So I chose the middle path of synthesis. From there I really have no clue what the Normandy crashing on the planet is supposed to mean. I came here and started reading about the indoctrination theory, but I don't quite understand it. TL;DR please?

There really isn't a tl;dr beside there are hints that Mass Effect 3 is about indoctrination, and arguably the last sequence in the game is about testing Shepard's resolve (if he can resist it).

So I chose the middle path of synthesis. From there I really have no clue what the Normandy crashing on the planet is supposed to mean. I came here and started reading about the indoctrination theory, but I don't quite understand it. TL;DR please?

The gist of it is that everything after being knocked out by Harbinger in the charge for the Conduit is all taking place inside Shepards head.  
The part with the Starchild is just the Reapers trying to break him and make him become fully indoctrinated, and the Destroy option represents Shepard fighting back and refusing the Reapers.  
The cutscenes afterwards are also just illusions created by Shepard, and in the Destroy ending he wakes up afterwards after resisting the indoctrination.    
 
There is a lot more information on it here:   http://w11.zetaboards.com/Theorycraftng_HUB/topic/7698722/1/

tl:dr: People see an ending (one that occurs after killing off a form of life the entire game spent trying to show was indeed a "life") that shows Shepard gasping, automatically assume that this is him "living" (though it could be his last gasp), assume that this must be occuring in London due to the way some bricks look (no verifiable background "clues") and grasp at other straws. This becomes the "best ending" and if you think any different these people will get actually pissed off over this.

Lots of people want to believe this, so then they look for "clues". Of course many of these clues are flimsy and often appear to be something a person is observing in order to convince themselves that what they think is the "real truth". People into conspiracy theories do the same thing all the time. Problem is they both ignore evidence that points the other way. Some even feel threatened when it is suggested that they might be looking at it wrong.

Merge seems to make the most sense or at least match up the most with the narrative in ME 3. Creating a new DNA, taking the next step in evolution, ending the cycle and sending Shepards energy throughout the universe seem to be a big deal. I think it offers the best option for eternal peace. Shepard's goal was to protect the universe and bring peace and unity. Doing this required for the Reapers to be stopped. Killing for the sake of just killing was never Shepards vibe imo.

Most Indoctrination theory explanations I've seen don't explain the Normandy crash sequence very well, (and I've been reading up on the theory quite a bit). This video is the best one in my opinion for explaining the theory.

TL;DR - BioDrones cling to this theory because they won't accept BioWare just came up with a horrible ending

@Sooty said:

TL;DR - BioDrones cling to this theory because they won't accept BioWare just came up with a horrible ending

This. So glad Origin existed as it stopped me from getting ME3.

It was all a dream.

if the indoctrination ending is true

then things are not so brim after all

I read about this theory and replayed the end of the game again, the restart point is where the indoctrination is supposed to start according to the 'theory'.

All I realised is that you can't skip anything in the end sequence so it takes ages to replay and there is nothing there that supports the indoctrination theory. Also as my score wasn't high enough I didn't get the Shepard breath bit either.

It's just a really shitty ending.

@hankrazorbeard said:

It was all a dream.

It makes the most amount of sense, like..of all of the shitting on the ending of the game. Harbinger using this kid to weaken shepard, to get in his mind through the dreams and the moments where the kid actually pushes you to control/synthesis.

@Avanzato: Shepard has had the most exposure to the reapers, he has never felt the effect of indocrination, except in this game. The kid is fake, its an 'image' that harbinger uses, along with the dreams, to weaken Shepard resolve. The entire mission is to destroy the reapers, but hte kid presents two other option. As Shepard argues with TIM, shep lays out what indoctrination does.

@Sooty said:

TL;DR - BioDrones cling to this theory because they won't accept BioWare just came up with a horrible ending

Anybody notice how people like this guy would rather throw around insults rather than actually intelligent ally discuss a theory?

"ARGH! I DON'T LIKE BIOWARE OR EA SO ANYBODY WHO DISCUSSES THEORYS ABOUT ONE OF THEIR GAMES IS A BIODRONE!!"

