wrongness of the situation. In your example this could well take the form of Shepherd being visibly (and/or vocally) confused about the sudden appearance of a wound he didn't remember taking, but there are a lot of opportunities, none of which were taken. Unless something like that exists there is NO solid evidence of a dream-state and the examples cited become too easily explainable as plotholes that the fanbase is trying to explain away on the writers' behalf.

*Prior vids snipped for relevance. Hope you don't mind*
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.

Except Anderson recieved the wound on his right side, and the wound you refer to on Shepherd is on his left so the part about Shepherd recieving Anderson's wound doesn't add up. Additionally, Shepherd had visibly been favoring his left side during the walk to that confrontation so the likely explanation is that the blood is simply from an existing wound that wasn't focused on until then.

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.

Bad logic. At the risk of being snide, you found an explanation you liked and stopped searching for other explanations. That does not mean other explanations do not exist. See the existing wound suggestion above for an example of one such explanation.

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.

Generally, it's presented as a shift in your mindset. Beneziah described it as simply coming to believe Saren was correct. The one constant, however, seems to be not that the victim is fooled but that they come to revere the Reapers and/or their agents and actively choosing to follow their orders. Beneziah described it as sitting at Saren's feet in adoration, the codex focuses on holding the Reapers in superstitious awe, the Cerberus team on the dead Reaper in ME2 refer to it in later entries as a "Dead god", etc. Saren's indoctrination took the form of despair in the face of fighting the Reapers and the belief that the only path to survival was making organics seem useful...Offhand, I see it as presented VERY similarly to the description of the Apple of Eden's effect in Assassin's Creed 2's Bonfire of the Vanities DLC (It amplifies the individual reasons each victim has for agreeing with the Apple's wielder up to the point of zealotry).

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 get the feeling I didn't explain this aspect well enough. As far as I'm concerned, the choices are insufficient as differences as they are explainable without invoking the additional assumptions that IT requires and thus come off as a retroactive explanation rather than one alluded to enough to actually qualify as hints towards any particular explanation. Additionally, as IT assumes that the crucible is a manifestation of Shepherd's mind and that across the various ending-tiers the reapers attempt to accelerate the indoctrination process (which necessarily coincides with a proportional decrease in mental ability) it stands to reason that Shepherd's ability to create a comprehensive internal world would deteriorate as greater influence was exerted on him. Ergo, if we want to assume the tiers are reflective of reaper effort, the effort should similarly be reflected in the setting, even in as simple a format as a visible decrease in the ambiant light, an increase in fog at higher tiers, or the catalyst's form becoming clearer (or more blurred) across them (among other possibilities). Such things would reflect the deterioring mental state that accompanies indoctrination and (in the case of the clarifying catalyst) reflect the greater association with reaper-friendly values.

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)

Well put simply, I think one of the biggest flaws with the idea is that even taking IT at its word, the ending remains a spectacular mess to the point that IT actually makes the execution worse due to lack of sufficient implication rendering the conclusion unreachable without a heavy dose of Bible-Code logic and confirmation bias.

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.

Well beating on a dead horse, if you've seen one ending you've seen 90% of the others anyway, so that kinda rings hollow. It's not hard to account for variation when there's so little variation to be had and no unique aftermath presented in any but the 'earth gets destroyed' variants. Additionally, it doesn't help that IT plays fast and loose enough to justify almost anything with the right thought process. Because let's be honest, you can justify anything if you assume that you're looking at a dream-state. Shepherd turning into a duck wouldn't be out of place under those assumptions.

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.

My understanding is that the ending scene varies based on your relationships, with the synthesis ending also having one additional change. If you chose synthesis you get Joker, EDI (creating an almost insultingly obvious 'Adam and Eve' implication) and your love interest (if he/she is alive and part of the crew). Failing those criteria you see Joker and the two squadmates you were closest to (one of which is usually your love interest). That said, I can't test this to confirm.

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.)

Problem being that the data available suggests that they scrapped the original ending fairly late in development, which also accounts for the fact that the hype for much of the development is so different from the end result.

