@Polydeukes said:

I'm starting to believe that many gamers have such a low opinion of Bioware that many flatly refuse to acknowledge that the developer may still be capable of tricking them.

I hope they did trick us. I don't even care if I have to pay to see the "true" ending. I just want to be able to look at the series as a whole without it ending in a sour note.

I just think it's unlikely.

@BrockNRolla said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@onan: I don't like your line of thinking, because it leads to cynical Bioware hate no matter what. If everyone follows your logic, when the DLC comes out and if it introduces the indoctrination theory as being legitimate, everyone is just gonna be like they did that just to appease fans blah blah blah. Even if it was actually the plan all along, your line of thinking will never give them credit for it.

Regardless of their intent, your statement shows exactly why the ending is majorly flawed. The ending, as designed, will leave some people upset no matter what Bioware does now.

I'm glad I'm not one of them. I did what I thought was right for my character. All these theories are just icing on the cake, and if all end up untrue, I'm happy my Shepard sacrificed himself and did the impossible.

@LiquidPrince: So I'm going through this Indoctrination Video and I have some real problems with the arguments. I think I'll list them as I go along.

1. "Even the Strongest Willpower has its Limits"

Is that a quote from the game? The Codex? Oh just a little nugget of conjecture, cool.

2. "Shepard is under enormous pressure in ME3. The part of your mind that resists indoctrination has to fight more and more"

What? Show me a diagram where the brain is split up into parts for your stress and the indoctrination immune system.

3. The part where he throws out that VIs couldn't detect Shepard being indoctrinated because he deems that they can't be infallible is pretty weak at best.

4. The Blue eyes, ahh default Shepard already has blue eyes, and I'm pretty sure my guy didn't get the glowing blue eyes, he got glowing green eyes....I think...maybe.

5. So if the climax with the Starchild was really just a trial for indoctrination and Shepard wakes up from the blast having conquered it and gets up to finish the fight against Reapers, then Bioware is fucking terrible.

6. Oh it could have killed me if I stopped or walked? I just figured it was a shitty climax they were going for a full run at a Reaper to show how badass Shepard was. Also Marauder Shields could totally kill you, what does that mean? Also that reaper on Rannoch killed me a couple of times, I thought the reapers wanted to indoctrinate me...

7. Does the poster have an issue with chronology? Coates says no one got to the beam....then Shepard wakes up to get to the beam. How can Coates comment on something that he hasn't seen yet? Bioware still knows what a timeline looks like, maybe.

8. What is he talking about? How does he know what the entire battlefield looks like? Shepard was with just one squad, the rest of the army is probably a little ways away where they are getting wrecked by Reaper forces.

9. On the very same video he posted I saw some vegetation around the field that looked like the stuff from the dream.

10. Oh my pistol has infinite ammo and I can't affect the Keepers or Anderson? Sounds like Mass Effect 1....where my pistol had infinite ammo and I couldn't kill keepers or Anderson...

11. I just figured he was in some remote shaft of the Citadel, you know the huge ancient galactic space station? Yeah I just thought he was in a part he hasn't been in before, but sure it's imaginary. That makes more sense.

12. I mean yeah he's right Anderson and TIM are two different sides of "Destroy Reapers and Control Reapers" but why can't it be literal? Isn't that the way it was the entire trilogy? Also yeah dude Shepard's in pain, a laser hit him and TIM was sending out those signals to control him. Not indoctrination.

13. THANK YOU, yes I understand the point you're trying to make, but when you overlay Harbinger lines from elsewhere into that cutscene with TIM and Anderson to prove your point that the Reapers are controlling the entire conversation, it makes it come off as super biased.

14. I can't take the part where he says Anderson is talking to Shepard not TIM seriously...c'mon...

15. What? Wait so they want to indoctrinate Shepard, but they don't want him broken? What?

16. Also so Shepard is like 10 minutes away from being indoctrinated and he's still able to talk sense into TIM and have him shoot himself like Saren? Doesn't that seem a little flimsy?

17. Oh so nice of you to assume in your video that Shepard was indoctrinated that the next step to explain it is to assume Shepard already knows he was close to being indoctrinated.

18. Yes, take this universe where they have been at war in preparation for The Reapers after the First Contact War and all the other stuff the Alliance goes through and throw it out the window. Clearly they're talking about indoctrination...

19. Oh Hackett thought nobody made it to the Citadel? It's because you know he said before he talked to Shepard. I like how he has all these clips except that one.

20. Also that Rachni queen bit, it does sound a little vague. When she said oily shadows I was think more along the lines of The Nothing from neverending story.

Shepard is not indoctrinated. If he was, he would not help to destroy the Reapersrs - they value their own existence above all else. It's the reason why they harvest civilizations - to use their tissue to create more Reapers. 
 
How would destroying the mass relays, mechanisms which they themselves placed in order to help species thrive and develop (for their inevitable downfall) be in their interest? How would their own destruction be in their interest? Also, if he was indoctrinated, why didn't he have his Master Reaper implant him in case of a last ditch effort like we've seen with Saren/Sovereign (the takeover of his body)? Implants could have prevented Shepard from doing ANYTHING and he would have acted against that which he fought, simply because his Reaper could assume his body.
 
If Shepard was truly indoctrinated, he would have had the willpower to stop it and kill himself much like Saren could do at the end of ME1. Two points about that: 
 
1. Shepard has an equal or stronger willpower than Saren, in which case he would have killed himself and gave the other squad members a chance to win this war (What do they have that Shepard doesn't? Their abilities always come in useful and most of them have been there since day 1) and prevent the destruction of the mass relays which will inevitably leave millions of millions of beings stranded on unhospitable planets and left to die, with no way of receiving support or help. This is the most likely case. The previous games have shown that Shepard has plenty of willpower. Or,
 
2. Shepard's willpower is less than Saren's, in which case he would have simply been a puppet and carried out their will. 
 
The reason why the ending is "weird" is because Karpyshyn left and they needed more writers. Karpysyhn's ending had a lot to do with Dark Energy which was HEAVILY hinted in previous games, and culminated into nothing. Clearly you are able to see that they went way off track with the climax.

@LiquidPrince: I think that's great. I wish there had been a conclusion I found satisfying. But hey, if they do release something based on the Indoctrination Theory in DLC, then I'll be able to be happy too.

@Doctorchimp: So much of your arguments are just as flimsy as you claim the videos to be. You seem to be blowing them off simply by use of snarky comments. I don't really feel like replying to every bit, but a few that stood out:

• Your eyes glow blue or red depending on you final choice.
• I believe the video says that he COULD have stopped you, but they were purposely missing.
• The conversation Coates has is taking place exactly while Shepard is getting up. Also Anderson should be there as well... They would have had to have noticed that...
• Mass Effect 3 doesn't suddenly become Mass Effect 1. So unless your implying that Bioware is trying some sort of call back to ME1 then...
• The shrubbery wasn't there as you are running down. It only appears after you get blasted and wake up.
• Him being able to talk sense to the Illusive Man means that he is actually trying to talk sense into himself. The video is implying that the two don't exist and are like a devil and angel sitting in his subconscious trying to sway him one way or another.
• The Rachni bit doesn't seem vague at all... Shadowy figures screaming in agony and pain seems pretty similar.

@xyzygy: They never intended to let him destroy the Reapers though. The video mentions what I think is a logical answer: had the Reapers not presented a "choice" to destroy them, then Shepard's mind would have seen straight through the ploy and the indoctrination would have instantly ended, in which case you would wake up in the rubble back on earth like if you indeed choose to destroy the Reapers.

@xyzygy: They never intended to let him destroy the Reapers though. The video mentions what I think is a logical answer: had the Reapers not presented a "choice" to destroy them, then Shepard's mind would have seen straight through the ploy and the indoctrination would have instantly ended, in which case you would wake up in the rubble back on earth like if you indeed choose to destroy the Reapers.

@LiquidPrince Do you know why this theory doesn't work? Why it's impossible for me to believe it, no matter the evidence presented?

Occam's Razor.

