@LiquidPrince said:

@TheHT said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

Indoctrination is stupid and people should not believe it.

How so?

@onan said:

This is going to get shut down pretty quick. But to answer your question, the problem with ID Theory is that it means that ME3 had no ending, just a hallucination that abruptly ends at the climax. It's all very clever, but still not a good ending because it didn't end. This can work, and has worked in stuff like Inception, but it wasn't handled well. Any way you slice it, all of the endings are pretty terrible from a narrative perspective.

Maybe. Synthesis makes good sense, if you disregard the ID theory though.

Because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that Shepard would be indoctrinated so easily after such little time, especially given that his longest exposure was to a derelict Reaper for all of an hour, give or take. If it were so easy to indoctrinate someone in such a short time, way more people would be indoctrinated since it would be the easiest way for the Reapers to do their dirty work. Not to mention that with the indoctrination theory the game doesn't end. Assuming it is all some crappy dream, nothing is resolved. The Reapers are still fucking everyone up while Shepard is literally dying under inexplicable rubble. How is that an ending? At least with Synthesis there is an actual close to the story. If it is all some hallucination there is no close, no wrap up. It assumes that, if this is what BioWare intended that they always wanted to ship a game with no ending just to nickel and dime the consumer.

But he's been in contact with Reaper tech since ME1. Also, in the new theory video I posted, (which has some compelling evidence to support this via in game audio) when someone is under stress, the indoctrination process because way easier, even to strong willed individuals. Sheaprd is under massive stress after arrival, or if you never played that, after the collector base, and Harbinger even mentions this.

If I recall correctly it took Saren and Benezia about a week, maybe more, to get indoctrinated? That was a week inside an active Reaper.

Even then, Saren was able to become of it and doubt his beliefs, at which point Sovereign forced physical modifications on him to make him more compliant. And even then he could resist.

Hard to believe Shepard (the one who sparked that resistance in Saren, if you made that choice) would become indoctrinated so quickly after so little contact (and virtually no prolonged contact). Or that he would so quickly reach a critical point in the indoctrination process where he would make a decision to either become indoctrinated or not (a choice that never seems to happen to indoctrinated; yes it's a series of bad choices but never a singluar choice out of the blue followed by obedience). Let alone that Shepard could get fooled by the Reapers into getting indoctrinated (which, again, we have no reason to believe would ever happen in the indoctrination process).

As far as we know, the indoctrination process takes the form of whispers in the back of your mind, echoing twisted beliefs and motivations, commands and reassurance. Not an elaborate dream sequence, seeming to continue from where you left off in waking, in which character projections from your life debate with you.

But he's been in contact with Reaper related stuff since ME1. And in Arrival he gets knocked out for three days in which anything could have happened, especially considering how everyone in Arrival was indoctrinated by Harbinger.

Everyone in Arrival was indoctrinated because they worked around an active Reaper artifact for far longer than three days.

@DonChipotle said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@DonChipotle said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@DonChipotle: No, they're not. They're adding onto it. If you get the Shepard Lives ending, that's the last thing you see before the credits. They wouldn't be changing a single thing about that. It still happens exactly the way it did, but it would be revealed that it was all a dream.

No, it won't be revealed that it was all a dream because that would make no sense because then they'd have to add in the part where the game ends since if it was all a dream the problem has yet to be resolved.

Exactly. The point isn't that BioWare thought this was some brilliant way to end the game and keep people talking about it for weeks. It's because EA wanted to make more money, and they know enough people will buy it to offset whatever other people would be too disgruntled to buy the DLC.

You are implying that this was the plan all along? That they would effectively troll its fanbase with a non-ending and then go "hahahah, just kidding, guys, now give us ten bucks and we'll give you the REAL ending"?

You're assuming it isn't. Heck, Capcom is doing it with Asura's Wrath now and Prince of Persia 2008 did it. There might be more examples even, but I can't recall others.

@SuperWristBands said:

@DonChipotle said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@DonChipotle said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@DonChipotle: No, they're not. They're adding onto it. If you get the Shepard Lives ending, that's the last thing you see before the credits. They wouldn't be changing a single thing about that. It still happens exactly the way it did, but it would be revealed that it was all a dream.

No, it won't be revealed that it was all a dream because that would make no sense because then they'd have to add in the part where the game ends since if it was all a dream the problem has yet to be resolved.

Exactly. The point isn't that BioWare thought this was some brilliant way to end the game and keep people talking about it for weeks. It's because EA wanted to make more money, and they know enough people will buy it to offset whatever other people would be too disgruntled to buy the DLC.

You are implying that this was the plan all along? That they would effectively troll its fanbase with a non-ending and then go "hahahah, just kidding, guys, now give us ten bucks and we'll give you the REAL ending"?

You're assuming it isn't. Heck, Capcom is doing it with Asura's Wrath now and Prince of Persia 2008 did it. There might be more examples even, but I can't recall others.

Asura's Wrath and Prince of Persia 2008 were not the ending to a beloved five year long franchise.

@SuperWristBands: The persona 4 anime

@DonChipotle: The literal ending of ME3 is total garbage and should have been handled far better for a beloved five year long franchise. I don't think what you said is a good argument point given what the end of Mass Effect 3 is.

Well, at least people are still trying to salvage what's left of any of these endings which are alright. I think Bioware is just keeping you interested in buying their DLC which won't change the ending so yeah my two cents. Anyway, hope we can all move on from this shit and think about other games!

@DonChipotle: Says who? Do they give a time frame in the DLC? Also you seem to forget that Harbinger is FOCUSING on Shepard. The video clearly states (and the dialogue is lifted from the codex) that varying speeds at which people get indoctrinated depends on the Reaper. For Shepard it starts around Arrival and happens all the way through ME3.

