@mordukai said:

This is not even the case of "agree to disagree". That's how facts are. If Bioware never did the extended cut then your argument stands true but the fact Bioware addressed the rather ambiguous ending means that any further analysis of the original ending is moot.

This. Seriously. BioWare can't (for PR reasons) come right out and openly repudiate the indoctrination theory (at least until it's necessary to do so), but the extended cut is completely incompatible with the indoctrination theory. Indoctrination lost, twice. They took it out before release, and refused to go back in that direction afterward. It's time to move on.

@Forum_User said:

@StarvingGamer said:

- In the ending where Shepard lives, s/he appears to be under concrete rubble. Furthermore, regardless of what the rubble looks like, the idea that Shepard could have survived the Citadel explosion is kind of crazy, even by Mass Effect logic.

That is the biggest non-argument I have ever heard.

That is the most self-descriptive sentence I have ever seen. By the way, that ending only can happen if the non-indoctrination (red) path of destroying the Reapers is chosen, despite Mister Catalyst (who is obviously telling the truth, because when would the Reapers, or something controlling them, or whatever it actually is, lie to anyone? : D) saying that it would kill Shepard. This also is confirmed as Shepard surviving by official sources like spoiler documentation with the N7 edition.

But I'm sure it's another "glancing blow," and surely isn't part of one of the biggest pieces of misdirection ever put forth in a video game story. Is it that nobody can believe that the creators of a video game (instead of a movie or book) would pull a stunt like that? I mean, I live in the world where 2001: A Space Odyssey (seems a fitting example) is a thing, right?

Yes. The Catalyst assumes that the ensuing destruction of the Citadel would kill Shepard. That makes sense. Shepard survives by another incredible stroke of luck. That also makes sense. I'm still not seeing a substantive argument here. This is basically "lalala I can't hear you" caliber discourse, especially because the EC ending directly refutes the indoctrination theory.

Look, like I said, taken out of context any one of the points you made could be right. The problem is that there is 0 hard evidence. Everything point you made was simply an interpretation, a subjective look at objective facts. I was able to instantly conjure a number of counterpoints that you have yet to prove impossible, or even less plausible. It's like believing the moon landing was faked because they could have filmed it. There could have been aliens at Area 51. There could have been aliens that helped build the Pyramids in Egypt and temples in South America. Bush and his consortium could have been responsible for 9-11. If you're going to make an argument contrary to the reality that is in front of you, you need something more solid than suppositions. You need proof, and you don't have any.

@Mike76x said:

@Forum_User: Indoctrination was supposed to take place at the end of the game.

They said the mechanics of controlling an indoctrinated Shepard and decision making didn't work so they dropped it and ended there game right there.

They also dropped the Illusive Man boss battle, because Casey Hudson thought it was too video-gamey.

"Indoctrination Theory' is merely realizing how lazy the Mass Effect team was when they ran out of time toward the end of development.

It sucks if it turns out they laid the ground work for Shepard being indoctrinated with the kid at the beginning, the hums Vega keeps hearing, the black oily shapes and hearing the dead during Shepards dreams (rachni queen mentions this in ME1). Bioware gets to the end realizes the indoctrination gameplay doesn't work and scratches it but leaves everything else in place. Just hate to think they were that sloppy. Makes me real sad to think about because I thought the whole time at the end something was off and went with the destroy ending. Oh well I guess still had a great time with this trilogy.

Just watched the video in the OP. Really great stuff. I honestly don't care what Bioware says, I'm a fan of the indoctrination theory. Not because I was one of the angry people about the ending (in fact I was completely fine with it), but because it really is a fascinating theory that makes a ton of sense. There are plotholes regardless of what you believe though.

The two videos I've linked to above are a two part documentary on the Indoctrination Theory. Watching them now, and they seem to break every down piece by piece. All of this just reminds me how much I love this series. Say what you will about the ending or the third game in general, but people are still talking about it. That's a powerful effect and lasting impression.

@DeShawn2ks said:

@Mike76x said:

@Forum_User: Indoctrination was supposed to take place at the end of the game.

They said the mechanics of controlling an indoctrinated Shepard and decision making didn't work so they dropped it and ended there game right there.

They also dropped the Illusive Man boss battle, because Casey Hudson thought it was too video-gamey.

"Indoctrination Theory' is merely realizing how lazy the Mass Effect team was when they ran out of time toward the end of development.

It sucks if it turns out they laid the ground work for Shepard being indoctrinated with the kid at the beginning, the hums Vega keeps hearing, the black oily shapes and hearing the dead during Shepards dreams (rachni queen mentions this in ME1). Bioware gets to the end realizes the indoctrination gameplay doesn't work and scratches it but leaves everything else in place. Just hate to think they were that sloppy. Makes me real sad to think about because I thought the whole time at the end something was off and went with the destroy ending. Oh well I guess still had a great time with this trilogy.

I find it rather ironic how this Illusive Man boss battle was considered too ''video-gamey'' when you consider how ME3 presented your choice of ending.