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.

Given the various press releases, I'm going to have to call that speculation that's actually at odds with the available data. Additionaly, that would be a phenominally poor marketing strategy that would rather predictibly result in nothing less than the vitrol we've seen in recent weeks, causing far more harm than good.

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.

Except Shepherd's in no position to actually do so given that by IT's claims he's on the front lines, on open ground, in the direct line of fire with the surrounding environment being systematically destroyed while the very armada you posit they'd try to use him to control is fighting overhead. The idea might have been workable early in the story, but during the 11th hour of combat the notion is downright nonsensical.

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.

Yeah, I was under the impression you were talking about the actual partitioning code, not the testing to make sure that the values worked. Looks like we got our wires crossed there.

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).

Hate to interrupt mid-paragraph, but I feel obliged to point out that's an outright suicidal public relations tactic, all things considered.

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.

Of course, that could just as easily refer to the inclusion of additional background info (which they said they cut because they deemed it unneeded), or the aftermath of your decision, in which case 'truth' wouldn't stand opposed to fiction as much as it would be a stand-in for 'revelation'.


Incidentally, is it just me, or does it seem like we're probably going to be going back and forth like this for some time yet?

Edit: Noticed the quotes cited the wrong posts (and person) Sorry if I needlessly highlighted you, Boag.

Edit again: Late edit, but as you mentioned coming back to this post, I figured it was the best place to put it: I was just made aware of a Forbes article that sums up some of my major grievances with the very premise of IT rather nicely. The part I empathize with starts near the end of the first page and continues onto the second, but it's summed up by a paragraph concluding the article, which reads as follows:

If $15 ending DLC hits shelves in a month or two that reveals this theory as correct, it will be one of the lowest points in video game history. Had a complete ending been fashioned alongside this plot twist, Mass Effect could have been the greatest story ever told through the medium and fans would have bowed at Bioware?s feet, praising them for the best finale they?ve ever seen. But instead, if the ?true? ending really was cut to be sold later as DLC, it?s proof that maybe video games aren?t art after all. They?re just a product to be bought and sold in pieces regardless of the effect such decisions may have on the experience or the story. And if said DLC is free, the way I?ve previously suggested it should be as an apology to fans? Then it really just should have been in the game in the first place.

 

[SS2Dante]

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.

Actually, the color ending is exactly in line with what we come to expect from moral choices in these games. While it's incredibly easy to think of the Paragon and Renegade options as "Good and Evil" (Partially because they so-often coincide with them) the base concept behind them is your methodology rather than results. Paragon lines up with compassionate actions, renegade lines up with apathtic and/or ruthless ones. While it is initially jarring to see the destruction of the villains viewed as a renegade option and the illusive man's goal as a paragon one, it makes sense when you consider the additional criteria. The destruction of the Reapers by necessity also entailed the annihilation of the Geth, Edi and all other synthetic life (ostensibly including basically every VI, which established canon and fridge logic dicates essentially means the entire armada sent to defend Earth become casualties of war due to the general technological reliance on such programs). The destroy option is a renegade choice because it requires a ruthless decision to end the existence of billions of innocents as collatoral damage. Conversely, the control option is presented as a Paragon choice because it only requires one death: Yours. Thus it is by comparison it ends up being the more compassionate option of the two, ergo paragon.

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)

Except under that interpretation it makes no sense for both to die, especially when you are the one to pull the trigger on TIM despite 'no longer being able to see the right path' as you put it. When you have a shoulder angel and shoulder demon, or competing personality traits or however you want to put it, you do not write that both are destroyed. One triumphs over the other or both are pushed out of sight and out of mind.

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 ).

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking sloppiness, I'm talking about the game itself acknowledging the oddity and wrongness of the situation. In your example this could well take the form of Shepherd being visibly (and/or vocally) confused about the sudden appearance of a wound he didn't remember taking, but there are a lot of opportunities, none of which were taken. Unless something like that exists there is NO solid evidence of a dream-state and the examples cited become too easily explainable as plotholes that the fanbase is trying to explain away on the writers' behalf.

