The Main Reason why Indoctrination Theory is Wrong :)

[newwiseman]

The theory is specifically that Shepard is undergoing slow indoctrination, and I'm willing to except it's been happening ever since the first mission on Edan Prime in the first Mass Effect.

It would make sense that the longer you play (the more you do), the longer you are exposed to the reapers, the greater their influence is over you.

If you recall there was the option to get Saren to kill himself even when he was so heavily indoctrinated.

I really bought into the theory when I got an email in game about the asari scientist I saved on Vermire killing a bunch of asari diplomats.

 

[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.

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.

Ha, well that's because you don't believe the IT! Although I agree that every other choice in the game is a case of miserable or fucking miserable (which I liked).

Didn't match The Witcher 2 for morally grey choices, but I was glad to see it heading that way.

 

[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.

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

You mean I'm hipster for saying that? Cool! Do I get bonus points for the fact that I've been saying it ever since I played ME1+2?

Seriously, they're good games with great characters and dialogue, but the plot has always objectively sucked.

 

[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.

You mean I'm hipster for saying that? Cool! Do I get bonus points for the fact that I've been saying it ever since I played ME1+2?

Seriously, they're good games with great characters and dialogue, but the plot has always objectively sucked.

Could you think of a game where the story is well written? I'm sure there must be some

 

[orangeban]

My problem with Mass Effect's ending was that I felt like I was being forced into doing nonsensical things by a character they literally pulled out of their ass.

If indoctrination theory is true, all that means is Bioware meant to force me into doing nonsensical things by a character they literally pulled out of their ass. That's not an improvement!

Besides, indoctrination seems to me like reverse deus-ex machina. Just as the Reapers are about to lose, they pull indoctrination out of their ass! (and it is out of their ass, since we know so little about it).

Plus, indoctrination is just weird. Why does it make me hallucinate small children? Why does it make three nonsensical "choices"? I thought it was just subtle manipulation, not LSD crossed with a bad D&D campaign!

 

[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.

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

You mean I'm hipster for saying that? Cool! Do I get bonus points for the fact that I've been saying it ever since I played ME1+2?

Seriously, they're good games with great characters and dialogue, but the plot has always objectively sucked.

Could you think of a game where the story is well written? I'm sure there must be some

I don't think so. Is your point that the mass effect games are relatively well written? Good compared to other games? Sure, but isn't that like saying Jack the Ripper was a good and decent man compared to other serial killers, or dog shit tastes better than cat shit, or... you get the idea. The Mass Effect plot has been a consistent failure since day one, with plot holes and inconsistencies and asspulls galore.

Mass Effect, despite its flaws, has shown that gamers can and will spend money on AAA games that focus on the story because they like the story. This proves that there is no reason why videogames can't be well written, and hence no reason why the writing can't be judged accordingly.

 

[Pockydon]

My problem with Mass Effect's ending was that I felt like I was being forced into doing nonsensical things by a character they literally pulled out of their ass.

If indoctrination theory is true, all that means is Bioware meant to force me into doing nonsensical things by a character they literally pulled out of their ass. That's not an improvement!

Besides, indoctrination seems to me like reverse deus-ex machina. Just as the Reapers are about to lose, they pull indoctrination out of their ass! (and it is out of their ass, since we know so little about it).

Plus, indoctrination is just weird. Why does it make me hallucinate small children? Why does it make three nonsensical "choices"? I thought it was just subtle manipulation, not LSD crossed with a bad D&D campaign!

If you listen/read the codex entry for indoctrination, it will be clear why you hallucinate small children. As for the 3 different choices, it's all a way of making the indoctrination process something Shepard would be able to recognise.

 

[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.

You mean I'm hipster for saying that? Cool! Do I get bonus points for the fact that I've been saying it ever since I played ME1+2?

Seriously, they're good games with great characters and dialogue, but the plot has always objectively sucked.

Could you think of a game where the story is well written? I'm sure there must be some

I don't think so. Is your point that the mass effect games are relatively well written? Good compared to other games? Sure, but isn't that like saying Jack the Ripper was a good and decent man compared to other serial killers, or dog shit tastes better than cat shit, or... you get the idea. The Mass Effect plot has been a consistent failure since day one, with plot holes and inconsistencies and asspulls galore.