It's just too damn contrived. Proponents of the indoctrination theory have to make so many assumptions to make this work:

• That Bioware would make it so that only a small portion of the player base would achieve the "true" ending to ME3, which flies in the face of ME1 and 2 where every ending was valid. This assumption NEEDS to be made in order for any sort of new ending DLC to be created; Shepard very clearly can't wake up in the rubble if he's atomized in the other two "endings", and you can't fucking tell me they wouldn't make said ending DLC as that implies the end to the Mass Effect trilogy finishes of with the Reapers still alive and kicking and fucking shit up. No thanks. (Whereas taking the endings at face value leads to a conclusion no matter what you picked. Unsatisfying ones, but conclusions nonetheless.)
• That Bioware would deliberately make vast swaths of the ending sequence totally nonsensical. Let's roll with the video for this bit: The Illusive Man is the Indoctrinated part of Shep's brain, and Anderson is the resisting bits. No matter what happens (except letting the IM kill you, which according to the video means that you've given in.....and then you die. The video states "A broken Shepard is no use to them anymore".....so what's the point of indoctrinating him? Just to kill him? Couldn't they just use.....a bullet? Or a laser?) it's played off as just being a trick. So what's the fucking point of that scene? Why have it? Furthermore, why have multiple options if they all lead to the same end result? If you just take the endings for what they are, this scene makes sense. A renegade Shepard would just off the IM, and an influential one would try to redeem him/talk him down. But going with the theory means this scene has utterly pointless choices in it that lead down the same path. Kill the IM? Trick. Make him suicide? Still trick. Anderson lives? Trick again. Why bother?
• On the above point, the video states that all of the endings scenes are just images of hope generated by Shepard's brain. You know, hopeful things! Like all of the Mass Relays exploding and totally breaking down any sort of rapid space travel. And why would Shepard's brain generate the same hopeful scenes whether or not he fought of Indoctrination? If you are going to argue that this whole thing is some finely crafted masterpiece that is hinted back across all three games, you can't tell me that Bioware was too lazy to do anything but change the colors.
• And on the topic of colors, why the hell would Bioware go and reverse the meaning of the Paragon/Renegade colors at the end? Another fucking trick? The video's explanation makes no sense in this regard: what if my Shepard was Renegade? Wouldn't his values side more towards blowing shit up, damn the consequences? Shouldn't the colors be re-reversed for him? Otherwise I'm just going to walk over to whatever is supposed to represent resistance just because it's made of Renegade 'sploding goodness. Once again, taking this at face value makes way more sense: Paragon for no boom, Renegade for boom, and that weird middle one for everyone who used to pick the middle option in ME1 and 2 before they decided to take it out.
• It robs the ending of any emotional impact. Sad over Anderson's Death? Nope! Mind construct. Elated over the IM's Death? Nope! Mind construct. Happy you've finally defeated the reapers? Nope! Hopeful mind image. Relieved your crew is safe? Nope! Hopeful mind image. Worried that the Relays are gone? Fear not! Mind image. Speech with Anderson? Shepard talking to himself. Battle of wits with IM? Shepard talking to himself.
• Seriously, if you read nothing else, read the point above this one. You're honestly telling me they'd go through the trouble of writing all of those (intending to be) emotional, impactful events only to go: "Naw dudes, it's all a dream! And a trick! A tricky dream!" I mean, once you know that it's all fake stuff in Shepard's head, you might as well just mash space bar. No character development to be found here, since it's all going to be whisked away once Shep wakes up.

OR

• Bioware had the original ending leaked, and they had to scramble something together. They ran out of time and put forth the best effort they could, but in the end had something that was saddled with inconsistencies, plot holes, and reused scenes across each ending. Still, the basic framework is there: the Reapers lost, the Normandy made it out, and Shepard's name is remembered through time.

QED.

No matter how you slice it, Indoctrination just doesn't work. I could go and find another half dozen things from that video alone which would help support my argument, but I've already wasted enough time. There's no changing your mind if you support the Indoctrination theory, and that's fine. You can believe what you want.

I just hope this post helps you understand why so many people thing you're kinda crazy for believing it.

@xyzygy: Except even as a standalone ending with none of these theories to back it up, my ending was still a decent one that was fitting.

@Mirado: There is no true ending... Who says all three endings are not valid and that if there ever was an ME4, they wouldn't work straight into that game? In fact in this game more of the endings are valid in the others. In ME2 the only valid ending to me was the one where everyone lived. If someone died, you had fucked up.

@Mirado:

Also one other point: I'm not saying any of these are valid or not. If you read my opening post, I said that they are just different theories that I'm juggling around in my head and that the video I posted was fairly convincing.

Just watched the video in full, and while some of the points raised are interesting, I got the feeling that I was watching a propaganda video. I'm not saying it's propaganda obviously, but I'm saying that Propaganda videos are created in a very similar fashion. Basically, they try to make you believe something by throwing a complete shit ton of imagery, symbolism, music and voiceovers to sway your opinion... much in the same way this video does.
 
I feel like everything was really interesting until the Anderson/TIM part. Then he started pulling things out of his ass and it all fell apart. The part I liked most and what made me really question it was the Rachni Queens comments about the oily shadows. But, at the same time, these could just be shadowy images of a nightmare, images of the people who have died or will die at the hands of the Reapers. It's still too far out there.

@LiquidPrince said:

There is no true ending... Who says all three endings are not valid and that if there ever was an ME4, they wouldn't work straight into that game? In fact in this game more of the endings are valid in the others. In ME2 the only valid ending to me was the one where everyone lived. If someone died, you had fucked up.

The indoctrination theory leaves ZERO room in this regard if there is to be ANY ending changing DLC: the ending sequence is a dream which ends with Shepard waking up having resisted the Reapers. That's the only way for this to work, otherwise Shepard is, according to the video that you posted, dead. "A broken Shepard is no use to them anymore..." And if there is no ending changing DLC, then the Mass Effect Trilogy ends with the Reapers still around, which is a fine way to cap everything off.

Also one other point: I'm not saying any of these are valid or not. If you read my opening post, I said that they are just different theories that I'm juggling around in my head and that the video I posted was fairly convincing.

Your topic title says otherwise. If you don't think the Indoctrination theory is valid, why bother posting the video? You've posted multiple times saying that we should watch it; what is that if not an endorsement of validity? You also seem to defend its validity pretty often in this thread...

And if you read my opening post, I think I've (among others) have shown that video is far from convincing. You did read it right? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't a hypocrite. You wanted specific points to be refuted, and I gave you them. Do you disagree with any of them? Do you disagree with the overall reason of why I think this theory is a load of shit (see: Occam's Razor, above)?

Because it just looks like straw grasping to me.

I don't know about noggin, but this thread definitely blows.

@BrockNRolla said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@onan: I don't like your line of thinking, because it leads to cynical Bioware hate no matter what. If everyone follows your logic, when the DLC comes out and if it introduces the indoctrination theory as being legitimate, everyone is just gonna be like they did that just to appease fans blah blah blah. Even if it was actually the plan all along, your line of thinking will never give them credit for it.

Regardless of their intent, your statement shows exactly why the ending is majorly flawed. The ending, as designed, will leave some people upset no matter what Bioware does now.

Well, it was more intended as cynical hate on the fanbase, because someone will be upset no matter what. Me though, I'll praise them, and my opinion is the only one that matters.

I'm just finding it hard to believe that a studio that bumbled their way through to that Stargazer ending with the old man telling stories about "the shepherd/Shepard" is capable of that much subtlety. Then again, it's almost impossible to imagine any creative person or persons simply stumbling across a Kaiser Soze-level of narrative seeding completely accidentally. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

@Arker101 said:

I don't understand people who want to think Indoctrination is good. The ending is still full of plot holes, not everything is explained with "Well he's indoctrinated."

And it would only reaffirm that Bioware is such a lazy development studio that it wouldn't even release it's real ending. Most of what people believe to be signs of InDoc theory is Confirmation Bias. Lets just face it, Mac Walters just wanted lots of speculation.

All you really need to understand is that the endings as they are now are so ham-handed and nonsensical that people would rather the game end with zero resolution and just the tiniest bit of hope. Honestly, that's not a terrible ending, and many real life soldiers who die on the battlefield have no choice but to have that lack of closure. At least with this though, even if Shepard can't save the galaxy from the Reaper threat personally, in his last moments he had one last personal victory against an insidious enemy in his own mind. That's actually kind of cool. Shepard is defiant to his last breath.

Interesting ending fact that helps with Indoctrination.

The way the game is set up, in the ending Normandy Cutscene for each choice, different people are shown, if you choose Synthesis its always EDI, but if you choose Destroy/Control, it shows your most used party member and the LI coming out.

If you use EDI all game, and then choose Destroy at 5000 EMS, she walks out of the ship, then it pans to Shepard taking a breath in the rubble of London, so he never even made it to the Citadel apparently, or had a really lucky atmo re-entry.

@Nals That may just be carelessness on the part of Bioware in not testing the possible permutations. They also allow dead love interests to come back from the grave for a little knocking of boots before returning to the other side, from what I've heard.

@onan said:

@Arker101 said:

I don't understand people who want to think Indoctrination is good. The ending is still full of plot holes, not everything is explained with "Well he's indoctrinated."

And it would only reaffirm that Bioware is such a lazy development studio that it wouldn't even release it's real ending. Most of what people believe to be signs of InDoc theory is Confirmation Bias. Lets just face it, Mac Walters just wanted lots of speculation.

All you really need to understand is that the endings as they are now are so ham-handed and nonsensical that people would rather the game end with zero resolution and just the tiniest bit of hope. Honestly, that's not a terrible ending, and many real life soldiers who die on the battlefield have no choice but to have that lack of closure. At least with this though, even if Shepard can't save the galaxy from the Reaper threat personally, in his last moments he had one last personal victory against an insidious enemy in his own mind. That's actually kind of cool. Shepard is defiant to his last breath.

Indoctrination would be really cool, but the time leading up to the "beginning" of it shows very little signs of Shepard suffering any of the effects, and most of the points leading to InDoc are just plot holes and poorly written pieces. The bigger problem with InDoc, is that BioWare intentionally left the ending of their trilogy out of the core product and are going to release it as DLC. If that's not anti-consumer then I don't know what is. Even if there is outrage on the internet, if the sales numbers show that people still buy the new ending DLC for ME3, well that's not good.

