The Main Reason why Indoctrination Theory is Wrong :)

[martyrdrebel27]

I will not stand for anyone slandering Marauder Shields!

<youtube=467pmIX-oZo&feature=related>

i just want to thank you for introducing me to the man, NAY, the LEGEND known as Marauder Shields. simultaneously the final boss and greatest hero of the series, let us never forget his heroism.

long live Marauder Shields.

 

[Moth_Monk]

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)?

As long as there's a Marauder Shields figurine it's cool.

 

[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.

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.

Well no, the point is that they're not there before you're knocked out and they are there after. As for it being Marauder Shields who shot him (not sure if serious, for starters), I don't really think they'd devote screen time to an injury inflicted by an NPC, do you? You could argue its simply damage inflicted by Harbinger, which is fair enough, although the placement of the injury is still pretty questionable.

Shepard would also have had to defy physics to end up where he was in relation to the beam after he woke up. And the Illusive Man would need the power of invisibility. As would Anderson.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Well no, the point is that they're not there before you're knocked out and they are there after. As for it being Marauder Shields who shot him (not sure if serious, for starters), I don't really think they'd devote screen time to an injury inflicted by an NPC, do you? You could argue its simply damage inflicted by Harbinger, which is fair enough, although the placement of the injury is still pretty questionable.

Shepard would also have had to defy physics to end up where he was in relation to the beam after he woke up. And the Illusive Man would need the power of invisibility. As would Anderson.

Valid points of course but it still doesn't convincingly explain why, according to IDT Harbinger gives a rubbish Shepard only the Destroy option. On top of that, I can't see how IDT is a better ending than the current one when it suggests that Shepard's mind would eventually decay (as is the result of Reaper indoctrination) and so the Reapers would surely win anyway. In my opinion this makes the player's choices through the series even more pointless than the current ending makes them seem.

 

[Von Strimmer]

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.

Marauder shields shot Shepard in the arm, not the abdomen (as is seen in the vid). The abdomen shot was directly where Anderson took the hit. Furthermore if Shepard took a shot to the gut that early on, he/she would most likely not have made it to Anderson. The indoctrination theory fits perfectly. It does not make sense that an entire game of seamless writing and heart wrenching story telling would suddenly go so wrong at the end.

As always, long live the memory of the great marauder shields. He died, so that we may not have to witness that terrible ending.

 

[Woodsey]

Well no, the point is that they're not there before you're knocked out and they are there after. As for it being Marauder Shields who shot him (not sure if serious, for starters), I don't really think they'd devote screen time to an injury inflicted by an NPC, do you? You could argue its simply damage inflicted by Harbinger, which is fair enough, although the placement of the injury is still pretty questionable.

Shepard would also have had to defy physics to end up where he was in relation to the beam after he woke up. And the Illusive Man would need the power of invisibility. As would Anderson.

Valid points of course but it still doesn't convincingly explain why, according to IDT Harbinger gives a rubbish Shepard only the Destroy option. On top of that, I can't see how IDT is a better ending than the current one when it suggests that Shepard's mind would eventually decay (as is the result of Reaper indoctrination) and so the Reapers would surely win anyway. In my opinion this makes the player's choices through the series even more pointless than the current ending makes them seem.

I'm pretty sure their minds only decay if the indoctrination is successful; if you resist completely then you'd retain your free will and capabilities. And, to be honest:

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.

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.

Although even if you think that's complete horse shit, one inconsistency does not disprove the whole IT. If we did a FOR and a AGAINST list for the IT, the FOR list still outweighs the AGAINST.

Note that I'm not saying they're perfect writers, I'm just saying they're not mind-numbingly retarded; which you have to be saying if you insist on taking the ending at face value.

 

[thememan]

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.

Hypothically speaking, they could still drop the ball if they went with Indoctrination Theory. Thing is, most of the evidence is circumstantial, but there is a lot of it and a great deal of foreshadowing. As another person in the thread said, they either intentionally got there or got damn lucky with it.

That all said, even if Indoctrination Theory is true, it's still extremely poorly written. Just because they put in a really interesting plot element does not mean that they actually made a good ending. Mainly because they didn't actually produce an ending at all (Either way you cut it, really, it's not an ending to a story in the least; it's a climatic event with no resolution). And a whole host of other problems involved with it (For instance, even if it is true many of the visual and audio clues are so ridiculously "high level", that the average viewer would not pick them up).

Really, the Indoctrination Theory if true would still not excuse them, as it's still shit writing at best. It just makes what is there a bit more interesting, albeit a place where they are awful writers for ending there.