Mass Effect, despite its flaws, has shown that gamers can and will spend money on AAA games that focus on the story because they like the story. This proves that there is no reason why videogames can't be well written, and hence no reason why the writing can't be judged accordingly.

I wasn't making any points I was just asking you If you read back through my posts you'll see that I haven't made any assertions as to the quality of the writing of Mass Effect's story other than saying that The Crucible was a Dues Ex Machina and that I don't think IDT is right.
I could give you an example of a well written series of games myself, and that would be BioShock. It's been well written so far.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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

This is why you're wrong. [sub]actually this is just me grasping at straws.[/sub]

Harbinger is trying to indoctrinate Shepard as slowly as possible, so Shep's mind is the most intact. (Source: The Codex)

So if you blast through the game in 9 only getting the bare minimum resources as apposed to 50, Harbinger will not be done indoctrinating you yet so of course Shepard will be stronger willed.

[sub] of course this theory would hold more water if "Control" (the option the reapers want you to pick) was the last option you got and not the second.[/sub]

Maybe Destroy is the strongest willed Shepard's choice, because that kills the Reapers.
Control is the mid willed choice because that's when the Reapers take their chances with you and and fight your will head on. (Trying to "Direct him personally)
And Synthesis is just the Reaper's hedging their bet and it doesn't do anything. It's just Shepard killing his/herself by jumping into the pit.

But none of that explains the Normandy flying away with the squad mates on the ship and crashing on that planet (Which I'm pretty sure is just the island from Lost.)


So there. Indoctrination is a slow process and if you speed run the game you're not fully indoctrinated by the time you get to the final mission.

 

[nolongerhere]

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.

I partially buy into the Indoctrination theory. That is to say, that I'm thinking that the ending is Shepard being indoctrinated. However, I don't think the earlier stuff is. The kid died, and Shepard saw it, and suffered a badly-written form of PTSD. All that stuff that appears in the ending is because Harbinger is doing it's utmost to break Shepard, probably because Harbinger's a vengeful dick.
Allowing for that though, that was not how you end an epic trilogy. Something before the ending, maybe. But I really don't think it was how they planned to end it. I think that it was the result of time and budget constraints.

 

[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

This is why you're wrong. [sub]actually this is just me grasping at straws.[/sub]

Harbinger is trying to indoctrinate Shepard as slowly as possible, so Shep's mind is the most intact. (Source: The Codex)

So if you blast through the game in 9 only getting the bare minimum resources as apposed to 50, Harbinger will not be done indoctrinating you yet so of course Shepard will be stronger willed.

[sub] of course this theory would hold more water if "Control" (the option the reapers want you to pick) was the last option you got and not the second.[/sub]

Maybe Destroy is the strongest willed Shepard's choice, because that kills the Reapers.
Control is the mid willed choice because that's when the Reapers take their chances with you and and fight your will head on. (Trying to "Direct him personally)
And Synthesis is just the Reaper's hedging their bet and it doesn't do anything. It's just Shepard killing his/herself by jumping into the pit.

But none of that explains the Normandy flying away with the squad mates on the ship and crashing on that planet (Which I'm pretty sure is just the island from Lost.)


So there. Indoctrination is a slow process and if you speed run the game you're not fully indoctrinated by the time you get to the final mission.

Lots of speculation for everyone!

 

[orangeban]

My problem with Mass Effect's ending was that I felt like I was being forced into doing nonsensical things by a character they literally pulled out of their ass.

If indoctrination theory is true, all that means is Bioware meant to force me into doing nonsensical things by a character they literally pulled out of their ass. That's not an improvement!

Besides, indoctrination seems to me like reverse deus-ex machina. Just as the Reapers are about to lose, they pull indoctrination out of their ass! (and it is out of their ass, since we know so little about it).

Plus, indoctrination is just weird. Why does it make me hallucinate small children? Why does it make three nonsensical "choices"? I thought it was just subtle manipulation, not LSD crossed with a bad D&D campaign!

If you listen/read the codex entry for indoctrination, it will be clear why you hallucinate small children. As for the 3 different choices, it's all a way of making the indoctrination process something Shepard would be able to recognise.

The codex entry talks about ghostly presences, not an exposition spouting kid who seems to be the most powerful being in existence.