@Yummylee: I honestly don't think Casey Hudson should have been entrusted with the direction of the third game. He even visited Giant Bomb for a special ME3 Bombcast and told the staff things about the game that, from what I recall, turned out to be hilariously inaccurate.

The main problem with the whole indoctrination theory is the simple fact that the game ends then and there. If it was supposed to be a case that Shepard's been hoodwinked then as with any other rug pull (for instance the crash in Arkham Asylum) the game should of then proceeded to the real ending. This idea that Bioware were going to sell/release the real ending as DLC down the road begs the simple question.'.why not delay the game until the entirety is ready?'

@Forum_User said:

- At the beginning, nobody else takes notice of that child, and the child takes off (is no longer there) when Anderson shows up. That event is accompanied by a Reaper growl, which people say is explained in one of the Mass Effect novels to be something that happens when someone rejects an indoctrination attempt.

Sorry to open an older thread, but I wanted to point out that the kid definitely existed, otherwise why would the Alliance soldiers have waited for him to get into the transport. They would have closed that door as soon as possible to try to get those people out of there.

@mordukai said:

Again...Bioware discounted the indoctrination theory so this whole argument is pointless. I don't really care if you played it or not but that's how it stands. You are looking for a deeper meaning in an ending, better yet in a whole game's story line, that really has none.

Well, that's another problem with this controversy, not with the ending per se.

The indoctrination theory doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on, but I do find it odd that Shepard does in fact seem dead before he can reach the console to open the Citadel arms what with that hole in his side, if the explosion from the "destroy" option didn't finish him off on top of that.

I thought it was kind of a copout to make it look like Shepard somehow survived all of that.

I don't know if anyone's noticed it before but it struck me as conclusive evidence proving the Indoctrination Theory wrong.

Remember in Thessia, when you interact with the Prothean VI. At one point, just before Kai Leng appears, the VI says something along the lines of, "Indoctrinated presence detected, taking precautionary measures...".

So, we can conclude that Kai Leng is the Indoctrinated one since Shepard had already been talking to the VI for a minute or two. This also proves that Shepard is not Indoctrinated.

Those who say that he gets indoctrinated after getting on the Citadel refer to the Citadel as a Reaper built structure, but to the best of my knowledge, when Shepard refers to the Prothean built Mass Relays and Citadel, the Prothean VI clarifies that they were built by organics before the Protheans.

Hell of a necro.

It seems crazy to think that 5 years ago people were so passionate about Mass Effect that they created things like the IT, the Marauder Shields webcomic, and all sort of ending mods.

I think we have conclusive proof that Bioware just doesn't have the writing chops anymore. ME2 had a bad main story, DA2 had a bad main story, ME3 had a bad main story. But at least these games had good characters and great side stories. Bioware has always been know for writing intriguing characters and generic/indifferent plots, but somewhere along the way their characters became generic as well. DA: Inquisition had a bad main story AND less interesting characters. SWTOR was all over the place and is currently a Saturday morning cartoon. Then we have Andromeda.

The writing's on the wall. Mass Effect's time has passed. We've moved on to bigger and better franchises and so has EA. I don't know if Bioware can ever recapture the magic again, but I do know that Mass Effect will be remembered for how it captured gamer's imaginations. I'll remember it as the first game where I cared about the story so much, that I reloaded saves to get a better outcome, to make a conversation go just right, to make my favorite character laugh. Goodbye Mass Effect, I'll remember you fondly.

@qrowdyy: But then the citadel DLC, which came out months after ME3, was some of the best Mass Effect content ever produced. I get that the cool thing to do is to shit on Bioware now but there was a path for Mass Effect Andromeda. They made 2.9 great games in that franchise, great DLC stories and they had a great premise. It's not wrong for people to expect more from Bioware. It's certainly a better attitude than throwing your hands up and wishing for the death of one of the few AAA developer left that ever made anything worth a crap.

@pyrodactyl: I think you misunderstood my post. I don't have any ill will towards Bioware. I certainly hope the new IP Bioware is working on turns out great and if it does I'll play that motherfucker to death like I have every other Bioware game. I just think that if you look at their WHOLE body of work instead of just the Mass Effect series, it paints a clear picture of a downward trend in the quality of the writing(not the gameplay).

Have you completed every game in the Dragon Age series, have you played through SWTOR and all its expansions? Because I have and let me tell you calling those games uneven is being charitable. As for Citadel, I mentioned in my earlier post that their side stories have usually been good/great. That includes DLC. But ever since Mass Effect 2, the MAIN quest in each game has been poorly written or generic/unimaginative. For Mass Effect 2 that didn't really matter because the character stories and every other thing in that game was brilliant. But, beginning with Dragon Age:Inquisition even the character writing started to suffer.

Anyways my post was not so much a eulogy for Bioware as it was a eulogy for Mass Effect. Hopefully we'll see another ME game down the road, but with EA explicitly saying they're putting Mass Effect on ice(not to mention what happened to Dead Space after DS3), all evidence points to a LONG wait.