Does everyone who thought it was correct think they're completely idiot now for believing in it, now that it was proven false?

I remember the evidence presented for why it was right.

"All of the bodies look like dolls"

"Where'd you armor go?"

"Why do you have infinite ammo with your pistol?"

"Why can't you shoot the keepers?"

Didn't it ever cross anyone's mind that Bioware just didn't want to model a destroyed armor bit for every piece in the game? Or the fact that there were so many bodies, to have them super hi-res like the models you play as would lag out the game? Or the fact that if you ran out of ammo during their linear cinematic line up it'd ruin what they were going for. And keepers have never been able to be shot throughout the entire game. Does that mean you were dreaming all of ME1's citadel scenes too?

I'm just curious what proponents of the theory are thinking about it. Post extended endings it seems no one is talking about it. I think everyone is embarrassed that they so adamantly clung to the indoctrination theory and discovered it was wrong. It's funny how quiet and indifferent people get when they look so stupid.

I think "cock-up before conspiracy" is a term everyone should become acquainted with before the next Bioware game.

I think you maybe need to let it go. Just my personal opinion.

@CL60 said:

What a dumb topic.

Also, this.

I think there were and remain crazy inconsistencies in the last moments of Mass Effect 3 that didn't add up in my mind which made me question if they weren't trying to pull a Matrix moment long before the internet came up with the Indoctrination theory.

I chocked them up to rushed game design a la Dragon Age 2, but I wanted to believe it was something more.

And no... look at my posts. I'm not a crazy Mass Effect 3 hater.

What a dumb topic.

The only reason people wanted to stick with it was because it was about a thousand times better and more interesting than all the endings Bioware gave us.

The only reason people wanted to stick with it was because it was about a thousand times better and more interesting than all the endings Bioware gave us.

I always thought the theory was stupid but a few weeks after the game came out so many people seemed to believe it that I started to worry that I was an idiot for not picking up on it on my playthrough.

i haven't heard anything, or i've heard 'yeah, well, it would have been so much better if i was right'

it was pretty typical conspiracy theorising, bend everything you can into a meaningful extension of the idea and ignore everything that doesn't fit. but it was quite a fun idea i guess so whatever.

games

Shut it ASS effect fanboy.

So let me get this straight, you're actually celebrating the fact that ME3's ending was as terrible as everyone first thought, just because it let you prove someone else wrong?

That's... very interesting.

I do think it's pretty funny how many people totally bought into that B.S. to try and excuse how fucking terrible the actual endings were, claiming that other people were stupid for not catching on to the obvious signs and all. Still, I'm not going to call for them to step forward and apologize for their rampant idiocy and douchebaggery. In the end, everyone really just got screwed by Bioware. No reason to be bitter at other fans about that.

I only post now because me and a few friends just recently playing the extended cut and had a few discussions. A few of us didn't believe in the indoctrination theory and were really curious if people feel dumb or not for believing in it. I don't mean to insult anyone. I phrase it that way because in the beginning when it first came out, I almost questioned whether or not I was dumb for overlooking it. Quite frankly, I wrote everything off as oversights, blunders, or EA, and when you do that, you don't really look for any depth when there probably isn't any there. The cyborg ninja practically took me out of the game before it even began.

So I was wondering if the feeling is reversed now, because now I'm relieved, and maybe when proponents of the theory first played the cut they felt a little duped.

@Rohok: My answer is still nope. I was questioning things the moment that

At least from my understanding of it (the Indoctrination Theory), no, I don't think people questioning the depth of what Bioware was getting at with the ending to their trilogy were crazy, and I'm more disappointed that there wasn't something deeper to the way the story evolved over three games.

I far prefer the indoctrination theory to anything that Bioware has come up with, i haven't even played the new ending yet because it doesn't matter to me. Mass Effect for me ends with a big question about what happens in that Universe and frankly I am not to bothered or interested to find out what they think should happen in any case. Man that games ending bummed me the fuck out.

Man, I can't wait to finally get around to this Mass Effet 3 y'all keep going on about.

Hey, remember that time everyone got all pissy about the ending to a videogame?

