Why do you not believe the indoctrination theory? *Major Spoilers*

[Gigano]

So there's a theory one wishes to prove? And the way one goes about this is to distinguish between scenes of the game as being delusional or real based on what'd happen to fit with that theory?!

...is there anything but the theory itself which indicate that the protagonist waking up in London is canonically the real deal, whereas what happens in the other endings is canonically delusions? 'Cause I'm sorry to say, but if one am using the theory you're trying to prove as the only frame of reference for understanding and sorting the facts, then of course one will get the desired result; Along with demonstrating the intellectual capacity of a hamster running in a treadmill.

Combine it with this theory surfacing in the face of massive disappointment with the endings, and the term "a fanboyish clinging at straws" would seem to describe it best. Not that it's impossible, but absent any official confirmation - either in an official statement or in DLC to come - it's no more likely than me claiming that Shepard seriously wants to screw his mother: Then cherry picking every piece of dialogue from all three games which could in any way be crammed into such a Freudian analysis, and discarding the ones that contradict it with a "Oh, it was just him making yet another attempt at trying to resist the craving I know he has; That's why he pursued that gay romance with another man, yes it was!".

TL;DR: Once you're starting to sort the validity of facts - in casu whether they're delusions or not - in accordance with the theory you're arguing for, then you have no argument at all.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Even if it is true, it is still bad writing for throwing away pretty much all of the major themes of the games (what makes someone human? Being organic! can a machine have a soul? Of course not, despite multiple lines to the contrary! unity between species? Only if they are organic!) and still has plot holes (kay, if shep is indoctrinated, why not Garrus? Or Liara? Or Tali? All 3 have been around reaper junk as much as shep. And why did the prothean VI's not think shep is indoctrinated?). Honestly, I like the original endings better.

EDIT: Also, I am not comfortable with Bioware giving us a non-ending. Even KOTOR 2 gave us an actual ending to the game. It was a crappy one, but the last section was not hand-waved away with "it was all just a dream, woo!", without any resolution to the story whatsoever. That makes the writing for the IT even worse. :/

 

[PiCroft]

I think its a good indication of just how dire the ending is that fans are inventing straw-grasping conspiracy theories to explain away the horribleness of the ending, and then thoroughly deluding themselves into thinking its actually what was intended all along.

 

[Aviyur]

because it's a theory hence I don't have to believe it.

 

[Schadrach]

#1 reason not to believe bizarre fanwank theory: huge megacorp videogame companies would NEVER intentionally release a game with an ending that required more than a grade 6 level intelligence to grasp. AAA videogames are not intellectual exercises, ssssory.

That's one of the worst reasons I've ever heard for anything. There are a *lot* of games and game series that require some thought and/or analysis to make heads or tails out of, or at least to understand fully what's going on.

 

[Orc]

So, can anyone explain to me why they still believe the literal ending, or give me a plot hole caused by the indoctrination ending? It just seems if we have these two endings one is more convincing than the other.

Hi

I think the issue should not be which interpretation has more plot holes, but which of the two is less unfit to be an actual ending of the trilogy.

In IT, any outcome has only a tactical significance. At the point where all of the Allied and most of the Reaper forces (that we know of) are fully committed, there would be no second chances. It was made abundantly clear in the briefings that this is the endgame, do or die situation. Long before the final string of missions, an analysis states that the galactic economy is failing. The Allies can't afford prolonging the war. Whether Shepard is alive, indoctrinated or dead, simply does not matter anymore. Sure, her indoctrination could be used to confuse and perhaps even divide the Allied forces, but the battle would most likely be over in a couple of hours anyway. Therefore, I think that if the IT was valid, we would have to accept the ending that has no say on how the whole war with the Reapers, well, ends. As subjectively preferable to the alternative, literal, interpretation as it may be, I think this completely disqualifies it as an intended ending.

