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

[Byronius]

I learned of the IT thanks to this thread, and I have to say I'm in the middle ground, with tendency to agree with the theory. Thing is, all this seems like too much to be coincidental. What's more, they also went and sold the "Final Hours of ME" application, which does say indoctrination was how they were going about it. The "losing control of Shepard's body mechanic" didn't work for them, as well as time constraints with EA, so they scrapped it. Thus the remainder of the ending, is neither here nor there, and isn't clear about what the hell happened finally.

I have to say, I disagree, at least partially with the part of the theory which states Shepard has been under Reaper influence from the start of the third game (certain variations say that indoctrination begun even earlier). The Reaper IFF is a device with a specific purpose, it can't be able to indoctrinate on its own. I can't imagine more Reaper tech was installed along with it, so I refuse to accept indoctrination before the third game.

Even in the third game, indoctrination is only really attempted (in my opinion anyway) in the post-Harbinger-attack sequence. Harbinger's presence is what's creating the "dream", in which Shepard sees the Anderson, TIM and Guardian. Mind you, this can't be taking place in any more than mere moments, because Harbinger certainly wouldn't be wasting any time firing more on Shepard, to ensure he's vaporized, unless he was attacked at that time, which adds a bit more time.

The rest more or less makes sense, some things don't fit, but that's mostly due to cuts, probably. Another thing I noticed, and thought I should add - when you choose destroy Guardian dissipates. When blue is chosen, kid remains all throughout Shepard disintegrating, and presumably this happens with green too. Some say kid smiles in blue, but it isn't really clear.

 

[Outcast107]

snip

Well, imo, the final hour just states that it remove gameplay elements. Not the story itself. Though who knows since I wasn't part of the team. Also the reason I think he is indoctrinate though in a small state. Just enough for him to see something, like the scientist on the dead reaper.

And on more thing, the only counter-argument that seem pause able, beside people saying "Bad writing lol" which I don't take it for account, was how do the Protheans VI not detect Shepard if he Indoctrinated. This can be counter with how Javik and the PVI from the first game talk about Reapers using Indoctrianted forces from within.

If, and just going by what the game said, this is true, then they could not detect indoctrination either at a low level, or can only detect it when the person is using reaper tech.

 

[Byronius]

snip

Well, imo, the final hour just states that it remove gameplay elements. Not the story itself. Though who knows since I wasn't part of the team. Also the reason I think he is indoctrinate though in a small state. Just enough for him to see something, like the scientist on the dead reaper.

And on more thing, the only counter-argument that seem pause able, beside people saying "Bad writing lol" which I don't take it for account, was how do the Protheans VI not detect Shepard if he Indoctrinated. This can be counter with how Javik and the PVI from the first game talk about Reapers using Indoctrianted forces from within.

I have the app, and while I can't take a look at it right now, it's implied that loss of control is more than just mechanical. Also the guys on the dead reaper didn't get anywhere close mild indoctrination, more like the complete opposite. These guys went mad, and quickly. I would suggest it happened because of the Reaper's inactivity; his indoctrination mechanisms went nuts and drove them insane.

I agree about the Prothean VIs. As said many times in the thread, indoctrination isn't a binary process (you're indoctrinated/you aren't). Saren is a great example: while he spent a long time around and within Sovereign and other Reaper tech, he wasn't even close to husk/collector state, and was capable of lucid moments (like his suicide). However, a VI, being a program, would be only able to judge someone based on pre-programmed parameters. Certainly not enough to pinpoint any sign of indoctrination (of which there aren't any in the more covert cases) so that even if Shepard was under Reaper influence before the events on Earth, it's highly unlikely it could figure him out.

 

[Outcast107]

snip

Well, imo, the final hour just states that it remove gameplay elements. Not the story itself. Though who knows since I wasn't part of the team. Also the reason I think he is indoctrinate though in a small state. Just enough for him to see something, like the scientist on the dead reaper.

And on more thing, the only counter-argument that seem pause able, beside people saying "Bad writing lol" which I don't take it for account, was how do the Protheans VI not detect Shepard if he Indoctrinated. This can be counter with how Javik and the PVI from the first game talk about Reapers using Indoctrianted forces from within.

I have the app, and while I can't take a look at it right now, it's implied that loss of control is more than just mechanical. Also the guys on the dead reaper didn't get anywhere close mild indoctrination, more like the complete opposite. These guys went mad, and quickly. I would suggest it happened because of the Reaper's inactivity; his indoctrination mechanisms went nuts and drove them insane.