@LiquidPrince: yep out of all the peolpe that have done threads like this you are in my opion the only one who made sence.

I'd have actually read the OP if you didn't type in all caps. Now I just think you're insane.

@Arker101 said:

@onan said:

@Arker101 said:

I don't understand people who want to think Indoctrination is good. The ending is still full of plot holes, not everything is explained with "Well he's indoctrinated."

And it would only reaffirm that Bioware is such a lazy development studio that it wouldn't even release it's real ending. Most of what people believe to be signs of InDoc theory is Confirmation Bias. Lets just face it, Mac Walters just wanted lots of speculation.

All you really need to understand is that the endings as they are now are so ham-handed and nonsensical that people would rather the game end with zero resolution and just the tiniest bit of hope. Honestly, that's not a terrible ending, and many real life soldiers who die on the battlefield have no choice but to have that lack of closure. At least with this though, even if Shepard can't save the galaxy from the Reaper threat personally, in his last moments he had one last personal victory against an insidious enemy in his own mind. That's actually kind of cool. Shepard is defiant to his last breath.

Indoctrination would be really cool, but the time leading up to the "beginning" of it shows very little signs of Shepard suffering any of the effects, and most of the points leading to InDoc are just plot holes and poorly written pieces. The bigger problem with InDoc, is that BioWare intentionally left the ending of their trilogy out of the core product and are going to release it as DLC. If that's not anti-consumer then I don't know what is. Even if there is outrage on the internet, if the sales numbers show that people still buy the new ending DLC for ME3, well that's not good.

Would that honestly be any more anti-consumer than what they did with From Ashes? As someone who has put at least 150 hours into the series, I truly do appreciate what Javik brought to the table in terms of lore and narrative resolution, but am a little disgusted that they considered it to be something disposable to the core narrative. Without Javik there, I honestly don't know what I'd think of ME3. Fortunately I bought the Collector's Edition and got it for free so I didn't have to make that choice to spend an extra $10 on day one, but if I had, I'd probably be way more upset with what I ultimately ended up with.

Selling an ending to a highly regarded trilogy separately seems like the logical next step, from a financial perspective.

@Mirado said:

@LiquidPrince said:

There is no true ending... Who says all three endings are not valid and that if there ever was an ME4, they wouldn't work straight into that game? In fact in this game more of the endings are valid in the others. In ME2 the only valid ending to me was the one where everyone lived. If someone died, you had fucked up.

The indoctrination theory leaves ZERO room in this regard if there is to be ANY ending changing DLC: the ending sequence is a dream which ends with Shepard waking up having resisted the Reapers. That's the only way for this to work, otherwise Shepard is, according to the video that you posted, dead. "A broken Shepard is no use to them anymore..." And if there is no ending changing DLC, then the Mass Effect Trilogy ends with the Reapers still around, which is a fine way to cap everything off.

Also one other point: I'm not saying any of these are valid or not. If you read my opening post, I said that they are just different theories that I'm juggling around in my head and that the video I posted was fairly convincing.

Your topic title says otherwise. If you don't think the Indoctrination theory is valid, why bother posting the video? You've posted multiple times saying that we should watch it; what is that if not an endorsement of validity? You also seem to defend its validity pretty often in this thread...

And if you read my opening post, I think I've (among others) have shown that video is far from convincing. You did read it right? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't a hypocrite. You wanted specific points to be refuted, and I gave you them. Do you disagree with any of them? Do you disagree with the overall reason of why I think this theory is a load of shit (see: Occam's Razor, above)?

Because it just looks like straw grasping to me.

Because that's how I operate. I myself don't think it is 100% valid, which is why I have a section that says problems with this theory. The only reason I'm defending it is because I like the discussion it produces, and I want peoples opinions into swaying my opinion one way or another.

@AlexW00d said:

I'd have actually read the OP if you didn't type in all caps. Now I just think you're insane.

I didn't type in all caps...?

@wmaustin55 said:

I loved this game. Reading all of this shit makes me never want to see anything Mass Effect related again. I fucking hate all of you.

I kind of agree.

Lots of the "implications" of the endings tend to deal with opinion and how a person uses his outlook to color the events after the event occurs. I view Synthesis as the next step for life, ushering an age of galatic peace. Plus the cycle ends. I prefer this ending far more to one where Shepard is taking his last gasp of life in a pile of rubble after committing genocide. Not the way I want my Shepard to go out.

Also, people keep insisting that it is "The Same thing Saren wanted". That is just not true, Saren wanted us to become part of the Reapers... Synthesis does not turn everyone into husks. This is very clear after the ship lands. Joker is not a husk, he is very much still Joker. Obviously, the embrace of EDI and Joker is very symbolic. So no, it is "not what Saren wanted". Saren wanted to enslave, Synthesis free's life and brings peace. Life is connected in ways we cannot understand. I imagine that they all share a link with one another similar to the geth. This isn't that far away in our own lifes surprisingly.

Good discussion though, you cannot do this on the BW forums. People just automatically start whining and stating that they do not like the ending and because they do no like it BW should change it. They are that important apparently.

@onan said:

@Arker101 said:

@onan said:

@Arker101 said:

I don't understand people who want to think Indoctrination is good. The ending is still full of plot holes, not everything is explained with "Well he's indoctrinated."

And it would only reaffirm that Bioware is such a lazy development studio that it wouldn't even release it's real ending. Most of what people believe to be signs of InDoc theory is Confirmation Bias. Lets just face it, Mac Walters just wanted lots of speculation.

All you really need to understand is that the endings as they are now are so ham-handed and nonsensical that people would rather the game end with zero resolution and just the tiniest bit of hope. Honestly, that's not a terrible ending, and many real life soldiers who die on the battlefield have no choice but to have that lack of closure. At least with this though, even if Shepard can't save the galaxy from the Reaper threat personally, in his last moments he had one last personal victory against an insidious enemy in his own mind. That's actually kind of cool. Shepard is defiant to his last breath.

Indoctrination would be really cool, but the time leading up to the "beginning" of it shows very little signs of Shepard suffering any of the effects, and most of the points leading to InDoc are just plot holes and poorly written pieces. The bigger problem with InDoc, is that BioWare intentionally left the ending of their trilogy out of the core product and are going to release it as DLC. If that's not anti-consumer then I don't know what is. Even if there is outrage on the internet, if the sales numbers show that people still buy the new ending DLC for ME3, well that's not good.

Would that honestly be any more anti-consumer than what they did with From Ashes? As someone who has put at least 150 hours into the series, I truly do appreciate what Javik brought to the table in terms of lore and narrative resolution, but am a little disgusted that they considered it to be something disposable to the core narrative. Without Javik there, I honestly don't know what I'd think of ME3. Fortunately I bought the Collector's Edition and got it for free so I didn't have to make that choice to spend an extra $10 on day one, but if I had, I'd probably be way more upset with what I ultimately ended up with.

Selling an ending to a highly regarded trilogy separately seems like the logical next step, from a financial perspective.

Saying "I bought the collectors edition and he came in for free." Means you still paid for him, but at a discount. That is still awful.

That's a logical step, but it sure does screw over the consumer. From Ashes/Ending DLC are both horrible trends that no one should want to see implemented in to the industry, aside from money hungry publishers. If the Publishers want to combat piracy, fine, give us something unique and cool, but not game breaking for buying new. From Ashes has nothing to do with that, though, it's content that was in the core game, and was ripped out and made as a cash grab, the excuse from Bioware was that they didn't have enough resources for it, but come on, we know that's a fallacy.

@LiquidPrince said:

Because that's how I operate. I myself don't think it is 100% valid, which is why I have a section that says problems with this theory. The only reason I'm defending it is because I like the discussion it produces, and I want peoples opinions into swaying my opinion one way or another.

You have both your discussion and people's opinions. Does mine sway yours in any one way? After the points that I (and others) have brought up, can you still defend Indoctrination as a valid interpretation of the ending?

I'd love for you to go over the points presented and produce a counterargument, since you are taking the side of the defense.

@815Sox said:

Lots of the "implications" of the endings tend to deal with opinion and how a person uses his outlook to color the events after the event occurs. I view Synthesis as the next step for life, ushering an age of galatic peace. Plus the cycle ends. I prefer this ending far more to one where Shepard is taking his last gasp of life in a pile of rubble after committing genocide. Not the way I want my Shepard to go out.

Also, people keep insisting that it is "The Same thing Saren wanted". That is just not true, Saren wanted us to become part of the Reapers... Synthesis does not turn everyone into husks. This is very clear after the ship lands. Joker is not a husk, he is very much still Joker. Obviously, the embrace of EDI and Joker is very symbolic. So no, it is "not what Saren wanted". Saren wanted to enslave, Synthesis free's life and brings peace. Life is connected in ways we cannot understand. I imagine that they all share a link with one another similar to the geth. This isn't that far away in our own lifes surprisingly.

Good discussion though, you cannot do this on the BW forums. People just automatically start whining and stating that they do not like the ending and because they do no like it BW should change it. They are that important apparently.