Shutup. Everybody who doesn't believe in the theory has been stating it with hostility to everybody, while the others are simply discussing it I've noticed.

Its hilarious how the "Indoctrination theory" makes more sense than taking the endings at face value.
 
Bioware done fucked up.
 
@815Sox said:

 (though it could be his last gasp),

 
assume that this must be occuring in London due to the way some bricks look (no verifiable background "clues")

@mutha3: I think it was just poor execution on the final moments on the citadel that this 'theory' isn't be given a proper discussion.

@boj4ngles said:

Most Indoctrination theory explanations I've seen don't explain the Normandy crash sequence very well, (and I've been reading up on the theory quite a bit). This video is the best one in my opinion for explaining the theory.

As someone who never enjoyed the Mass Effect series, I find this fascinating.

Shepard's brain was transmitted into the Reaper computer, this established by the idea that Indoctrination doesn't necessarily require a mind-machine interface that people like Illusive Man and Shepard, being infused with tiny machines may have. Things like Legion using Shep to interface with a Geth server may also be referenced, or the discovery by Cerberus finding a primitive form of Indoctrination signal to poison human minds with.

A lot of the theory banks heavily on the gamble that the choices at the end are red herrings, which goes completely against the idea of this being a mainstream video game... and that you are still being indoctrinated right up until you choose the 'right ending', to destroy the reapers, instead of becoming 'one' with them in various forms in the other two choices, the ideas of them being 'wrong' being that: The reapers want to integrate biological matter into their synthetic matter and have been doing so from the start as part of their war effort, and the other idea being 'the reapers still exist' ... with the >implied< threat that control is an illusion, that it's the way the Reapers have always functioned during each harvesting cycle, and would get it twisted on their so-called master.... and that their technology would steer society in the direction of total domination, giving the galaxy ultimate power when it couldn't even band together without your intervention under the threat of galactic extinction.

"But you're given a choice" I would suppose that people argue against that idea because everyone who's Indoctrinated also believed they were doing what was best for their society.

I think that's as succinctly as I can put it, as I understand it. It's interesting in segments, but it does fall apart toward the crash-landing segments, which are kind of sadly only explained as 'time passed'.. I would GUESS that they thought that everyone who made the hail-Mary charge toward the space elevator beam died, so the space-based forces were already beginning to retreat...? Since the all-in plan to get a team and Shepard on board failed. "It's our best plan" and such. So they started to run and make some attempt to consolidate their remaining forces.

(I would guess they retreated since that the sum of the galaxy's military might can't stand, said repeatedly throughout the story, in a conventional fight against a unified Reaper force. It takes an entire fleet, typically, to destroy just one of their dreadnaughts.)

I dunno. I don't think Bioware was being that deep. I honestly think they were pressed for time and just made a completely open-to-interpretation set of endings.

To break it down in the simplest of ways:

The entire last 20 minutes is a dream in which the inconsistencies are clues to it being a lie constructed by Harbinger to give shepard a 'sympathetic' explanation for the Reapers. If he choses one of the two options on the left or centre, he is agreeing with Harbinger and will not 'wake up' because the reapers control him now. If he choses destroy, it proves that he is willing to make hard choices and destroy the reapers, and when he wakes, will be free of their influence. The last scene with the normandy, in the theory, represents Shepard's mind wishing that his crew is safe.

Basically, it's clearly un-intentional that the writers would go that far with a twist and not TELL you it's a twist, but it's an option they have to run with that'd fix all the problems fans have with the ending. It may create other problems with other people about artistic integrity, but ias it's not changing what happens, merely changing the perspective on what you see, it's the easiest way out.

The only option that has Shepard 'waking up' in the rubble back on earth is the destroy option, isn't it??

@Grimluck343: It is fun to think about, and if you're a fan who was disappointed at the end then it is really fun to think about. Unfortunately, official statements from Bioware and info revealed in a "making of" feature have all but proven that the Indoc Theory is not the secret interpretation that they always intended. Rather, it is the product of a deliberately ambiguous conclusion, a fairly deep in-game lore, and creative fans.

