The Main Reason why Indoctrination Theory is Wrong :)

[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.

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.

So now you're saying that there is no way out of the Indoctrination for Shepard?

 

[thememan]

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.

Indoctrination Theory, approached logically, is not an attempt to find the true ending.

It is a thought-exercise that describes one (the most likely, in this case) way of working everything together in such a way that it does make sense.

Only the most indoctrinated Biodrone would believe that Indoctrination Theory is what Bioware intended.

Sane people see it as an interesting way that the pile of shit we were served can make sense.

It is a testament to the ingenuity of people that this way exists. Not Bioware. Bioware just happened to fuck up in a way that can be contrived to make sense.

Eh, I'm not a huge fan of Bioware in the least but I can still see it being an intentional plot device that was extremely poorly done. Of course, they could have easily stumbled into it. I can't really say one way or the other on the intentions of the writers, but it does seem extremely unlikely that they would be able to have so many damn elements coincide into one logical (though vague) outcome.

That said, I have very little doubt that this is where they are going with it from here on out. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Either they planned it from the start, made it overly vague to provide many points of addition for DLC content; or they are presented with a good "Out" of sorts and are going to run with it. Either way, they'll claim it was the plan from the start and there will be no way of really arguing it as the community won't know which is true.

That said, I'm still rather amazed at those fans that did develop the Theory itself, particularly the more in depth ones that look at the entire series. It's an incredible feat in and of itself that a few people were able to present an extremely logical case utilizing evidence that goes all the way back to the beginning.

 

[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.

So now you're saying that there is no way out of the Indoctrination for Shepard?

If you have low EMS then yes, that would make sense. You played the game wrong so you lose. Simple. It is possible that it could mean the opposite, because Shepard has taken less time Harbinger hasn't been able to indoctrinate him, but the problem with this is that in ME1 and 2 he has encountered loads of reaper artefacts and even been inside one! Harbinger has had plenty of time to indoctrinate Shepard, but if you played well you still have a chance.

 

[burningdragoon]

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).

The picture isn't clear where the door is exactly, yeah. I took it to show that it existed more than anything. When you come out of the dark hallway and see the bridge, if you turn left or right you can see a path/ledge covered in corpses with other doors. It doesn't disprove the theory and there are still problems with the sequence if taken literally, but it's when people act like it would have been impossible for Anderson to get ahead of Shepard that they start looking crazy and hurt their arguments.

I think there's enough "evidence" to support the theory, but some of the points people make are especially straw-grasp and it's fun to point those out, even if only to myself.

 

[Moth_Monk]

That said, I have very little doubt that this is where they are going with it from here on out. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Either they planned it from the start, made it overly vague to provide many points of addition for DLC content; or they are presented with a good "Out" of sorts and are going to run with it. Either way, they'll claim it was the plan from the start and there will be no way of really arguing it as the community won't know which is true.

I predict the 'retcon' DLC will simply be something like this:

Players are given an investigate option when talking to the Catalyst
There's a scene of Joker attacking Harbinger in the Normandy and then picking the squad up (and maybe being pursued by Harbinger to the Sol Relay)
After the ending plays out we get to see some videos of what differences our ME3 choices made.

 

[RJ 17]

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

That's why it's called a "theory". It has a lot of evidence that fits but it cannot be proven.

Other things that detract from the Indoctrination Theory.

1: If it's correct, then that means that the series ends before the war with the Reapers is over. There IS no conclusion. If the ending sequence goes on in Shepard's head then they're all still fucked: Shepard never REALLY got to the Citadel, never REALLY opened it up, and they never REALLY plugged in the Crucible. So Shepard wakes back up, having successfully staved off Indoctrination...and the Reapers go on reaping and the cycle ends in failure like all those before it.

2: If two of the choices equate to "Shepard gets indoctrinated and loses", why is the Star Gazer scene there no matter which ending you take? If you fail and become indoctrinated, that means the Reapers win. Shouldn't Star Gazer be...you know...non-existent?

