ME3 Indoctrination theory analysis

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Like I said, it's only a matter of time before we know who was right.

 

[RJ 17]

One of the most frustrating things about the endings is the fact that there's plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument: "It Really Happened" vs "It's An Indoctrination Dream". Yet there's nothing that proves either side one way or the other, and there's plenty of faults that go against both theories as well.

It Really Happened: How did your final squad get back to the Normandy to crash land with it at the end? If you pick Kill All Reapers, if you have enough military strength you get the bonus cutscene suggesting that Shepard survived...so what's Shepard doing back down on Earth in a pile of rubble? Did he/she ride the wreckage all the way down from orbit? Anderson said he followed you up to the Citadel, but came in through a different path...yet there's only one path leading up to the platform where you find him, and you didn't pass him. Why does the Illusive Man just appear out of nowhere? Why are there still the lights of cars flying around in the background of the Citadel?

Indoctrination: If it's really a battle taking place inside Shepard's mind, why do the Reapers still fly away if you pick one of the two trap choices? Wouldn't they laugh evilly and keep on the Rampage? If the Reapers flying off is just part of Shepard's hallucination because he/she failed to stop them and now they're just placating him/her, then that apparently means that Shepard's either dead (in which case there'd be no need for such a vision) or Shepard's now fully Indoctrinated and thus failed to destroy the Reapers. However there is absolutely nothing in the ending that suggests that any choice leads to Shepard's failure. To accept that would be to say that Bioware wrote the ending in such a way that would say "The Reapers won, everyone dies" without actually saying/showing it. For that matter, what's up with Star Gazer? No matter which ending you pick, he's there telling his granddaughter about the heroic triumph of Shepard? If you pick one of the two "trap" endings shouldn't he...you know...be dead? And on a side-note, people point to the backwards writing in the Citadel as proof that Shepard's dreaming. Go back and play Mass Effect 1, there's plenty of reverse writing in that game, particularly on the Normandy's walls.

It's really disgusting writing, but it's hard to not believe Bioware's statement that they intentionally made the ending as crap-tastic as it was specifically for this purpose: to get people arguing and debating over it. The problem is that people aren't arguing about what makes it a good ending, they're arguing about which theory makes the ending suck a little bit less. Now I was never in the "LET'S BURN DOWN BIOWARE AND EA!!!" camp. I accepted the endings for what they were and used my own logic to fill in the blanks (personally I fall in the It Really Happened camp as I think the evidence based on purely what we see and experience points more towards that). The thing is there's a difference between leaving enough small holes that leave your ending open to interpretation and leaving so many massive holes/problems that it becomes impossible for anyone to say what actually happened.

 

[Merrick_HLC]

I thought of one bigger problem with the indoctrination theory stuff.

Doesn't the synthesis ending only pop up if you (ignoring multiplayer) do like EVERY sidequest?

It'd be a GIANT F YOU to those who invested the time and hard work trying to get the 'best ending' to have that ending be "Ha-ha we fooled you, now he's totally controlled by the reapers!"

(Admittedly those who dislike the endings could argue the entire thing is already a massive F you, and indoctrination DLC alone would be an F you to some players who aren't online, which there are still many of nowadays)

 

[TaL0s]

I'm not sure if the indoctrination therory is what BioWare had intended or not, but I believe that if BioWare wants to come out of this PR nightmare alive, they will go with it and retcon the entire ending to include and support this theory.

However, I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic that BioWare will do the right thing for their, up until this point, loyal fanbase.

 

[RJ 17]

Like I said, it's only a matter of time before we know who was right.

That's not necessarily true. At the moment, as I mentioned in my response a couple posts above this one, there's no clear way to prove it one way or another...and Bioware is under absolutely no obligation to redo the ending and make it DLC. It's quite possible that we'll never know what really happened.

But no matter which theory you apply to, so long as it works and fits and makes the ending acceptable for you, that's all that really matters isn't it?

 

[Athinira]

The indoctrination theory is ridiculous.

It's people simply trying to make sense of things that... well, doesn't make sense. You might as well argue that god come down to earth and held the BioWare development team at gunpoint until they created the ending he wanted for the game. People like to see connections where there is none, and because they can't make sense of the ending, they start making up their own ridiculous theories.

But the truth is that the indoctrination theory is as full of plotholes as the actual ending BioWare gave us and it doesn't hold up. First of all, it goes against how BioWare established Indoctrination works (time-consuming process that has several physical and mental symptoms before the process is complete, not something you do in the blink of an eye, not to mention that there is never any mention of Indoctrination being able to create dream-world hallucinations), and second of all because there is no motive for it. The Reapers have no motive for inducing Shephard into a hallucination when Harbinger could have just finished him (or her) off with his big fat red laser instead of leaving while you were getting your pieces together.

