ME3 Indoctrination theory analysis Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
I've been reading some of the massive 500-page indoctrination thread on the BSN and I don't think they've mentioned this: If there is no indoctrination, if the starchild is not the construct of Shepard's mind then why is the Citadel AI (VI or whatever the hell that thing is) in the shape of that kid only Shepard saw back on Earth? How would it know about him? | |
Exactly. It's because someone is in his head. | |
I felt so dumb the first time i made the control ending, don't blame me, it was a combination of me still being shocked and confused from the horrible monstrosity that was in front of me and sleep deprivation (it WAS 3:30 a.m.), note: this was before the indoctrination theories started, and I just saw blue and said "oh look, Paragon". The next day I immediately went back and chose destruction i still felt guilty for letting my Shepard down. I do think the Indoctrination Theory is true, Im just not sure if that's a good thing or not. Either we have the crappiest ending of all time, or the biggest rip-off of all time | |
Oh the irony. xD Hey might think he's being a dick about it, but to me atleast, it seems like you are gripping at straws while he is more likely to be right. If this is supposed to all be some kind of Mindfuck, it's all in his head ending, why wouldn't they just come out and say after this huge backlash? That will still mean that they did a bad job of conveying that to the player. So, yeah, it seems like you are trying to trick yourself into believing that the ending had some kind of hidden meaning to justify that it was apparently shitty. Now, before you get on me, I don't play Mass Effect. But I have been watching this entire ordeal and have thus read up on the series a bit. This could absolutely be possible, I just don't see anything that is really their supporting it. You are litterally filling in the holes, bending the reality to fit the theory instead of the other way around. | |
Like you said, you don't play Mass Effect. No one is bending the reality. The reality is that Bioware pretty much confirmed single player DLC. The reality is that no one will buy single player DLC unless it's the one that fixes the ending. The reality is that EA loves to milk fans with DLC. The reality is that Bioware said "if you knew what we're planning, you'd hold on to your Mass Effect 3 copy forever". And don't use the word literally when you don't know what it means. | |
All very good points, but yes, it is actually possible for game writers to come up with an excellent and then ruin it in the closing sequence. In fact,most games written in this generation have cop out endings. Either because the writers find themselves in over their heads (as is clearly the case with Mass Effect 3, it seems like they just had no idea how to actually end the story) or they are setting up for sequels/IP expansions. | |
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9727423/1 That's the thread I've been reading. After taking a long, hard look at it, I've decided that there is too much evidence for it to not be true. You have all been played. Played HARD. Like "Stairway to Heaven" from under the fingers of an infinite amount of people learning to play guitar. You simply do not realize it yet. I can only hope to scrape at a mere shred of the amount of magnificent, maddened glory they have created. I mean, reading your responses, it's so awesome how they've done this. You've accepted the 'inevitable' so easily that when they've documented the game's history, it's gonna be studied by academics for years. | |
You just proved me right with your post. Everything you've had to say is ''I don't know - therefore Indoctrination.'' Like I said, I've read up on the Titles, I've seen the endings. So, if everything is going on in Shepards head, whats the deal with the Stargazer? Or with the news posting here yesterday? As I stated before, things are pointing towards the ending just being shitty without some kind of philosophical message behind it, you just don't want to accept it. And yes, you are literally twisting things to fit the theory in contrast to making the theory fit everything else. Your entire post doesn't mention a damn thing in the actual game to support it being indoctrination, so you go on and ramble about EA and Bioware and whatever, what the FUCK does that have to do with the theory? Here's a hint, not a damn thing. Almost ALL big publishers like raping wallets with DLC, that's like saying that humans can breath on earth. Bioware wants you to keep the game? Nah, probably has nothing to do with the fact that none of them want anybody to buy second hand, also has nothing to do with damage control after they have been nearly universally lambasted for the bad endings. And you'd have to be a moron to believe that nobody will buy Singleplayer DLC that doesn't have a new ending. Once more, your entire post: ''Semi-related gibberish that I otherwise can't make sense of - therefore the indoctrination thing must be true.'' What YOU have said only holds up if you ignore other things about the ending itself, you know, like the Stargazer and only because you are also ignoring anything else that could explain it, you know, like bad writing. I don't give a shit about what you think or about Mass Effect, but it does look to me like you are trying really really hard to convince yourself that it wasn't just bad, that it must have been you. That's denial pal, even if it turns out that you are right, you currently don't have any reason to believe that above ''They just made a shitty ending.'' | |