Fair point, but isn't that just the ridiculous happy ending that the naysayers are all accusing us of wanting? Fact of the matter is that it completely invalidates the struggles you went through up until the very last 5 minutes of the game. Everything you just did to bring peace between the turians, krogan, and salarians, everything you did to heal the rift between the geth and the quarians, guess what? it's meaningless, everyone is happy and they all love everyone! Yay!

The problem with that kind of ending in science fiction is that people want to couch it in the "facts" of that universe. You can do it, but you really need to explain it properly. Take a look at that last Star Trek reboot movie, at the end Kirk had Scotty eject the warp drive and detonate it to create a wave to push them away from the giant black hole. Acceptable. This Synthesis ending is like Kirk ordering the helmsman to "Throw the ship into Negative Warp Ten!" "Aye aye, captain!" and yay they're saved. Yeah, on a superficial logical level it makes some sort of sense, but when you think about it in the context of that universe, it's ludicrous.

You just said Joker is the same Joker. Is Ashley the same Ashley? Because right near the end there when I had to deal with the geth, she expressed how she didn't understand how I could trust those "flashlights." Do the glowy green eyes and glowy green henna tattoos of circuitry make her change that opinion, or her opinion of all galactic life? Does she trust turians now, even though the First Contact War resulted in a massive stain on her family that she's until now never been able to get out from under? If it's not the same, is that the same Ashley? Does she still work toward the advancement of all humankind, or is that distinction meaningless now?

And even so, that STILL doesn't preclude the inevitability of the Catalyst's prediction that, "Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back." It's not like we would have stopped being "organic," especially to something we create, a true "synthetic." We currently have iron and zinc and other trace metals and minerals and inorganic stuff coursing through our bodies, we can't live without it. How does changing the chemical composition of our bodies so there's much more of it prevent chaos?

It's just a bad, poorly thought out ending.

@onan said:

@815Sox said:

Lots of the "implications" of the endings tend to deal with opinion and how a person uses his outlook to color the events after the event occurs. I view Synthesis as the next step for life, ushering an age of galatic peace. Plus the cycle ends. I prefer this ending far more to one where Shepard is taking his last gasp of life in a pile of rubble after committing genocide. Not the way I want my Shepard to go out.

Also, people keep insisting that it is "The Same thing Saren wanted". That is just not true, Saren wanted us to become part of the Reapers... Synthesis does not turn everyone into husks. This is very clear after the ship lands. Joker is not a husk, he is very much still Joker. Obviously, the embrace of EDI and Joker is very symbolic. So no, it is "not what Saren wanted". Saren wanted to enslave, Synthesis free's life and brings peace. Life is connected in ways we cannot understand. I imagine that they all share a link with one another similar to the geth. This isn't that far away in our own lifes surprisingly.

Good discussion though, you cannot do this on the BW forums. People just automatically start whining and stating that they do not like the ending and because they do no like it BW should change it. They are that important apparently.

Fair point, but isn't that just the ridiculous happy ending that the naysayers are all accusing us of wanting? Fact of the matter is that it completely invalidates the struggles you went through up until the very last 5 minutes of the game. Everything you just did to bring peace between the turians, krogan, and salarians, everything you did to heal the rift between the geth and the quarians, guess what? it's meaningless, everyone is happy and they all love everyone! Yay!

The problem with that kind of ending in science fiction is that people want to couch it in the "facts" of that universe. You can do it, but you really need to explain it properly. Take a look at that last Star Trek reboot movie, at the end Kirk had Scotty eject the warp drive and detonate it to create a wave to push them away from the giant black hole. Acceptable. This Synthesis ending is like Kirk ordering the helmsman to "Throw the ship into Negative Warp Ten!" "Aye aye, captain!" and yay they're saved. Yeah, on a superficial logical level it makes some sort of sense, but when you think about it in the context of that universe, it's ludicrous.

You just said Joker is the same Joker. Is Ashley the same Ashley? Because right near the end there when I had to deal with the geth, she expressed how she didn't understand how I could trust those "flashlights." Do the glowy green eyes and glowy green henna tattoos of circuitry make her change that opinion, or her opinion of all galactic life? Does she trust turians now, even though the First Contact War resulted in a massive stain on her family that she's until now never been able to get out from under? If it's not the same, is that the same Ashley? Does she still work toward the advancement of all humankind, or is that distinction meaningless now?

And even so, that STILL doesn't preclude the inevitability of the Catalyst's prediction that, "Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back." It's not like we would have stopped being "organic," especially to something we create, a true "synthetic." We currently have iron and zinc and other trace metals and minerals and inorganic stuff coursing through our bodies, we can't live without it. How does changing the chemical composition of our bodies so there's much more of it prevent chaos?

It's just a bad, poorly thought out ending.

I could've sworn that my Paragon Shepard brought peace to the turians, salarians and krogans, geth and quarians to focus their efforts on the immediate danger, in other words the Reapers invading the Milky Way and taking back Earth. Which involves constructing the Crucible, without which we wouldn't have the endings we're now discussing. Everything in the writing of ME3 points towards that goal, not some lofty ambition to bring peace and harmony to the Galaxy. And of course, the dialogue and cutscenes had to point towards that because, taking a step back from the lore, the writing had to accommodate both Paragon and Renegade playstyles.

My Shepard rescued the Rachni Queen, spared Wrex, saved the Council at the expense of the Alliance fleet. My Shepard kept the genophage cure around, rewrote the heretic geths, ensured that everyone - including the crew - survived the Collectors and destroyed the Base. My Shepard cured the krogans and brought peace between the geth and the quarians. Ultimately, Synthesis was the best ending for the way that I played my Shepard. Of course, making different choices - playing the game differently - would drastically alter which of the three endings, if any, would fit your Shepard.

And that's the "problem" with the endings, and Mass Effect as a whole.

• ME1, you defeat Sovereign, no matter what your choices were;
• ME2, you end the Collector threat, no matter what your choices were;
• ME3, you destroy the Mass Effect relays and remove the Reaper threat, no matter what your choices were;

In the larger narrative, the choices were moot. They never stopped you from being funnelled into what the writers had intended: a poignant, albeit somewhat hastily and clumsily executed, story of self-sacrifice and a somewhat fitting end to whatever Shepard you may have created. You were not so much the writer of Shepard's story, but a stand-in, your lines getting whispered to you from behind the stage, and hopefully, if you followed the hints from the director correctly, the end result would make some sense in the end. Of course, when it doesn't, the director should have given better instructions, or at least some indication of where the plot was going.

Well, there's always the director's cut.

Yeah, well MY Paragon Shepard was all about choice and the strength in diversity, so he felt the Synthesis ending was bullshit because it removed those two things from every being in the galaxy.

Also it's all moot because the endings are TOO disparate to collate into anything coherent for ME4. As a result of your actions, multiple entire species could be dead or nearly extinct, or none at all (Krogan, Rachni, Quarian, Geth). Synthetic life could be wiped out across the galaxy, or everything in existence can be altered toward galactic harmony. (That way everyone can live in peace with each other and never come into conflict thanks to their cybernetic parts, just like the husks, brutes, cannibals, and banshees.)

I'm just curious to see what happens with the next trilogy. It'll probably just be a prequel. Maybe a First Contact War thing that follows Anderson or something. Galactic peace is great and all, but it makes for a crappy videogame experience.

@Mirado said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Because that's how I operate. I myself don't think it is 100% valid, which is why I have a section that says problems with this theory. The only reason I'm defending it is because I like the discussion it produces, and I want peoples opinions into swaying my opinion one way or another.

You have both your discussion and people's opinions. Does mine sway yours in any one way? After the points that I (and others) have brought up, can you still defend Indoctrination as a valid interpretation of the ending?

I'd love for you to go over the points presented and produce a counterargument, since you are taking the side of the defense.

If you can give me a brief summary of all the points that stand against Indoctrination, I will give you a brief reply of all the flaws I see in your and other peoples arguments or perhaps the things I agree with.

@onan said:

Yeah, well MY Paragon Shepard was all about choice and the strength in diversity, so he felt the Synthesis ending was bullshit because it removed those two things from every being in the galaxy.

Also it's all moot because the endings are TOO disparate to collate into anything coherent for ME4. As a result of your actions, multiple entire species could be dead or nearly extinct, or none at all (Krogan, Rachni, Quarian, Geth). Synthetic life could be wiped out across the galaxy, or everything in existence can be altered toward galactic harmony. (That way everyone can live in peace with each other and never come into conflict thanks to their cybernetic parts, just like the husks, brutes, cannibals, and banshees.)

I'm just curious to see what happens with the next trilogy. It'll probably just be a prequel. Maybe a First Contact War thing that follows Anderson or something. Galactic peace is great and all, but it makes for a crappy videogame experience.

Why would having a bit of organics and synthetics cease diversity. On the organics side alone, me and you are both humans, but we have wide variety of features that we share and a wide variety of differences. Adding on that we all have a little synthetitism within us just gets added to the group of things that all humans share. I don't see how that takes away diversity.