@Dany:

Yes, which is probably what set off everyone questioning the endings since there's a huge disconnect between where Shepard was during the ending sequence. It implied that Shepard was unconscious on Earth..?

The idea behind the Indoctrination Theory is that the kid Shepard saw wasn't real, and simply a projection into her/his mind by the reapers to allow them to get to him/her on a personal level. The recurring dreams about the kid are the indoctrination attempting to take a firmer hold in her/his mind. When Harbinger blasts you at the end Shepard is knocked unconscious and nearly killed, and everything after that point is a hallucination/battle taking place inside Shepard's mind as the Reapers attempt to indoctrinate him/her fully.

People say this is supported by the interrupt option to shoot the Illusive Man being Renegade, apparently showing that the right and wrong choices are being flipped, and that the options the child presents to her/him as better than the Destroy ending are equivalent to giving in to indoctrination. They also say this is supported by Shepard suddenly having a handgun that cannot run out of ammunition, showing that the laws of reality have ceased to apply.

However, people fail to comment on this, but you can just as easily talk the Illusive Man into shooting himself, proving to him that he is indoctrinated and letting him stop himself. This is a paragon option, exactly like what you did with Saren in the first game, and the reason that shooting him is considered Renegade is because it's essentially Shepard deciding 'no, we're not going to talk about this' and putting him down, which is pretty much in line with the renegade options in the other games as well. The impatient/non diplomatic route has always been at the core of a renegade character.

As far as the handgun goes, that's easily explained- they wanted Shepard wounded for the last bit of the game, so they needed you limping around. Using a shotgun or sniper rifle in that state would seem ridiculous, so they give you a handgun, something he/she can use with one hand. The reason it has unlimited ammunition is because you have to shoot a conduit to start the Destroy ending, and if you could use up all your ammunition beforehand you'd be screwed when that decision came up.

I wish the indoctrination theory was true, but it feels like a lot of wishful thinking from people who are very disappointed with the ending that they got.

@boj4ngles said:

Most Indoctrination theory explanations I've seen don't explain the Normandy crash sequence very well, (and I've been reading up on the theory quite a bit). This video is the best one in my opinion for explaining the theory.

If you watch the perfect playthrough of the Illusive Man section, you can hear him say, "I need you to believe."

Apparently if you open the post game save file, it'll have three different comments depending on the ending you chose. The Destroy ending is "Live to fight another day". That's all I remember from one of those obscure Indoctrination threads. THIS ENTIRE POST IS RIDDLED WITH SPOILERS JUST FOR REMINDER GUYS
 
The idea of the theory is, over the course of the entire series, since Shepard has spent so much time around Reaper artifacts and, you know, Reapers THEMSELVES, that in Mass Effect 3 Harbinger(The hinted/supposed Leader of the Reapers) have finally managed to get a foothold inside of Shepard's head - A seed, if you will, in the form of a child. You see him in the first cutscene on Earth, playing with a Alliance Fighter. The camera pans out and you see Shepard looking down on him from the window. Cut to later on, after the initial attack, Shepard sees him inside of a ventilation shaft in a building. He tries to get him out of there, but the kid says something like "You can't save me" and disappears. Anderson then barks at Shepard to "snap out of it".
 
He then appears in a dream sequence that Shepard has every now and again, of the kid running around and him chasing after. You can hear the voices of other dead characters during this sequence.
 
In the final sequence, Shepard catches up to him, and the kid runs into the arms of a different Shepard, who are then set ablaze. These nightmares plague Shepard the entire course of the game, resulting in him not being able to get the best sleep. The seed has been sprouting more and more.
 
It's important to note that in every scene the kid is in, no one pays any attention to him. When he talks to Shepard in the shaft(Which is weird considering Shepard and Anderson were standing together, only for Shepard to hear the scared sound he makes. Anderson does nothing but tells Shep to "snap out of it") Anderson pays no mind. When the kid gets on an evacuation Shuttle, the kid scurries up through a group of soldiers, hobbles onto the shuttle(Which, again, no one even sees him) and they fly a few seconds into the air, only to be destroyed by a Reaper.  All in full view of Shepard, mind you.
 