@SuperWristBands said:

@DonChipotle: The literal ending of ME3 is total garbage and should have been handled far better for a beloved five year long franchise. I don't think what you said is a good argument point given what the end of Mass Effect 3 is.

It's a better argument than "They gave us a non ending to have us buy DLC, here is this video we made to showcase why". The ending may not be perfect, but it ended. There was an ending, it wrapped up the story. Whether or not it wrapped up well is not the point. They didn't just cut the game and go "Now give us money to see the ending". They gave us an ending. You are saying otherwise by implying this was the goal from day one. It wasn't. The intention was never "Make em pay for the real ending".

@DonChipotle said:

@SuperWristBands said:

@DonChipotle: The literal ending of ME3 is total garbage and should have been handled far better for a beloved five year long franchise. I don't think what you said is a good argument point given what the end of Mass Effect 3 is.

It's a better argument than "They gave us a non ending to have us buy DLC, here is this video we made to showcase why". The ending may not be perfect, but it ended. There was an ending, it wrapped up the story. Whether or not it wrapped up well is not the point. They didn't just cut the game and go "Now give us money to see the ending". They gave us an ending. You are saying otherwise by implying this was the goal from day one. It wasn't. The intention was never "Make em pay for the real ending".

Dude seriously. You don't know shit about what they intended. I can see it going either way, EA being money grubbing bastards who want some more money for a "real ending" or BioWare fucked up real bad on the ending. What I can't see is why you are so stubborn about it.

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle: Says who? Do they give a time frame in the DLC? Also you seem to forget that Harbinger is FOCUSING on Shepard. The video clearly states (and the dialogue is lifted from the codex) that varying speeds at which people get indoctrinated depends on the Reaper. For Shepard it starts around Arrival and happens all the way through ME3.

The team at Project Base had been researching Object Rho for an unspecified length of time, but it is still a longer time than Shepard spent. Shepard got close to it, fought a bunch of dudes, and the spent two days in a med bay away from the object. It would make more sense for the indoctrinated scientists to fucking kill Shepard right there because then they wipe out the galaxy unchallenged, which is shown when you let the timer run down. It makes less sense for him to be indoctrinated while spending two days sedated.

You're assuming it isn't. Heck, Capcom is doing it with Asura's Wrath now and Prince of Persia 2008 did it. There might be more examples even, but I can't recall others.

@SuperWristBands said:

@DonChipotle said:

@SuperWristBands said:

@DonChipotle: The literal ending of ME3 is total garbage and should have been handled far better for a beloved five year long franchise. I don't think what you said is a good argument point given what the end of Mass Effect 3 is.

It's a better argument than "They gave us a non ending to have us buy DLC, here is this video we made to showcase why". The ending may not be perfect, but it ended. There was an ending, it wrapped up the story. Whether or not it wrapped up well is not the point. They didn't just cut the game and go "Now give us money to see the ending". They gave us an ending. You are saying otherwise by implying this was the goal from day one. It wasn't. The intention was never "Make em pay for the real ending".

Dude seriously. You don't know shit about what they intended. I can see it going either way, EA being money grubbing bastards who want some more money for a "real ending" or BioWare fucked up real bad on the ending. What I can't see is why you are so stubborn about it.

BioWare did fuck up on the ending. That horse has been beaten to death at this point. But the fuck up is not a result of "We'll fuck up intentionally just to get more money". If that was the case, why even bother having an ending at all? Just end the game after the fuckin laser beam when you're running to the light. Just a big flash and then "BUY THE DLC" pops up.

Jeez, there's a lot of back and forth with this. Shepard is stressed, yes, but there are a lot of other factors involved. He had his body rebuilt by people who were actively experimenting with Reaper tech at the time (i.e. EDI, at least), using a technique that as far as reactions would indicate in the ME universe, is completely unique and has only been pulled off with Shepard. It's not too far-fetched an idea, considering TIM has first-hand knowledge of how reaper technology can reanimate seemingly necrotic tissues. Before that, he spent time on Vermire, Saren's and Sovereign's base of operations, a planet that drove at least one scientist crazy 2 games later and forced her to kill a bunch of senior asari officials before killing herself (and she was FINE in ME2, you see her working in Okeer's lab).

Also, no one else was knocked out by a pulse from an active reaper artifact and left near it for 3 days or so. Before this, I don't think the artifact sent out pulses to knock people out, so we need to assume he got hit with the good stuff. After all, this device is similar to what gave TIM his crazy blue eyes originally, and with a touch instantly converted his friends into living husks in the Evolution comic just by touching it. Harbinger KNEW Shepard was there, and had an entire base assisting him. Let's also point out that Bioware very specifically said The Arrival DLC would set up the plot for ME3.

Even beyond that though, no one else in the series has linked their mind to a geth consciousness that was infested with reaper technology. All of the missions to Reaper-controlled areas and recovering Reaper technology, it was always Shepard. The squadmates came and went, but the one constant was always Shepard. On the derelict Reaper and the collector base, Shepard. Throughout ME3, Shepard probably has more first-hand experience combating Reaper ground forces than anyone in the galaxy. He took on a giant, unshielded half-constructed Reaper, he spent weeks darting into and out of Reaper-controlled space. He spoke face to face with a dying reaper. He spent who knows how long at Sanctuary at a facility built to example the effects of indoctrination.

If anyone in the galaxy should be indoctrinated by the end of ME3, it should be Shepard. It actually makes sense as well. What's the point of stressing through three games than an enemy has a very terrifying ability to turn people if the protagonist and everyone he knows is going to be somehow immune to it thanks to plot armor?

Anyway, I'm happier with the cliffhanger ending and no closure at all than the mess they put out in the form of those 3 disjointed, nonsensical endings via the Catalyst. Here's hoping the conspiracy theorists are right.

