Vault101:

pure.Wasted:

"Most people" think that indoctrination is cool?

I would love to see the polls you have backing this up.

...Id say a fair number of fans think ti would be better than taking the ending at face value, weather its true or not...

Well, that's the problem with using yourself as an example. I could just as well say "and I don't think that's true, I think most people don't like it," and we're left at an impasse.

But I'll make this easy: I agree. On the condition that we get an extended cut from Bioware that explains what the hell happened, where all the foreshadowing we missed was hiding, what precisely happened and why and how and when, it will be a better ending than what we have.

But it won't be brilliant, mindblowing, or genius. That's the key thing here to keep in mind. It won't be great, it won't even be competent, because they had to step back into the ring and, basically, do what a magician is never supposed to do: reveal his secrets.

You can like it, and that's fine! I'm not trying to tell you to stop having fun guyz! just because I'm petty or upset. I like plenty of stuff that wasn't expertly written, and maybe the fact that it's poorly made is part of its charm, or maybe I simply overlook the flaw(s). But there are objective scales on which art can be judged, and the indoctrination ending cannot be made to be mechanically, dramatically competent, because for it to be competent, they would have to change more than the ending, they'd have to change the rest of the game(s) to properly set up this ending.

pure.Wasted:

The problem is, we know (with variable specificity) how Saren, the Collectors, and The Illusive Man were indoctrinated. It's not a mystery. They all physically came in contact with the Reapers' shells.

Shepard had no such unique opportunity. Every time that Shepard spoke with a Reaper, someone else was with him, and they should be indoctrinated too. In ME1 he had two squadmates with him on Virmire. In ME2 he had two squadmates with him when he retrieved the IFF and when he fought the human Reaper, and the entire ship was exposed to the IFF when it was brought aboard.

I'm not saying it's physically impossible for Bioware to up and say that Sovereign could have gone after all three but FOCUSED on Shepard, maybe to... make sure it stuck. Or maybe because the others didn't matter. Or that the Reapers have new ways of indoctrinating people that we've never even heard of, and they used one of these on Shepard! Off-camera, no less! Between ME1 and ME2. Whatever. It's all absolutely possible.

What I'm saying is this wouldn't be brilliant storytelling. That should have been self-evident from the fact that when people saw the ending, they didn't say "Oooooh, so much suddenly makes sense, it's like all the pieces just fell into place." If it had been a masterful twist, the majority would be saying that.

When's the last time someone said they didn't "get" the Bioshock twist? That was a competently executed plot twist.

Shepard has had more contact with Reaper tech than just about any other person in the Galaxy, and we've been told time and time again that Shepard in somehow "special" to the Reapers and that they have a higher purpose for him. The "slow, methodical, and patient" Indoctrination that is brought up in the Codex entry about the subject would fit the symptoms Shepard goes through in ME3, kind of like everything is finally catching up to him.

If that DOES turn out to be what they intended, it would show they at least did what they did with a purpose. What happened in ME3 wasn't just "for the spectacle" and I think would be kind of nice to know they at least had a plan for the series from the beginning and weren't just flying by the seat of their pants

I think they popularity of the theory is because it IS kind of unexpected. Shepard is seemingly invincible through the Series, but in ME3, just about all the "non-shooting" parts are about how weak he feels. Indoctrinated Shepard would be the ultimate victory for the Reapers as well as the ultimate defeat for Shepard. He seems immune to Reaper influence through the series, but now it shows that he really isn't. It's always been there in the back of his mind, clawing away at him. It just taken til now, at a point where the whole galaxy is counting on him, to really start wearing him down.

That's just my two cents about it at least. I think it would be a pretty good read if it was put into a book.

Well, if this new ending DLC does disprove the Indoctrination Theory I'll be sad.

But the second best theory out there is the Lost Island Theory (Which I came up with)

Which states that after the Normandy gets hit by the shockwave it crashes on the Island from Lost (Lost being another series with a terrible ending, so correlation there.)

This theory also fills in all the plot holes (Not only in the ending but for the rest of the game to) Because after Joker and Co. find the Vault it's only a matter of time before they find the magic nuke that sends them back in time where they can make sure everything that didn't make sense in ME 3 happen according to Canon.

Also the Dharma Initiative being the precursor to Cerberus would fill in a bunch of plot holes From Lost.

I don't have an hour and a half long Youtube video to prove it, but it's a solid theory.

Vault101:

Jitters Caffeine:
[snip.