Stargazer can be real and set in the distant future even if the endings were perfect. He doesn't even say if space travel is possible or not. We just assumed it's not because of the ending. But it can mean anything, really. And news posted here didn't say a god damn thing about the ending being their final choice. They just defended what they've done, saying how that's what they wanted to do. They never said that future DLC won't be set after the ending. Besides, it's only a matter of time before we see if the ending was real or not. | |
The Stargazer doesn't make any sense with the Theory. It frames the entirety of Mass Effect as having been a Story. You can't have a ending that plays in the protagonists mind and then a old man closing a book and stating ''and that is how it came to be'' (This is by the way to point out the trope, I know there is no actual closing of a book) You'd be implying that either what went on in Shepards head is somehow known by everyone or that Shepard went as far as to explain to himself in his mind that his entire universe is some story some dude is telling a kid. Either way, it makes no sense in that context. Especially since it is heavily implied that these 2 people are the descendents of the Normandy crew that crash landed. Yes, the Stargazer implies that the ending is the real deal. They even set it up in such a way that they could make further Games in the Universe and pretend the other Games never existed, you know, because ''the details are lost''. Oh, and the ending is somehow not their final choice, yet it's in the final game? And on a related note, I don't even play the game and I am pointing this shit out to you, that should signal just how well it would hold up to the scrutiny of someone who would be interested in debunking it, like, not at all. I think it would be a more interesting ending then what I saw, but nobody has any reason to think it to be true other then fanboy-ism or straight up denial. Maybe you simply expect too much of Bioware ;) | |
Like I said, it's only a matter of time before we know who was right. | |
Yes, don't bother yourself with actually thinking about it. As I said, you're bending things to fit. Tunnel Vision if I've ever seen it. It doesn't matter if they make it so or not, which the totally could do, the point is that currently, you apparently can't explain how it works with what was presented and are thus just making excuses for Bioware. Why would you want to do that? I get that you aren't happy with what you got, but what you are essentially saying is ''No, Bioware didn't screw up, WE were just too stupid to get it at first.'' | |
One of the most frustrating things about the endings is the fact that there's plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument: "It Really Happened" vs "It's An Indoctrination Dream". Yet there's nothing that proves either side one way or the other, and there's plenty of faults that go against both theories as well. It's really disgusting writing, but it's hard to not believe Bioware's statement that they intentionally made the ending as crap-tastic as it was specifically for this purpose: to get people arguing and debating over it. The problem is that people aren't arguing about what makes it a good ending, they're arguing about which theory makes the ending suck a little bit less. Now I was never in the "LET'S BURN DOWN BIOWARE AND EA!!!" camp. I accepted the endings for what they were and used my own logic to fill in the blanks (personally I fall in the It Really Happened camp as I think the evidence based on purely what we see and experience points more towards that). The thing is there's a difference between leaving enough small holes that leave your ending open to interpretation and leaving so many massive holes/problems that it becomes impossible for anyone to say what actually happened. | |
I thought of one bigger problem with the indoctrination theory stuff. Doesn't the synthesis ending only pop up if you (ignoring multiplayer) do like EVERY sidequest? It'd be a GIANT F YOU to those who invested the time and hard work trying to get the 'best ending' to have that ending be "Ha-ha we fooled you, now he's totally controlled by the reapers!" (Admittedly those who dislike the endings could argue the entire thing is already a massive F you, and indoctrination DLC alone would be an F you to some players who aren't online, which there are still many of nowadays) | |