@onan said:

Jeez, there's a lot of back and forth with this. Shepard is stressed, yes, but there are a lot of other factors involved. He had his body rebuilt by people who were actively experimenting with Reaper tech at the time (i.e. EDI, at least), using a technique that as far as reactions would indicate in the ME universe, is completely unique and has only been pulled off with Shepard. It's not too far-fetched an idea, considering TIM has first-hand knowledge of how reaper technology can reanimate seemingly necrotic tissues. Before that, he spent time on Vermire, Saren's and Sovereign's base of operations, a planet that drove at least one scientist crazy 2 games later and forced her to kill a bunch of senior asari officials before killing herself (and she was FINE in ME2, you see her working in Okeer's lab).

Also, no one else was knocked out by a pulse from an active reaper artifact and left near it for 3 days or so. Before this, I don't think the artifact sent out pulses to knock people out, so we need to assume he got hit with the good stuff. After all, this device is similar to what gave TIM his crazy blue eyes originally, and with a touch instantly converted his friends into living husks in the Evolution comic just by touching it. Harbinger KNEW Shepard was there, and had an entire base assisting him. Let's also point out that Bioware very specifically said The Arrival DLC would set up the plot for ME3.

Even beyond that though, no one else in the series has linked their mind to a geth consciousness that was infested with reaper technology. All of the missions to Reaper-controlled areas and recovering Reaper technology, it was always Shepard. The squadmates came and went, but the one constant was always Shepard. On the derelict Reaper and the collector base, Shepard. Throughout ME3, Shepard probably has more first-hand experience combating Reaper ground forces than anyone in the galaxy. He took on a giant, unshielded half-constructed Reaper, he spent weeks darting into and out of Reaper-controlled space. He spoke face to face with a dying reaper. He spent who knows how long at Sanctuary at a facility built to example the effects of indoctrination.

If anyone in the galaxy should be indoctrinated by the end of ME3, it should be Shepard. It actually makes sense as well. What's the point of stressing through three games than an enemy has a very terrifying ability to turn people if the protagonist and everyone he knows is going to be somehow immune to it thanks to plot armor?

Anyway, I'm happier with the cliffhanger ending and no closure at all than the mess they put out in the form of those 3 disjointed, nonsensical endings via the Catalyst. Here's hoping the conspiracy theorists are right.

Perfect. You wrote out what I was too lazy to do. Thanks. Agreed.

grasping at straws in order to make sense of a crappy finish

@shway said:

grasping at straws in order to make sense of a crappy finish

I hate when people say this. The video provides a metric shit ton of feasible proof. You show me WHY it's grasping at straws...

@LiquidPrince said:

@TheHT said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

Indoctrination is stupid and people should not believe it.

How so?

@onan said:

This is going to get shut down pretty quick. But to answer your question, the problem with ID Theory is that it means that ME3 had no ending, just a hallucination that abruptly ends at the climax. It's all very clever, but still not a good ending because it didn't end. This can work, and has worked in stuff like Inception, but it wasn't handled well. Any way you slice it, all of the endings are pretty terrible from a narrative perspective.

Maybe. Synthesis makes good sense, if you disregard the ID theory though.

Because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that Shepard would be indoctrinated so easily after such little time, especially given that his longest exposure was to a derelict Reaper for all of an hour, give or take. If it were so easy to indoctrinate someone in such a short time, way more people would be indoctrinated since it would be the easiest way for the Reapers to do their dirty work. Not to mention that with the indoctrination theory the game doesn't end. Assuming it is all some crappy dream, nothing is resolved. The Reapers are still fucking everyone up while Shepard is literally dying under inexplicable rubble. How is that an ending? At least with Synthesis there is an actual close to the story. If it is all some hallucination there is no close, no wrap up. It assumes that, if this is what BioWare intended that they always wanted to ship a game with no ending just to nickel and dime the consumer.

But he's been in contact with Reaper tech since ME1. Also, in the new theory video I posted, (which has some compelling evidence to support this via in game audio) when someone is under stress, the indoctrination process because way easier, even to strong willed individuals. Sheaprd is under massive stress after arrival, or if you never played that, after the collector base, and Harbinger even mentions this.

If I recall correctly it took Saren and Benezia about a week, maybe more, to get indoctrinated? That was a week inside an active Reaper.

Even then, Saren was able to become of it and doubt his beliefs, at which point Sovereign forced physical modifications on him to make him more compliant. And even then he could resist.

Hard to believe Shepard (the one who sparked that resistance in Saren, if you made that choice) would become indoctrinated so quickly after so little contact (and virtually no prolonged contact). Or that he would so quickly reach a critical point in the indoctrination process where he would make a decision to either become indoctrinated or not (a choice that never seems to happen to indoctrinated; yes it's a series of bad choices but never a singluar choice out of the blue followed by obedience). Let alone that Shepard could get fooled by the Reapers into getting indoctrinated (which, again, we have no reason to believe would ever happen in the indoctrination process).

As far as we know, the indoctrination process takes the form of whispers in the back of your mind, echoing twisted beliefs and motivations, commands and reassurance. Not an elaborate dream sequence, seeming to continue from where you left off in waking, in which character projections from your life debate with you.

But he's been in contact with Reaper related stuff since ME1. And in Arrival he gets knocked out for three days in which anything could have happened, especially considering how everyone in Arrival was indoctrinated by Harbinger.

Reaper related stuff on and off yes, but there's nothing to support the notion that any of those had an effect on Shepard, much less that any effect would remain (even if dormant). The only alien thing that's stuck with Shepard since the first game are the changes that came from the Prothean beacons.