If you people have to come up with your own endings for ME3 because the BioWare ones were crap, at least come up with something that isn't as terrible (if not even worse).

 

[Poomermon]

The indoctrination theory is ridiculous.

It's people simply trying to make sense of things that... well, doesn't make sense. You might as well argue that god come down to earth and held the BioWare development team at gunpoint until they created the ending he wanted for the game. People like to see connections where there is none, and because they can't make sense of the ending, they start making up their own ridiculous theories.

But the truth is that the indoctrination theory is as full of plotholes as the actual ending BioWare gave us and it doesn't hold up. First of all, it goes against how BioWare established Indoctrination works (time-consuming process that has several physical and mental symptoms before the process is complete, not something you do in the blink of an eye, not to mention that there is never any mention of Indoctrination being able to create dream-world hallucinations), and second of all because there is no motive for it. The Reapers have no motive for inducing Shephard into a hallucination when Harbinger could have just finished him (or her) off with his big fat red laser instead of leaving while you were getting your pieces together.

If you people have to come up with your own endings for ME3 because the BioWare ones were crap, at least come up with something that isn't as terrible (if not even worse).

I think the idea behind indoctrination theory is that it allows the story to continue with dlc. We don't know why reapers want Shepard alive but maybe there is reason they will tell us at later date. I agree it is a crappy ending if they just leave it like it is now. As for the time consuming process of indoctrination there are some hints that suggest Shepard may been affected by subtle indoctrination through the game (dream sequences, humming in normandy).

 

[Athinira]

I think the idea behind indoctrination theory is that it allows the story to continue with dlc. We don't know why reapers want Shepard alive but maybe there is reason they will tell us at later date. I agree it is a crappy ending if they just leave it like it is now. As for the time consuming process of indoctrination there are some hints that suggest Shepard may been affected by subtle indoctrination through the game (dream sequences, humming in normandy).

I don't buy it. Like i said, of all the symptoms that indoctrination carries with it, dream sequences have never been established to be one of them (at most, minor hallucinations). The small amount of time Shephards spends in areas where indoctrination is possible also doesn't leave much up for it. You spend maybe around 30 minutes on the dead Reaper in ME2 while the science team there have spent several weeks. I also considered the events of the Arrival DLC and found them equally unlikely.

The humming in the Normandy i also don't buy as being an indoctrination device (which is the original theory on that part). None of the crewmembers show any sign of indoctrination, and beyond the dream sequences above (which i have already explained i don't buy as indoctrination, given that it moves outside of the established process) neither does Shephard. No voices, no hallucinations (not dream-sequences), no headaches, and Shephards morale isn't affected at any point (starts having doubts about the Reapers). No indication.
And who would have snuck that device on the Ship? The Illussive Man didn't have proper access to reaper tech by the time Shephard broke loose from Cerberus, and the Reapers were only confirmed when they attacked earth, meaning they wouldn't have had time to Indoctrinate any alliance members working on refitting the Normandy. And even if there was something planted on board, EDI would likely have caught on.

Again, this is simply peoples fantasy running wild, seeing connections that doesn't exist. To me, the dream sequences were obvious (and terrible) attempts of BioWare of trying to impose a more human element on Shephard (who most of the time is a rock-solid soldier that cannot be bent or broken mentally), indicating that the war might take a higher mental told on our hero than he/she would seem to indicate when out there kicking ass, likely to remind Shephard of Earth using the boy from the ventilation duct (and his eventual death on the shuttle) as a focus point given that most people remember it. It's a cheap way to try and play with our emotions as players, and likely failed in 99% of all cases, but people believing it has something to do with indoctrination are just delusional.

Also, if it only was a dream sequence, then what's the point of showing the end cinematics? What's the point of showing the Normandy crash if it was all just a dream and Shephards crew stepping out to their new home? If it was just a dream, they could have left that out. Now, assuming the theory was true, they would have to explain themself about that (including how the Normandy crashed if the explosion of the Relays were just a dream).

Of course, one thing I've learned in my time is to 'never say never', in the sense that i could in fact see BioWare running along with this idea in future DLC now that players have thrown it out there (and some seem to like it more than the BioWare ending). But if they do that, I'm not in doubt for a single minute that it wasn't their original intention. At best, it would be a poor attempt of damage control. Like i said, the theory is full of holes from top to bottom.

And i can't wait to be proven right.

 

[Slycne]

I thought of one bigger problem with the indoctrination theory stuff.