 

[Moth_Monk]

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.

If Harbinger was sure he was going to win, why waste time making Shepard hallucinate anything? Why not just spam him with the lasers some more?

 

[burningdragoon]

Shepard would also have had to defy physics to end up where he was in relation to the beam after he woke up. And the Illusive Man would need the power of invisibility. As would Anderson.

I'm not trying to disprove the theory or anything, but "where did Anderson and the Illusive Man come from" is not very strong evidence. For both them, just look at the first item on this Cracked article [http://www.cracked.com/article/18345_5-gaping-plot-holes-hollywood-knows-you-wont-notice/]. Okay, Cracked isn't necessarily reliable, but similar plot holes happen in movies a lot, so why would this time be special. Granted that does more apply to TIM since "where was Anderson when you were shambling to the beam?" and "how come Anderson isn't injured?" are actually more suspect than "how did he get a head of Shepard?"

And yes, "how did Anderson get ahead of Shepard" is also not very strong (assuming you forgive pre-Citadel shambling plothole). There are cleary other paths in the Citadel that he could have come from.

 

[thememan]

Well no, the point is that they're not there before you're knocked out and they are there after. As for it being Marauder Shields who shot him (not sure if serious, for starters), I don't really think they'd devote screen time to an injury inflicted by an NPC, do you? You could argue its simply damage inflicted by Harbinger, which is fair enough, although the placement of the injury is still pretty questionable.

Shepard would also have had to defy physics to end up where he was in relation to the beam after he woke up. And the Illusive Man would need the power of invisibility. As would Anderson.

Valid points of course but it still doesn't convincingly explain why, according to IDT Harbinger gives a rubbish Shepard only the Destroy option. On top of that, I can't see how IDT is a better ending than the current one when it suggests that Shepard's mind would eventually decay (as is the result of Reaper indoctrination) and so the Reapers would surely win anyway. In my opinion this makes the player's choices through the series even more pointless than the current ending makes them seem.

I would say, if the IDT holds true, that's a large mix of crappy game design and a disconnect with the plot. It's entirely possible they threw that in there without fully realizing the implication of it, for purely gameplay reasons (To give a reason as to why EMS would matter). Really, the entire last quarter of the game (And many elements throughout the entirety of it) seem rather hastily done and it's entirely possible that this is just an element that slipped through without much thought to it.

 

[silver wolf009]

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!

Well, what if we look at is as if over the course of preparing, he was gradually getting more and more disheartened? The more he poured in, the more he wanted it all over. You pour more into it, and he's more likely to submit, just to have an ending.

Does that work, or am I just sounding stupid? Probably the second one.

 

[thememan]

Shepard would also have had to defy physics to end up where he was in relation to the beam after he woke up. And the Illusive Man would need the power of invisibility. As would Anderson.

I'm not trying to disprove the theory or anything, but "where did Anderson and the Illusive Man come from" is not very strong evidence. For both them, just look at the first item on this Cracked article [http://www.cracked.com/article/18345_5-gaping-plot-holes-hollywood-knows-you-wont-notice/]. Okay, Cracked isn't necessarily reliable, but similar plot holes happen in movies a lot, so why would this time be special. Granted that does more apply to TIM since "where was Anderson when you were shambling to the beam?" and "how come Anderson isn't injured?" are actually more suspect than "how did he get a head of Shepard?"

And yes, "how did Anderson get ahead of Shepard" is also not very strong (assuming you forgive pre-Citadel shambling plothole). There are cleary other paths in the Citadel that he could have come from.

I actually don't get why people harp on that, as Anderson rather specifically states that the beam put him someplace other than Shepard. Assuming that the beam can put you anywhere in the area, it's entirely possible that Anderson was put down somewhere much closer to the room than Shepard. The other points you make, however, are a bit harder to reconcile.

 

[Moth_Monk]

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!

Well, what if we look at is as if over the course of preparing, he was gradually getting more and more disheartened? The more he poured in, the more he wanted it all over. You pour more into it, and he's more likely to submit, just to have an ending.

Does that work, or am I just sounding stupid? Probably the second one.

Lots of speculation for everyone!

^.^

 

[silver wolf009]

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!

Well, what if we look at is as if over the course of preparing, he was gradually getting more and more disheartened? The more he poured in, the more he wanted it all over. You pour more into it, and he's more likely to submit, just to have an ending.

Does that work, or am I just sounding stupid? Probably the second one.

Lots of speculation for everyone!

^^

I unno. Just sounded like it kinda worked.