Three days unconscious seems like a considerable amount of time, especially considering who his companions were for those 72 hours. However, if Shepard were indoctrinated, the effect would have to be incredibly subtle (since there are virtually no signs of it after Arrival until the very end where there is a surge of indoctrination activity). Any alterations made to Shepard by the indoctrinated in Arrival most likely wouldn't be so subtle (looking back on all Reaper-tech, all physical alterations are obvious and roughly done).

It's possible they were able to alter any synthetic components put in by Cerberus to make Shepard more succeptable to indoctrination signals. Though doing this would be cunning, a subtle modification like that doesn't fall in line with the ways Reapers typically make physical changes. Ultimately without knowing what's exactly in Shepard and how it could be modified, it's just baseless speculation.

An argument might also be made that his unconscious state for those three days protected him from any indoctrination signals, since they're affective by twisting thoughts and directing emotions. Without a consciousness to warp, indoctrination would be ineffective.

And none of what happens on Arrival looks like enough to overpower the comparisons to Saren's indoctrination as well a sudden and singular indoctrination dream-sequence in lieu of the indoctrination process.

@TheHT: If the argument is to prove that the ID theory is legitimate, and you will agree with it if proof can be shown, then there is a ton of proof right from the opening moments of the game that hint at Shepard being indoctrinated. For one the space child is a manifestation of the stress and fear he has about not being able to save anybody. And then the dreams he has are exactly like what the Rachni Queen described the process of indoctrination felt like. EXACTLY. She mentioned seeing shadowy figures all crying in pain and fear, and that is exactly what he was seeing when he was having nightmares.

@LiquidPrince said:

@onan said:

Jeez, there's a lot of back and forth with this. Shepard is stressed, yes, but there are a lot of other factors involved. He had his body rebuilt by people who were actively experimenting with Reaper tech at the time (i.e. EDI, at least), using a technique that as far as reactions would indicate in the ME universe, is completely unique and has only been pulled off with Shepard. It's not too far-fetched an idea, considering TIM has first-hand knowledge of how reaper technology can reanimate seemingly necrotic tissues. Before that, he spent time on Vermire, Saren's and Sovereign's base of operations, a planet that drove at least one scientist crazy 2 games later and forced her to kill a bunch of senior asari officials before killing herself (and she was FINE in ME2, you see her working in Okeer's lab).

Also, no one else was knocked out by a pulse from an active reaper artifact and left near it for 3 days or so. Before this, I don't think the artifact sent out pulses to knock people out, so we need to assume he got hit with the good stuff. After all, this device is similar to what gave TIM his crazy blue eyes originally, and with a touch instantly converted his friends into living husks in the Evolution comic just by touching it. Harbinger KNEW Shepard was there, and had an entire base assisting him. Let's also point out that Bioware very specifically said The Arrival DLC would set up the plot for ME3.

Even beyond that though, no one else in the series has linked their mind to a geth consciousness that was infested with reaper technology. All of the missions to Reaper-controlled areas and recovering Reaper technology, it was always Shepard. The squadmates came and went, but the one constant was always Shepard. On the derelict Reaper and the collector base, Shepard. Throughout ME3, Shepard probably has more first-hand experience combating Reaper ground forces than anyone in the galaxy. He took on a giant, unshielded half-constructed Reaper, he spent weeks darting into and out of Reaper-controlled space. He spoke face to face with a dying reaper. He spent who knows how long at Sanctuary at a facility built to example the effects of indoctrination.

If anyone in the galaxy should be indoctrinated by the end of ME3, it should be Shepard. It actually makes sense as well. What's the point of stressing through three games than an enemy has a very terrifying ability to turn people if the protagonist and everyone he knows is going to be somehow immune to it thanks to plot armor?

Anyway, I'm happier with the cliffhanger ending and no closure at all than the mess they put out in the form of those 3 disjointed, nonsensical endings via the Catalyst. Here's hoping the conspiracy theorists are right.

Perfect. You wrote out what I was too lazy to do. Thanks. Agreed.

@LiquidPrince said:

@shway said:

grasping at straws in order to make sense of a crappy finish

I hate when people say this. The video provides a metric shit ton of feasible proof. You show me WHY it's grasping at straws...

Agreed, and... Agreed.

I just want to say thanks to the author of this blog, this was the first time i saw the indoctrination theory well explained, with details from all three games providing evidence. And it has given me a new outlook on the game.

And also I just want more mass effect, so if they release DLC that changes the endings thats fine by me, i don't care, i just want more mass effect, plain and simple.

I'm assuming someone has pointed this out to ou, but assuming the indoctrination theory is correct, then nothing actually happened after the harbinger attack in the real world. The crucible wasn't used as it was only a hallucination. Ergo, the true ending has yet to be seen. For that reason, as much as I would love to buy into the indoctrination theory, I can't imagine that it's true.

@Kut_U_Up: Glad it helped. The video gives me chills.

@BrockNRolla: I pointed it out in the opening post =)

It seems like Bioware thought of this ending during ME1 and assumed that people would play close attention to the small details that they spread out through the trilogy. Obviously, they were wrong as mostly everyone including myself did not see this. The whole video needs to be watched before you can make a criticism about the theory. Everything makes absolute perfect sense and it all ties in together. Shepard has been indoctrinated since ME1 as it was mentioned that someone can be indoctrinated for years and not know it.

Saren believed in synthesis as a perfect world while he was under control and so that is an option in the end. The researchers from Arrival were easily indoctrinated because they don't have the willpower of Shepard and are simply pawns, but Shepard is the one organic that the Reapers believe that they can use and manipulate. The other members were not under their control because they were not integral in their plan, all they need is Shepard. Although they are manipulated to convince Shepard they do hear a strange humming on the ship which shows they are in their grasp.

