The Main Reason why Indoctrination Theory is Wrong :)

[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/

 

[370999]

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.

I don't know. If you had an indoctrinated sequence planned but scrapped it, you still have those junk elements floating around plus a rather surprisingly innovative fanbase looking for ways for your ending to make sense.

I think though we have two different interpretations or working "thematically and narratively" in that, if your ending stops, as the IT says it does, then it doesn't work narratively IMHO as we don't actually finish the narrative. If there was a scene of Shepherd waking up and breaking free from his indoctrination, then sure. But Bioware has never really been super subtle about this stuff before.

 

[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

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

you could argue that regardless of the ending. why didn't harbinger just kill shepard? harbinger may have been planning an indoctrination in case shepard became a force to be reckoned with, which can be shown from the other options only becoming available once you have enough war assets

 

[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?

you could argue that regardless of the ending. why didn't harbinger just kill shepard? harbinger may have been planning an indoctrination in case shepard became a force to be reckoned with, which can be shown from the other options only becoming available once you have enough war assets

Indeed you could and this takes us back to that, even if it was an Indoctrination, it makes no sense since we don't see what happens after Shepard 'wakes up.'

EDIT: In fact, IDT does not suggest, as far as I know, what Harbinger wanted to gain out of indoctrinating Shepard.

 

[Woodsey]

snip

Well, there is a scene where he wakes up back on London if you rack up your EMS high enough. And what I mean is that it works narratively in terms of it being a sequence, I don't agree that its a suitable ending. (I.e. We agree, at least in part.) There is a build-up to it, there is evidence for it, and there's a precedent for it with TIM and Saren. But no, from a narrative stand-point when it comes to being an actual ending, I don't think it works in that sense either, but that's not what I was talking about in that instance.

"If you had an indoctrinated sequence planned but scrapped it, you still have those junk elements floating around"

There's plenty in the final 20 minutes or so itself to indicate it's in Shepard's head, not just earlier moments of foreshadowing in the series.

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/

I know Hudson and Walters supposedly wrote it alone, I meant being pressed for time and just writing out something that made no sense.

And again, as I have said, it is a greater leap to assume it fits by pure luck then it is to think the ending is intentionally the way it was.

Also of interest (and it could mean nothing): Casey is really smart and really analytical. And the problem is that when he?s not checked, he will assume that other people are like him, and will really appreciate an almost completely unemotional intellectual ending.

 

[370999]

snip

Well, there is a scene where he wakes up back on London if you rack up your EMS high enough. And what I mean is that it works narratively in terms of it being a sequence, I don't agree that its a suitable ending. (I.e. We agree, at least in part.)

"If you had an indoctrinated sequence planned but scrapped it, you still have those junk elements floating around"

There's plenty in the final 20 minutes or so itself to indicate it's in Shepard's head, not just earlier moments of foreshadowing in the series.

Is the breath scene just in the destroy ending or is it all of them if you have a high enough EMS (over 4k)? I thought it was in all of them, though I could be wrong.

I don't know, perhaps this is just this me, but I find that a lot of the indoctrination stuff depends on you know, accepting the premise of indoctrination to make it all fit with indoctrination.

 

[Substitute Troll]

No. There are too many plot holes covered by the Indoctrination Theory to dissmiss it just because of this.

You have a point, sir. I'll give you that. But it's not enough to sink this ship.

And honestly, Bioware should just adopt the Indoctrination theory incase they didn't intend it. Because it's a damn good ending in that case.

Bottom line, the Indoctrination Theory makes too much sense to ignore. It's not wishful thinking, we're not retarded. It's reasonable thinking.

EDIT: And do you know what the best part is? If we assume the IT is right, then those who don't believe it have been indoctrinated themselves The codex entry on indoctrination lists one of the symptoms as "viewing the reapers with superstitious awe." The God Child is a perfect example of this.

 

[subtlefuge]

you could argue that regardless of the ending. why didn't harbinger just kill shepard? harbinger may have been planning an indoctrination in case shepard became a force to be reckoned with, which can be shown from the other options only becoming available once you have enough war assets

That's one of the biggest holes of all. The """""""""""theory""""""""""" requires that everything after him being hit with Harbinger's beam is entirely in his head. Why would there be multiple options based on effective military strength if you're just being controlled anyway?

I know, I know. You've been abused. You want to justify it, make it your fault. It's not your fault, just come to terms with it and the healing can finally begin.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

But if the Indoctrination Theory is correct, there really was no ending. IT'S ALL A DREEEEEEEEEAM!

 

[Something Amyss]

And again, as I have said, it is a greater leap to assume it fits by pure luck then it is to think the ending is intentionally the way it was.

Of course, that's a false dichotomy. The interpretation of the indoctrination theory has been forced; it is by design, not random chance.

 

[Palmerama]

The fact that fans had to come up with the indictrinatio theory in the first place shows you just how badly written and executed the ending is! Whilst there are clues as to the theory its clear that Bioware decided to bail on that idea and went with what we got!
Whilst the theory somewhat explains the 1st half of the end (though rather flimsily)! Once you have made your choice the theory falls flat as it can't come up with the rest of the crap that is the ending!
What I find ironic is the way in which the indoctrination theory video that everyone links tries to convince you that its true! With all the voice overs from Saern and then using text over the screen. That person not noticing the similarities?

 

[Woodsey]

snip

Well, there is a scene where he wakes up back on London if you rack up your EMS high enough. And what I mean is that it works narratively in terms of it being a sequence, I don't agree that its a suitable ending. (I.e. We agree, at least in part.)

"If you had an indoctrinated sequence planned but scrapped it, you still have those junk elements floating around"

There's plenty in the final 20 minutes or so itself to indicate it's in Shepard's head, not just earlier moments of foreshadowing in the series.