I'm not sure if the indoctrination therory is what BioWare had intended or not, but I believe that if BioWare wants to come out of this PR nightmare alive, they will go with it and retcon the entire ending to include and support this theory. However, I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic that BioWare will do the right thing for their, up until this point, loyal fanbase. | |
That's not necessarily true. At the moment, as I mentioned in my response a couple posts above this one, there's no clear way to prove it one way or another...and Bioware is under absolutely no obligation to redo the ending and make it DLC. It's quite possible that we'll never know what really happened. But no matter which theory you apply to, so long as it works and fits and makes the ending acceptable for you, that's all that really matters isn't it? | |
The indoctrination theory is ridiculous. It's people simply trying to make sense of things that... well, doesn't make sense. You might as well argue that god come down to earth and held the BioWare development team at gunpoint until they created the ending he wanted for the game. People like to see connections where there is none, and because they can't make sense of the ending, they start making up their own ridiculous theories. But the truth is that the indoctrination theory is as full of plotholes as the actual ending BioWare gave us and it doesn't hold up. First of all, it goes against how BioWare established Indoctrination works (time-consuming process that has several physical and mental symptoms before the process is complete, not something you do in the blink of an eye, not to mention that there is never any mention of Indoctrination being able to create dream-world hallucinations), and second of all because there is no motive for it. The Reapers have no motive for inducing Shephard into a hallucination when Harbinger could have just finished him (or her) off with his big fat red laser instead of leaving while you were getting your pieces together. If you people have to come up with your own endings for ME3 because the BioWare ones were crap, at least come up with something that isn't as terrible (if not even worse). | |
I think the idea behind indoctrination theory is that it allows the story to continue with dlc. We don't know why reapers want Shepard alive but maybe there is reason they will tell us at later date. I agree it is a crappy ending if they just leave it like it is now. As for the time consuming process of indoctrination there are some hints that suggest Shepard may been affected by subtle indoctrination through the game (dream sequences, humming in normandy). | |
I don't buy it. Like i said, of all the symptoms that indoctrination carries with it, dream sequences have never been established to be one of them (at most, minor hallucinations). The small amount of time Shephards spends in areas where indoctrination is possible also doesn't leave much up for it. You spend maybe around 30 minutes on the dead Reaper in ME2 while the science team there have spent several weeks. I also considered the events of the Arrival DLC and found them equally unlikely. The humming in the Normandy i also don't buy as being an indoctrination device (which is the original theory on that part). None of the crewmembers show any sign of indoctrination, and beyond the dream sequences above (which i have already explained i don't buy as indoctrination, given that it moves outside of the established process) neither does Shephard. No voices, no hallucinations (not dream-sequences), no headaches, and Shephards morale isn't affected at any point (starts having doubts about the Reapers). No indication. Again, this is simply peoples fantasy running wild, seeing connections that doesn't exist. To me, the dream sequences were obvious (and terrible) attempts of BioWare of trying to impose a more human element on Shephard (who most of the time is a rock-solid soldier that cannot be bent or broken mentally), indicating that the war might take a higher mental told on our hero than he/she would seem to indicate when out there kicking ass, likely to remind Shephard of Earth using the boy from the ventilation duct (and his eventual death on the shuttle) as a focus point given that most people remember it. It's a cheap way to try and play with our emotions as players, and likely failed in 99% of all cases, but people believing it has something to do with indoctrination are just delusional. Also, if it only was a dream sequence, then what's the point of showing the end cinematics? What's the point of showing the Normandy crash if it was all just a dream and Shephards crew stepping out to their new home? If it was just a dream, they could have left that out. Now, assuming the theory was true, they would have to explain themself about that (including how the Normandy crashed if the explosion of the Relays were just a dream). Of course, one thing I've learned in my time is to 'never say never', in the sense that i could in fact see BioWare running along with this idea in future DLC now that players have thrown it out there (and some seem to like it more than the BioWare ending). But if they do that, I'm not in doubt for a single minute that it wasn't their original intention. At best, it would be a poor attempt of damage control. Like i said, the theory is full of holes from top to bottom. And i can't wait to be proven right. | |