I WISH I DIDN'T.

There are two hour and half documentaries about the subject.

JAHAJAHAJAHAJAH THATS SO DUMB YO FRIEND-O

@GenocidalKitten said:

I relish in the fact that all the people that were being dicks and saying that it was obviously the indoctrination theory are proven to be wrong.

But, for all the people who just thought it was a good theory and thought it was a better ending than the one given, I'm right there with you.

Sums up how I felt about it.

Eh, it was just people hoping that the kind of bad endings weren't actually the endings. Some people jumped deeper than others. I never gave it much merit but at least thought it was an interesting discussion.

Unless I've missed something very major I think the indoctrination theory still remains a valid interpretation. Yes, of course people considered some of the "evidence" for the indoctrination theory could be the result of incompetence on Bioware's part, and while I don't think the indoctrination theory was "correct", it was never just about that little section where you shot the Marauder, it was about much more than that. Even if it wasn't what Bioware intended to be canon, I still think it's a rather wonderful interpretation the fans came up with.

Overall I just really don't like the tone of this thread. Yes, you were right and they were wrong, but let's not make this about pointing and laughing at people or trying to make those who believed in the indoctrination theory feel embarrassed or stupid. I don't think getting something wrong about a piece of video game fiction is this hugely shameful thing, and if people aren't talking about it now, I don't believe it's because of some deep burning shame, it's because the discussion over the indoctrination theory was already done to death six months ago.

@Rohok said:

I only post now because me and a few friends just recently playing the extended cut and had a few discussions. A few of us didn't believe in the indoctrination theory and were really curious if people feel dumb or not for believing in it. I don't mean to insult anyone. I phrase it that way because in the beginning when it first came out, I almost questioned whether or not I was dumb for overlooking it. Quite frankly, I wrote everything off as oversights, blunders, or EA, and when you do that, you don't really look for any depth when there probably isn't any there. The cyborg ninja practically took me out of the game before it even began.

So I was wondering if the feeling is reversed now, because now I'm relieved, and maybe when proponents of the theory first played the cut they felt a little duped.

That's a substantially more reasonable way of putting it.

I'll say that while I wanted it to be true given how short and uninteresting the original ending was, I at no point truly believed that anyone making a big-budget game for EA would ever be allowed to make the "real" ending to a full trilogy so subtle. Obviously anyone who was calling you dumb for not picking up on the "obvious" signs is a pretentious moron, but just try not to insult others just because they wanted to believe that Bioware was capable of something that would honestly have been kind of amazing if it were true.

So using elements that appear on a game that can give light to other interpertations to its content is being an idiot? I think not my friend , actually makes the things more interesting , why is it so damn hard for you people to let others theorize , what does it matter to you , will your e-ween become smaller or what?

Not this shit again...

Classy topic.

The indoctrination theory had some pretty interesting ideas. Though a few points were a massive stretch. Now that people have hindsight of the extended ending, they a prepared to label the whole thing as dumb. Personally I think some of the theorists were pretty clever in piecing together the theory, despite it being ultimately false.

I have no idea what the indoctrination theory entails and haven't played more than a bit of Mass Effect 1, but I remember some pretty crazy theories spreading when the first trailer to the new DMC came out. Among them were people saying that the guy was actually insane and only thought that he was Dante and eventually the 'real' Dante would show up.

Pretty nuts, I thought.

Anyone else get the feeling like that true ending was just unfinished and they pissed people off with their artistic B.S. to stall long enough to get the "Extended Cut" out the door? The ending feels a lot better now however the reason everyone ended up on the ship on another flippin' planet still doesn't make any sense to me, or maybe I missed something? Well that's just my opinion.

Based on the original cut of the game, there was and still is sufficient -but not definitive- evidence to consider it a possible sequence of events.  It doesn't matter what Bioware intended to do, or what they did after the fact, only what is present in that original cut of the game. Nobody has been 'proven wrong' - you can't be proven wrong about your interpretation of a work by something outside of the work. That''d be like suggesting people were wrong about Han shooting first because Lucas changed his mind. 
 