Think of the Illusive Man and Anderson as the devil and angel on Shepard's shoulder that try to bring him onto their side. They are both in his head making a case to become a product of the Reapers or break free and the Reapers see this as an experiment to see how they can control organics and restart the cycle. If Shepard destroys the reapers, that means they have failed and have paid for the gamble they took on him ultimately paying the price. They didn't kill him on the way to the beam because they assumed that he was the key in restarting the cycle. They create illusions of other soldiers fallen and integrate scenery from his nightmares into the background as he enters the beam to discourage him and make him lose all hope.

They said they wouldn't change the ending but help to clarify with dlc. And sure its possible that they expected this kind of backlash and had a dlc package that would explain the ending to fill their pockets and ease the players. Another underestimation on their part as no matter what they do it'll be thrown in their face, but it wouldn't surprise me if that explanation in the dlc would involve this theory.

@Pacmanlh: Exactly. I really hope they don't change the ending and just clarify with post game DLC. My only problem with the end was that you don't get to see what happened to your squad.

In regards to the indoctrination theory. People seem to be hung up on the idea that Shepard couldn't be indoctrinated. After all, both the Illusive Man and Saren were indoctrinated from extensive cybernetic implants based on Reaper tech. This would be impossible to happen to Shepard, since he/she has no significant cybernet --- oh. right. e.e

Kind of sick of people asserting that there is a "best" ending, to be honest. That's probably my biggest problem with the indoctrination theory, it asserts that there is only one right choice when Mass Effect has never been about providing "right" or "wrong" choices. It seems crazy to me that these indoctrination theory people would just go ahead and wholeheartedly dismiss two of the options in favour of declaring one the only right choice. You would think that if they were really the amazing thinking fans they claim themselves to be that perhaps they're have a better think about the choices and how they may simply lead to different consequences that aren't simply "u gave into harbinger you big dummy olol".

@LiquidPrince said:

@BrockNRolla: I pointed it out in the opening post =)

I was referring to this in your opening post about the second ending:

Problems: If everything was an illusion after getting hit by Harbinger, then who opened the Citadel and blasted off the Crucible? If Shepard wakes up in London, that would mean that the Reapers can't have actually been destroyed because no one would have gone to open the Citadel. Unless Shepard opened the Citadel with his telepathy?

I was just trying to point out that these aren't actually problems with the Indoctrination Theory because none of these things would have happened if it were true. It would have all been in his head as he was lying on the ground after the attack, so they never occurred.

Maybe you are referring to a different post, but I was just thinking that your cited Indoctrination Theory problems weren't real problems. BUT, that in an of itself it the problem with the Indoctrination theory. It is too perfect. Too well wrought. I don't know that I have that faith in their writing.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

Indoctrination is stupid and people should not believe it.

How so?

Because people are assuming that because the 'regular' ending is shitty and half-assed, Bioware must have intended this DEEPER ending to be the real one. If Bioware really intended some sort of massive bait and switch at the end of the game, why does the 'regular' ending have to be a shitty one?

Why couldn't they come up with a satisfying 'regular' one that people could actually believe to be true and just leave these subtle hints alongside that? Why would the company intentionally leave users with a shitty 'regular' ending that cost them time and money to make?

The whole line of thought behind this new theory is dumb.

Except that video that I posted has some really awesome and clever links that are too detailed to be coincidence. For example the Rachni queen explaining indoctrination from ME1, and how in ME3 Shepard's dreams look EXACTLY like what she was describing. There's also a ton more. The video provides too many point for it to have been coincidence on Bioware's part.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

Indoctrination is stupid and people should not believe it.

How so?

Because people are assuming that because the 'regular' ending is shitty and half-assed, Bioware must have intended this DEEPER ending to be the real one. If Bioware really intended some sort of massive bait and switch at the end of the game, why does the 'regular' ending have to be a shitty one?

Why couldn't they come up with a satisfying 'regular' one that people could actually believe to be true and just leave these subtle hints alongside that? Why would the company intentionally leave users with a shitty 'regular' ending that cost them time and money to make?

The whole line of thought behind this new theory is dumb.

Except that video that I posted has some really awesome and clever links that are too detailed to be coincidence. For example the Rachni queen explaining indoctrination from ME1, and how in ME3 Shepard's dreams look EXACTLY like what she was describing. There's also a ton more. The video provides too many point for it to have been coincidence on Bioware's part.

Yeh, nobody thus far has addressed my point when I make it, this is the response I expected.

What?

How am I supposed to take that video seriously with Mark Meer and Sheploo?

@Pacmanlh said:

It seems like Bioware thought of this ending during ME1 and assumed that people would play close attention to the small details that they spread out through the trilogy. Obviously, they were wrong as mostly everyone including myself did not see this.

I wish I had your faith in Bioware. If anything, I feel like ME3 showed a lack of faith on EA/Bioware's part in their audience, and a lack of care in their fiction.

"How can we keep the audience engaged? How about more shooting and less talking? How do we finish out the series? I don't know... How about something vague?"

@LiquidPrince said:

@TheHT: If the argument is to prove that the ID theory is legitimate, and you will agree with it if proof can be shown, then there is a ton of proof right from the opening moments of the game that hint at Shepard being indoctrinated. For one the space child is a manifestation of the stress and fear he has about not being able to save anybody. And then the dreams he has are exactly like what the Rachni Queen described the process of indoctrination felt like. EXACTLY. She mentioned seeing shadowy figures all crying in pain and fear, and that is exactly what he was seeing when he was having nightmares.

What signs at the opening?

The Rachni Queen was describing what happened in the Rachni Wars, but what about her account relates to indoctrination in the humanoid races, and specifically to the idea that Shepard was being indoctrinated throughout Mass Effect 3? Rachni perceive the world through sounds, both visually and audibly. More specifically, as music. Additionally, they have a hive mind, communicating telepathically across space.

