Forum_User

@WinterSnowblind said:

This was all summed up on the first page, but..

• Bioware have outright denied the indoctrination theory, go digging on the official forums for their posts.
• The "extended cut" pretty much debunked the whole theory even before the developers stepped in. If none of it really happened, why do we see so much of what happened in the future because of those events?

People are simply trying to read too much into what was a rushed and ill-thought out end to the series after the original writer left the project. There's no deeper meaning, it really was as empty and shallow as it appeared.

Oh, this again? Another person essentially telling me to Google some half-remembered thing that they apparently couldn't actually find themselves. Really, if someone could provide me an unambiguous comment from a Bioware employee from a reliable source that the ending is absolutely what happened, that would settle things. (Comments like that it shows how dedicated fans are or that Shepard survived the Citadel explosion are not unambiguous. A post that does not dance around the question and that straight-up says the ending is real is.)

@EXTomar said:

That reminds me: The dream kid was one of the more dubious things Bioware has done in the whole series. I can't recall another moment in whole series where the game tried to impose any sentiment or feeling on the player. The moment they did that the game went from "How the player feels about the decisions they made" to "Regardless of the decisions made, Bioware wants you feel that" and it is poorer for pulling that stunt.

Well, according to indoctrination theory, that is kind of the idea: The kid, who nobody else notices (because he isn't real), is an attempt to play on Shepard's emotions. The kid does not show up in the duct until Anderson has left the room and Shepard backtracks. When Anderson shows up, the kid is gone again, which is accompanied by a Reaper growl (a sign of a failed indoctrination attempt). Then, nobody helps the kid onto the shuttle that gets blown up later. He boards it himself.

Fitting into this notion is that the kid's only lines are, "Everyone's dying," and (at least with the paragon response), "You can't help me," both of which are meant to sow doubt in Shepard's mind about his / her ability to defeat the Reapers.

An indoctrinated Shepard would benefit the Reapers far more than a dead Shepard. Shepard has a ridiculous amount of influence by the end of the trilogy. Indeed, Shepard has managed to gather a large amount of the fighting forces of the entire galaxy around a mysterious device of alien design...

@Baillie said:

@Forum_User: If you read my reply, you'd understand the Star Child aka the Crucible is a creation by the Leviathan race.

And it just happens to look like the kid that Shepard has been having nightmares about since the intro. I don't know if there's a bigger "something's-not-right-here" detail about the ending than that. One thing I think everyone can agree on, at least, is that that was deliberate.

I guess one thing I haven't much considered is the idea that the end might not be an indoctrination attempt so much as a test to see if Shepard (or whoever else happened to get to that point) is, in fact, indoctrinated. I don't know what to think of that. Just throwing that out there since it popped into my head. As has been often pointed out elsewhere, a crucible is - to use Merriam Webster's definition - "a severe test." Literary devices and all that jazz. I'm trying to avoid going off on too many tangents, but another definition is "a place or situation in which concentrated forces interact to cause or influence change or development." Yeah, very funny, Bioware. Hand whoever came up with that name for it a goddamn medal.

Anyway, I'm still sticking with indoctrination attempt.

To summarize, here is what I think are some of the strongest points (though many others have been brought up) in favor of some version of indoctrination theory:

- The "Star Child" appears similar to the form of the child that has been haunting Shepard's dreams.

- 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.

- When Shepard catches up to the child in one of the dream sequences, they are both happy, even while they are burning. This is Shepard's mind warning itself that the child is bad news.

- "Shepard" shoots "Anderson" (a representation of part of Shepard's mind) in the end scene. Immediately after this Anderson dies, we are shown that Shepard is bleeding from the place that Anderson was shot. (Remember, this is all taking place in Shepard's mind, according to this theory.)

- There are black wavy lines around the screen during the final confrontation with "Shepard," "Anderson," and the "Illusive Man." Black "oily" shadows are a sign of an indoctrination attempt. (There are also wavy shadows in Shepard's other dreams.)

- Anderson says he followed Shepard into the beam and yet somehow he ends up in the room before Shepard. That the Illusive Man would be there at all makes even less sense.

- Since when do Reaper thralls have the ability to control the bodies of others? The Illusive Man must feel rather privileged to have been granted this ability.

- The Reaper beam at the end does not kill Shepard. This is presumably because the Reapers do not actually want Shepard dead, at least not at this point.

- When Shepard wakes up after apparently being hit by the beam at the end, off to the sides are large piles of corpses that were not there previously - not corpses like what you would expect to see after a fight, but deliberately constructed piles like on the Collector ships.

- 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.