Obviously under normal circumstances the audience might not find themselves reaching quite so far for an explanation, but under normal circumstances the Occam's Razor ending wouldn't also be completely nonsensical. It was the 'obvious' interpretation being so clumsily executed which lead to people questioning whether there was supposed to be more to it than met the eye in the first place.

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I think you maybe need to let it go. Just my personal opinion.

@CL60 said:

What a dumb topic.

Also, this.

Yeah i will have to agree on this! Why insult people for having a theory, crazy or clever. Mass effect 3 ending was very open and unsatisfying to many so i'm not surprised people made theories or their own endings.

@Gamer_152 said:

Unless I've missed something very major I think the indoctrination theory still remains a valid interpretation. Yes, of course people considered some of the "evidence" for the indoctrination theory could be the result of incompetence on Bioware's part, and while I don't think the indoctrination theory was "correct", it was never just about that little section where you shot the Marauder, it was about much more than that. Even if it wasn't what Bioware intended to be canon, I still think it's a rather wonderful interpretation the fans came up with.

Overall I just really don't like the tone of this thread. Yes, you were right and they were wrong, but let's not make this about pointing and laughing at people or trying to make those who believed in the indoctrination theory feel embarrassed or stupid. I don't think getting something wrong about a piece of video game fiction is this hugely shameful thing, and if people aren't talking about it now, I don't believe it's because of some deep burning shame, it's because the discussion over the indoctrination theory was already done to death six months ago.

The new ending went out of its way to dispel the notion that it was all an illusion brought on by indoctrination, from adjustments made in the lead-up to the Illusive Man confrontation to everything that happens after Space Child shows up. It was a theory predicated on the notion that everything was a dream and mostly inspired by fans' disbelief that the ending, as it was originally written, was bungled so poorly in its execution. I see no reason at all to see how this theory could still be considered valid, but the OP went too far in slinging insults at those that chose to believe it.

@Hailinel: Like I said, I don't believe the indoctrination theory was ever intended by Bioware to be how the fans interpreted the ending, but while the changes in the Extended Cut made it perhaps slightly less plausible, I still can't see anything in there which makes it unworkable as an interpretation of the ending. I don't think Bioware went that far out of their way to disprove the theory though, I think it becoming less plausible post-Extended Cut was simply a bi-product of them just fixing a lot of the illogical or out of place elements in the story, giving it a somewhat less dream-like quality.

@CL60 said:

What a dumb topic.

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I think you maybe need to let it go. Just my personal opinion.

Yeah, The game came out like 6 months ago and the Extended Cut was 2 months ago. Its time to stop.

I will have to agree. Dumb topic.
 
Most other places celebrate the indoctrination theory as proof to how dedicated a fanbase can be. The indoctrination theory is no different than the millions of millions of theories on the ending of Inception, the ending of The Thing or so on and so forth. People can get really attached to these things.
 
There are a huge amount of videos on the theory and quite a lot of them are still right to this day. Nothing about the original ending made sense. Who what when why where. None of it added up and there were gaps. And not to mention the fact that there was entire interviews about the ending of the game, one made exactly one week before it released, that were 100% incorrect. So, the fanbase filled these gaps on their own to make the game more interesting.
 
The theory did a lot more for Bioware than they would probably care to admit. Look at Koobismo's alternate ending comics on deviantArt(edited). He's actually had the voice actors take a look and pledge their support of what he's doing(Jack's voice actor, for instance, who has an hour long interview with his team on dA). It gave the game a whole new level of exposure and made it a heated topic of discussion for months after the game came out.
 
Then the Extended Cut came out and made the ending better than it was. Which, funnily enough, looking at the old endings, they weren't ever really as bad as I remember them. It's all in the heat of the moment.
 
So, in closing, dumb topic(No offense), the indoctrination theory was a fun little fanbase created, fanbase approved experiment that ended up giving Mass Effect 3 more exposure than it would have gotten, and showing just how creative and dedicated a fanbase can be.