Doesn't the synthesis ending only pop up if you (ignoring multiplayer) do like EVERY sidequest?

It'd be a GIANT F YOU to those who invested the time and hard work trying to get the 'best ending' to have that ending be "Ha-ha we fooled you, now he's totally controlled by the reapers!"

(Admittedly those who dislike the endings could argue the entire thing is already a massive F you, and indoctrination DLC alone would be an F you to some players who aren't online, which there are still many of nowadays)

The Destroy and Shepard lives is the hardest ending to achieve actually.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Of course, one thing I've learned in my time is to 'never say never', in the sense that i could in fact see BioWare running along with this idea in future DLC now that players have thrown it out there (and some seem to like it more than the BioWare ending). But if they do that, I'm not in doubt for a single minute that it wasn't their original intention. At best, it would be a poor attempt of damage control. Like i said, the theory is full of holes from top to bottom.

And i can't wait to be proven right.

I think it's pretty unlikely, but it's amusingly less full of holes than the current "canonical" ending. Which is sad, because you're right, it's not exactly rock solid, which says a lot about the current end sequence.

A lot of the "evidence" is pretty sketchy. There's only a few things which actually make you pause and wonder.

1. Shepard waking up in the concrete/stone rubble, as if he/she was still on earth.
2. The fact StarChild appears as "A ghostly presence".
3. The growl when Shepard's attention is snapped away from the kid in the vent at the very beginning. (Apparently in one of the Mass Effect novels an audible growl can be heard when Grayson "snaps out" of indoctrination)
4. The fact that Shepard's first few sightings of the kid, there's a multitude of signs right beside the kid that say "danger" or "caution" in all the frames. Wild speculation, sure, but they're always conveniently placed right beside his head, in every bloody frame, with at least 3 different signs. Danger, caution, danger...hovering right above his head.
5. That when directly asked about one of the weirdest plot holes in the ending, this was Bioware's reply:

User 7: "Its not that the ending was taken in the wrong direction its that it makes NO SENSE. Ashley was on the Normandy? she [was] with me."
@masseffect: "Probably a good thing to be cautious of."

Cautious of? That's pretty strange language. Why would you be "cautious" of some weird thing you saw?


Anyway. It's pretty pie in the sky, and as I'm cynical/skeptical by nature, I'd say it's a super long shot, but it's not as flimsy as you're implying.

 

[Burst6]

The indoctrination theory is ridiculous.

It's people simply trying to make sense of things that... well, doesn't make sense. You might as well argue that god come down to earth and held the BioWare development team at gunpoint until they created the ending he wanted for the game. People like to see connections where there is none, and because they can't make sense of the ending, they start making up their own ridiculous theories.

But the truth is that the indoctrination theory is as full of plotholes as the actual ending BioWare gave us and it doesn't hold up. First of all, it goes against how BioWare established Indoctrination works (time-consuming process that has several physical and mental symptoms before the process is complete, not something you do in the blink of an eye, not to mention that there is never any mention of Indoctrination being able to create dream-world hallucinations), and second of all because there is no motive for it. The Reapers have no motive for inducing Shephard into a hallucination when Harbinger could have just finished him (or her) off with his big fat red laser instead of leaving while you were getting your pieces together.

Shepherd doesn't get indoctrinated at the last second, she's been indoctrinated from the start of the game. Ever notice how nobody sees the little boy and how he just dissapears from the vent? And the weird dreams shep goes through (indoctrinations does include dreams. I think the scientists from the derelict reaper from ME2 talked about bad dreams). And i'm pretty sure the same scientists talked about seeing hallucinations.

Also perhaps harbinger doesn't know if shep is dead or alive. Harbinger flies away only when the hallucination is said to start. Maybe in real life he thinks shep i dead and just keeps shooting lasers at anyone else who comes. Maybe that explains why you need the 5000 EMS to get the secret ending thing. If you have enough military strength, your allies distract harbinger while you wake up.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Certainly an interesting theory, but I really don't think it is true. The signs pointing to this would have been more overt if this was intended by Bioware. No reason to give them this much credit.

Meh. Everyone gave them tons of credit in the post KOTOR era for pulling off a twist. It's not IMPOSSIBLE. Just EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.

 

[Scabadus]

I'm really hoping that this, or something like this, is true. Not saying that I expect it to happen, but I certainly want it to.

That said, two points:

1. I don't know how this works on the consoles, but on PC ME3 is Origin exclusive. You can't return it to the store. You MUST keep it, and have it avaliable for any upcomming DLC.