3: It has been argued that the movies after you make your choice with the Reapers flying away/exploding and the beam shooting through the galaxy are all just hallucinations to placate Shepard. That works for the two "Shepard gets Indoctrinated" choices, but what about "Shepard breaks free"? First of all, if Shepard is free of Indoctrination, how would there be a vision in the first place? And for that matter, if Shepard breaks free, why bother showing a vision of success? What, is Harbinger like "Doooooh ok, Shepard, you broke free. Here's a nice little dream to keep you happy until you wake back up and find that we're still absolutely destroying the united galactic fleet you managed to scrape together."

But there's also way too many holes in the "literal interpretation" to consider it a fool-proof explanation either. Apparently the Bioware designers intentionally made it this way so there will be - quote - "Lots of Speculation for Everyone!!"

 

[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).

The picture isn't clear where the door is exactly, yeah. I took it to show that it existed more than anything. When you come out of the dark hallway and see the bridge, if you turn left or right you can see a path/ledge covered in corpses with other doors. It doesn't disprove the theory and there are still problems with the sequence if taken literally, but it's when people act like it would have been impossible for Anderson to get ahead of Shepard that they start looking crazy and hurt their arguments.

I think there's enough "evidence" to support the theory, but some of the points people make are especially straw-grasp and it's fun to point those out, even if only to myself.

Fair enough, although to me that door looks inactive. After that point though, it seems clear to me that there's only one path, so you not seeing Anderson until you get to the final room doesn't really make sense. Communication between the two also cuts when Anderson says he thinks he can see a control panel (which you can just about glimpse as you approach when you've just gone past that door) and doesn't resume until they're face to face.

 

[burningdragoon]

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).

The picture isn't clear where the door is exactly, yeah. I took it to show that it existed more than anything. When you come out of the dark hallway and see the bridge, if you turn left or right you can see a path/ledge covered in corpses with other doors. It doesn't disprove the theory and there are still problems with the sequence if taken literally, but it's when people act like it would have been impossible for Anderson to get ahead of Shepard that they start looking crazy and hurt their arguments.

I think there's enough "evidence" to support the theory, but some of the points people make are especially straw-grasp and it's fun to point those out, even if only to myself.

Fair enough, although to me that door looks inactive. After that point though, it seems clear to me that there's only one path, so you not seeing Anderson until you get to the final room doesn't really make sense. Communication between the two also cuts when Anderson says he thinks he can see a control panel (which you can just about glimpse as you approach when you've just gone past that door) and doesn't resume until they're face to face.

I can accept not being able to see Anderson at all once you are out of the dark hallway as noteworthy enough of a plot hole, sure.

 

[370999]

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.

That's my take on it. Very few companies are going to sell us an incomplete game and then makes us wait for the ending.

That said, if they do change the ending, I imagine the whole indoctrination angle offers a very attractive rout to rewrite it.

 

[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).

The picture isn't clear where the door is exactly, yeah. I took it to show that it existed more than anything. When you come out of the dark hallway and see the bridge, if you turn left or right you can see a path/ledge covered in corpses with other doors. It doesn't disprove the theory and there are still problems with the sequence if taken literally, but it's when people act like it would have been impossible for Anderson to get ahead of Shepard that they start looking crazy and hurt their arguments.

I think there's enough "evidence" to support the theory, but some of the points people make are especially straw-grasp and it's fun to point those out, even if only to myself.

Fair enough, although to me that door looks inactive. After that point though, it seems clear to me that there's only one path, so you not seeing Anderson until you get to the final room doesn't really make sense. Communication between the two also cuts when Anderson says he thinks he can see a control panel (which you can just about glimpse as you approach when you've just gone past that door) and doesn't resume until they're face to face.

I can accept not being able to see Anderson at all once you are out of the dark hallway as noteworthy enough of a plot hole, sure.

The way I see it, the IT has evidence of varying degrees of credibility (so while we're talking about this point, there are clearer and less clear signs of it being true), whilst no individual piece of evidence is truly enough, taking them in conjunction makes it rather overwhelmingly difficult to ignore. Meanwhile, taking the ending at face value means nothing makes any fucking sense whatsoever.

There seems to be a constant and intense desire with a lot of gamers that nothing can mean anything if its not diluted to the point where they can understand it instantly; if their first interpretation of what happens makes no sense then the writers must just be shit, evidence be damned.

It might appear that the simplest answer is "they fucked up what's there", but all things considered, that's a much, much larger leap to make.

