The Main Reason why Indoctrination Theory is Wrong :)

[Moth_Monk]

SPOILER WARNING

Okay now I know that I've already posted a thread on the Indoctrination Theory for Mass Effect 3 but I recently finished another play through of Mass Effect 3 and I realised something...

Unlike my previous criticism, this one will show that the IDT is wrong - you will have to let go of the theory!

Here it is:

If you play through the game without importing a Shepard and then speed run through the game only doing the main missions (I did this in 9 hours 35 mins on Narrative Difficulty) you'll end up with a really low EMS

Due to this the Catalyst will only give you one choice at the end: Destroy. You have NO other options. There is a problem here.

IDT says that the sequence with the Catalyst is a 'test' by Harbinger and choosing the Destroy ending shows Shepard has not lost to Harbinger - becasue with a really high EMS you see Shepard breathing in some rubble .

If that was true, WHY is there a scenario where Harbinger only gives Shepard Destroy as an option? If we follow IDT this logically does not make sense since it suggests that, somehow, a poorly prepared Shepard (one with really low EMS) is stronger willed than a ultra prepared Shepard! That clearly makes no sense!

Of course the explanation is that IDT is just wrong and only having the Destroy as an option was punishment from Bioware for being useless.

We can therefore conclude that:

Marauder Shields was wrong XD

 

[Moth_Monk]

I love that video. It cracks me up every time. XD

 

[Rayken15]

Actually it proves the exact opposite. Because you did a speed run, harby didn't have time to indoctrinate you, so you're stronger willed and he can't "suggest" the other options to you.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Actually it proves the exact opposite. Because you did a speed run, harby didn't have time to indoctrinate you, so you're stronger willed and he can't "suggest" the other options to you.

Not just that, but if your EMS is low you're gonna lose the war anyway so there is no point in trying too hard to indoctrinate you.

 

[Dandark]

Dude, the fans want to believe the ending didn't suck. Just let them dream, if they don't want to face the truth then they don't have too.

Just let them believe that ME3 had a decent ending.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

Wait.... people still believe the indoctrination theory. When will you people learn that the endings were poorly written.

 

[White Lightning]

Actually it proves the exact opposite. Because you did a speed run, harby didn't have time to indoctrinate you, so you're stronger willed and he can't "suggest" the other options to you.

Not just that, but if your EMS is low you're gonna lose the war anyway so there is no point in trying too hard to indoctrinate you.

Umm... What? If your enemy was already going to lose why on Earth would you let them walk right up to the one thing that can kill you?

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

Wait.... people still believe the indoctrination theory. When will you people learn that the endings were poorly written.

That's more or less what it comes down to, isn't it?

I think Occam's Razor can be applied here. What's more likely:

(1) That Bioware deliberately did the opposite of what they advertised, creating a Shyamalan-esque twist ending (because everybody loves those, and that's why Shyamalan movies always dominate the box office for months at a time) as part of some secret master plan to needlessly galvanize their fanbase into waiting several months for the "real" ending to their Biggest Game Ever, or

(2) That they just plain fucked up?

I really have to go with Door #2 here. They slapped together a shitty, last-minute hack-job of an ending, possibly because EA didn't give them a chance to do better; it blew up in their faces, and now half the fanbase is twisting itself into pretzels to give them an excuse for it (no offense intended, but that's what it seems like to me) while the other half is threatening never to buy their games again (that's the half I'm in, by the way).

I just can't believe they would do this to themselves on purpose.

 

[freaper]

Dude, the fans want to believe the ending didn't suck. Just let them dream, if they don't want to face the truth then they don't have too.

Just let them believe that ME3 had a decent ending.

In a sense it's a bit like religion...

oooh, I went there

 

[burningdragoon]

That scenario doesn't prove or disprove the theory at all. Please note "can explain" does not necessarily lead to "so it's true."

If Indoctrination TheoryTM is not true: then the ending is a case of bad writing.