2. There's no final boss fight. Yes, you take down the Destroyer class Reaper on Earth, but you've already taken down two of them (and that other one AA gun thing with the Cain). It's an awsome fight, but it's not a final boss, not by any stretch. In ME1 you had Saren (even persuading him to shoot himself leaves you to take out the implant-zombie-reaper-husk-thing, which was fun) and Mass Effect 2 stepped up the game by ending with me blowing a human reaper's head off with a Cain round, which was a little wierd considering how different the human reaper looked to its cuttlefish friends (I'm now fully aware of the theories why it was human shaped, thanks anyway though) but at the same time, it was TOTALLY AWSOME. In Mass Effect 3... I persuaded TIM to shoot himself then wandered off to have a chat with today's God-anologue. A massive fight with Harbinger utilising orbital bombardments, old nuke missiles, Cain shots and (as a finishing blow) firing my Space Hamster out of a catapult would have been the logical final fight to the series.

OK that second point went on longer than I'd planned... well, either way these points arn't definitive proof for a deviously clever staggered ending, they could just be EA's blatent greed and spectacularly lazy writing respectivly, but they do also fit the indoctrination theory. Take them on board.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Just... what exactly are you talking about, may I ask?

What are YOU talking about? How was that not clear?

 

[ms_sunlight]

The more I think about it the more plausible it seems.
Plus, remember guys. "Even you are partly synthetic". By all accounts, if this was real, Shepard should be dead. Dead dead. But I'unno.

Didn't you get the conversation with EDI about this in the Normandy cockpit? She discusses the possibility with you that Cerberus made you a hybrid, but then goes on to say that Cerberus did not alter your brain for fear of changing your personality; it remains 100% organic. You're a cyborg, but then so is someone with a pacemaker or cochlear implant.

Doesn't the synthesis ending only pop up if you (ignoring multiplayer) do like EVERY sidequest?

It'd be a GIANT F YOU to those who invested the time and hard work trying to get the 'best ending' to have that ending be "Ha-ha we fooled you, now he's totally controlled by the reapers!"

Ah, but if you choose the "destroy" option with too few war assets, you fail and Earth is destroyed. Some of the assets you obtain (e.g. the Cerberus scientists, Kasumi) go to work on the Crucible, so if your score is low, you can even extrapolate that the Crucible will be less ready or more imperfect.

The higher your readiness score, the more work has been done on the Crucible and the more fighting assets you have. Just speculation, but perhaps the Catalyst / "Tiny Tim" has to work harder to trick you into indoctrination - or has had longer to implant ideas in your head - the higher your score, hence the other options? A low score means you can't win. Catalyst lets you go ahead, because you're gonna fail.

Also when you get the "real" ending for having a high galactic readiness, shepard wakes up in the rubble. Now what does this mean? does it mean that everything was destroyed or is he simply waking up from the blast he took on earth and the reapers actually won?

Throughout the series, you are told that you can't beat the reapers. No-one has ever managed it. If you listen to Javik, though, he tells you that it took hundreds of years for the reapers to finally wipe out the protheans. Did the reapers win? Probably.

I think the only way to finally beat the reapers is to stop playing by their rules. Destroy the Citadel, destroy the mass relays. You can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools. That's why the protheans built their own mass relay on Ilos, which you used to stop Sovereign. The indoctrination dream is Shepard's mind rebelling against the reapers, telling her the solution, showing her the way out.

Why did the reapers strike in force so suddenly and in so many places, after playing the long game? After all, they can take centuries to wipe out organic civillisation, they live forever, they don't nead to rush. You were the catalyst. You blew up the relay at Aratoht. That's the one thing they can't allow organics to do.

 

[hazabaza1]

The more I think about it the more plausible it seems.
Plus, remember guys. "Even you are partly synthetic". By all accounts, if this was real, Shepard should be dead. Dead dead. But I'unno.

Didn't you get the conversation with EDI about this in the Normandy cockpit? She discusses the possibility with you that Cerberus made you a hybrid, but then goes on to say that Cerberus did not alter your brain for fear of changing your personality; it remains 100% organic. You're a cyborg, but then so is someone with a pacemaker or cochlear implant.

I guess. But still, if it just destroys all synthetic/electronic stuff, surely a lot of Shepard's insides {veins, heart, etc) had some sort of augmentation to keep him ticking?

 

[Zen Toombs]

We are not trying to make it better. Nothing will make it better. We are trying to understand it. If your only goal is to be angry, you can do it somewhere else.

This exchange is over.

Come on, you had the opportunity to have like seven different Mass Effect references in that sentence!

Something akin to

Zeel, you have become an annoyance. We only wish to understand, not incite.

This exchange is over.