These are endgame spoilers guys, I'm pretty sure the above is spoilers too, but not endgame spoilers. SO DO NOT CLICK IF YOU HAVE NOT BEAT MASS EFFECT 3
 

@CL60 said:

@Sooty said:

TL;DR - BioDrones cling to this theory because they won't accept BioWare just came up with a horrible ending

Anybody notice how people like this guy would rather throw around insults rather than actually intelligent ally discuss a theory?

"ARGH! I DON'T LIKE BIOWARE OR EA SO ANYBODY WHO DISCUSSES THEORYS ABOUT ONE OF THEIR GAMES IS A BIODRONE!!"

Shutup. Everybody who doesn't believe in the theory has been stating it with hostility to everybody, while the others are simply discussing it I've noticed.

I was actually joking, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit saying BioDrone around you is funny. You take the bait every time.

Edit: Not joking about the ending being bad, though.

I saw a video where some guy was talking about the Mass Effect 3 endings and he brought up the indoctrination theory.

Him - "So rather have the events be all a dream then except that the ending it real?"

Something that believes the theory - "Yup."

Him - "Doesn't anybody else find this depressing?"

So the inductrination theory rests on the idea that the Reapers would just give you a second chance to destroy them after they've basically won, 'cause they're just good sports like that.

@Rasmoss said:

So the indoctrination theory rests on the idea that the Reapers would just give you a second chance to destroy them after they've basically won, 'cause they're just good sports like that.

They didn't have full control of Shepard's mind, of course there'd be a destroy option.

@FLStyle said:

@Rasmoss said:

So the indoctrination theory rests on the idea that the Reapers would just give you a second chance to destroy them after they've basically won, 'cause they're just good sports like that.

They didn't have full control of Shepard's mind, of course there'd be a destroy option.

The problem I have with this is that there's literally no way to do badly enough at the game to not have the Destroy option. You can do badly enough that it's the only option available to Shepard at all. How can that be explained? Is all the work you do filling the war asset bar throughout the game just to earn you the privilege of picking false endings?

@Make_Me_Mad said:

@FLStyle said:

@Rasmoss said:

So the indoctrination theory rests on the idea that the Reapers would just give you a second chance to destroy them after they've basically won, 'cause they're just good sports like that.

They didn't have full control of Shepard's mind, of course there'd be a destroy option.

The problem I have with this is that there's literally no way to do badly enough at the game to not have the Destroy option. You can do badly enough that it's the only option available to Shepard at all. How can that be explained? Is all the work you do filling the war asset bar throughout the game just to earn you the privilege of picking false endings?

Isn't the Destroy Only option a separate ending from Destroy Survive? I filled the war asset bar the first time but I recall that those who don't and can only choose Destroy get a different ending in which all organic life on Earth is wiped out along with the Reapers, so you never see the Shepard survives bit at the end.

If you want me to contextually add that to the theory off the top of my head ... Shepard's mind isn't strong enough to overcome the indoctrination attempt without killing himself/his mind?

@FLStyle: The only time you can see the scene with Shepard taking a breath post-destroy ending is if you've got somewhere around 4500-5000 EMS. Is the scene where Shepard takes a breath supposed to be a separate ending altogether, or is it just a bonus scene that would normally occur but you don't see unless you have the required resources?

@FLStyle: Nice catch! Btw, how awesome was Martin Sheen's voice work at the end there? Really top notch stuff. "But I can!"

@Make_Me_Mad said:

@FLStyle said:

@Rasmoss said:

So the indoctrination theory rests on the idea that the Reapers would just give you a second chance to destroy them after they've basically won, 'cause they're just good sports like that.

They didn't have full control of Shepard's mind, of course there'd be a destroy option.