Talk of discordance and "songs the colour oily shadows" are a rachni perceiving a highly developed synthetic like the Reapers synesthetically. It's unlikely that Shepard, in his dreams, would perceive the Reapers this way (obviously, not having synesthesia).

The tone from space hushing the voices, forcing them to "resonate with its own sour yellow note" obviously refers to indoctrination of the rachni, and how the other rachni perceived it. I don't see how that relates to the dreams or Shepard's supposed indoctrination.

@BrockNRolla said:

@Pacmanlh said:

It seems like Bioware thought of this ending during ME1 and assumed that people would play close attention to the small details that they spread out through the trilogy. Obviously, they were wrong as mostly everyone including myself did not see this.

I wish I had your faith in Bioware. If anything, I feel like ME3 showed a lack of faith on EA/Bioware's part in their audience, and a lack of care in their fiction.

"How can we keep the audience engaged? How about more shooting and less talking? How do we finish out the series? I don't know... How about something vague?"

Rachni Queen man. That's the thing that really pulls me in and makes me think that the whole trilogy was really well thought out. Her description of Indoctrination is eerily similar to Shepard's nightmares.

@LiquidPrince said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

Indoctrination is stupid and people should not believe it.

How so?

Because people are assuming that because the 'regular' ending is shitty and half-assed, Bioware must have intended this DEEPER ending to be the real one. If Bioware really intended some sort of massive bait and switch at the end of the game, why does the 'regular' ending have to be a shitty one?

Why couldn't they come up with a satisfying 'regular' one that people could actually believe to be true and just leave these subtle hints alongside that? Why would the company intentionally leave users with a shitty 'regular' ending that cost them time and money to make?

The whole line of thought behind this new theory is dumb.

Except that video that I posted has some really awesome and clever links that are too detailed to be coincidence. For example the Rachni queen explaining indoctrination from ME1, and how in ME3 Shepard's dreams look EXACTLY like what she was describing. There's also a ton more. The video provides too many point for it to have been coincidence on Bioware's part.

Yeh, nobody thus far has addressed my point when I make it, this is the response I expected.

What?

@DonChipotle@Vegetable_Side_Dish

I don't think the theory is "stupid" but I think what you're trying to convey is that the audience is putting a great deal of unwarranted, unearned faith in the writing staff at Bioware. People are assuming that a "crappy" ending wasn't intended because the writers are "just too good." What you're proposing is that it is probably just a bad ending and people are deluding themselves into believing that this can't be the case.

I agree with you. I don't want to because I can't understand why they screwed things up so badly, but that's more than likely exactly what they did. Your response doesn't require any kind of leap of faith, and as brilliant as the Indoctrination Theory is, that's exactly why your interpretation is probably the right one.

@TheHT said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@TheHT: If the argument is to prove that the ID theory is legitimate, and you will agree with it if proof can be shown, then there is a ton of proof right from the opening moments of the game that hint at Shepard being indoctrinated. For one the space child is a manifestation of the stress and fear he has about not being able to save anybody. And then the dreams he has are exactly like what the Rachni Queen described the process of indoctrination felt like. EXACTLY. She mentioned seeing shadowy figures all crying in pain and fear, and that is exactly what he was seeing when he was having nightmares.

What signs at the opening?

The Rachni Queen was describing what happened in the Rachni Wars, but what about her account relates to indoctrination in the humanoid races, and specifically to the idea that Shepard was being indoctrinated throughout Mass Effect 3? Rachni perceive the world through sounds, both visually and audibly. More specifically, as music. Additionally, they have a hive mind, communicating telepathically across space.

Talk of discordance and "songs the colour oily shadows" are a rachni perceiving a highly developed synthetic like the Reapers synesthetically. It's unlikely that Shepard, in his dreams, would perceive the Reapers this way (obviously, not having synesthesia).

The tone from space hushing the voices, forcing them to "resonate with its own sour yellow note" obviously refers to indoctrination of the rachni, and how the other rachni perceived it. I don't see how that relates to the dreams or Shepard's supposed indoctrination.

But Shepard's mind perceives the world as he has known of it. That is to say, he wouldn't be able to visually comprehend what indoctrination looks like because the only person who has expressed what it looks like is the Rachni Queen. Thus when has nightmares, his brain visually creates them as oily shadows. Similar to how Legion created the world for Shepard to walk around in based on real world experiences.

@LiquidPrince said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Pacmanlh said:

It seems like Bioware thought of this ending during ME1 and assumed that people would play close attention to the small details that they spread out through the trilogy. Obviously, they were wrong as mostly everyone including myself did not see this.

I wish I had your faith in Bioware. If anything, I feel like ME3 showed a lack of faith on EA/Bioware's part in their audience, and a lack of care in their fiction.

"How can we keep the audience engaged? How about more shooting and less talking? How do we finish out the series? I don't know... How about something vague?"

Rachni Queen man. That's the thing that really pulls me in and makes me think that the whole trilogy was really well thought out. Her description of Indoctrination is eerily similar to Shepard's nightmares.

This, admittedly, I do not remember. Nevertheless, I still stand by my thought that the Indoctrination Theory simply presents too perfect a way out of the Bioware shit storm, and is therefore probably not real.

If Bioware and EA are smart, they would pick up this idea and make a new DLC ending for it. Money in the bank and a way to quell the disgruntled fans.

@BrockNRolla: Why hasn't the Bioware staff earned our trust? It's not like the previous two games were thick and dense with lore. Wait... yes they were. Some of it you may have even missed depending on how you played. After two fantastic games with such amazing fiction, I don't understand why you would have no faith in them all of a sudden. I guess it's because it has became human nature, or at least gamer nature, to be cynical about everything.

@BrockNRolla said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Pacmanlh said:

It seems like Bioware thought of this ending during ME1 and assumed that people would play close attention to the small details that they spread out through the trilogy. Obviously, they were wrong as mostly everyone including myself did not see this.