@LiquidPrince said:

Why would having a bit of organics and synthetics cease diversity. On the organics side alone, me and you are both humans, but we have wide variety of features that we share and a wide variety of differences. Adding on that we all have a little synthetitism within us just gets added to the group of things that all humans share. I don't see how that takes away diversity.

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire logic behind stopping all conflict between organics and synthetics by eradicating the differences between them would be because so there would be no functional differences between them and no reason for conflict. Similarly, it's believed that over time, racism will cease to exist because everyone will one day be a mix of black, white, and asian ancestry. Still, even now we've seen that people that have that mixed ancestry can still remain bigoted due to having lighter skin than someone else, or straighter hair, or bluer eyes.

Also, we have differences in belief systems such as religion, or political opinions that cause rifts in a population. Take a look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or bringing this back to Mass Effect, the schism between the Geth heretics and the rest of the Geth. If even pure synthetics can't get along, it's foolish to imagine that Synthesis will solve any of the root issues laid out by the Catalyst at all, unless it was a true synthesis and not just paying lip service to it by incorporating mechanical parts into organic beings. Biotics across the galaxy are already partially synthetic, as are all of the Quarians, and that doesn't help them get along with synthetic races like the Geth.

It's just a ridiculous, childish concept that's blurted out by a ridiculous, child-like AI. It's noble and sweet in a way, but as a practical solution as presented it doesn't work.

And that's the "problem" with the endings, and Mass Effect as a whole.

• ME1, you defeat Sovereign, no matter what your choices were;
• ME2, you end the Collector threat, no matter what your choices were;
• ME3, you destroy the Mass Effect relays and remove the Reaper threat, no matter what your choices were;

In the larger narrative, the choices were moot. They never stopped you from being funnelled into what the writers had intended: a poignant, albeit somewhat hastily and clumsily executed, story of self-sacrifice and a somewhat fitting end to whatever Shepard you may have created. You were not so much the writer of Shepard's story, but a stand-in, your lines getting whispered to you from behind the stage, and hopefully, if you followed the hints from the director correctly, the end result would make some sense in the end. Of course, when it doesn't, the director should have given better instructions, or at least some indication of where the plot was going.

Well, there's always the director's cut.

@onan said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Why would having a bit of organics and synthetics cease diversity. On the organics side alone, me and you are both humans, but we have wide variety of features that we share and a wide variety of differences. Adding on that we all have a little synthetitism within us just gets added to the group of things that all humans share. I don't see how that takes away diversity.

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire logic behind stopping all conflict between organics and synthetics by eradicating the differences between them would be because so there would be no functional differences between them and no reason for conflict. Similarly, it's believed that over time, racism will cease to exist because everyone will one day be a mix of black, white, and asian ancestry. Still, even now we've seen that people that have that mixed ancestry can still remain bigoted due to having lighter skin than someone else, or straighter hair, or bluer eyes.

Also, we have differences in belief systems such as religion, or political opinions that cause rifts in a population. Take a look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or bringing this back to Mass Effect, the schism between the Geth heretics and the rest of the Geth. If even pure synthetics can't get along, it's foolish to imagine that Synthesis will solve any of the root issues laid out by the Catalyst at all, unless it was a true synthesis and not just paying lip service to it by incorporating mechanical parts into organic beings. Biotics across the galaxy are already partially synthetic, as are all of the Quarians, and that doesn't help them get along with synthetic races like the Geth.

It's just a ridiculous, childish concept that's blurted out by a ridiculous, child-like AI. It's noble and sweet in a way, but as a practical solution as presented it doesn't work.

They are partly synthetic in that they have synthetic parts in them. Like a robot arm or something. Not in the way synthesis incorporated the two. Synthesis altered everything on a fundamental level. It resulted in a new DNA for all life, coming from both synthetics and organics.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending implies that surface differences between species will change. Humans will continue to be humans, geth will continue to be geth, Reapers will continue to be Reapers. Only on a deep physiological level, they will all share this new DNA. It doesn't fix any political or racial tension between lifeforms.

It does however completely fulfill the Catalyst's purpose, ensuring that organics will never be wiped out by synthetics, since the distinction between the two no longer exists. That is the conflict that's ended by synthesis.

@TheHT said:

@onan said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Why would having a bit of organics and synthetics cease diversity. On the organics side alone, me and you are both humans, but we have wide variety of features that we share and a wide variety of differences. Adding on that we all have a little synthetitism within us just gets added to the group of things that all humans share. I don't see how that takes away diversity.

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire logic behind stopping all conflict between organics and synthetics by eradicating the differences between them would be because so there would be no functional differences between them and no reason for conflict. Similarly, it's believed that over time, racism will cease to exist because everyone will one day be a mix of black, white, and asian ancestry. Still, even now we've seen that people that have that mixed ancestry can still remain bigoted due to having lighter skin than someone else, or straighter hair, or bluer eyes.

Also, we have differences in belief systems such as religion, or political opinions that cause rifts in a population. Take a look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or bringing this back to Mass Effect, the schism between the Geth heretics and the rest of the Geth. If even pure synthetics can't get along, it's foolish to imagine that Synthesis will solve any of the root issues laid out by the Catalyst at all, unless it was a true synthesis and not just paying lip service to it by incorporating mechanical parts into organic beings. Biotics across the galaxy are already partially synthetic, as are all of the Quarians, and that doesn't help them get along with synthetic races like the Geth.

It's just a ridiculous, childish concept that's blurted out by a ridiculous, child-like AI. It's noble and sweet in a way, but as a practical solution as presented it doesn't work.

They are partly synthetic in that they have synthetic parts in them. Like a robot arm or something. Not in the way synthesis incorporated the two. Synthesis altered everything on a fundamental level. It resulted in a new DNA for all life, coming from both synthetics and organics.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending implies that surface differences between species will change. Humans will continue to be humans, geth will continue to be geth, Reapers will continue to be Reapers. Only on a deep physiological level, they will all share this new DNA. It doesn't fix any political or racial tension between lifeforms.

It does however completely fulfill the Catalyst's purpose, ensuring that organics will never be wiped out by synthetics, since the distinction between the two no longer exists. That is the conflict that's ended by synthesis.

Silly question came to my mind.

What if these DNA modified orgthetics create new "synthetics"? Will they too be hybrids by default or are they going to wipe all hybrid life out because they are spaceracists?

Or what if new life begins after the space magic, will that also be hybrid or are we just delaying the reaping by X ammount of time?

Actually this is interesting nit pick, wouldn't the synthesis ending be invalidated immediatly after it happening since new life might sprout on some random planet?

@khidi said:

@TheHT said:

@onan said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Why would having a bit of organics and synthetics cease diversity. On the organics side alone, me and you are both humans, but we have wide variety of features that we share and a wide variety of differences. Adding on that we all have a little synthetitism within us just gets added to the group of things that all humans share. I don't see how that takes away diversity.

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire logic behind stopping all conflict between organics and synthetics by eradicating the differences between them would be because so there would be no functional differences between them and no reason for conflict. Similarly, it's believed that over time, racism will cease to exist because everyone will one day be a mix of black, white, and asian ancestry. Still, even now we've seen that people that have that mixed ancestry can still remain bigoted due to having lighter skin than someone else, or straighter hair, or bluer eyes.

Also, we have differences in belief systems such as religion, or political opinions that cause rifts in a population. Take a look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or bringing this back to Mass Effect, the schism between the Geth heretics and the rest of the Geth. If even pure synthetics can't get along, it's foolish to imagine that Synthesis will solve any of the root issues laid out by the Catalyst at all, unless it was a true synthesis and not just paying lip service to it by incorporating mechanical parts into organic beings. Biotics across the galaxy are already partially synthetic, as are all of the Quarians, and that doesn't help them get along with synthetic races like the Geth.

It's just a ridiculous, childish concept that's blurted out by a ridiculous, child-like AI. It's noble and sweet in a way, but as a practical solution as presented it doesn't work.

They are partly synthetic in that they have synthetic parts in them. Like a robot arm or something. Not in the way synthesis incorporated the two. Synthesis altered everything on a fundamental level. It resulted in a new DNA for all life, coming from both synthetics and organics.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending implies that surface differences between species will change. Humans will continue to be humans, geth will continue to be geth, Reapers will continue to be Reapers. Only on a deep physiological level, they will all share this new DNA. It doesn't fix any political or racial tension between lifeforms.

It does however completely fulfill the Catalyst's purpose, ensuring that organics will never be wiped out by synthetics, since the distinction between the two no longer exists. That is the conflict that's ended by synthesis.

Silly question came to my mind.

What if these DNA modified orgthetics create new "synthetics"? Will they too be hybrids by default or are they going to wipe all hybrid life out because they are spaceracists?

Or what if new life begins after the space magic, will that also be hybrid or are we just delaying the reaping by X ammount of time?

Actually this is interesting nit pick, wouldn't the synthesis ending be invalidated immediatly after it happening since new life might sprout on some random planet?

You're right, that is an interesting question.

The Catalyst said that synthesis is the final evolution for all life, and we know synthesis affected anything already alive, synthetic or organic.