 

[Moth_Monk]

That said, if they do change the ending, I imagine the whole indoctrination angle offers a very attractive rout to rewrite it.

My problem with that is: Why would you need a route to rewrite the ending? If you're going to retcon it just retcon it. That's what Valve did with Portal.

 

[somonels]

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

Yup, I'd hate the indoctrination being right. I'd much rather have "the developers previously known as Bioware" completely **** up the ending of a trilogy, than being a potential gunpoint DLC merchant or reveal the fourth installment of a trilogy.

Also, you get only one option because Herpinger does not care, the whole deal isn't real anyway, might as well serve Sheptard a very easy and believable path to follow. Who the hell tests someone who's already living in a world you have constructed. Give him victory, a sandy beach and a bikini-babe harem, he's out of your hair wiring for good anyway.

 

[Somebloke]

If you want to sell post-ending DLC (or even a full sequel), with playable and unindoctrinated Shepard in it, you will have to make sure that every Shepard can get that ending, including those with a low military strength value. If you have more, you will still have your stronger fleet in the continuation and if you're topping out, you get the cliffhanger moment as an extra bonus.

That's the out-of-game explanation and what it probably boils down to.

I could imagine in-game ones as well, that are in line with the indoctrination theory; First of all, e.g. it is Shepard's own mind that sets up the hallucinations and the actors advocate aspects of his/her own thinking and feelings - Harbinger only gives it a nudge, here and there, to encourage certain conclusions.

Let's see whether we know more about the future of the franchise after Pax East...

 

[Moth_Monk]

It might appear that the simplest answer is "they fucked up what's there", but all things considered, that's a much, much larger leap to make.

Unless the writer(s) (possibly just Casey on his own!) were pressed to meet the release date. I can see that as being reason enough as to why the ending seems poorly done.

 

[370999]

That said, if they do change the ending, I imagine the whole indoctrination angle offers a very attractive rout to rewrite it.

My problem with that is: Why would you need a route to rewrite the ending? If you're going to retcon it just retcon it. That's what Valve did with Portal.

Because from what I've heard, I still think they like the aspect of the ending so having tee option to extend your gameplay after the whole decision with the star child could fit in more organically then completely rewriting it.

For what it's worth, I hope they don't do that and just rewrite it but then I really dislike the ending.

 

[suitepee7]

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.

and there's the thread done. seriously, i'm surprised you didn't see the gaping hole in your plan when you said 'speed run'. so if that is the main reason IDT is wrong, i look forward to its reveal xD

 

[suitepee7]

stupid double post...

 

[Woodsey]

It might appear that the simplest answer is "they fucked up what's there", but all things considered, that's a much, much larger leap to make.

Unless the writer(s) (possibly just Casey on his own!) were pressed to meet the release date. I can see that as being reason enough as to why the ending seems poorly done.

Have they said anything to that effect or are you just making an assumption? Because as I've said, you've got to be one lucky-arse fucker to be pressed for time and end up writing an ending which makes no sense when taken literally, but does work thematically and narratively if people apply another interpretation that you didn't think of at all when writing it.

So yeah, still making bigger leaps than accepting the IT was intended.

 

[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.

and there's the thread done. seriously, i'm surprised you didn't see the gaping hole in your plan when you said 'speed run'. so if that is the main reason IDT is wrong, i look forward to its reveal xD

Yes but, as I've already posted, why would Harbinger waste time making Shepard hallucinate anything instead of just killing him?

 

[Moth_Monk]

It might appear that the simplest answer is "they fucked up what's there", but all things considered, that's a much, much larger leap to make.

Unless the writer(s) (possibly just Casey on his own!) were pressed to meet the release date. I can see that as being reason enough as to why the ending seems poorly done.

Have they said anything to that effect or are you just making an assumption? Because as I've said, you've got to be one lucky-arse fucker to be pressed for time and end up writing an ending which makes no sense when taken literally, but does work thematically and narratively if people apply another interpretation that you didn't think of at all when writing it.

So yeah, still making bigger leaps than accepting the IT was intended.

No it's not an assumption.

http://www.gamesthirst.com/2012/03/25/mass-effect-3-writer-accuse-casey-hudson-of-going-it-alone-bioware-stays-silent/