Proven wrong? I don't think Bioware even knew what it was, and to me it seemed like they just made an ending that intentionally wasn't as players thought it could have been. I think the indoctrination theory was interesting, and for all the points made, it could have been, but once the new endings were made, they took some stuff out, and added stuff in to deliberately make it so the Indoctrination theory was incorrect. The one thing I don't like about this thread is that it's directed incorrectly.

You don't just say that the people that thought what it was are fools, because what it was could have very much been what it was, but because Bioware changed it to what it was... it's just, yes, what a shitty thread. It's like you don't even get it. Personally, I didn't hate the ending as much as others, but still. I don't think anyone that believed it was the theory should feel like idiots at all, there's absolutely no reason for it. Did anyone else feel this way? I mean, now that I think about it, not only did it clear the ending up, but it made it 100 percent clear that it's not the indoctrination theory, like that was the focus.

There are very subtle things at the end, like one line that the Illusive man says, he said something like "I'm controlling you!" or something, and that wasn't in the original ending I believe.

@Gamer_152 said:

Unless I've missed something very major I think the indoctrination theory still remains a valid interpretation. Yes, of course people considered some of the "evidence" for the indoctrination theory could be the result of incompetence on Bioware's part, and while I don't think the indoctrination theory was "correct", it was never just about that little section where you shot the Marauder, it was about much more than that. Even if it wasn't what Bioware intended to be canon, I still think it's a rather wonderful interpretation the fans came up with.

Overall I just really don't like the tone of this thread. Yes, you were right and they were wrong, but let's not make this about pointing and laughing at people or trying to make those who believed in the indoctrination theory feel embarrassed or stupid. I don't think getting something wrong about a piece of video game fiction is this hugely shameful thing, and if people aren't talking about it now, I don't believe it's because of some deep burning shame, it's because the discussion over the indoctrination theory was already done to death six months ago.

Exactly, except for the fact that I think that the indoctrination theory idea was deliberately thrown out the window by Bioware, kind of in a "Ha, fans think they can come up with such a clever idea? Not in my game!" And boom, theory fixed. There were a lot of major and minor details that helped make it not be the theory. I agree about the tone of this thread though.

It was the result of people wanting to believe BioWare wrote a better game than they actually did and "rationalizing" all of the inconsistencies and errors that were the result of poor and/or rushed design.

The horse is already dead.

Hey look, another ME3 ending thread...

Wow, a new thread on the ending of Mass Effect 3! I'm sure this will lead to interesting conversations that we all haven't heard a billion times! Boy, I sure can't get enough of talking about the ending of Mass Effect 3.

@N7: This fan-base created fan-base approved experiment would not have been so bad if the indoctrination theorists did not come to various forums and try to shove that theory into everyone else throats as the truth, all the while claiming either superior intelligence or superior knowledge of ME universe. Hence the lash-back of gloating. (not everyone was like this but there were plenty of people who were) Even tho yes, this is a totally shitty way to bring the subject up i agree.

@Gamer_152: No, @Hailinel is correct the changes actually made the theory completely unworkable as it was constructed. Because the indoc. theory stipulated that Shepard wakes up in the red ending by breaking the indoctrination, while in the others he remains under still imagining everything and Reapers actually win. In all cases actual events stop at Shephard being knocked out by the lazor beam, and are a hallucination from then on. It was the very core of the theory. The extended cut however made it clear that all 3 endings are as is, real, by outside narration of post game outcome.

I think that idea was very interesting for putting forward the notion that out of the three options presented to you at the end of the game, only one of them holds true to what your primary goal has been throughout this entire series.

To defeat the Reapers.

Therefore, all the shenanigans that go down with getting you to choose an option that involves NOT defeating the Reapers is somewhat...odd and interesting.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is upset at people for thinking "Hey, Indoctrination theory is definitely better than the shit in the game" or for buying into it. At least, I'm not, for sure. I'm just pleased that some of the people who were huge assholes to others about the Indoctrination Theory had to eat a slice of humble pie about the whole thing. All the threads revolving around it were filled with people who thought it was a cool theory, and peppered throughout were people pushing it and shouting down anyone who questioned it. It was patently ridiculous, and I'm just glad it's over and that they look all the more idiotic in retrospect.