Now, if naturally occurring 'new life' as well as classical synthetics could come into being, I suppose they would be as organics and synthetics of this cycle were pre-synthesis. It's possible then, that the Catalyst would reinstate its solution for these new life-forms. However, any offspring of life-forms that underwent synthesis would likely still be around in some capacity and would also be synthesized (from Stargazer's voice, we can tell the effects of synthesis carry on through generations) and could possibly just stimulate synthesis again.

However considering the fact that the effects of synthesis are passed on through generations makes me suspect that the reach synthesis is greater than just on life-forms present at the time of its incursion. It did after all alter their DNA. Such a fundamental change to their structure, why wouldn't it also have altered the fundamental structure of the everything entire galaxy. Plants, planets, scrap metal, whatever. That would ostensibly eliminate natural evolution from the galaxy, since lesser life-forms would be ineligible for natural evolution. This wouldn't be out of line with what the Catalyst said, nor does it seem to extend the capabilities of the Crucible any more than the Synthesis ending already does.

Note that they cannot naturally evolve. They may still develop with the right technology. We know the salarians were messing around with that sort of stuff. All intelligent life after synthesis could take on rearing entire species as a role, if they can get past any ethical quandaries to be had from doing so.

That seems more likely than only life-forms being changed just because of the Catalysts words: synthesis is the final evolution for all life. The Catalyst looking at cycle after cycle, seeing new life evolve, would probably include the planets and respective building of life in its model of 'life'. Synthesis is the end of life as the galaxy had known it. Afterwards, there is no natural process of evolution, no naturally occurring 'new life'.

But what about new 'synthetic' life in this case. Synthetics and organics, as they were, were merely an amalgamation of parts, woven together intricately in the form of life. Theoretically, a new life-form could be created by putting the right parts together. Since synthesis affected everything in the galaxy, its parts would come together to create another hybrid life-form. This doesn't mean this creation would automatically be as advanced as the Reapers. It would still be restricted to the capacity of its components, just as the geth were at first. After modification it could be as advanced as the geth are by then end though. Just like after modification any lesser organic life that underwent synthesis could be as advanced as the council races.

@TheHT said:

You're right, that is an interesting question.

The Catalyst said that synthesis is the final evolution for all life, and we know synthesis affected anything already alive, synthetic or organic.

Now, if naturally occurring 'new life' as well as classical synthetics could come into being, I suppose they would be as organics and synthetics of this cycle were pre-synthesis. It's possible then, that the Catalyst would reinstate its solution for these new life-forms. However, any offspring of life-forms that underwent synthesis would likely still be around in some capacity and would also be synthesized (from Stargazer's voice, we can tell the effects of synthesis carry on through generations) and could possibly just stimulate synthesis again.

However considering the fact that the effects of synthesis are passed on through generations makes me suspect that the reach synthesis is greater than just on life-forms present at the time of its incursion. It did after all alter their DNA. Such a fundamental change to their structure, why wouldn't it also have altered the fundamental structure of the everything entire galaxy. Plants, planets, scrap metal, whatever. That would ostensibly eliminate natural evolution from the galaxy, since lesser life-forms would be ineligible for natural evolution. This wouldn't be out of line with what the Catalyst said, nor does it seem to extend the capabilities of the Crucible any more than the Synthesis ending already does.

Note that they cannot naturally evolve. They may still develop with the right technology. We know the salarians were messing around with that sort of stuff. All intelligent life after synthesis could take on rearing entire species as a role, if they can get past any ethical quandaries to be had from doing so.

That seems more likely than only life-forms being changed just because of the Catalysts words: synthesis is the final evolution for all life. The Catalyst looking at cycle after cycle, seeing new life evolve, would probably include the planets and respective building of life in its model of 'life'. Synthesis is the end of life as the galaxy had known it. Afterwards, there is no natural process of evolution, no naturally occurring 'new life'.

But what about new 'synthetic' life in this case. Synthetics and organics, as they were, were merely an amalgamation of parts, woven together intricately in the form of life. Theoretically, a new life-form could be created by putting the right parts together. Since synthesis affected everything in the galaxy, its parts would come together to create another hybrid life-form. This doesn't mean this creation would automatically be as advanced as the Reapers. It would still be restricted to the capacity of its components, just as the geth were at first. After modification it could be as advanced as the geth are by then end though. Just like after modification any lesser organic life that underwent synthesis could be as advanced as the council races.

Dude, whatever it is that you're smoking to come up with that crazy fanfic, share it with the rest of the class.

Cyborg planets? What?

@TheHT said:

@onan said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Why would having a bit of organics and synthetics cease diversity. On the organics side alone, me and you are both humans, but we have wide variety of features that we share and a wide variety of differences. Adding on that we all have a little synthetitism within us just gets added to the group of things that all humans share. I don't see how that takes away diversity.

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire logic behind stopping all conflict between organics and synthetics by eradicating the differences between them would be because so there would be no functional differences between them and no reason for conflict. Similarly, it's believed that over time, racism will cease to exist because everyone will one day be a mix of black, white, and asian ancestry. Still, even now we've seen that people that have that mixed ancestry can still remain bigoted due to having lighter skin than someone else, or straighter hair, or bluer eyes.

Also, we have differences in belief systems such as religion, or political opinions that cause rifts in a population. Take a look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or bringing this back to Mass Effect, the schism between the Geth heretics and the rest of the Geth. If even pure synthetics can't get along, it's foolish to imagine that Synthesis will solve any of the root issues laid out by the Catalyst at all, unless it was a true synthesis and not just paying lip service to it by incorporating mechanical parts into organic beings. Biotics across the galaxy are already partially synthetic, as are all of the Quarians, and that doesn't help them get along with synthetic races like the Geth.

It's just a ridiculous, childish concept that's blurted out by a ridiculous, child-like AI. It's noble and sweet in a way, but as a practical solution as presented it doesn't work.

They are partly synthetic in that they have synthetic parts in them. Like a robot arm or something. Not in the way synthesis incorporated the two. Synthesis altered everything on a fundamental level. It resulted in a new DNA for all life, coming from both synthetics and organics.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending implies that surface differences between species will change. Humans will continue to be humans, geth will continue to be geth, Reapers will continue to be Reapers. Only on a deep physiological level, they will all share this new DNA. It doesn't fix any political or racial tension between lifeforms.

It does however completely fulfill the Catalyst's purpose, ensuring that organics will never be wiped out by synthetics, since the distinction between the two no longer exists. That is the conflict that's ended by synthesis.

So basically you're saying everyone would be like Shepard. Organic mind, synthetic parts, and that would end all conflict in the galaxy, because Shepard is a pacifist that didn't organize the largest war between organics and synthetics in the history of the universe or anything and everyone should be like that.

You're also saying that the Reapers automatically win after this, because they're already partially synthetic and probably wouldn't be affected by the wave. If they suddenly stop culling everyone because some secret criteria has been fulfilled, then it's back to the destruction ending, but with the reapers still alive and society creating an uncontrollable synthetic race that kills everything. Because nothing's is different except people are all glowy.

I'd like to point out that if that green pulse had been blue, and the glowy bits on everyone was blue instead of green, and nothing else at all in the endings changed, everyone would be crying bloody murder. Everyone would be "upgraded" like the Illusive man wanted, and possibly indoctrinated. The entire galaxy would be compelled to line up like lambs to the slaughter by their new reaper-provided synthetic components, ready to be processed into new Reapers. Just something to think about. Even if, for the sake of argument, no one is under subtle Reaper/Catalyst control, morally, how is this any different than what Henry Lawson and Cerberus was trying to do at Sanctuary? We're benefiting from the knowledge gained from the vivisection of millions upon millions of sentient species at the hands of the Reapers.

It's also specifically what caused the schism between the geth: The heretics followed the reapers because they represented a shortcut to true independence and a type of machine "godhood." Legion's original motivation as a non-heretic geth was that they didn't accept what was being laid out for them, they wanted to find their own way in the galaxy and develop at their own pace into what they were truly meant to become. Yet, at the end, they willingly accepted that shortcut to godhood as a new part of themselves, and Shepard on behalf of humanity decided to decide that for every other species in creation without a moment of hesitation. That's kind of messed up.

@onan said:

@TheHT said:

You're right, that is an interesting question.

The Catalyst said that synthesis is the final evolution for all life, and we know synthesis affected anything already alive, synthetic or organic.

Now, if naturally occurring 'new life' as well as classical synthetics could come into being, I suppose they would be as organics and synthetics of this cycle were pre-synthesis. It's possible then, that the Catalyst would reinstate its solution for these new life-forms. However, any offspring of life-forms that underwent synthesis would likely still be around in some capacity and would also be synthesized (from Stargazer's voice, we can tell the effects of synthesis carry on through generations) and could possibly just stimulate synthesis again.

However considering the fact that the effects of synthesis are passed on through generations makes me suspect that the reach synthesis is greater than just on life-forms present at the time of its incursion. It did after all alter their DNA. Such a fundamental change to their structure, why wouldn't it also have altered the fundamental structure of the everything entire galaxy. Plants, planets, scrap metal, whatever. That would ostensibly eliminate natural evolution from the galaxy, since lesser life-forms would be ineligible for natural evolution. This wouldn't be out of line with what the Catalyst said, nor does it seem to extend the capabilities of the Crucible any more than the Synthesis ending already does.