I agree about the Prothean VIs. As said many times in the thread, indoctrination isn't a binary process (you're indoctrinated/you aren't). Saren is a great example: while he spent a long time around and within Sovereign and other Reaper tech, he wasn't even close to husk/collector state, and was capable of lucid moments (like his suicide). However, a VI, being a program, would be only able to judge someone based on pre-programmed parameters. Certainly not enough to pinpoint any sign of indoctrination (of which there aren't any in the more covert cases) so that even if Shepard was under Reaper influence before the events on Earth, it's highly unlikely it could figure him out.

Well true about the team on board of the dead reaper. I was just using that as a example of what they were going through. Seeing things as if they were there, going completely mad under what? a few days or weeks. To me, it the same process that Shepard is going through but at a much slower pace.

As well as he not actually inside a reaper. Just mostly around a lot of Reaper tech. Also about the Final hour app I didn't listen to it, as I'm broke as hell but I was just off what people have said about it. Though eh, I could be wrong bout the whole IT. But to me, it the one that makes the most sense and fill in a lot of plot holes.

Either way Bioware will, hopefully, fix all of this with their upcoming DLC. Which btw I do hope it the IT, it means they plan this and most likely will have the DLC out quicker. Instead of what? Waiting a few months for the DLC to come out since it wouldn't be plan.

 

[anaphysik]

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.

Exactly. Basically, I see Indoctrination-Hallucination Theory as a wonderful piece of fan analysis for the nonsense that BioWare produced. Yes, BioWare did clearly intend for something very off-kilter to happen, but I do not believe they had any higher thematic intentions in mind other than 'produce nonsense! cause lots of speculation! ????! profit!'

IT just happens to fit the game very well, but I don't believe that it arose with BioWare, or else the proper thing to do would have been to include it as a True Ending on the disc/as part of the actual non-DLC-ified release. If they do make an Ending DLC, it'll probably be just to co-opt the fan-generated IT as their own, pretending it was their idea all along (as they could/would have done had some other fan interpretation become wildly popular. Unfortunately for them, whatever their original intentions (even if this really IS some big IT ploy on BioWare's part), because of the manner of the Ending's release, players will always retain negative associations with BioWare and ME3's endings.

(coolguy does bring up a very good point about LittleSpaceDerp's form - why choose a child, indeed - unless perhaps it's simply to unsettle Shepard and cause her/him to not properly think through the consequences of Control (get controlled yourself, by the Reapers) or Synthesis (think like Saren was forced to, and get husks and Reapers all around) endings?)

(Another solid point is why didn't LittleSpaceDerp explicitly say that you wouldn't die (or equiv) as a part of the Control and Synthesis endings? Playing on Shepard's potential dreams of getting a heroic sacrifice? Didn't want Shepard to think that Blue and Green explosions sounded too good to be true? (destruction of the mass relays is also relevant on this point.) I'm really not sure.)

So I believe IT. But I don't believe that IT was BioWare's plan. And if it was, they've already messed up really badly.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

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.

In his closing speech, Saren states that his ultimate goal was to ensure the survival of organic life through a process of synthetic amalgamation, the creation of hybrid life. "The best of both organics and synthetics, the weaknesses of neither." Obviously, the Reapers would not be altered in any way. The Synthesis ending only shows the Reapers being commanded to retreat. Additionally, if one considers that they reproduce by havesting organic DNA, it could be argued that they are already hybrid lifeforms of some sort. The only other synthetic life, the Geth, would probably be wiped out by the Reapers (so as not to disturb the progress of the unevolved organics), or similarily undergo a process of assimilation (the new Keepers).

Like Control, Synthesis is just a form of deception IMO. A paradigm shift permanently ending the extinction cycle would never occur. Saren, fully intimidated by the Reapers, was offered survival as a hybrid slave who would possibly serve in a manner similar to the Collectors. Taking into account that Shepard would never accept a slave existence, the Reapers offered him/her survival as a hybrid with free will, or at least we assume. Who knows if the Reapers were telling the truth, perhaps the resulting hybrids would slowly become husks or indoctrination would eventually consume them. It just seems like a bad idea to use Reaper technology to permanently alter all organic life in the galaxy. With the exception of the mass relays, all other Reaper technology encountered involves controlling minds or turning organics into mindless zombies/DNA soup.