Also, all of the people saying "Oh, another Mass Effect 3 Ending thread" should probably get over it. People are allowed to talk about things that happened in the past, as it turns out.

@Tennmuerti: It's also neat to mention that someone went to Comic-Con and asked Mike Gamble(I'm 99% sure that's who it was) about the indoctrination theory and he said something like "We can't talk about that other than the fact that it's a fan made theory". So while he didn't outright say it was never true, he did outright say it was never true.

I just beat it today....and i gotta say, maybe i'm missing something, but the Indoctrination Theory seems like a load of crap..

I DID what i needed to do.

I destroyed the Geth to save the Quarians

I gathered as many Fleets as i could.

I stopped Cerberus

I led the attack to retake Earth

I shot the Illusive Man in the head

I rolled my eyes at the Catalyst kid, obviously trying to appeal to my sense of "justice"

Admiral Hackett ordered me to destroy the Reapers, Anderson sacrificed his life to get me there, Garrus took a shot in the gut forr me, everyone sacrificed their fleets to get me there, and they want me to spare the Reapers and become some sort of God-like creature that rules over the Galaxy? How does that make me different from the power hungry idiot that the Illusive Man was?

No, I followed my orders, I knew that the Starchild Catalyst was a liar, EVERY single person throughout the entire series told me i couldn't win...but i won, and now they expect me to buy into their BS because some Starchild says that the only way to stop a war between robots and organics is to maintain an endless cycle of genocide. Which is the stupidest way to do anything. Solving Violence with more violence? Great little world there for YOU people maybe, but i'm not buyin it.

The solution the reapers had was one that came from Hatred and Fear...they were evil, and i destroyed them.

Not sure what indoctrination has to do with that. It's the dumbest theory i ever heard of. The Indoctrination Theory would mean that the promises Bioware made to let us SEE what consequences our actions led to, would be gone.

It just makes no sense.

Maybe you guys didn't like the way you handled things in your game, and want some way out. But i'm satisified with it, and i accept my consequences.

Thanks for reading. Aye :)

Edit: Also....maybe i'm satisfied wigh my ending because i got the extended cut right off the bat....no loose ends for me. :P oh well, it's just a game for gods sake.

@Rohok said:

Does everyone who thought it was correct think they're completely idiot now for believing in it, now that it was proven false?

The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 clearly state that Shepard was supposed to be indoctrinated.

When they got to the part where Shepard was supposed to be fighting the indoctrination, the mechanic was too difficult to implement so they scrapped it.

But they left everything leading up to the indoctrination moment intact (pre-extended cut).

I still think the Indoctrination Theory ending would have been WAY better.

@Make_Me_Mad: If they were idiotic for being arrogant to people who disagreed, I totally agree with you.

If they were idiotic for believing in the indoctrination theory , I have to disagree there.

- Despite the facts that the extended endings gave more details about the consequences of all 3 choices, they did not dispell in any way the very notion of Shep being indoctrinated.

IT is about the reapers trying to convince Commander Shepard (AND THE PLAYER) to use the crucible as a way to controle reapers (he would become one of them), or even better to choose the synthesis option and help them implant reaper tech to all living things in the galaxy putting an end to their cycles. The notion that everything was a dream probably came from the low quality of ME3 original ending filled with multiple plot holes but nonetheless, the IT works equally whether the ending is a dream or if Shepard really climbed on the citadel and fired the crucible but suffered from heavy hallucinations induced by indoctrination along the way (which is my favorite interpretation btw).

The extended cut did not erase any of the elements which gave clues of a possible indoctrination. (And thoses are not elements of gameplay or technical mistakes consequences of a rushed ending as all the odd events happening during the final confrontation with TIM could be (or the changes happening to the gun when choosing the destroy option)

The final choices and the colours associated are still inverted. The control option (Illusive man choice) is still depicted as a paragon option whereas the Illusive man was the ultimate renegade in the ME universe , the destroy option (chosen by Anderson) is still depicted as a renegade choice.

Commander Shepard stilll survives in the perfect destroy ending while the starchild told him he wouldn't which implied the starchild had LIED to him in order to make him choose control or synthesis.