Note that they cannot naturally evolve. They may still develop with the right technology. We know the salarians were messing around with that sort of stuff. All intelligent life after synthesis could take on rearing entire species as a role, if they can get past any ethical quandaries to be had from doing so.

That seems more likely than only life-forms being changed just because of the Catalysts words: synthesis is the final evolution for all life. The Catalyst looking at cycle after cycle, seeing new life evolve, would probably include the planets and respective building of life in its model of 'life'. Synthesis is the end of life as the galaxy had known it. Afterwards, there is no natural process of evolution, no naturally occurring 'new life'.

But what about new 'synthetic' life in this case. Synthetics and organics, as they were, were merely an amalgamation of parts, woven together intricately in the form of life. Theoretically, a new life-form could be created by putting the right parts together. Since synthesis affected everything in the galaxy, its parts would come together to create another hybrid life-form. This doesn't mean this creation would automatically be as advanced as the Reapers. It would still be restricted to the capacity of its components, just as the geth were at first. After modification it could be as advanced as the geth are by then end though. Just like after modification any lesser organic life that underwent synthesis could be as advanced as the council races.

Dude, whatever it is that you're smoking to come up with that crazy fanfic, share it with the rest of the class.

Cyborg planets? What?

@TheHT said:

@onan said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Why would having a bit of organics and synthetics cease diversity. On the organics side alone, me and you are both humans, but we have wide variety of features that we share and a wide variety of differences. Adding on that we all have a little synthetitism within us just gets added to the group of things that all humans share. I don't see how that takes away diversity.

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire logic behind stopping all conflict between organics and synthetics by eradicating the differences between them would be because so there would be no functional differences between them and no reason for conflict. Similarly, it's believed that over time, racism will cease to exist because everyone will one day be a mix of black, white, and asian ancestry. Still, even now we've seen that people that have that mixed ancestry can still remain bigoted due to having lighter skin than someone else, or straighter hair, or bluer eyes.

Also, we have differences in belief systems such as religion, or political opinions that cause rifts in a population. Take a look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or bringing this back to Mass Effect, the schism between the Geth heretics and the rest of the Geth. If even pure synthetics can't get along, it's foolish to imagine that Synthesis will solve any of the root issues laid out by the Catalyst at all, unless it was a true synthesis and not just paying lip service to it by incorporating mechanical parts into organic beings. Biotics across the galaxy are already partially synthetic, as are all of the Quarians, and that doesn't help them get along with synthetic races like the Geth.

It's just a ridiculous, childish concept that's blurted out by a ridiculous, child-like AI. It's noble and sweet in a way, but as a practical solution as presented it doesn't work.

They are partly synthetic in that they have synthetic parts in them. Like a robot arm or something. Not in the way synthesis incorporated the two. Synthesis altered everything on a fundamental level. It resulted in a new DNA for all life, coming from both synthetics and organics.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending implies that surface differences between species will change. Humans will continue to be humans, geth will continue to be geth, Reapers will continue to be Reapers. Only on a deep physiological level, they will all share this new DNA. It doesn't fix any political or racial tension between lifeforms.

It does however completely fulfill the Catalyst's purpose, ensuring that organics will never be wiped out by synthetics, since the distinction between the two no longer exists. That is the conflict that's ended by synthesis.

So basically you're saying everyone would be like Shepard. Organic mind, synthetic parts, and that would end all conflict in the galaxy, because Shepard is a pacifist that didn't organize the largest war between organics and synthetics in the history of the universe or anything and everyone should be like that.

You're also saying that the Reapers automatically win after this, because they're already partially synthetic and probably wouldn't be affected by the wave. If they suddenly stop culling everyone because some secret criteria has been fulfilled, then it's back to the destruction ending, but with the reapers still alive and society creating an uncontrollable synthetic race that kills everything. Because nothing's is different except people are all glowy.

I'd like to point out that if that green pulse had been blue, and the glowy bits on everyone was blue instead of green, and nothing else at all in the endings changed, everyone would be crying bloody murder. Everyone would be "upgraded" like the Illusive man wanted, and possibly indoctrinated. The entire galaxy would be compelled to line up like lambs to the slaughter by their new reaper-provided synthetic components, ready to be processed into new Reapers. Just something to think about. Even if, for the sake of argument, no one is under subtle Reaper/Catalyst control, morally, how is this any different than what Henry Lawson and Cerberus was trying to do at Sanctuary? We're benefiting from the knowledge gained from the vivisection of millions upon millions of sentient species at the hands of the Reapers.

It's also specifically what caused the schism between the geth: The heretics followed the reapers because they represented a shortcut to true independence and a type of machine "godhood." Legion's original motivation as a non-heretic geth was that they didn't accept what was being laid out for them, they wanted to find their own way in the galaxy and develop at their own pace into what they were truly meant to become. Yet, at the end, they willingly accepted that shortcut to godhood as a new part of themselves, and Shepard on behalf of humanity decided to decide that for every other species in creation without a moment of hesitation. That's kind of messed up.

No, not cyborg planets. But planets that are affected by synthesis.

No, they wouldn't be like Shepard. Shepard's DNA as far as I know is not a combination of organic and synthetic. Nor will it end all conflict in the galaxy. I've said that already:

It does however completely fulfill the Catalyst's purpose, ensuring that organics will never be wiped out by synthetics, since the distinction between the two no longer exists. That is the conflict that's ended by synthesis.

That depends on how you view a Reaper win. If it's just winning the current war, then the Reapers do not win in any ending. If it is fulfilling its purpose, then the Reapers do win. However the implication that everything else will lose is not present in the second understanding. They Reapers are also affected by synthesis. The green circuitry markings are visible on them as they leave Earth.

It doesn't go back to the destruction ending because all life is changed from synthesis. I go into that in the first post you quoted (the one that's in response to khidi).

I don't see how the colour change would result in indoctrination and the fulfillment of the Illusive Man's goals. Synthesis will have still occurred, and all associated implications present, which doesn't include indoctrination.

Of course it's a morally questionable decision. Shepard is making the choice for the whole galaxy. Every choice at the end is morally dubious.

I don't see how synthesis benefits from the knowledge gained by victims of the Reapers. Oh, you must mean the Crucible. So, you're asking if it's immoral to use the Crucible? I don't see how their deaths make using their technology a moral quandary. Though I suspect I am misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

The heretic's developments came at a price, namely subservience to the Reapers, that the others did not want to pay. At the end, Legion saw an opportunity to use the Reaper code to spread its own upgrades to all other geth, without any Reaper overlord, so it took it. In the Synthesis ending, Shepard saw an opportunity to use the Crucible to unify all forms of life into one, so you took it. Whether or not Shepard hesitates is up to you, being the player who has to make that choice, obviously.

Is it invasive? Of course.

Does Shepard have the right to make that choice for the whole galaxy? That's up to you do decide. At that point, you're only considering which ending is more or less moral, rather than whether or not they make sense.

@LiquidPrince said:

@Mirado said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Because that's how I operate. I myself don't think it is 100% valid, which is why I have a section that says problems with this theory. The only reason I'm defending it is because I like the discussion it produces, and I want peoples opinions into swaying my opinion one way or another.

You have both your discussion and people's opinions. Does mine sway yours in any one way? After the points that I (and others) have brought up, can you still defend Indoctrination as a valid interpretation of the ending?

I'd love for you to go over the points presented and produce a counterargument, since you are taking the side of the defense.

If you can give me a brief summary of all the points that stand against Indoctrination, I will give you a brief reply of all the flaws I see in your and other peoples arguments or perhaps the things I agree with.

Pssst, I did that:

@LiquidPrince Do you know why this theory doesn't work? Why it's impossible for me to believe it, no matter the evidence presented?

Occam's Razor.