The Destroy and Shepard lives is the hardest ending to achieve actually. | |
I think it's pretty unlikely, but it's amusingly less full of holes than the current "canonical" ending. Which is sad, because you're right, it's not exactly rock solid, which says a lot about the current end sequence. A lot of the "evidence" is pretty sketchy. There's only a few things which actually make you pause and wonder. 1. Shepard waking up in the concrete/stone rubble, as if he/she was still on earth. User 7: "Its not that the ending was taken in the wrong direction its that it makes NO SENSE. Ashley was on the Normandy? she [was] with me." Cautious of? That's pretty strange language. Why would you be "cautious" of some weird thing you saw? Anyway. It's pretty pie in the sky, and as I'm cynical/skeptical by nature, I'd say it's a super long shot, but it's not as flimsy as you're implying. | |
Shepherd doesn't get indoctrinated at the last second, she's been indoctrinated from the start of the game. Ever notice how nobody sees the little boy and how he just dissapears from the vent? And the weird dreams shep goes through (indoctrinations does include dreams. I think the scientists from the derelict reaper from ME2 talked about bad dreams). And i'm pretty sure the same scientists talked about seeing hallucinations. Also perhaps harbinger doesn't know if shep is dead or alive. Harbinger flies away only when the hallucination is said to start. Maybe in real life he thinks shep i dead and just keeps shooting lasers at anyone else who comes. Maybe that explains why you need the 5000 EMS to get the secret ending thing. If you have enough military strength, your allies distract harbinger while you wake up. | |
Certainly an interesting theory, but I really don't think it is true. The signs pointing to this would have been more overt if this was intended by Bioware. No reason to give them this much credit. | |
Meh. Everyone gave them tons of credit in the post KOTOR era for pulling off a twist. It's not IMPOSSIBLE. Just EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. | |
I'm really hoping that this, or something like this, is true. Not saying that I expect it to happen, but I certainly want it to. That said, two points: 1. I don't know how this works on the consoles, but on PC ME3 is Origin exclusive. You can't return it to the store. You MUST keep it, and have it avaliable for any upcomming DLC. 2. There's no final boss fight. Yes, you take down the Destroyer class Reaper on Earth, but you've already taken down two of them (and that other one AA gun thing with the Cain). It's an awsome fight, but it's not a final boss, not by any stretch. In ME1 you had Saren (even persuading him to shoot himself leaves you to take out the implant-zombie-reaper-husk-thing, which was fun) and Mass Effect 2 stepped up the game by ending with me blowing a human reaper's head off with a Cain round, which was a little wierd considering how different the human reaper looked to its cuttlefish friends (I'm now fully aware of the theories why it was human shaped, thanks anyway though) but at the same time, it was TOTALLY AWSOME. In Mass Effect 3... I persuaded TIM to shoot himself then wandered off to have a chat with today's God-anologue. A massive fight with Harbinger utilising orbital bombardments, old nuke missiles, Cain shots and (as a finishing blow) firing my Space Hamster out of a catapult would have been the logical final fight to the series. OK that second point went on longer than I'd planned... well, either way these points arn't definitive proof for a deviously clever staggered ending, they could just be EA's blatent greed and spectacularly lazy writing respectivly, but they do also fit the indoctrination theory. Take them on board. | |
Just... what exactly are you talking about, may I ask? | |
What are YOU talking about? How was that not clear? | |
Didn't you get the conversation with EDI about this in the Normandy cockpit? She discusses the possibility with you that Cerberus made you a hybrid, but then goes on to say that Cerberus did not alter your brain for fear of changing your personality; it remains 100% organic. You're a cyborg, but then so is someone with a pacemaker or cochlear implant.