If Indoctrination TheoryTM is true: then most of the sub-par scenarios are bad writing.

It's bad writing either way people.

 

[tobi the good boy]

SPOILER WARNING

Okay now I know that I've already posted a thread on the Indoctrination Theory for Mass Effect 3 but I recently finished another play through of Mass Effect 3 and I realised something...

Unlike my previous criticism, this one will show that the IDT is wrong - you will have to let go of the theory!

Here it is:

If you play through the game without importing a Shepard and then speed run through the game only doing the main missions (I did this in 9 hours 35 mins on Narrative Difficulty) you'll end up with a really low EMS

Due to this the Catalyst will only give you one choice at the end: Destroy. You have NO other options. There is a problem here.

IDT says that the sequence with the Catalyst is a 'test' by Harbinger and choosing the Destroy ending shows Shepard has not lost to Harbinger - becasue with a really high EMS you see Shepard breathing in some rubble .

If that was true, WHY is there a scenario where Harbinger only gives Shepard Destroy as an option? If we follow IDT this logically does not make sense since it suggests that, somehow, a poorly prepared Shepard (one with really low EMS) is stronger willed than a ultra prepared Shepard! That clearly makes no sense!

Of course the explanation is that IDT is just wrong and only having the Destroy as an option was punishment from Bioware for being useless.

We can therefore conclude that:

Marauder Shields was wrong XD

Wait, because the game gravitates virgin fans towards the most identified as "Canon" ending for indoctrination theory... it is more invalid?

I'd figure that would stand as more evidence. Because the new players know nothing about the background of the story they'd give them less options and make the plot easier for them to understand i.e. Give them the ending that is more viable for continuation and easier to comprehend.

I'm not going to say I believe in indoctrination theory, but I do get the feeling there was some planned dlc beyond the end point. I reserve all judgement of the ending until all DLC has been released.

 

[Woodsey]

Dude, the fans want to believe the ending didn't suck. Just let them dream, if they don't want to face the truth then they don't have too.

Just let them believe that ME3 had a decent ending.

Wait.... people still believe the indoctrination theory. When will you people learn that the endings were poorly written.

It's a far greater leap to assume that otherwise competent writers managed to write 10 minutes of almost pure contradiction (not just stuff that contradicts the series, but stuff within those 10 minutes that blatantly contradicts one another) than it is to say the IT was their intention.

Of course, what you both are then arguing is that they wrote an ending which is thematically cohesive (important figures in the galaxy being indoctrinated), has plenty of foreshadowing, and contains visual clues (elements of Shepard's dreams popping up in the scene only after he was knocked out; the fact that he shot Anderson in the abdomen, only a few minutes later Shepard's the one whose been shot in the same place), purely by blind-luck. And that may be the case, but I doubt it.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Dude, the fans want to believe the ending didn't suck. Just let them dream, if they don't want to face the truth then they don't have too.

Just let them believe that ME3 had a decent ending.

In a sense it's a bit like religion...

oooh, I went there

^^ Made my day.

 

[Dandark]

Dude, the fans want to believe the ending didn't suck. Just let them dream, if they don't want to face the truth then they don't have too.

Just let them believe that ME3 had a decent ending.

Wait.... people still believe the indoctrination theory. When will you people learn that the endings were poorly written.

It's a far greater leap to assume that otherwise competent writers managed to write 10 minutes of almost pure contradiction (not just stuff that contradicts the series, but stuff within those 10 minutes that blatantly contradicts one another) than it is to say the IT was their intention.

If I remember rightly, the ending wasn't even seen by the writing team. It was just done by two guy's near the end of development. So yes it is completely believable.

I just find the indoctrination theory so funny ever since some guy made a thread saying "I haven't finished ME3 yet but how bad is the ending? Like is it then he woke up and it was all a dream bad?".
People then told him that was what the fans were hoping they would retcon in.

 

[Woodsey]

Dude, the fans want to believe the ending didn't suck. Just let them dream, if they don't want to face the truth then they don't have too.