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.

I don't really believe that the ending is a hallucination or completely symbolic in nature. I do question if indoctrination/Harbinger do play a role given the previosly mentioned coincidences and the overall weirdness of the endings. It is more likely that Bioware just wrote a shortsighted, poor quality ending but why not discuss other possibilities.

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.

Perhaps Shepard only survives in the Destroy ending because the devs simply wanted to give a nod to players who made the correct choice.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

two problems with the indoctrination theory

one: involes a LOT of grasping at straws, if a conclusion results in a lot of people doing that in order to make sense of what just happened then something has gone horribly wrong along the way

two: if the theory is correct, that this was intentional and a 'true ending DLC' is released sometime down the track for a fee, then i find that much more rehensible than them simply dropping the ball as it, for all intents and purposes, is exploitation.

 

[Outcast107]

two problems with the indoctrination theory

one: involes a LOT of grasping at straws, if a conclusion results in a lot of people doing that in order to make sense of what just happened then something has gone horribly wrong along the way

two: if the theory is correct, that this was intentional and a 'true ending DLC' is released sometime down the track for a fee, then i find that much more rehensible than them simply dropping the ball as it, for all intents and purposes, is exploitation.

Which part is grasping at straws? Just wondering cause I hear this a lot and I don't believe that. By playing the games and paying attention to a lot of the story, some people pick up things that seem out of place. True it could all be looking to deep but this many hints? I doubt it.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

two problems with the indoctrination theory

one: involes a LOT of grasping at straws, if a conclusion results in a lot of people doing that in order to make sense of what just happened then something has gone horribly wrong along the way

two: if the theory is correct, that this was intentional and a 'true ending DLC' is released sometime down the track for a fee, then i find that much more rehensible than them simply dropping the ball as it, for all intents and purposes, is exploitation.

Which part is grasping at straws? Just wondering cause I hear this a lot and I don't believe that. By playing the games and paying attention to a lot of the story, some people pick up things that seem out of place. True it could all be looking to deep but this many hints? I doubt it.

all of it, ignoring the fact that the entire sequence is rather contrived (case in point: harbinger suddenly making a grand appearence after spending most of the game keeping the benches warm as opposed to his constant taunting in the previous game) and taking into account that some of us tend to air on the side of skepticism, its important to remember that people often see what they want to see and a lot of said evidence is circumstansial.

the fact that bioware is keeping very quiet on the matter along with the little pithy message after the credits saying 'commander shepard became a legend by defeating the reapers, btw stay tuned for more DLC' does not help (speaking of which that message also doesn't sit well with me either, its like reading a good book only to find the last 20 or so pages torn out with a post-it note on the inside of the back cover saying 'and they won, p.s: more later')

i don't know which is worse. if people are right and the indoctrination theory is correct it was either a) very poorly done in a rush because they forgot about harbinger or b) a deliberate attempt to leave people hanging and later fork out cash just to get a proper resolution. option A is at least forgiveable, option B isn't.

 

[Outcast107]

two problems with the indoctrination theory

one: involes a LOT of grasping at straws, if a conclusion results in a lot of people doing that in order to make sense of what just happened then something has gone horribly wrong along the way

two: if the theory is correct, that this was intentional and a 'true ending DLC' is released sometime down the track for a fee, then i find that much more rehensible than them simply dropping the ball as it, for all intents and purposes, is exploitation.

Which part is grasping at straws? Just wondering cause I hear this a lot and I don't believe that. By playing the games and paying attention to a lot of the story, some people pick up things that seem out of place. True it could all be looking to deep but this many hints? I doubt it.

all of it, ignoring the fact that the entire sequence is rather contrived (case in point: harbinger suddenly making a grand appearence after spending most of the game keeping the benches warm as opposed to his constant taunting in the previous game) and taking into account that some of us tend to air on the side of skepticism, its important to remember that people often see what they want to see and a lot of said evidence is circumstansial.

the fact that bioware is keeping very quiet on the matter along with the little pithy message after the credits saying 'commander shepard became a legend by defeating the reapers, btw stay tuned for more DLC' does not help (speaking of which that message also doesn't sit well with me either, its like reading a good book only to find the last 20 or so pages torn out with a post-it note on the inside of the back cover saying 'and they won, p.s: more later')

i don't know which is worse. if people are right and the indoctrination theory is correct it was either a) very poorly done in a rush because they forgot about harbinger or b) a deliberate attempt to leave people hanging and later fork out cash just to get a proper resolution. option A is at least forgiveable, option B isn't.