 

[Woodsey]

If Harbinger was sure he was going to win, why waste time making Shepard hallucinate anything? Why not just spam him with the lasers some more?

Yeah, I'm more inclined to run with that being an inconsistency with a somewhat dodgy way of explaining it too - but like I said, that's a writing inconsistency, it doesn't disprove the whole thing.

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.

Hypothically speaking, they could still drop the ball if they went with Indoctrination Theory. Thing is, most of the evidence is circumstantial, but there is a lot of it and a great deal of foreshadowing. As another person in the thread said, they either intentionally got there or got damn lucky with it.

That all said, even if Indoctrination Theory is true, it's still extremely poorly written. Just because they put in a really interesting plot element does not mean that they actually made a good ending. Mainly because they didn't actually produce an ending at all (Either way you cut it, really, it's not an ending to a story in the least; it's a climatic event with no resolution). And a whole host of other problems involved with it (For instance, even if it is true many of the visual and audio clues are so ridiculously "high level", that the average viewer would not pick them up).

Really, the Indoctrination Theory if true would still not excuse them, as it's still shit writing at best. It just makes what is there a bit more interesting, albeit a place where they are awful writers for ending there.

Exactly. This is pretty much the angle I take: the IT was intentional and well-written and clever, but it then begs the question of where the hell the rest of the ending is.

The thing about the clues being "high level" reminds me of KotOR's twist, where they flashback and show you the hints and clues - they're vague as fuck, but since they actually show them and then go on to have the rest of the game, it works. Because this is where ME3 ends, most players are too overwhelmed to start picking it apart.

The most I picked up on was that sequence all felt very odd, and that when you're speaking to Anderson it makes no sense that he could be behind you and then in front when there's just one corridor and one point of entry, but even then it didn't really click.

 

[Pockydon]

in response to your argument that destroy is the only option present with low EMS, destroy also destroys earth and kills almost everyone (joker and the squad seem to survive, but if you fully understand the theory you will realise that this makes perfect sense).

 

[burningdragoon]

Shepard would also have had to defy physics to end up where he was in relation to the beam after he woke up. And the Illusive Man would need the power of invisibility. As would Anderson.

I'm not trying to disprove the theory or anything, but "where did Anderson and the Illusive Man come from" is not very strong evidence. For both them, just look at the first item on this Cracked article [http://www.cracked.com/article/18345_5-gaping-plot-holes-hollywood-knows-you-wont-notice/]. Okay, Cracked isn't necessarily reliable, but similar plot holes happen in movies a lot, so why would this time be special. Granted that does more apply to TIM since "where was Anderson when you were shambling to the beam?" and "how come Anderson isn't injured?" are actually more suspect than "how did he get a head of Shepard?"

And yes, "how did Anderson get ahead of Shepard" is also not very strong (assuming you forgive pre-Citadel shambling plothole). There are cleary other paths in the Citadel that he could have come from.

I actually don't get why people harp on that, as Anderson rather specifically states that the beam put him someplace other than Shepard. Assuming that the beam can put you anywhere in the area, it's entirely possible that Anderson was put down somewhere much closer to the room than Shepard. The other points you make, however, are a bit harder to reconcile.

I don't really get it either. Anderson getting ahead of Shepard is interesting, sure, but every time I see some post or video about the theory they focus on Anderson getting to the control console first even though he came up second and not the fact that he somehow survived the Harbinger attack without a scratch and was no where to be seen while Shepard was duking it out with Marauder Shields.

 

[Moth_Monk]

in response to your argument that destroy is the only option present with low EMS, destroy also destroys earth and kills almost everyone (joker and the squad seem to survive, but if you fully understand the theory you will realise that this makes perfect sense).

Yes but I'm sure the Reapers want to live to reap another day.

 

[Pockydon]

in response to your argument that destroy is the only option present with low EMS, destroy also destroys earth and kills almost everyone (joker and the squad seem to survive, but if you fully understand the theory you will realise that this makes perfect sense).

Yes but I'm sure the Reapers want to live to reap another day.

You're not quite getting it, the fact that destroy kills everything shows that there is no hope for Shepard, it's going on in his head remember, and it's just a way of symbolising that the reapers have fully indoctrinated him with no hope of him being able to resist.

 

[Woodsey]

snip

Watching the sequence again, I can't tell where that door is meant to be. And the way their conversation works, you should be able to see Anderson walking into the final room.

He also seems to describe the exact same areas that Shepard passes through without him actually going through them.

But yes, its also weird that he appears unharmed and isn't seen running to the beam (as far as I'm aware).