The Main Reason why Indoctrination Theory is Wrong :)
- Thread starter Moth_Monk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now I have no idea if the indoctrination theory is right or not but I am buying into it more and more. It's certainly possible that Bioware (or allegedly 2 writers at Bioware) fucked up the 10 most important minutes of the game trying to throw a twist type ending at us and ended up with a mess of incoherence.
However the tiny things start to add up. First there's plotholes that would be explained (or rather, eliminated since they didn't really happen) like EDI possibly surviving the destruction ending which is supposed to kill all synthetics and how the Normandy got into a mass relay so damn fast with crew members that were on the planet.
Then there's the hints like the "catalyst" kid try to subtly lean Shepherd towards the Synthesis or Control endings which would spare the Reapers or the ending showing Shepherd taking the breath ONLY in the high war-asset destruction ending.
Even though I tend to lean toward the theory it still ends with Shepherd taking a breath as Harbringer continues to wreck earth's shit with everything still unresolved. For me the ideal scenario would be if Bioware ran with the indoctrination theory (even if it wasn't their intention) and make it so that you can continue on to the Crucible which is used like a real weapon like the codex stated before that I remember... something about firing projectiles like a mass relay to hit targets that would be across the galaxy. With your war asset count determining how happy the ending is. Getting a clear victory over the reapers at earth with all the fleets and races cheering in an epic scene or a clear defeat if your assets aren't up to snuff and the Reapers destroy the Crucible, Shepherd, the victory fleet, and you get a bad ending where the cycle continues.
However the tiny things start to add up. First there's plotholes that would be explained (or rather, eliminated since they didn't really happen) like EDI possibly surviving the destruction ending which is supposed to kill all synthetics and how the Normandy got into a mass relay so damn fast with crew members that were on the planet.
Then there's the hints like the "catalyst" kid try to subtly lean Shepherd towards the Synthesis or Control endings which would spare the Reapers or the ending showing Shepherd taking the breath ONLY in the high war-asset destruction ending.
Even though I tend to lean toward the theory it still ends with Shepherd taking a breath as Harbringer continues to wreck earth's shit with everything still unresolved. For me the ideal scenario would be if Bioware ran with the indoctrination theory (even if it wasn't their intention) and make it so that you can continue on to the Crucible which is used like a real weapon like the codex stated before that I remember... something about firing projectiles like a mass relay to hit targets that would be across the galaxy. With your war asset count determining how happy the ending is. Getting a clear victory over the reapers at earth with all the fleets and races cheering in an epic scene or a clear defeat if your assets aren't up to snuff and the Reapers destroy the Crucible, Shepherd, the victory fleet, and you get a bad ending where the cycle continues.
Since Shepard doesn't wake up I'm guessing that means that he dies in his damaged state, and the only option (the option that destroys earth as well) is the only one he can take as his dying mind get's warped by the indoctrination. That's what I think anyway. SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE!
My theory is that Shepard died on Eden Prime activating the Prothean beacon, and every event since then has been an elaborate part of a highly intricate death dream.
Luckily, my theory is supported by just about everything in the game:
1. The story has been convoluted from the second you hear about the hokey dokey ancient mystical alien race (for those keeping score, that's like a few minutes into the first game).
2. A meaningless exposition character pops in to explain the entire thing before Shepard's final breath.
3. It's convenient. Much like the Indoctrination theory, it can explain anything. Game writers can't be held accountable for how shoddy their work was when it never really happened. Why should we limit it to Mass Effect? Uwe Boll movies have all been reaper indoctrination. Isn't he just sooooo clever?
Luckily, my theory is supported by just about everything in the game:
1. The story has been convoluted from the second you hear about the hokey dokey ancient mystical alien race (for those keeping score, that's like a few minutes into the first game).
2. A meaningless exposition character pops in to explain the entire thing before Shepard's final breath.
3. It's convenient. Much like the Indoctrination theory, it can explain anything. Game writers can't be held accountable for how shoddy their work was when it never really happened. Why should we limit it to Mass Effect? Uwe Boll movies have all been reaper indoctrination. Isn't he just sooooo clever?
i dont think the ending is quite the atrocity people make it out to be. okay, yes, the decisions you made up until then didnt have any effect on the ending, and the star child was kind of crap, but apart from that, it was pretty good. i mean, what were people expecting? to see shepard and their LI skipping off into the sunset, where they can live happily ever after? i understand why people are angry, but seriously. the series is over. people need to get over it and move on. demeaning other peoples opinions and saying that fans are 'grasping at straws' when the argument they put foward does actually make a lot of sense isnt going to help anybody. the power gamers didnt get their ultimate ending, boohoo, lets complain about shitty writing. the ending wasnt that bad, not really. the main reason people are upset i think is because their actions in previous games had no effect on the ending.
captcha: two cents worth.
guess that settles how much my opinion is worth then...
captcha: two cents worth.
guess that settles how much my opinion is worth then...
okay, you know what? From my experience as a Dungeon master of many games, if I were in bioware's shoes, I would take the Indoctrination Theory and fucking RUN WITH IT. If your players can present you a more interesting conclusion or interpretation to the clues you left them, fucking GO FOR IT. Art can be a collaborative process, maybe bioware was just feeling the strain and couldn't get what they wanted to do straight, that's understandable, it's happened to me plenty of times, but when a player gives you an idea that's BETTER than what you had, take it and play it off like it was the plan all along, Xanatos speed chess THAT *****. I've rewritten countless adventures on the fly because a player came up with something better than I did, and you know what? Everyone enjoyed the game more as a result.