- The Star Child is inconsistent both with itself and what you know about other events. This part does not really do much of anything to prove this is in Shepard's mind, but it does indicate that you shouldn't really believe anything it says.

Well, there are tons of other minor points, but those are some of the bigger ones off the top of my head. I'm not going to sit here and argue about it for thirty more posts, though, especially over something somewhat subjective that there is no absolutely bulletproof evidence for. Also, for the record, I'm not saying that it is definitely right. I'm just rather convinced that I think it makes the most sense by far. Certainly, I think that a literal interpretation of the ending as what actually happened makes little logical sense, not because of the deus ex machina nature of it, but because of all of the contradictions used to get there. To be clear on one thing, I was originally, when I made this first thread, torn between whether it was entirely in Shepard's head or a mixture of illusion with reality. I then read some other things and became convinced it was entirely in Shepard's head and edited one of my early posts accordingly. I'm still strongly leaning towards it being all in Shepard's head, but I don't entirely rule out that maybe Shepard did somehow get to the Citadel (although I would maintain that if s/he did, it's because the Reapers allowed it), but much of what is seen there, including Anderson, The Illusive Man, and the self-proclaimed Catalyst, is bullshit. I know it's irrelevant to most here and they think that what you saw is exactly what happened, period. I just want to clarify my thoughts on the matter, as I have been primarily arguing from the point of none of it being real. (As I said, I do currently lean strongly towards that view.)

I'm probably done replying to this thread for now, just because, well, I have to stop at some point, and this seems a good a place as any. I've other things to do / read / whatever.

@huntad said:

I don't take the OP seriously when he picks and chooses who to respond to. Apparently, those who have pointed him in the direction of his answer, though one he probably doesn't actually want, are not important because it doesn't fit with what he wants to be the truth.

Well, for one, without naming any names, I tend to avoid responding to people who just make rude comments or just generally act snide instead of simply giving a counterargument. That rules out bothering with many replies in this thread. It isn't like I held a gun to their head making them read this thread, but I guess that's the internet for you. Two, nobody has adequately addressed Shepard waking up under a pile of what appears to be concrete rubble, but you have no problem with that, apparently. Of course I'm sure the argument there is that it's the Citadel and Shepard survived the huge explosion, somehow. I don't know how that is supposed to be more plausible than the end being in Shepard's head, but whatever. To be fair, they deliberately do not really show much of the surrounding environment, because, as I see it, they don't actually want the answer to be clearcut. I suppose that by the warped logic by which Shepard manages to survive just about anything (like getting hit with a Reaper laser, if people believe that could actually happen without the Reapers intentionally letting Shepard live), it could be the Citadel and it's just a trick of the lighting that makes it look more like concrete than the stuff that the Citadel is made out of.

People want me to comment on the DLC which I have not played, so I mostly don't. I don't want to get into arguments about content that I have not played through (and probably won't, since I think all of the paid Mass Effect DLC is overpriced), but I have read some of the arguments about why the DLC does not contradict the theory. I think that people are probably misinterpreting some things, just as some make the claim that Bioware "confirmed" that the ending is real, even though not a single one of them was able to provide a direct quote to back that claim, because the forgotten quotes that they are likely basing that on are actually deliberately ambiguous. Like I said, though, I don't feel like arguing about DLC I haven't played. There are plenty of people who have played it and still maintain that the indoctrination theory makes sense.

Since last visiting this thread, I have come across some other bombshells, like that the file name for the foliage textures in the jungle scene at the end actually has the word "dream" in it, and the huge piles of bodies (that some claim look like Ashley and Kaidan, though I'm not sure if I buy into that part) that suddenly appear off to the sides when Shepard wakes up that weren't there before. Now while I try to objectively take into consideration the rather small number of arguments I have seen against indoctrination theory and weigh them against evidence in support of it (even if I have not directly addressed all of the myriad posts in this thread arguing the position), it gets rather tiresome to see lazy non-arguments that basically amount to, "No, it's just bad writing and you're trying to rationalize it." I guess some people maybe think that I am some kind of Bioware superfan (despite having just recently finished ME3), but I have actually long been very critical of their games (though maybe not on this particular website), and have even on multiple occasions said that I think that Mass Effect 1 is kind of a bad game. Anyway, that is neither here nor there. The point is I don't think I was trying to rationalize anything. I never had a bug up my ass over the ending (being "bad") like many did, which is maybe because I never felt that invested in the series to begin with. Sure, I initially thought the ending was kind of silly, but I've rather come to expect silly endings in video games, especially RPGs. The theory just makes sense to me when presented with all of the evidence.