Re: plot holes, I would really like to know what the Catalyst was doing during the first battle of the Citadel. I mean, it says something like "the Citadel is my home" and then "it is a part of me"... If it was so attached to the thing, why not just push the proverbial Let The Reapers In button itself - it obviously has the ability. Unless it was trolling poor Sovereign into extinction. Also, why not show Shepard move under the rubble regardless of the ending color? Since the IT says the only possible outcomes are indoctrinated or not indoctrinated, she should still be alive, right?

(Sorry for all the linguistic failures, English is not my native language)

 

[WiMoTj]

Two words: "Squall's dead". That is all.

 

[Phoenix138]

Question, maybe this is brought up in the previous 11 pages, but I didn't see it on a scan-through:

Does anyone have an answer for why the prothean VI doesn't pick up on Shep's indoctrination? It's pretty quick to point out Kai Leng and the Illusive man, but it never detects anything on Shep.

Shepard wasn't indoctrinated at that time. She was in the process of being indoctrinated. I view it as the difference between being hypnotized versus looking at a stopwatch swinging back and forth.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

The article and video make some persuasive points. If we put aside the potential symbolism and look at the facts establised in the plot you could argue that the CONTROL ending is exactly what the Illusive Man had being working towards and the SYNTHESIS ending is exactly what Saren had been working towards.

It was shown that they were both undeniably indoctrinated by the Reapers. It is not a huge stretch to assume that if Shepard ultimately comes to same conclusion as these fully indoctrinated characters that he too might be under Reaper influence.

If successfully persuaded (momentarily releasing them from Reaper influence), both Saren and TIM commit suicide. If CONTROL and SYNTHESIS were the true will of these characters and not that of the Reapers why would they so quickly bow to Shepard's argument? Seems to me they realized that their goals were not their own and killed themselves so as to no longer pose a threat.

In both CONTROL and SYNTHESIS, Shepard appears to be transforming into a husk complete with the indoctrinated eyes shared by both Saren and TIM.

It is not a huge stretch to assume that Bioware decided to simulate the effects of indoctrination by reversing the moral compass on players. By making the only positive choice (ie. the only one that doesn't play into the Reapers plans) as the one which is visually portrayed to be renegade red and destructive, Bioware hoped to trick players. Only those who saw through the illusion or were so driven by hatred would choose the correct solution. The fact that Shepard can only survive in the "renegade" choice correlates with this theory.

I`ll admit it does cross a bit into the realm of conspiracy, but given the number of factual coincidences and the nonsensical nature of the endings if taken at face value...wait...oh no I`ve been indoctrinated by the indoctrination theory...*click BANG.

 

[Sacman]

Well I don't believe it because it doesn't make the ending any better and doesn't satisfy any of the problems with the ending... the options are still interchangeable, the endings are still thematically incompatible with the rest of the game... the ending still disregards the decisions that you made up until that point... and the ending still sucks... if anything it makes the ending worse because it makes the choices that you make amount to even less... and that's the entire point of the games... you choices are supposed to have an effect on the world and people around you.. and the ending doesn't...<.<

 

[Orc]

If CONTROL and SYNTHESIS were the true will of these characters and not that of the Reapers why would they so quickly bow to Shepard's argument? Seems to me they realized that their goals were not their own and killed themselves so as to no longer pose a threat.

This is a good argument. However, I would say that Saren was working towards a partial voluntary assimilation, rather than synthesis. Synthesis is described more in the terms of amalgamation, a process that would fuse and permanently change both the organics and the synthetics. One could claim that the end result would still be synthetic, even if by definition alone. Still, I see a huge difference between persuading the Reapers we could still be useful to them in (more-less) our present form and initiating a shift to a completely new paradigm.

Of course, if the IT is to be believed, then the Catalyst is actually Harbinger (or some other Reaper) and the descriptions of outcomes are just highly symbolic interpretations that Shepard's weakened mind makes of struggle between the Reaper influence and her own personality. Therein lies one of the key problems of IT. It is almost solipsistic in nature, with regards to the final moments of ME3, and is therefore impossible to disprove it conclusively - it has the ability to handwave away anything as hallucination/symbolic representation/Reaper influence.

The fact that Shepard can only survive in the "renegade" choice correlates with this theory.