And the three choices, how is that something Sheperd would recognise? What, is Sheperd used to bizarre and strict moral choices (well, yes, but that's kinda meta).

Indoctrination is meant to stage some kind of psychological battle within your own head, it's meant to subtly influence you into the Reaper's control.

If you had to choose whether or not to use the crucible to destroy the Reapers, and you got all these niggling little thoughts and reasons as to why not to fire it, that would be indoctrination.

 

[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.

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

You mean I'm hipster for saying that? Cool! Do I get bonus points for the fact that I've been saying it ever since I played ME1+2?

Seriously, they're good games with great characters and dialogue, but the plot has always objectively sucked.

Could you think of a game where the story is well written? I'm sure there must be some

I don't think so. Is your point that the mass effect games are relatively well written? Good compared to other games? Sure, but isn't that like saying Jack the Ripper was a good and decent man compared to other serial killers, or dog shit tastes better than cat shit, or... you get the idea. The Mass Effect plot has been a consistent failure since day one, with plot holes and inconsistencies and asspulls galore.

Mass Effect, despite its flaws, has shown that gamers can and will spend money on AAA games that focus on the story because they like the story. This proves that there is no reason why videogames can't be well written, and hence no reason why the writing can't be judged accordingly.

I wasn't making any points I was just asking you If you read back through my posts you'll see that I haven't made any assertions as to the quality of the writing of Mass Effect's story other than saying that The Crucible was a Dues Ex Machina and that I don't think IDT is right.
I could give you an example of a well written series of games myself, and that would be BioShock. It's been well written so far.

I haven't played Bioshock. I find the premise too hard to swallow! I'm okay with cyberpunk, but steampunk/atompunk/anything-in-the-past-punk I just can't take remotely seriously.

 

[Aerosteam]

Harbinger doesn't want to have someone who speedruns the game to be indoctrinated, the person is useless anyways. Also speedrunning the entire leads to your galactic army becoming shyte.

SOLVEmedia: on the ball

Damn right I am.

 

[Gabanuka]

Right I'm a tad behind. Finished the game and all but can someone explain the indoctrination theory?

 

[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.

You mean I'm hipster for saying that? Cool! Do I get bonus points for the fact that I've been saying it ever since I played ME1+2?

Seriously, they're good games with great characters and dialogue, but the plot has always objectively sucked.

Could you think of a game where the story is well written? I'm sure there must be some

I don't think so. Is your point that the mass effect games are relatively well written? Good compared to other games? Sure, but isn't that like saying Jack the Ripper was a good and decent man compared to other serial killers, or dog shit tastes better than cat shit, or... you get the idea. The Mass Effect plot has been a consistent failure since day one, with plot holes and inconsistencies and asspulls galore.

Mass Effect, despite its flaws, has shown that gamers can and will spend money on AAA games that focus on the story because they like the story. This proves that there is no reason why videogames can't be well written, and hence no reason why the writing can't be judged accordingly.

I wasn't making any points I was just asking you If you read back through my posts you'll see that I haven't made any assertions as to the quality of the writing of Mass Effect's story other than saying that The Crucible was a Dues Ex Machina and that I don't think IDT is right.
I could give you an example of a well written series of games myself, and that would be BioShock. It's been well written so far.

I haven't played Bioshock. I find the premise too hard to swallow! I'm okay with cyberpunk, but steampunk/atompunk/anything-in-the-past-punk I just can't take remotely seriously.

Well I've read (probably on the Wikipedia) that BioShock is (surprise, surprise) "biopunk."

 

[Moth_Monk]

Harbinger doesn't want to have someone who speedruns the game to be indoctrinated, the person is useless anyways. Also speedrunning the entire leads to your galactic army becoming shyte.

SOLVEmedia: on the ball

Damn right I am.

So why would he get Shepard to hallucinate anything at all, if Shepard is useless?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Right I'm a tad behind. Finished the game and all but can someone explain the indoctrination theory?

Basically...

Spoiler

Everything after Shep get's hit by the Harbinger beam is Harbinger trying to indoctrinate him.

Here, I have this video that explains it pretty well:

 

[Moth_Monk]

 

[verdant monkai]

Matter of opinion really, its still up for debate.