Ah, but if you choose the "destroy" option with too few war assets, you fail and Earth is destroyed. Some of the assets you obtain (e.g. the Cerberus scientists, Kasumi) go to work on the Crucible, so if your score is low, you can even extrapolate that the Crucible will be less ready or more imperfect. The higher your readiness score, the more work has been done on the Crucible and the more fighting assets you have. Just speculation, but perhaps the Catalyst / "Tiny Tim" has to work harder to trick you into indoctrination - or has had longer to implant ideas in your head - the higher your score, hence the other options? A low score means you can't win. Catalyst lets you go ahead, because you're gonna fail.
Throughout the series, you are told that you can't beat the reapers. No-one has ever managed it. If you listen to Javik, though, he tells you that it took hundreds of years for the reapers to finally wipe out the protheans. Did the reapers win? Probably. I think the only way to finally beat the reapers is to stop playing by their rules. Destroy the Citadel, destroy the mass relays. You can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools. That's why the protheans built their own mass relay on Ilos, which you used to stop Sovereign. The indoctrination dream is Shepard's mind rebelling against the reapers, telling her the solution, showing her the way out. Why did the reapers strike in force so suddenly and in so many places, after playing the long game? After all, they can take centuries to wipe out organic civillisation, they live forever, they don't nead to rush. You were the catalyst. You blew up the relay at Aratoht. That's the one thing they can't allow organics to do. | |
I guess. But still, if it just destroys all synthetic/electronic stuff, surely a lot of Shepard's insides {veins, heart, etc) had some sort of augmentation to keep him ticking? | |
Come on, you had the opportunity to have like seven different Mass Effect references in that sentence! Something akin to
| |
Thinking about this theory, I've realised it wouldn't be an unprecedented step in storytelling that risked total financial and cultural failure for Bioware. It's not the biggest gamble in all of gaming history, a gamble that EA would never have made. It's actually be done before, with the exact same mechanics stearing you down a pre-determined path, pulling you in and making you question the writing before ripping back the curtain and revealing that as you were screaming at your character to do the smart choice that is SO OBVIOUS, you, personally, would have done exactly the same thing. Because you, actualy you, would also have been forced to do the bidding of those controling you, forced to choose between the paths they set out for you instead of choosing with total free will. So yeah, maybe Bioware did just fuck up. Maybe it's just poor writing. Maybe trying to read a decent ending out of this is grasping at straws. But would you kindly stop using the argument that it's too much of a step and would never have been allowed by the money-holders? | |
I'm not sure if the moneyholders themselves would actually understand the entire concept. of course, they probably didn't care at that point either, it's like "bioware is printing money, we shouldn't screw with their processes too much" | |
I've ready a lot of posts and I am inclined to believe the indoctrination variant over any other theories. This particular link to an alternative ending is really what something that I fully support and would like to see this kind of resolution: http://arkis.deviantart.com/art/Mass-Effect-3-Alternate-Endings-SPOILERS-289902125?offset=20#comments Would like to find out what you guys/girls think bout that ending. | |
Shepard is definitely indoctrinated. I noticed this at the start o my second play through. Notice how that little kid is only shown when Shepard is looking at him. When he was in the ventilation shaft and Shepard was talking to him the kid suddenly disappears when Anderson calls Shepard Implying that Shepard was dreaming. Most importantly, during the end of the first mission when Shepard gets on the Normandy and Anderson says he's not coming, Shepard sees the kid getting onto a space shuttle. Notice how nobody even sees the kid or helps him get up. The soldier in the shuttle just stands there looking straight ahead. The Kid Isn't real. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
Yeah, I've pondered this outcome as well, and that 2 second scene of Shep waking up may be more than we think.