*Prior vids snipped for relevance. Hope you don't mind*
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.

Except Anderson recieved the wound on his right side, and the wound you refer to on Shepherd is on his left so the part about Shepherd recieving Anderson's wound doesn't add up. Additionally, Shepherd had visibly been favoring his left side during the walk to that confrontation so the likely explanation is that the blood is simply from an existing wound that wasn't focused on until then.

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.

Bad logic. At the risk of being snide, you found an explanation you liked and stopped searching for other explanations. That does not mean other explanations do not exist. See the existing wound suggestion above for an example of one such explanation.

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.

Generally, it's presented as a shift in your mindset. Beneziah described it as simply coming to believe Saren was correct. The one constant, however, seems to be not that the victim is fooled but that they come to revere the Reapers and/or their agents and actively choosing to follow their orders. Beneziah described it as sitting at Saren's feet in adoration, the codex focuses on holding the Reapers in superstitious awe, the Cerberus team on the dead Reaper in ME2 refer to it in later entries as a "Dead god", etc. Saren's indoctrination took the form of despair in the face of fighting the Reapers and the belief that the only path to survival was making organics seem useful...Offhand, I see it as presented VERY similarly to the description of the Apple of Eden's effect in Assassin's Creed 2's Bonfire of the Vanities DLC (It amplifies the individual reasons each victim has for agreeing with the Apple's wielder up to the point of zealotry).

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 get the feeling I didn't explain this aspect well enough. As far as I'm concerned, the choices are insufficient as differences as they are explainable without invoking the additional assumptions that IT requires and thus come off as a retroactive explanation rather than one alluded to enough to actually qualify as hints towards any particular explanation. Additionally, as IT assumes that the crucible is a manifestation of Shepherd's mind and that across the various ending-tiers the reapers attempt to accelerate the indoctrination process (which necessarily coincides with a proportional decrease in mental ability) it stands to reason that Shepherd's ability to create a comprehensive internal world would deteriorate as greater influence was exerted on him. Ergo, if we want to assume the tiers are reflective of reaper effort, the effort should similarly be reflected in the setting, even in as simple a format as a visible decrease in the ambiant light, an increase in fog at higher tiers, or the catalyst's form becoming clearer (or more blurred) across them (among other possibilities). Such things would reflect the deterioring mental state that accompanies indoctrination and (in the case of the clarifying catalyst) reflect the greater association with reaper-friendly values.

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)

Well put simply, I think one of the biggest flaws with the idea is that even taking IT at its word, the ending remains a spectacular mess to the point that IT actually makes the execution worse due to lack of sufficient implication rendering the conclusion unreachable without a heavy dose of Bible-Code logic and confirmation bias.

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.

Well beating on a dead horse, if you've seen one ending you've seen 90% of the others anyway, so that kinda rings hollow. It's not hard to account for variation when there's so little variation to be had and no unique aftermath presented in any but the 'earth gets destroyed' variants. Additionally, it doesn't help that IT plays fast and loose enough to justify almost anything with the right thought process. Because let's be honest, you can justify anything if you assume that you're looking at a dream-state. Shepherd turning into a duck wouldn't be out of place under those assumptions.

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.

My understanding is that the ending scene varies based on your relationships, with the synthesis ending also having one additional change. If you chose synthesis you get Joker, EDI (creating an almost insultingly obvious 'Adam and Eve' implication) and your love interest (if he/she is alive and part of the crew). Failing those criteria you see Joker and the two squadmates you were closest to (one of which is usually your love interest). That said, I can't test this to confirm.

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.)

Problem being that the data available suggests that they scrapped the original ending fairly late in development, which also accounts for the fact that the hype for much of the development is so different from the end result.

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.

Given the various press releases, I'm going to have to call that speculation that's actually at odds with the available data. Additionaly, that would be a phenominally poor marketing strategy that would rather predictibly result in nothing less than the vitrol we've seen in recent weeks, causing far more harm than good.