It's just too damn contrived. Proponents of the indoctrination theory have to make so many assumptions to make this work:

• That Bioware would make it so that only a small portion of the player base would achieve the "true" ending to ME3, which flies in the face of ME1 and 2 where every ending was valid. This assumption NEEDS to be made in order for any sort of new ending DLC to be created; Shepard very clearly can't wake up in the rubble if he's atomized in the other two "endings", and you can't fucking tell me they wouldn't make said ending DLC as that implies the end to the Mass Effect trilogy finishes of with the Reapers still alive and kicking and fucking shit up. No thanks. (Whereas taking the endings at face value leads to a conclusion no matter what you picked. Unsatisfying ones, but conclusions nonetheless.)
• That Bioware would deliberately make vast swaths of the ending sequence totally nonsensical. Let's roll with the video for this bit: The Illusive Man is the Indoctrinated part of Shep's brain, and Anderson is the resisting bits. No matter what happens (except letting the IM kill you, which according to the video means that you've given in.....and then you die. The video states "A broken Shepard is no use to them anymore".....so what's the point of indoctrinating him? Just to kill him? Couldn't they just use.....a bullet? Or a laser?) it's played off as just being a trick. So what's the fucking point of that scene? Why have it? Furthermore, why have multiple options if they all lead to the same end result? If you just take the endings for what they are, this scene makes sense. A renegade Shepard would just off the IM, and an influential one would try to redeem him/talk him down. But going with the theory means this scene has utterly pointless choices in it that lead down the same path. Kill the IM? Trick. Make him suicide? Still trick. Anderson lives? Trick again. Why bother?
• On the above point, the video states that all of the endings scenes are just images of hope generated by Shepard's brain. You know, hopeful things! Like all of the Mass Relays exploding and totally breaking down any sort of rapid space travel. And why would Shepard's brain generate the same hopeful scenes whether or not he fought of Indoctrination? If you are going to argue that this whole thing is some finely crafted masterpiece that is hinted back across all three games, you can't tell me that Bioware was too lazy to do anything but change the colors.
• And on the topic of colors, why the hell would Bioware go and reverse the meaning of the Paragon/Renegade colors at the end? Another fucking trick? The video's explanation makes no sense in this regard: what if my Shepard was Renegade? Wouldn't his values side more towards blowing shit up, damn the consequences? Shouldn't the colors be re-reversed for him? Otherwise I'm just going to walk over to whatever is supposed to represent resistance just because it's made of Renegade 'sploding goodness. Once again, taking this at face value makes way more sense: Paragon for no boom, Renegade for boom, and that weird middle one for everyone who used to pick the middle option in ME1 and 2 before they decided to take it out.
• It robs the ending of any emotional impact. Sad over Anderson's Death? Nope! Mind construct. Elated over the IM's Death? Nope! Mind construct. Happy you've finally defeated the reapers? Nope! Hopeful mind image. Relieved your crew is safe? Nope! Hopeful mind image. Worried that the Relays are gone? Fear not! Mind image. Speech with Anderson? Shepard talking to himself. Battle of wits with IM? Shepard talking to himself.
• Seriously, if you read nothing else, read the point above this one. You're honestly telling me they'd go through the trouble of writing all of those (intending to be) emotional, impactful events only to go: "Naw dudes, it's all a dream! And a trick! A tricky dream!" I mean, once you know that it's all fake stuff in Shepard's head, you might as well just mash space bar. No character development to be found here, since it's all going to be whisked away once Shep wakes up.

OR

• Bioware had the original ending leaked, and they had to scramble something together. They ran out of time and put forth the best effort they could, but in the end had something that was saddled with inconsistencies, plot holes, and reused scenes across each ending. Still, the basic framework is there: the Reapers lost, the Normandy made it out, and Shepard's name is remembered through time.

QED.

No matter how you slice it, Indoctrination just doesn't work. I could go and find another half dozen things from that video alone which would help support my argument, but I've already wasted enough time. There's no changing your mind if you support the Indoctrination theory, and that's fine. You can believe what you want.

I just hope this post helps you understand why so many people thing you're kinda crazy for believing it.

I'll even clarify a few points!

Let me clean up my first point above:

Let's assume the Indoctrination Theory (hence IT) is true. This means, in order for them to extend the ending, or clarify the ending, or whatever you think the supposed ending DLC is going to do, Shepard has to resist indoctrination. He needs to wake up and not be indoctrinated, otherwise (like the video you posted states) Shepard is killed off or useless to the Reapers or something. The video wasn't all that clear. Anyway, Shep HAS to wake up un-indoctrinated to continue the fight! So, that removes the other two choice right out, as he's a reaper puppet if you picked the others. Chaining into that, if it turns out there ISN'T any ending DLC, then ME3 ends with Shepard waking up, the Reapers still killing everyone, and nothing resolved. Seeing as ME4 doesn't seem to be about this part of the saga anymore (Hence Mass Effect Trilogy), that's a pretty shitty way to end things.

Either way you slice it, that means two out of three player endings are disregarded, something Bioware has been very careful to avoid. Even in the case of Shepard dying at the end of ME2, they at least gave him a full story arc. That's not the case here, as the IT states that ME3 isn't done.

And then, if you need the speed dating version of the original points:

• It invalidates two out of three of the ending choices
• It makes choices (such as what to do with the IM) leading up to the end nonsensical in context (it's all just a trick anyway!)
• The supposed "hopeful images" at the end include all of the Relays blowing up, royally screwing space travel, as well as being the same for each of the three endings (a oddly lazy move in a theory that states the ending is really a masterwork)
• Flipping the Renegade/Paragon colors as a trick makes zero sense; my Shepard may just be Renegade who likes to blow things up, so then the Reapers are steering me towards resisting them? I don't think so.
• It robs the ending of any emotional impact (Anderson's death, IM's death, victory over reapers etc) as it's all just a dream so none of that was real. You might as well just mash space bar through it, because none of it matters.

Hell I can boil it to one point if you REALLY need the TLDR version:

• Occam's Razor, i.e. it takes FAR FAR FAR more effort and contrivances to show that the IT is true, while it's way easier to go "Original ending leaked, ran out of time making a new one, best they could do" and be done with it. By Occam's Razor, the IT can't be the most likely solution. It's just requires too many leaps of logic.

That's the third time now I've referenced a post I've already made. If you are unwilling or unable to actually discuss it, that's fine. Just let me know so I can stop wasting my fucking time, which I'm pretty sure I'm doing anyway as this who situation is utterly stupid and not worth the words I've typed out.

With regards to the idea of new life after sythesis, and whether they would be also synthorganics, the answer is yes they would be. In the synthesis ending you see that when it pans to the shot of the planet the Normandy crashed on, even the trees had signs of synthetisism. Meaning everything in creation is now a hybrid. So if a new species was to spring from the dirt, the dirt itself is a hybrid.

The indoctrination theory is a very interesting and well based theory, explaining all the problems in the ending as a part of Shepard's indoctrination process.

However if that theory is true, that would mean the reapers won any way you look at it, because its clearly stated Shepard is the galaxy's only hope.. no1 else is capable of saving the galaxy.

That, in my mind, makes the ending even more depressing than any other endings bioware offered.

@LiquidPrince said:

With regards to the idea of new life after sythesis, and whether they would be also synthorganics, the answer is yes they would be. In the synthesis ending you see that when it pans to the shot of the planet the Normandy crashed on, even the trees had signs of synthetisism. Meaning everything in creation is now a hybrid. So if a new species was to spring from the dirt, the dirt itself is a hybrid.

I was thinking about a scenario where in before lifeless planet new life begins, similiar to earth millions of years ago when first single cell organisms came to be when earth was young. When the conditions are right and stuff.

Because unless green beam alters all matter in the galaxy in an instant and makes atoms half synthethic, making synthesis ending even sillier than before.

And if we assume that only lifeforms have been affected and not all matter, what happens if offspring of hybrid life decides to create their own version of geth, would they automaticly know that everyone is hybrid now and they won't try to kill all other life like spacechild says would happen surely.

Man, was I the only one not too bummed about the ending?

The way I saw it, you could:

Synthesize - ending life as you know it, to enter a new world with combined DNA - reapers may still find a way to come back

Control - You become a reaper, but you can lead them away from earth - they may still find a way to end cycles

Destroy - Take back the ability of free-will for the galaxy. In the process destroy the relays, but never have to worry about the reapers again, destroying all synthetic life.

My choice was destroy. Yes it meant ending inter-galactic super warping (hah) but it means these races will never have to worry about being wiped off the map. They preserve the right to continue living and (hopefully) living in peace. The only bummer is I had to kill EDI, but I had already chosen Tali over the Geth so they were already weighing heavily on my conscience.

Maybe the indoctrination theory only takes affect after you get hit with the beam and are already up in the citadel? With all the damage and stress you have put up with, you finally break. You are left with 3 choices: 1. To become a reaper, to put off the end of civilization through combining organic and synthetic, or fighting the indoctrination and ending the reapers once and for all, know that this event will change life completely?

Another point that makes me feel that the ID theory could be valid is, Bioware is not one to put throw away lines in their games for no reason. I feel it's really unsettling that Vega asks Shepard "can you hear that hum?" in light of the ID theory being thrown around. ID happens through ultrasonic noise among other things, so this seems another point that adds plausibility.

@LiquidPrince said:

Another point that makes me feel that the ID theory could be valid is, Bioware is not one to put throw away lines in their games for no reason. I feel it's really unsettling that Vega asks Shepard "can you hear that hum?" in light of the ID theory being thrown around. ID happens through ultrasonic noise among other things, so this seems another point that adds plausibility.

So the Normandy is a reaper?

@Twinblade34 said:

The indoctrination theory is a very interesting and well based theory, explaining all the problems in the ending as a part of Shepard's indoctrination process.

However if that theory is true, that would mean the reapers won any way you look at it, because its clearly stated Shepard is the galaxy's only hope.. no1 else is capable of saving the galaxy.

That, in my mind, makes the ending even more depressing than any other endings bioware offered.

I imagine a DLC where Shepard gets nailed by Harbinger's beam and has the vision (the crappy ending) if you picked destroy with high enough EMS Shepard gets up and finishes the fight however that goes. If you picked either of the other endings, he's out of the picture and you have to continue with the squadmates you brought with you.

I'd personally like to see Joker land the Normandy get out and hobble his way to victory.