I wish I had your faith in Bioware. If anything, I feel like ME3 showed a lack of faith on EA/Bioware's part in their audience, and a lack of care in their fiction.

"How can we keep the audience engaged? How about more shooting and less talking? How do we finish out the series? I don't know... How about something vague?"

Rachni Queen man. That's the thing that really pulls me in and makes me think that the whole trilogy was really well thought out. Her description of Indoctrination is eerily similar to Shepard's nightmares.

This, admittedly, I do not remember. Nevertheless, I still stand by my thought that the Indoctrination Theory simply presents too perfect a way out of the Bioware shit storm, and is therefore probably not real.

If Bioware and EA are smart, they would pick up this idea and make a new DLC ending for it. Money in the bank and a way to quell the disgruntled fans.

Watch the video I posted in the opening post. I would like your opinion on it.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@DonChipotle said:

Indoctrination is stupid and people should not believe it.

How so?

Because people are assuming that because the 'regular' ending is shitty and half-assed, Bioware must have intended this DEEPER ending to be the real one. If Bioware really intended some sort of massive bait and switch at the end of the game, why does the 'regular' ending have to be a shitty one?

Why couldn't they come up with a satisfying 'regular' one that people could actually believe to be true and just leave these subtle hints alongside that? Why would the company intentionally leave users with a shitty 'regular' ending that cost them time and money to make?

The whole line of thought behind this new theory is dumb.

Except that video that I posted has some really awesome and clever links that are too detailed to be coincidence. For example the Rachni queen explaining indoctrination from ME1, and how in ME3 Shepard's dreams look EXACTLY like what she was describing. There's also a ton more. The video provides too many point for it to have been coincidence on Bioware's part.

Yeh, nobody thus far has addressed my point when I make it, this is the response I expected.

What?

@LiquidPrince said:

@BrockNRolla: Why hasn't the Bioware staff earned our trust? It's not like the previous two games were thick and dense with lore. Wait... yes they were. Some of it you may have even missed depending on how you played. After two fantastic games with such amazing fiction, I don't understand why you would have no faith in them all of a sudden. I guess it's because it has became human nature, or at least gamer nature, to be cynical about everything.

Bioware also put out Dragon Age 2; a game that was paper thin with lore, gameplay, and art assets. They still managed to released it without apology and only said, "We hear your complaints fans." That's exactly what I'm hearing about ME3. (I understand that the teams are not the same, but it says something about the company's general policy and quality control.) I lost my "they can do no wrong faith" at that moment I finished DA2.

I was just raving to my girlfriend tonight about how ME2 is the best game of the generation; easily my number 2 or 3 favorite game of all time. I LOVED ME1 and 2. ME3 doesn't feel like the same experience, and the last two Bioware experiences I've now had have not nearly come to the same bar as their work in ME2 and Dragon Age. I'm making my judgement based on these experiences, not because I'm cynical.

Indoctrinated or not Indoctrinated, they still could have handled that ending a hell of a lot better.

Also the idea of Shepard being indoctrinated is actually pretty awesome...why hide it? Why make people go through internet videos and little details to suss out what happened? That actually makes Bioware look even more amateur.

If their big reveal was going to be indoctrinated they could have framed it in an amazing way with you squadmates talking you down or actually revealing it. Also sans Starchild...jesus fucking christ.

@BrockNRolla said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@BrockNRolla: Why hasn't the Bioware staff earned our trust? It's not like the previous two games were thick and dense with lore. Wait... yes they were. Some of it you may have even missed depending on how you played. After two fantastic games with such amazing fiction, I don't understand why you would have no faith in them all of a sudden. I guess it's because it has became human nature, or at least gamer nature, to be cynical about everything.

Bioware also put out Dragon Age 2; a game that was paper thin with lore, gameplay, and art assets. They still managed to released it without apology and only said, "We hear your complaints fans." That's exactly what I'm hearing about ME3. (I understand that the teams are not the same, but it says something about the company's general policy and quality control.) I lost my "they can do no wrong faith" at that moment I finished DA2.

I was just raving to my girlfriend tonight about how ME2 is the best game of the generation; easily my number 2 or 3 favorite game of all time. I LOVED ME1 and 2. ME3 doesn't feel like the same experience, and the last two Bioware experiences I've now had have not nearly come to the same bar as their work in ME2 and Dragon Age. I'm making my judgement based on these experiences, not because I'm cynical.

Different teams. Different writers. Different many things. It's like comparing one game from x company to another game from x company. Forget Dragon Age. The focus should be on Mass Effect, in which case so far they have done no wrong to their fans. Even with the end of 3 I see nothing wrong, but that is why we're here in this thread now.

@onan said:

This is going to get shut down pretty quick. But to answer your question, the problem with ID Theory is that it means that ME3 had no ending, just a hallucination that abruptly ends at the climax. It's all very clever, but still not a good ending because it didn't end. This can work, and has worked in stuff like Inception, but it wasn't handled well. Any way you slice it, all of the endings are pretty terrible from a narrative perspective.

This.

This can also mean Bioware very carefully placed that ending to generate this much buzz and PR so and "ending" dlc will be 99 % guaranteed seller. What irks me the most is that most reviewers seems OK with this ending. I know they will NEVER admit it but I think this has got to do more with them wanting to keep on EA/Bioware's good side. Publishers and developers do black list web sites and journalists, they just don't make it public and in most cases it's an unspoken rule.

@LiquidPrince said:

@TheHT said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@TheHT: If the argument is to prove that the ID theory is legitimate, and you will agree with it if proof can be shown, then there is a ton of proof right from the opening moments of the game that hint at Shepard being indoctrinated. For one the space child is a manifestation of the stress and fear he has about not being able to save anybody. And then the dreams he has are exactly like what the Rachni Queen described the process of indoctrination felt like. EXACTLY. She mentioned seeing shadowy figures all crying in pain and fear, and that is exactly what he was seeing when he was having nightmares.