Is the breath scene just in the destroy ending or is it all of them if you have a high enough EMS (over 4k)? I thought it was in all of them, though I could be wrong.

I don't know, perhaps this is just this me, but I find that a lot of the indoctrination stuff depends on you know, accepting the premise of indoctrination to make it all fit with indoctrination.

Its only in the destruction ending according to this:

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings

So again, that fits with Destroy being Shepard's willpower succeeding.

And that doesn't really make sense: people believe the IT because there is overwhelming evidence for the IT. It doesn't exactly bend over backwards to make the theory work, it just highlights what's there.

Sure, it might have started with someone going, "hey, I wonder if he was indoctrinated", but that's irrelevant now that we can lay out all the evidence for it.

 

[370999]

snip

Well, there is a scene where he wakes up back on London if you rack up your EMS high enough. And what I mean is that it works narratively in terms of it being a sequence, I don't agree that its a suitable ending. (I.e. We agree, at least in part.)

"If you had an indoctrinated sequence planned but scrapped it, you still have those junk elements floating around"

There's plenty in the final 20 minutes or so itself to indicate it's in Shepard's head, not just earlier moments of foreshadowing in the series.

Is the breath scene just in the destroy ending or is it all of them if you have a high enough EMS (over 4k)? I thought it was in all of them, though I could be wrong.

I don't know, perhaps this is just this me, but I find that a lot of the indoctrination stuff depends on you know, accepting the premise of indoctrination to make it all fit with indoctrination.

Its only in the destruction ending according to this:

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings

So again, that fits with Destroy being Shepard's willpower succeeding.

And that doesn't really make sense: people believe the IT because there is overwhelming evidence for the IT. It doesn't exactly bend over backwards to make the theory work, it just highlights what's there.

Sure, it might have started with someone going, "hey, I wonder if he was indoctrinated", but that's irrelevant now that we can lay out all the evidence for it.

Oh, didn't realize that. Very interesting. Weird that they didn't actually extend it beyond his breath.

Hmm I might need to consider this a bit more.

Thanks

 

[subtlefuge]

Its only in the destruction ending according to this:

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings

So again, that fits with Destroy being Shepard's willpower succeeding.

And that doesn't really make sense: people believe the IT because there is overwhelming evidence for the IT. It doesn't exactly bend over backwards to make the theory work, it just highlights what's there.

Sure, it might have started with someone going, "hey, I wonder if he was indoctrinated", but that's irrelevant now that we can lay out all the evidence for it.

I find the idea that Shepard would theoretically overcome ""indoctrination"" by willing himself to commit genocide as slightly more harmful to the integrity of the series than the actual ending.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Okay, well let's suppose that the Bioware writers accepted the IDT and that was the next DLC. How would they resolve some of the 'holes' that some of us have pointed out with IDT?

 

[Woodsey]

Its only in the destruction ending according to this:

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings

So again, that fits with Destroy being Shepard's willpower succeeding.

And that doesn't really make sense: people believe the IT because there is overwhelming evidence for the IT. It doesn't exactly bend over backwards to make the theory work, it just highlights what's there.

Sure, it might have started with someone going, "hey, I wonder if he was indoctrinated", but that's irrelevant now that we can lay out all the evidence for it.

I find the idea that Shepard would theoretically overcome ""indoctrination"" by willing himself to commit genocide as slightly more harmful to the integrity of the series than the actual ending.

As opposed to what, taking on the other two options which are the brain-children of the Reapers themselves? Control was TIM's angle, syntheis was Saren's. Both of them were indoctrinated.

Shepard's objective is to destroy the Reapers, so his overcoming of the indoctrination attempt is represented by him following that ultimate goal - that it requires 'sacrifice' shows devotion, that the Reapers can't blackmail him into doing what they want.

The series has always had elements of sacrifice, so I don't see why you'd think that would be damaging to the series' integrity.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

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

This. The entire trilogy was poorly written. It amazes me that so many people didn't notice until the end of ME3. Even worse, some people who did notice the plot holes in ME1 and ME2 actually thought that ME3 was somehow going to magically fix everything! Fucking retards.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Its only in the destruction ending according to this:

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings

So again, that fits with Destroy being Shepard's willpower succeeding.

And that doesn't really make sense: people believe the IT because there is overwhelming evidence for the IT. It doesn't exactly bend over backwards to make the theory work, it just highlights what's there.

Sure, it might have started with someone going, "hey, I wonder if he was indoctrinated", but that's irrelevant now that we can lay out all the evidence for it.

I find the idea that Shepard would theoretically overcome ""indoctrination"" by willing himself to commit genocide as slightly more harmful to the integrity of the series than the actual ending.

As opposed to what, taking on the other two options which are the brain-children of the Reapers themselves? Control was TIM's angle, syntheis was Saren's. Both of them were indoctrinated.

Shepard's objective is to destroy the Reapers, so his overcoming of the indoctrination attempt is represented by him following that ultimate goal - that it requires 'sacrifice' shows devotion, that the Reapers can't blackmail him into doing what they want.

The series has always had elements of sacrifice, so I don't see why you'd think that would be damaging to the series' integrity.

In my opinion I don't think there is a "right" choice at the end. I always saw it as being morally grey and about compromise. Just like having to decide to cure the Genophage or chose the Geth over the Quarians.

 

[Moth_Monk]

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

This. The entire trilogy was poorly written. It amazes me that so many people didn't notice until the end of ME3. Even worse, some people who did notice the plot holes in ME1 and ME2 actually thought that ME3 was somehow going to magically fix everything! Fucking retards.

Well if it makes me any more hipster, I thought the Crucible was a Dues Ex Machina.