Well true, this is still a theory but it makes the most sense with all the things that our put out to us. From the IT video, to the ending it self when the Mass relays blow up. It doesn't start in the Sol system. It starts off, if I remember correctly, where the alpha relay blew up and then the Sol System.

True the writers could have been bad at the end, but the animators as well? Doubt it. Though look it at this way. They could have done it better with probably more time/not being rush by EA but if they made it to easy to guess then it wouldn't be as epic. It didn't seem to bad since the fans did piece things together if this is true.


Also rumor is the DLC is going to be free. You can't expect a game developer to put in the files of the IT. People would crack (is this the right term?) the game and find out (Like they did with the Prothean DLC.) To do this they HAD to keep it out of the game. Sure this could be all wrong but think about it. The best way to fool someone is to have it right infront of their face, talking about the ending not the DLC.

Why of all of a sudden are the Reapers "ok". Why do we believe we can control them when we just told TIM he can not. Or try to fuse organics and machines together in SPACE MAGIC!(Wanted to say that...)

 

[Orc]

I don't really believe that the ending is a hallucination or completely symbolic in nature. I do question if indoctrination/Harbinger do play a role given the previosly mentioned coincidences and the overall weirdness of the endings. It is more likely that Bioware just wrote a shortsighted, poor quality ending but why not discuss other possibilities.

I agree. These discussions are kind of a silver lining. The community has proven that it has far more coherent visions of ME universe to offer, compared to what was delivered by the writers of ME3.

Perhaps Shepard only survives in the Destroy ending because the devs simply wanted to give a nod to players who made the correct choice.

I was leaning more to the "cast back down to the Purgatory of eternal struggle and damned to repeat the whole cycle of birth, growth and violent end again" explanation myself... But there is not much to go on, so, yeah, a wild guess.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

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.

Sorry, sorry, I guess I forgot to put a leash on my inner fanboy.
I guess it's just because it basically comes down to what you said:
We really don't like the idea of Bioware cheating us so we had to practically come up with our own ending just to deny it.
The worst part is that even if the IT is true, and Bioware announced that tomorrow, nobody would believe them. I know you said that they scrapped it, but do you remember when Dave Jaffe said he wasn't working on Twisted Metal?
Anyway. The pro-indoc theorists would be happy, but everyone else would be pissed even more; it would look like an excuse not to redo the ending. Which might happen and might be for all I know.

 

[boag]

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.

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH oh wow, there are so many levels of ownage in that one phrase.

 

[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.

Sorry, sorry, I guess I forgot to put a leash on my inner fanboy.
I guess it's just because it basically comes down to what you said:
We really don't like the idea of Bioware cheating us so we had to practically come up with our own ending just to deny it.
The worst part is that even if the IT is true, and Bioware announced that tomorrow, nobody would believe them. I know you said that they scrapped it, but do you remember when Dave Jaffe said he wasn't working on Twisted Metal?
Anyway. The pro-indoc theorists would be happy, but everyone else would be pissed even more; it would look like an excuse not to redo the ending. Which might happen and might be for all I know.

I'm fairly sure if Bioware go with IT (which, IMO, wouldn't be a terrible way to go for story sake) they would catch an unholy amount of flak from both sides, ours for "ripping off" a fan theory(even though it was technically their original idea) and from the keep-the-ending side because ITS AAAAART.

I honestly don't see what Bioware could pull out of their hats on the issue otherwise though. Maybe they'll pull a double whammy and reincorporate both the IT and Dark Energy plots, but thats doubtful. Bioware doesn't seem like they could win at this point, so I'll just wait and see what they do

 

[SS2Dante]

Ok, I wasn't posting any more, but the new announcements have forced me.
Right, so the extended cut thing. Vague at best so...whatever.

HOWEVER. This new multiplayer DLC. Look at it.
http://blog.bioware.com/2012/04/06/mass-effect-3-resurgence-pack/

Now look at this
http://www.gamefront.com/rumor-mass-effect-3-dlc-the-truth-due-in-april/


The "leaked" image matches the newly announced classes exactly. Sorry, but that cannot be a coincidence.

Anyway, just felt I had to draw attention to that.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

Sorry, I apoligize for being mildly out of the loop, but what is this "Green Ending?" I recall being given no such option.