What signs at the opening?

The Rachni Queen was describing what happened in the Rachni Wars, but what about her account relates to indoctrination in the humanoid races, and specifically to the idea that Shepard was being indoctrinated throughout Mass Effect 3? Rachni perceive the world through sounds, both visually and audibly. More specifically, as music. Additionally, they have a hive mind, communicating telepathically across space.

Talk of discordance and "songs the colour oily shadows" are a rachni perceiving a highly developed synthetic like the Reapers synesthetically. It's unlikely that Shepard, in his dreams, would perceive the Reapers this way (obviously, not having synesthesia).

The tone from space hushing the voices, forcing them to "resonate with its own sour yellow note" obviously refers to indoctrination of the rachni, and how the other rachni perceived it. I don't see how that relates to the dreams or Shepard's supposed indoctrination.

But Shepard's mind perceives the world as he has known of it. That is to say, he wouldn't be able to visually comprehend what indoctrination looks like because the only person who has expressed what it looks like is the Rachni Queen. Thus when has nightmares, his brain visually creates them as oily shadows. Similar to how Legion created the world for Shepard to walk around in based on real world experiences.

The fact remains that Shepard doesn't have synesthesia, so his brain wouldn't perceive the Reapers as oily shadows. Shepard already has a firm perception of Reaper images as well as their sounds. It doesn't make any sense that his brain would replace that already established perception for that of the rachni's which he has only heard about.

In any case, talk of 'oily shadows' is more likely just talk of the rachni's perception of a Reaper, not indoctrination itself. The tone from space is all we know of its perception of indoctrination. Its description as per a rachni's synesthesia was not told to Shepard by the Rachni Queen.

@LiquidPrince said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@BrockNRolla: Why hasn't the Bioware staff earned our trust? It's not like the previous two games were thick and dense with lore. Wait... yes they were. Some of it you may have even missed depending on how you played. After two fantastic games with such amazing fiction, I don't understand why you would have no faith in them all of a sudden. I guess it's because it has became human nature, or at least gamer nature, to be cynical about everything.

Bioware also put out Dragon Age 2; a game that was paper thin with lore, gameplay, and art assets. They still managed to released it without apology and only said, "We hear your complaints fans." That's exactly what I'm hearing about ME3. (I understand that the teams are not the same, but it says something about the company's general policy and quality control.) I lost my "they can do no wrong faith" at that moment I finished DA2.

I was just raving to my girlfriend tonight about how ME2 is the best game of the generation; easily my number 2 or 3 favorite game of all time. I LOVED ME1 and 2. ME3 doesn't feel like the same experience, and the last two Bioware experiences I've now had have not nearly come to the same bar as their work in ME2 and Dragon Age. I'm making my judgement based on these experiences, not because I'm cynical.

Different teams. Different writers. Different many things. It's like comparing one game from x company to another game from x company. Forget Dragon Age. The focus should be on Mass Effect, in which case so far they have done no wrong to their fans. Even with the end of 3 I see nothing wrong, but that is why we're here in this thread now.

I'll disagree with your statement since they are in fact games made by the same company. Someone at Bioware gave both DA 2 and ME3 the go ahead without properly ensuring that the products were up to snuff with their predecessors. If you don't see a comparison to be made there, that's your prerogative, but I think it is at least fair to draw parallels.

As such, I'm inclined to believe Bioware simply screwed up the ending of ME3 as they did with the last iteration of DA.

There's a lot of back and forth on this.

Indoctrination aside, I think we can all agree on a few things:

1. Everything after getting blasted by Harbinger in London is flat out weird, if not trippy. Disjointed, illogical, the explanations you hear are nonsense, the actions you take without question are insane, and the cutscenes you see are not only disjointed and unexplained, but the resolutions are a little too clean, too.

2. The image of Shepard in the rubble after the Destroy ending with enough galactic readiness is considered by Bioware to be "Special" and in need of being unlocked. Yes, Shepard inhales, but they could have done that without the panning across rubble that was obviously not wires and steel. That strikes me as meaningful.

3. This is also the same company that green-lit that terrible error-filled novel. (Incidentally, now that everyone has beaten the game, the writer of the new novel took Kai Leng and turned him from being a human supremacist who hates all aliens in earlier novels to a guy who ogles and flirts with asari dancers, among many, MANY other errors). Since their acquisition during the development of ME2 by EA, all of Bioware's stuff has started going downhill, likely because of the quick turnaround and corporate synergy that EA demands.

So, in conclusion, it's very likely the Bioware is using up the last vestiges of thoughtful planning and craft in creating these last few games with more and more strangeness being involved, and more homogenization with other EA properties (things like combat have been improved significantly when ME1 started out as a dice-rolling RPG). Ironic that Bioware is having synthesis forced upon them, combining resources with all other EA projects and having their named forced on other projects to the point that you don't know where Bioware ends anymore and where the rest of EA begins.

Most specifically though, franchise creator and Mass Effect Bible scribe Drew Karpyshyn never confirmed Indoctrination theory, and he's the one who would have been planting those seeds. Shepard was never meant to be indoctrinated. I'll say again, Shepard was never meant to be indoctrinated. However, much like a writer coming aboard and established comic book franchise and breathing new life into it, not only with new ideas but new interpretations of previous events, the community was able to piece an incredibly viable plotline together "from ashes" (hoho) of a once great series, and Bioware would be absolutely foolish to not only take credit for it, but to run with it. Make your audience feel smart and actually be recognized for one of the greatest storytelling devices of this decade, Bioware. It's the only smart thing to do at this point.

@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.

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.

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.

@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.