I agree theres no reason shepard should be imune to indoctrination (hey...what if those cybernetics in shepard are like "recivers" or "antenne" for the indoctrination?..ok long shot I know)

I highly doubt though this was Bioware plan from the start...that its just too mcuh of a long shot

There was a theory back in ME2 that Shepard COULD have been rebuilt with experimental Reaper tech. Not sure how that hold up, but it's interesting to say the least.

Vault101:
*MASSIVE BIG FLAMESHEILD*

I know you guys don't want anymore Mass effect 3 threads, I know the horse no longer exists but instead has been sumoned and destroyed in every spiritual/physical way and that it is no longer a horse but a horse shaped black hole that is sucking everything in around it

but there is one reason, and that is this guy made a 90 minute "documentry" (almost) explaining an analysing indoctrination theory

and since he put in so much effort, and since it brings some new (albeit small) stuff to the table I think it deserves a look...

mabye your sold in indoctrination theory

mabye your not

mabye you don't know what it is but I'm just going to leave this here

its a long one so grab some pop-corn (I dont know about anyone but I find this stuff facinating)

See the number one problem with the indoctrination theory is that if you had a low reputation meter (or whatever it's called) at the end you will only have the destroy option.
Why would the Reapers give you the only option that lets you win? Especially since it's under the circumstances that you technically have the least amount of willpower.
If you got all three choices no matter what then I would be willing to except the theory as plausible.
I really wanted to believe that they had secretly been building towards this ending when I saw the first video. I wanted to believe their writers were geniuses.

But because of that one big flaw in the theory, I cannot believe it.

Mikeyfell:
Well, if this new ending DLC does disprove the Indoctrination Theory I'll be sad.

But the second best theory out there is the Lost Island Theory (Which I came up with)

Which states that after the Normandy gets hit by the shockwave it crashes on the Island from Lost (Lost being another series with a terrible ending, so correlation there.)

This theory also fills in all the plot holes (Not only in the ending but for the rest of the game to) Because after Joker and Co. find the Vault it's only a matter of time before they find the magic nuke that sends them back in time where they can make sure everything that didn't make sense in ME 3 happen according to Canon.

Also the Dharma Initiative being the precursor to Cerberus would fill in a bunch of plot holes From Lost.

I don't have an hour and a half long Youtube video to prove it, but it's a solid theory.

If this was actually the case and it created one super ending from two stories that I absolutely loved but was incredibly let down by their endings, I would literally cry with happiness.

Fuck it. If their new ending content still doesn't make sense, I'm just gonna make my own ending in my head that will go along with yours.

Vault101:

Wakikifudge:
[snip.

if you have "low" galactic rediness..and destruction is your only option...does shepard "wake up" (you know the shot..shepard surround by concrete/rubble and a *gasp*..I haer that only happens if you choose destruction)

because if he/she doesnt..then mabye that indicates shepard dies while in his/her reaper-fever dream, mabye from the indoctrination attempt itself or sraty enemies, injurys or god knows

wild guessing there..but still

You ONLY get the "Shepard's Alive" scene if you choose destruction AND have the sufficient amount of War Assets/Galactic Readiness.

Really, indoctrination is just a way of softening the blow of the indescribably awful ending. It all comes down to Shepard's behavior and motivations.

If the savior of humanity blindly and unquestioningly follows the orders of an ancient AI and fucks over the galaxy, thats character defilement of the highest level. Especially when you consider that catalyst's reasoning that sentient life can't play nicely together was blown out of the water by Shepard's actions in the past three games.

However, if we take Shepard's actions as the result of Reaper indoctrination, then it exonerates Shepard. Instead of a moron who didn't think to question the creator of the omnicidal cosmic horrors, Shepard becomes a victim, a tragic hero who thought he was saving the galaxy when instead he was playing right into the Reapers' hands.

In the end, just what was going through Shepard's head when he stepped into those beams of light is immaterial. Whether a fool or a puppet, the horrific consequences of his actions still happened.

Vault101:

Wakikifudge:
[snip.

if you have "low" galactic rediness..and destruction is your only option...does shepard "wake up" (you know the shot..shepard surround by concrete/rubble and a *gasp*..I haer that only happens if you choose destruction)

because if he/she doesnt..then mabye that indicates shepard dies while in his/her reaper-fever dream, mabye from the indoctrination attempt itself or sraty enemies, injurys or god knows

wild guessing there..but still

If you have high galactic readiness and you choose destroy, Shepard will live. Destroy is the only option that defeats the Reapers according to the theory. So why is it that if you have a low galactic readiness, the destroy option is the only one you get? If the Reapers were really putting you in a forced dream where they give you multiple options (two resulting in them winning, destroy resulting in them losing) why would they on the low galactic readiness occasion only give you the choice that kills them?