So be a good DM bioware, Adapt the material, make it better.
So be a good DM bioware, Adapt the material, make it better.
I think Occam's Razor can sorta-kinda be applied to the potential alternate ending, as well: the best ending would be the simplest one. This guy probably has the right idea (skip to the 30:00 mark):370999 said:
Basically, he proposes just eliminating the entire Star Child scene, because really, that's where most of the problems came from. I think I'd rather see that than something IT-related.
I don't get all the bickering.
It's insanely obvious that the Bioware team INTENDED for the Indoctrination Theory to be very relevant to the plot/ending. It's also insanely obvious that they scrapped it at some point.
The only debate should be about how greedy they are.
Captcha: quotations. Seems relevant somehow.
It's insanely obvious that the Bioware team INTENDED for the Indoctrination Theory to be very relevant to the plot/ending. It's also insanely obvious that they scrapped it at some point.
The only debate should be about how greedy they are.
Captcha: quotations. Seems relevant somehow.
Meh, the Indoctrination Theory to me is just fans who looked way too hard into it to try and justify the shitty ending. I won't lie, I don't exactly blame them, but it does get annoying when people say "All the Bioware fans are stupid! It's obviously the Indoctrination Theory!". It's theory, not fact. Understand the difference people!
Either way, I wouldn't be sad at all if it turned out to be true. Or if Bioware just went with it (Which I expect them to do) and said it was their plan all along.
Either way, I wouldn't be sad at all if it turned out to be true. Or if Bioware just went with it (Which I expect them to do) and said it was their plan all along.
Besides the fact that the whole game seems rushed in terms of story, here's why I think the IT is completely false.. Because Bioware didn't come out and explain it. If this is really the way they meant to end the series then they would have stood behind it and helped players get to the conclusion. If IT is true and this is how they wrote it. then they really are shitty writers IMO for not ramping up the hints closer to the end.
There is a third option, though: That they planned to include it before scrapping it last-minute. That's the only way to explain the massive number of little things hinting towards it in-game, and it wouldn't be the first time developers have done it.Digitaldreamer7 said:
At least, I think it's been ton plenty of times before, but I'm having trouble thinking of examples. Ah well. A good movie example is I Am Legend, where the entire movie hints that Will Smith is kind of a dick for stealing that girl, but the real (good) ending got scrapped and replaced with a "happier" one because of test audience bullshit.
Just replace test audience with "EA being greedy and wanting to get people to buy true-ending DLC" and you've got a damn-convincing hypothesis, in my opinion.
But how do we actually know that the destroy option really does destroy all synthetics? The game doesn't show that happening. The only evidence is that the Catalyst says so - but how do we know the Catalyst is telling the truth?Awexsome said:
The Catalyst wants you to pick "Synthesis", because that's the only outcome where the reapers survive in any meaningful way - both "Destroy" and "Control" wind up obliterating the reaper's minds, either by destroying them outright or overwriting them with Shepard's. This is why the Catalyst claims that Destroy will also kill EDI and the Geth, and shows you the Illusive Man grabbing the levers when talking about the control option.
Here's my take on it: the "conduit" we see in London isn't actually a conduit at all, and doesn't really transport you to the Citadel - my evidence being that mass relay transit tunnels are blue and purple, not bright white like the beam coming from the "conduit". In fact, the "conduit" in London is actually a Catalyst interface device.
In the final charge on the conduit, Shepard is critically injured by the reaper beam, and the physical trauma has put him into a shock-like state, but he still managed to get close enough to the "conduit" to mentally interface with the Catalyst.
Shepard's brain, already overwhelmed by the damage he's taken, nevertheless tries to make sense of what's happening. Everything that happens on a citadel is a hallucination - Shepard is actually still unconscious and dying in London, but his mind is nevertheless communicating with the Catalyst.
The final action Shepard takes is actually a visual metaphor concocted by Shepard's dying brain - thus for example "Control" shows Shepard grabbing a set of control levers even though that's a completely illogical means of controlling a fleet of sentient starships - but the choice is nevertheless very real.
What I say really happens is:
Destroy - Shepard mentally directs the Catalyst and Crucible to issue "self-destruct" commands to the entire reaper fleet.
Control - Shepard assumes direct control over the entire reaper fleet, overwriting their own code with his consciousness.
Synthesis - Shepard transmits his consciousness around the entire reaper fleet, bearing code updates that make them realize that their entire belief system is wrong.
Thus, "Destroy" is the only ending that Shepard can survive, because it's the only one where his consciousness doesn't leave his body.
(More background information on my interpretation of events can be found in this post.)
I know I am quite late to this IT topic but this is my view on it. We don't know either way and we won't until Bioware gives an official statement or DLC. There is pretty high piles of evidence to credit and discredit it and to be honest it smacks a bit of the Dream Theory of FF VIII(which is quite flawed). Some of the stuff could just be plot holes and is ambiguous so we need an official word on it.
But in the end run where Shep is running towards the... beam-of-light-thing-that-teleports-you-to-the-Crucible,[footnote]the part where Shep gets zapped by [Harbringer]Lazer[/footnote] there are no trees. When Shep stands up from being blasted, there are now trees. And those previously invisible[footnote]'cuz you couldn't see them[/footnote] and indestructable[footnote]'cuz they weren't destroyed by [Harbinger]Laser spam[/footnote] trees look exactly the same as the ones in your PTSD/Indoctrination dreams.Moth_Monk said:
EDIT: Did not realize this was already four pages. If this has already been addressed, my bad!