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.

Except Shepherd's in no position to actually do so given that by IT's claims he's on the front lines, on open ground, in the direct line of fire with the surrounding environment being systematically destroyed while the very armada you posit they'd try to use him to control is fighting overhead. The idea might have been workable early in the story, but during the 11th hour of combat the notion is downright nonsensical.

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.

Yeah, I was under the impression you were talking about the actual partitioning code, not the testing to make sure that the values worked. Looks like we got our wires crossed there.

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).

Hate to interrupt mid-paragraph, but I feel obliged to point out that's an outright suicidal public relations tactic, all things considered.

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.

Of course, that could just as easily refer to the inclusion of additional background info (which they said they cut because they deemed it unneeded), or the aftermath of your decision, in which case 'truth' wouldn't stand opposed to fiction as much as it would be a stand-in for 'revelation'.


Incidentally, is it just me, or does it seem like we're probably going to be going back and forth like this for some time yet?

Ok, sorry for the really short post here, jumped on for a second and scanned your topic

(yes, I agree, most of the threads of discussion are becoming circular, I'll probably do my last posts tomorrow and we can all go our way )

Only part of you post I can respond to quickly is that you say Anderson was shot on the right - he isn't. Easy to mistake, cos the camera is facing him. Here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VBHY44zOe4s#t=497s

Anderson is using his left hand and holding the left side of his stomach.

Anyhoo, closing remarks and stuff tomorrow
Bye

 

[thelonewolf266]

The fact that people are actually discussing this warms my heart oh and Zeel buggered off as well so that's a a major upside.His name really is appropriate when you think about it.
On topic:Either way the ending could have been handled better however the literal take is just a big shit on every fan's face so even if Bioware where stupid enough to think that was a good way to end it(which I don't for a second believe) I'm going to continue to put my faith and belief into the Indoctrination theory.

 

[superline51]

Ok, so I've watched the video and read articles, and I pretty much buy the whole thing, but there are some issues I can't get over. If the whole "ending" is indoctrination mind raping Shepard, then the game doesn't even have an ending at all. If you choose blue or green explosion, Shepard is no more, end of story. With red explosion, Shepard's mind stays intact, but that also means that we are still at the point where he/she got lazered. As it is, there is no resolution to the story, the war is still going on. Twenty bucks says BioWare claims the indoctrination thing and the DLC will actually end the story. God I hope so.

 

[Outcast107]

Ok, so I've watched the video and read articles, and I pretty much buy the whole thing, but there are some issues I can't get over. If the whole "ending" is indoctrination mind raping Shepard, then the game doesn't even have an ending at all. If you choose blue or green explosion, Shepard is no more, end of story. With red explosion, Shepard's mind stays intact, but that also means that we are still at the point where he/she got lazered. As it is, there is no resolution to the story, the war is still going on. Twenty bucks says BioWare claims the indoctrination thing and the DLC will actually end the story. God I hope so.

I'm pretty sure they had the idea the whole damn time. I mean if they didn't why wouldn't they just say "no, this isn't what we are doing." In their tweets they even say "If you know we are planning you would keep your disc forever." And etc etc.

As well as indoctrination being a major thing within the whole ME game I didn't see why they wouldn't use it as a end. Plus the end, I'm thinking if you had enough EMS (or whatever it is called) then you are save from your allies.

 

[Asita]

Ok, sorry for the really short post here, jumped on for a second and scanned your topic

(yes, I agree, most of the threads of discussion are becoming circular, I'll probably do my last posts tomorrow and we can all go our way )

Only part of you post I can respond to quickly is that you say Anderson was shot on the right - he isn't. Easy to mistake, cos the camera is facing him. Here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VBHY44zOe4s#t=497s

Anderson is using his left hand and holding the left side of his stomach.