Funny, when I started out, this post was just going to be a short two or three sentence reply. I tend to do that. Anyway, no, I'm not going to address every argument, especially the ones I view as lacking any real substance (just saying it's "bad writing") or as just being rude. As I said, I didn't play the DLC, so I don't know just how much people are inferring things that weren't necessarily there (which I'm sure is what they think of my posts) or taking at face value something that, similarly to how I view the ending, could be some form of misdirection. Those arguments are out there by people who have played it. I'm trying to stick with what I have actually played. As for people that just jump in to make snide remarks that basically amount to, "I'm right and you are wrong," I try to avoid wasting my time with such individuals, as a general rule. It doesn't always work out that way, but I try. Actually, when I made this thread, I thought most people would agree with the indoctrination theory, especially after seeing the voting ratios on the various YouTube videos about it - not necessarily every single detail (I've seen some rather weak and some rather strong arguments for it), but just the general premise. I didn't think it was going to be filled with so many who were utterly dismissive of it. It's been enlightening in that regard, at least.

@Devise22 said:

@Forum_User said:

Another thing that is suspicious is that the Citadel (or its inhabitant, if you like) is the Catalyst. A Reaper creation is the key component of a weapon that nobody is sure of the exact purpose or origin of. I was suspicious about that from the start, going around trying to get this thing built when nobody even knows what it is. It always seemed like an obvious "gotcha" set-up.

In fact, this is a theme that shows up more than once in the series - being led to believe that some piece of Reaper technology is necessary to defeat the Reapers.

You still fail to grasp that the world around Shepard reacts in every ending to the decisions that he makes while on the Citadel at the end. If it is all in his head the world should not be able to react to those things. In the extended endings they go further as mentioned with third person narration about what has happened. It's clear as day they shut down any aspect of the indoctrination theories as being any more than fans hoping/wishing.

I think I'm going to leave one final question, before I leave for a while, even though I know it's just setting people up for the smart-ass answer of stating the "obvious," (as inconsistent with everything else as it is) and that is this:

Why does Shepard shoot "Anderson" on the Citadel?

Another thing that is suspicious is that the Citadel (or its inhabitant, if you like) is the Catalyst. A Reaper creation is the key component of a weapon that nobody is sure of the exact purpose or origin of. I was suspicious about that from the start, going around trying to get this thing built when nobody even knows what it is. It always seemed like an obvious "gotcha" set-up.

In fact, this is a theme that shows up more than once in the series - being led to believe that some piece of Reaper technology is necessary to defeat the Reapers.

@Turambar said:

The indoctrination theory hinges on the fact that if you don't choose destroy, the reapers win. In the extended cut DLC, all endings result in a reaper loss. Boom, indoctrination theory disproven.

*Drops mic*

Cute, but the theory is that everything that happens after the beam attack is in Shepard's head. That was the theory when the ending was just the Normandy escaping and performing a miracle landing on some planet, and it still is the theory now that they added a bit more to it in an attempt to appease a whole lot of internet whining.

@Ghostiet said:

@Forum_User said:

Also, as I said above (in an edit), if you choose the destruction option with a high enough readiness rating, Shepard is shown to still be alive, and on Earth, apparently.

Look at DeeGee's post. You also always have the Destroy ending available, even when you have low EMS, which makes little sense if the Reapers don't want you to choose it.

Because it's not about actually destroying the Reapers. You don't actually get to. It's whether or not they can bring you around to their way of thinking. The synthesis option is the one most in line with the Reaper way of thinking. It fits precisely with their goals. The control option is similarly a trick. "Controlling" the Reapers is what the Illusive Man wanted, and no matter how you look at it, the Illusive Man was indoctrinated. The destruction option (representing Shepard's desire to destroy the Reapers) is what they want you to abandon, which is why they attempt to make it seem the least appealing.

The theory holds that Shepard is not really on the Citadel. It is a battle for Shepard's mind. The Illusive Man and Anderson, in this scene, represent Shepard's internal struggle. Of course there is no good explanation for either of them being on the Citadel, let alone both. The plants like the ones in Shepards past dreams appear on the ground when Shepard wakes up, when they were not there before. How can that possibly be an accident? The giant Reaper flies off for no apparent reason. You are contacted on the radio by someone who moments before said that everyone in the assault died. That goes far beyond what would be expected from "bad writing." It's deliberately illogical. It's dream logic.

@TheHumanDove said:

Well, it seems unlikely I'd be lying to you. But whatever, keep holding onto those dreams, space cowboy.

It's not a matter of lying. It's a matter of if you are interpreting deliberately ambiguous dev comments about "dedicated fans" or something to mean denial.