Why? She should survive even if indoctrinated. Even more so, as that would probably make Reapers less likely to simply vaporize her while she's unconscious. IT states that she does not physically turn into a husk and/or die after taking one of the "wrong" choices.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

100% for Indoctrination.

Even if I thought that Indoctrinists (aka me and the rest) were CRAZY, I would still prefer the ending to be an Indoctrinated vision over being literally retarded with Godboy and his cosmic magic and multi-colour fart balloons.

Same here. Is it, "grasping at straws," as it's been said? Yeah, sure. Is it just fanboys desperately trying to give the ending some meaning? Well, yeah, wouldn't you? Actually no, some people wouldn't, as it turns out, and I find that kind of funny. Yeah, indoctrination isn't a perfect explanation, but it sure as hell is better than the endings as they are.
The only problem I'm having with the anti-indoc stance, are some of the people supporting it, just some, not all. Just the more outspoken ones. If you don't believe in the indoctrination, that's fine, you don't have to. I don't have a problem when people say, "Eh, I just don't believe it," I have a problem when people say:

I think its a good indication of just how dire the ending is that fans are inventing straw-grasping conspiracy theories to explain away the horribleness of the ending, and then thoroughly deluding themselves into thinking its actually what was intended all along.

We *know* that we could be wrong, that's why it's called a theory, but did you really have to say we're deluding ourselves? Especially since our theory actually makes a bit of sense?
What if YOU'RE wrong, huh? What if it IS indoctrination and it just flew over your head? It flew over a lot of *our* heads, I'd wager there aren't a whole lot of people here who thought it was indoctrination before they saw the theory on youtube or something. What if you simply missed it? Oh, but you're too smart for that aren't you?
So you're telling me that the endings are terrible and that I'm simply a crazy person trying to derive some sense out of it based on nothing more than, "That's the way it is because I said so," logic. Yeah, I guess I'd better leave the "the endings make sense if you look at them this way" group and join the "the endings suck because of reasons and anybody who disagrees is delusional" side. Why, I feel smarter already!

 

[Shinigami214]

It depends on what you mean by "believe". IT is a plausible an elegant explanation for the end of ME3, which otherwise makes little sense, so in that respect I believe that it's true. However I'm becoming more skeptical that Bioware intended it.

Besides, the indoctrination thing, while slightly better, would still leave the endings awfully inconclusive and unsatisfying. If Shepard was tripping on Reaper brain juice the whole time, then what the fuck really happened?

One hypothesis is that Bioware plans to release the "true" ending later on, as free DLC (or possibly paid DLC, if they're feeling particularly evil), and that it's all a big meta/ARG/troll situation where the playerbase is "indoctrinated" into believing a fake ending before the true ending is revealed. If this is true (and the DLC is free) then I'll have massive respect for Bioware, but I don't think it's likely.

May I ask then why you think you get an extra scene if you choose the red ending?

This is pretty simple. In the green and blue endings, you see Shepard "disintegrate" on screen, so there's no way he/she possibly could have survived. In the red ending, there's a small chance that Shepard may have survived (assuming the extra scene takes place on the Citadel and not back on Earth), so the extra scene seems more plausible.

Something I find hard to explain without IT, and seems like a direct hint, is that when Starkid first sees Shepard, he says "Wake up" if you have high EMS and "What are you doing here?" if you have low EMS. If IT is true, this is easily explained by saying that, with high EMS, someone survived and is telling Shepard's unconscious body to wake up, which is manifesting inside Shepard's hallucination as Starkid telling him to wake up (which is a common cliche in TV and film). Without IT I see know reason for this to depend on EMS.

However, assuming that Starkid is made up by the Reapers, and the Reapers want Shepard to pick green or blue, why would they choose to have Starkid take the form of the child they killed at the beginning of the game, which we know Shepard feels angry about? Reminding Shepard of this child would only encourage Shepard to pick red out of anger towards the Reapers.