The problem I have with this is that there's literally no way to do badly enough at the game to not have the Destroy option. You can do badly enough that it's the only option available to Shepard at all. How can that be explained? Is all the work you do filling the war asset bar throughout the game just to earn you the privilege of picking false endings?

Unfortunately, you are bound to come up against problems like this if you look into the theory closely and the reason is that the writers did not intend for it to be a definitive interpretation. It is clear now from their statements and the "Final Hours" doc that they really didn't think it through very carefully and wanted people to make up their own interpretations. The game's final events are purposefully vague and ambiguous. Therefore, the Indoctrination Theory is not, and probably will never be fool-proof. It's just a fun way to get more out of an unsatisfying end.

@Make_Me_Mad: I'm not an indoctrination believer, but I think their argument would be that having a really low EMS means the Reapers are pretty much unstoppable and so they wouldn't really care about indoctrinating Shepard. I guess if you followed this ending forward, Shepard would still wake up (even though they don't show you this in the ending) and the Reapers would still win. Maybe they kill Shepard before he can even make it to the Crucible or something (because the low EMS means they wouldn't be able to hold them off). It's not a good argument if you ask me, but there you go.

I wish this theory was true. It would make the ending a lot more palpable if that was the case, because interpreting it literally just kind of shows how terrible and half-assed it is.

@Make_Me_Mad: A separate ending to the 0-3000, but a bonus scene to the 3000-4000 I believe.

@Zithe: @FLStyle: So is the theory here that when Shepard wakes up post-destroy ending, the battle with the Reapers is still ongoing? Firing the Crucible during the hallucination was the equivalent of a mental wake-up alarm?

If that's the case then the game really doesn't have an ending of any sort, you never find out what the crucible actually is or does, you never settle anything with the Illusive man, and the Reapers are still going full-tilt on the Galaxy's ass while your team may-or-may-not have died. I find it incredibly depressing that they managed to make an ending so bad people would rather believe that it doesn't have one at all.

Alright, I think those videos have convinced me, I'm jumping over to the indoctrination side. I was always weirded out by Shepard's earthly survival anyway.

@Make_Me_Mad said:

@Zithe: @FLStyle: So is the theory here that when Shepard wakes up post-destroy ending, the battle with the Reapers is still ongoing? Firing the Crucible during the hallucination was the equivalent of a mental wake-up alarm?

If that's the case then the game really doesn't have an ending of any sort, you never find out what the crucible actually is or does, you never settle anything with the Illusive man, and the Reapers are still going full-tilt on the Galaxy's ass while your team may-or-may-not have died. I find it incredibly depressing that they managed to make an ending so bad people would rather believe that it doesn't have one at all.

Yep, that's where we are at this point. BioWare is fully aware of this and now we play the waiting game and see what they do (outside of any non-ending-DLC that they had planned before the game's release).

@Sooty said:

TL;DR - BioDrones cling to this theory because they won't accept BioWare just came up with a horrible ending

This exactly. It's something so far out there and contrived and pretty sure Casey Hudson debunked it already. Also, it makes no sense when you think about how and when Shepard was indoctrinated, and not to mention even if it is true it's a terrible way to end a game where your choices supposedly have impact.

Either way it's complete shit.

@hankrazorbeard said:

It was all a dream.

I used to read Word Up! magazine

Salt'n'Pepa and Heavy D up in the limousine....

sorry I couldn't resist, I will forever think of Juicy when I hear those words...

@Dany said:

The only option that has Shepard 'waking up' in the rubble back on earth is the destroy option, isn't it??

Yes, I keep repeating this though, all we see is a chest and a gasp. That would make sense though, considering the other two involve a sacrifice (and destroy does too as well with a lower score). We do not know that he is waking up on Earth though. Could be that the explosion destroyed a part of the room he was in...

The more I think about it, the more I think Indoctrination is the dumbest shit in the Mass Effect universe.  
 