Only indoctrinated characters upheld the control option (throughout ME2 and ME3), only Saren (from ME1) upheld the synthesis option and those characters were controlled by the reapers. All other characters upheld the destroy option as the only possible choice.

The reasons given by the starchild in order to justify the cycles of destruction of all organic civilizations (prevent a war between organics and synthetics) sound still as hollow as before given the possibility of peace between quarians and geths.

Commander Shepard is still the first living person surviving a hit by a reaper beam, Harbinger still lets Shepard access the beam while at the same time major Coats contradicts Admiral Anderson previous specific orders by ordering a full retreat...

The infrasound included in the reapers noises sound files are still also associated to major Coats apparances.

Commander Shepard's dreams are still there and all the tiny clues are still included. (Do you hear that hum?)

The body laying around are still only those wearing Ashley's or Kaidan's armors in ME1 and ME2 + some random alliance soldiers.

Commander Shepard still look like a husk when choosing control or synthesis.

Etc..

- If the extended cut endings gave anything, it was MORE clues leading to an indoctrination attempt.

The moment Harbinger hits Shepard has been replaced by a cinematic where Harbinger almost distinctively says "Serve us" before firing. Granted this sound has been emitted by various reapers previously in the game but the timing in this scene is highly suspicious, especially if bioware ever intended to disprove the IT.

When Shep arrives on the citadel, a new scene has been added where a keepers removes the helmet of an alliance soldiers. Using fly cams showed that the dead alliance soldier is the same major Coats who ordered the retreat minutes before and who happens to be in all the endings after Commander Shepard fired the crucible. (another mistake in an extended ending?)

In the evac scene, Harbinger does not fire at the alliance troops or his squad members or even the Normandy when shepard is too close which gives credence to the idea that Harbinger made everything possible to spare Commander Shepard and separate him from the other soldiers in order either to let him access alone to the citadel or just have time to indoctrinate him.

In the refusal ending, the Starchild is confirmed to be a reaper and therefore cannot be trusted AT ALL.

Therefore, I think the extended cut just left us where we should have been if the release had not been rushed by Electronic Arts. They gave hints of a possible indoctrination without saying if it was true or not AND answered to the main critics of their ending by fixing the most obvious plotholes (explosion of the relays, crash of the Normandy ...)

- Does it invalidate the indoctrination theory? NO. Like someone said, bioware loves the indoctrination theory because it makes people talk about their game. If anything, bioware is toying with it's fan. Even the major Coats clues is probably a troll made because people at bioware know some of their fans are nerds using special programs (like fly cams) to scan or datamine their games under every aspects, looking for answers. It's not in their interest to deny the IT, at least not yet.

PLUS it has been reported that some users on the bioware forum asked for a removal of hte IT posts to the fans fictions part, Mr Priestley rejected their pleas and argued that IT is still a plausible interpretation of the ending.

- Is indoctrination theory the real ending of the game? Nobody knows but it is part of the game and while it can be ignored, it cannot be removed. For my part, I always found strange that ME3 could offer 3 different endings, all of them being a good choice without the pressure of making a mistake. That felt totally out of touch with the game.

- Is the IT a good ending for the game, better than the 3 choices we have? It's a mater of taste. The three ending are good. Not great but good, but i don't feel they fit in the game and I have strong arguments against them.

So what are the choices here , bioware can either stands to a very bland ending totally disconnected from everything that was made and told before (again IMHO) or go for IT. Maybe not the indoctrination theory that has been talked to death but they may take some elements of it. why? because it will make people by MORE dlcs.

And we shouldn't forget that bioware manipulated the players in many games with ground shaking turns of events from Baldur's gate 1 and 2 to ME3. Indoctrination could be such a manipulation. Leading the player to do something he fought against for at least 100 hours would be brilliant.

Is it good for players, yes and no, if it works, all the gaming industry will release unfinished games on purpose in order to milk its customers but coming from bioware it could also be fantastic as a storytelling device.

Nonetheless, IT or not, I think the original ending is unforgivable and some people at EA should be fired for it.

My 2 cents or more.

vlad