I agree with your hypothesis, which I just posted about here incidentally.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.356466-Is-ME3-Ending-trolling-for-DLC

 

[Orc]

3. Why didn't the starchild stop them? Why did he let Sovereign die? [/B]
If Vigil is correct in the first game, the Protheans 'disabled the activation signal' for the citadel. Hence by some extension of logic, they 'paralyzed' the catalyst within the citadel, forcing Sovereign to activated the citadel manually, of which Shepard stopped him... Massive stretch?

Kind of. It boils down to "the Catalyst wasn't looking then, and couldn't be bothered to open the Citadel relay by itself later".

I don't think counting plot holes and major discontinuities will get us anywhere. The literal interpretation has way too many. The indoctrination theory waves them away, but is itself a conjecture. Don't get me wrong, it's a very interesting one. I would agree that there was a lot of groundwork in place for the indoctrination attempt showdown, but it just didn't happen. Instead, it seems that some of the material was cut, some was left in on purpose, and the remaining parts were deemed unimportant or simply forgotten.

5. The mass relays [/B]
So we blew up the mass relays? How is that a plot hole? We destroyed the systems that the relays were in, assuming that they have the same explosive power as the Alpha relay, logically speaking those would be the ones worst hit by the reapers. You killed planets that were likely dead or barely populated by this point anyway. You didn't wipe out entire species (though you have probably doomed the Krogan and the Quarians.), just destroyed their home worlds and any colonies in the immediate area of a relay. This isn't a plot hole. Its a cost of war.

I have a feeling they intended for the collapse of the mass relay network to be a symbolic release from the web of Reapers and a beginning of long fall into the unknown. The Fall of Hyperion comes to mind as a possible inspiration. Of course, this was messed up completely by introducing The Exploding Mass Relays Of Doom into the lore, and now the key issue is genocide, thoroughness of which would earn Shepard some serious Reaper points, promptly promoting her to Sovereign class if assimilated.

Captcha: know your rights

 

[Outcast107]

you do realise if this theory is true, bioware fans will hammer bioware for taking up the internets idea because it was better than theres..

This is why I hate the internet at times lol. Though if this is true, and the endings do come out in April then they at least the fans have to say there no way that Bioware could have made that endings that quick unless it was plan.

Because I doubt they could make something within three weeks. Though just my opinion.

 

[PiCroft]

We *know* that we could be wrong, that's why it's called a theory, but did you really have to say we're deluding ourselves? Especially since our theory actually makes a bit of sense?
What if YOU'RE wrong, huh? What if it IS indoctrination and it just flew over your head? It flew over a lot of *our* heads, I'd wager there aren't a whole lot of people here who thought it was indoctrination before they saw the theory on youtube or something. What if you simply missed it? Oh, but you're too smart for that aren't you?
So you're telling me that the endings are terrible and that I'm simply a crazy person trying to derive some sense out of it based on nothing more than, "That's the way it is because I said so," logic. Yeah, I guess I'd better leave the "the endings make sense if you look at them this way" group and join the "the endings suck because of reasons and anybody who disagrees is delusional" side. Why, I feel smarter already!

Delusional was probably too strong a word for it, but if my challenging your loose-change style theory makes you react this badly, you might want to take a step back. I thought the endings sucked and I was pissed, but there is nothing in the IT video that is "logical" unless you assume your premise, in which case it fits only because you are interpreting it through your pre-decided idea.

Bioware originally had an Indoctrination sequence, but canned it due to mechanics issues of having Shepard under control. They also shitcanned an entire plot-line involving dark energy which left a huge gaping plot hole in ME2 (Haestrom). There are plot holes and loose ends all over the place, why would the ending to a rushed game be immune? It's also worth pointing out that the behind-the-scenes "Final Hours" app shows the writing that went into the end which amounted to a few references to other movies and endings and underscored with "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE".

So yeah, you can believe it all you want and even make it your canon interpretation of the ending (because God knows I'd rather intepret away an ending as bad as that) but this isn't Bioware playing with you, this really is just a horribly written ending.

 

[PiCroft]

Also, I'm sure games journalists, while having been even more foamy-mouthed than the fans they deride, are able to look past the insults and perhaps gain a new perspective on their profession and maybe take to heart some much needed criti-

Oh.