First of all, I feel like Indoctrination is never given rules or serious, rigid parameters. How does it work? Can they control how intense it is the way a person adjusts the volume of their car stereo? If so, then why isn't it used more frequently, more intelligently? If not, then it's just a cheap plot device the writers can use only when it's most convenient to have someone be "indoctrinated" (whatever that means--which, really, is mostly up to the writers whenever they decide someone has fallen to the effects).  
 
If the Reapers can control how severe the Indoctrination is, then why aren't the Reapers using Indoctrination as the first, most immediate line of attack against any sentient threat? Why didn't Sovereign--who proved more or less invulnerable when his shield remained active--just fly a couple laps around the Citadel and Indoctrinate the shit out of everyone in the fleets and on the Citadel itself? If the goal is to stop the total eradication of organic life, why don't the Reapers plant their tech on the habitable planets and indoctrinate organic life to the point of near-incompetence? Just remove from them the ability to even have the intelligence necessary to build AI. Why prolong this whole conflict and even give the sentient creatures a chance to retaliate? Can the Reapers control the nature of Indoctrination? Do people just lose their minds or are they subject to the will of the Reapers? Is it even consistent through all the games?  
 
It seems to me that the Reapers, being the most advanced bio-synthetic intelligence in the universe, might concoct a savvier set of tactics that utilize Indoctrination as the super-weapon it truly is. What more powerful tool is there than the ability to bend minds to your will? Why don't the Reapers exploit this advantage always? What's with this passive shit? 
 
If Indoctrination is sort of random and willy-nilly, then it's just a dumb device that makes things happen just because the plot necessitates said things' happening. Why does Illusive Man want the Reaper Tech so badly? Oh, Indoctrination. Why is the ending goofy as fuck? Oh, Indoctrination. But ignore all the time the entire Normandy crew has spent around Reaper tech, and forget asking why the Reapers haven't pursued using this mind-control beeswax as a more widespread weaponry. 
 
I think that's half the reason why this Indoctrination theory doesn't hold any weight. We don't even really know what Indoctrination is. How it works. "You stay near Reapers and you get Indoctrinated," is more or less the gist of it. And that's not good enough. Nor is it concrete enough to use as a foundation for the conclusion of the entire franchise. 

Here's a longer, more detailed and polished version of the original analyzation. It makes the possibility of a 'real' ending being tons, tons better.

@Rasmoss said:

So the inductrination theory rests on the idea that the Reapers would just give you a second chance to destroy them after they've basically won, 'cause they're just good sports like that.

Actually, you AREN'T destroying them. They aren't giving you a choice. The point is, it's all in his head, and it's a trick used so the mind thinks it's in control, and they grab the last bit of control over your mind.

The only truly depressing thing about the indoctrination theory is that it means bioware didn't put an ending into the game, and whether it be DLC or a sequel, we aren't done fighting the reapers.

I feel like I'm being indoctrinated by this damn theory.

I don't really think the theory stands up all that well. It ignores the fact the TIM was trying to tap into reaper indoctrination to control them, so in the control room, it was TIM that was causing that "dark vision" effect, not the reapers. It was clearly explained that Cerberus' tech required the controller to be in close proximity to the victim. TIM was in the room the whole time during that encounter.

More importantly it ignores the Catalyst as being the true controller of the reapers and that the Catalyst (and thereby the Reapers) is likely a creation of an ancient race of beings that got fed up with seeing synthetics going rogue all the time. The Kid is essentially just a holographic interface similar to Vigil.

if the indoctrination ending is true

then things are not so brim after all

@xyzygy said:

@Sooty said:

TL;DR - BioDrones cling to this theory because they won't accept BioWare just came up with a horrible ending

This exactly. It's something so far out there and contrived and pretty sure Casey Hudson debunked it already. Also, it makes no sense when you think about how and when Shepard was indoctrinated, and not to mention even if it is true it's a terrible way to end a game where your choices supposedly have impact.

Either way it's complete shit.

Sounds like you're talking about the actual ending

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Here's a longer, more detailed and polished version of the original analyzation. It makes the possibility of a 'real' ending being tons, tons better.

Nice, I'm glad he incorporated Mass Effect 1 stuff.