Just let them believe that ME3 had a decent ending.

Wait.... people still believe the indoctrination theory. When will you people learn that the endings were poorly written.

It's a far greater leap to assume that otherwise competent writers managed to write 10 minutes of almost pure contradiction (not just stuff that contradicts the series, but stuff within those 10 minutes that blatantly contradicts one another) than it is to say the IT was their intention.

If I remember rightly, the ending wasn't even seen by the writing team. It was just done by two guy's near the end of development. So yes it is completely believable.

As far as I'm aware that's a rumour, and even if it were true, the two people who wrote it were the lead writer and the creative director; your writing doesn't get very cohesive no matter how good you are if the two guys who decide on what goes in are idiots, which clearly they weren't given the relative quality of the rest of the series.

And since you replied before I edited the post:

Of course, what you both are then arguing is that they wrote an ending which is thematically cohesive (important figures in the galaxy being indoctrinated), has plenty of foreshadowing, and contains visual clues (elements of Shepard's dreams popping up in the scene only after he was knocked out; the fact that he shot Anderson in the abdomen, only a few minutes later Shepard's the one whose been shot in the same place; design used from places Shepard has visited; the fact that he wakes up on Earth in one ending), purely by blind-luck. And that may be the case, and they may be exceptionally bad but exceptionally lucky writers, but I doubt it.

 

[White-Death]

If you have low EMS, the Crucible will wipe out Synthetic AND organic life.
So Harbinger, in one way, won by exterminating all of the Galaxy's life, although the Reapers being caught in the crossfire.Also, if you speed-run, the galaxy will be poorly prepared, but Harby couldn't set up his Indoctrination of Shepard.
And how dare you slag Marauder Shields!

 

[Moth_Monk]

Dude, the fans want to believe the ending didn't suck. Just let them dream, if they don't want to face the truth then they don't have too.

Just let them believe that ME3 had a decent ending.

Wait.... people still believe the indoctrination theory. When will you people learn that the endings were poorly written.

It's a far greater leap to assume that otherwise competent writers managed to write 10 minutes of almost pure contradiction (not just stuff that contradicts the series, but stuff within those 10 minutes that blatantly contradicts one another) than it is to say the IT was their intention.

Of course, what you both are then arguing is that they wrote an ending which is thematically cohesive (important figures in the galaxy being indoctrinated), has plenty of foreshadowing, and contains visual clues (elements of Shepard's dreams popping up in the scene only after he was knocked out; the fact that he shot Anderson in the abdomen, only a few minutes later Shepard's the one whose been shot in the same place), purely by blind-luck. And that may be the case, but I doubt it.

Actually, Shepard is wounded because Marauder Shields shot him. That's what I thought. As for the things from the dreams well...saying that because there a few bushes similar to the ones Shepard dreams about around, so it must be an illusion, is a bit like me saying that because I had a dream with cars in and then when I woke up I saw some similar cars, later on in the day; therefore I must still be asleep!?

It's more likely that Shepard dreamed about the bushes because they were bushes from Earth, which of course are on Earth at teh end.

 

[J Tyran]

The way people are clinging onto the indoctrination theory is beginning to make me think the people posting and calling out "biodrone" might have a point. It seems more and more that it stems from a disbelief that Bioware made a bad ending than any real hypothesising, and I doubt they can recognise that they are motivated by that.

I played the series for hundreds of hours myself, it is one of my favourite sci-fi series next to things like Halo and Half life. I have nearly a dozen different Shepard saves built up over 5 years, I definitely do not like the series any less than any other fan.

But after Dragon Age II and the end of Mass Effect 3 I can readily believe that Bioware dropped the ball.

 

[ColaWarVeteran]

I wonder how the ending of ME3 is going to affect the sale of the figurines that are coming out? Will people still be willing to drop money on them even with the promise of DLC with purchase (though I think it's just stuff for multiplayer)?