Anyhoo, closing remarks and stuff tomorrow
Bye

Huh, weird. I could have sworn it looked like the impact was on the right. Though I guess I have to concede the intended impact location. :/

 

[superline51]

Ok, so I've watched the video and read articles, and I pretty much buy the whole thing, but there are some issues I can't get over. If the whole "ending" is indoctrination mind raping Shepard, then the game doesn't even have an ending at all. If you choose blue or green explosion, Shepard is no more, end of story. With red explosion, Shepard's mind stays intact, but that also means that we are still at the point where he/she got lazered. As it is, there is no resolution to the story, the war is still going on. Twenty bucks says BioWare claims the indoctrination thing and the DLC will actually end the story. God I hope so.

I'm pretty sure they had the idea the whole damn time. I mean if they didn't why wouldn't they just say "no, this isn't what we are doing." In their tweets they even say "If you know we are planning you would keep your disc forever." And etc etc.

As well as indoctrination being a major thing within the whole ME game I didn't see why they wouldn't use it as a end. Plus the end, I'm thinking if you had enough EMS (or whatever it is called) then you are save from your allies.

Yeah, apparently if you have over 4000 EMS or whatever, you get the Shepard gasping for breath with the red ending. Pray that BioWare works off of that for some supposed DLC.

 

[LHZA]

I like the indoctrination theory, I'm not sure I believe it's what Bioware had in mind all this time. I think it's like Casey Hudson said, he wanted an ending that was open to interpretation (paraphrasing here) which I understand. Filmakers sometimes refuse to comment on their films claiming audience interpretation is part of the fun (e.g, look to David Lynch and Muhulland Drive). Either way, I like how fans are going to great length to try and make sense of the ending. It's quite creative. It's more creative and constructive than the people who are bitching and moaning and threatening to sue. Though I have to concede, I initially wasn't bothered by the ME3 endings, I have since come to realize Bioware did drop the ball, mainly with the crew being stranded and all. How did Kaidan get there? He was on my ground team.

 

[Outcast107]

Ok, so I've watched the video and read articles, and I pretty much buy the whole thing, but there are some issues I can't get over. If the whole "ending" is indoctrination mind raping Shepard, then the game doesn't even have an ending at all. If you choose blue or green explosion, Shepard is no more, end of story. With red explosion, Shepard's mind stays intact, but that also means that we are still at the point where he/she got lazered. As it is, there is no resolution to the story, the war is still going on. Twenty bucks says BioWare claims the indoctrination thing and the DLC will actually end the story. God I hope so.

I'm pretty sure they had the idea the whole damn time. I mean if they didn't why wouldn't they just say "no, this isn't what we are doing." In their tweets they even say "If you know we are planning you would keep your disc forever." And etc etc.

As well as indoctrination being a major thing within the whole ME game I didn't see why they wouldn't use it as a end. Plus the end, I'm thinking if you had enough EMS (or whatever it is called) then you are save from your allies.

Yeah, apparently if you have over 4000 EMS or whatever, you get the Shepard gasping for breath with the red ending. Pray that BioWare works off of that for some supposed DLC.

Well one of the problems to the theory is that harbinger is ready to blast you again with the laser. Which I believe, the forces that hackett sent. Which those ships could distract harbinger while your crew that came with you help you escape. Though with that I'm just guessing.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

The guys who made and believe the argument are bright-eyed idealists, meanwhile I'm far more cynical.

There is a real-world case for Bioware being driven into the ground by EA that's more plausible than the Indoctrination Theory being accurate and Bioware not revealing it when people started to raise a stink.

But, I tip my hat to the people who formulated it. It's pretty glossy and plausible, which is more than I can say about many other fan theories.

 

[SilentVirus]

I don't believe in the indoctrination theory because I feel that some fan(s) was so disappointed by the ending that they literally went all out, searching for small details to form a new ending so they can rationalize that Bioware didn't half-ass and cheat them, they simply wanted a secret ending for all their fans. I think it's sad to be honest. Not that the fan(s) did something like come up with this theory, but that the game's ending was so poorly made that fans will grasp out at anything that is better than the ending they got.