IT's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Trying to bend the facts to fit some sort of truth that only you can see. Yes, it's a nice theory in that it explains why the ending sucked, but it's not the real ending and never will be. Why on earth would Bioware make such a cryptic story anyway? They couldn't even concieve of something this fucking complex.

The fact that someone has made an hour and a half documentary about this is incredibly sad, may I add. Whoever the creator of that video is needs to get a life, and a different hobby. MAybe a job. What a waste of human endeavour.

In summary - Indoctrination theory IS NOT THE REAL STORY. And if Bioware add it in the DLC, which I highly doubt and if they do I'll eat my Xbox, it's purely because of the people saying it's true and how it explains stuff. And then the people who first said it will think it's evidence that they were right.

I no longer believe or even give a shit about Mass Effect and this theory, but I can't deny it's a very well thought out or paranoia-filled theory. Seriously, it's either a work of genius or clutching at straws. I haven't figured out which one yet.

Vault101:

STOP HAVING FUN GUYS!! SERIOUSLY!!

in all seriousness calling it "sad" is pretty arrogant...if thats sad then why are you on forums? why are any of us here? why do any of us do anything?

it doesnt actually matter if the theory is true or not, hell pretty much EVERYONE is saying "hey bioware! do this! seriously we don't care if you intended this or not just do it! are you listening bioware?!"

we arnt saying its true for sure, hell have you seen the amount of times I have said myself that its probably not true? it doesnt matter if its true or not..its facinating, so on behalf of the fans I sincerely apologise for us looking into thease things..really, because we shoudl all just curse bioware/EA and talk about how much they suck...as opoase to this I supose

It's not about not having fun, it's about the ridiculous lengths this guy has gone to. I'd say the same thing about other conspiracy theorists who make similar videos and writings, but about real life.

I don't have an issue with doing videogame things. Hell, I do Let's Plays, a videogame blog, podcast and reviews, so it really isn't that I think just playing videogames, or doing further things with them, that is sad.

Onto the actual theory, I personally feel that Bioware has ruined the story. If they back track and then tack on the indoctrination theory and make that the official version of events, it will be even worse. It's too late, it's done, they can't just retroactively fix it. Not to mention that doing that would completely undermine the writers and the official company line that the ending was fine.

Vault101:

pure.Wasted:
[snip.

ok...I sort of get it

but what would they need to change?

OK, that depends totally on our goal. What specifically do we want to accomplish with Shepard being indoctrinated? We want to fuck with the player, show how scary the Reapers really are, and foreshadow the fact that the organic/synthetic conflict is really the heart of the story. We have two ways of doing this: 1) foreshadow that Shepard isn't in full control of himself, and 2) manipulate the player to arrive at the same "organics and synthetics will always cause trouble" conclusion the Reapers want him to come to, shocking him when he gets to the ending, suddenly forcing him to wonder, did I really arrive at this conclusion through being reasonable, or was the game/the Reapers manipulating me all along?

If I could summarize my wandering thoughts, I would say that even though an indoctrination ending is absolutely possible to get right in a way that is meaningful and consistent with the rest of the game (although it takes EFFORT and lots of painstaking foreshadowing), even if you get that far, it doesn't mean it was automatically great. If the first two games didn't do it, it's still anyone's guess whether you'll execute it perfectly, whether people will respond positively...

A reasonable question at this time would be "what ending was ME3 meant to have, based on the way ME1-3 were written and designed?" Cut the London missions as they are, they're crap. Replace them with something like the Suicide Mission, but five times more epic. Every single surviving character comes in to bail you out. Every single race you got on your side flies in with their fleet to draw the Reapers off your back. Every loyalty (or not) pays off, every surviving character pays off, all your big and small decisions pay off, over a single 2-hour extravaganza. You run up the Citadel, same confrontation between Anderson and TIM, you get to the control room and we get the original Dark Energy ending. Paragon - screw you, we'll try our own thing. Renegade - screw you, we'll try our own thing. Other - let's join with you guys in the hopes that it does something. Then you have a 10 minute reunion with everyone who survived, and a lengthy epilogue, final shot is of scary space with Dark Energy that'll eventually come for us, hope we get a solution. Unless you joined with the Reapers, in which case you get a lengthy epilogue saying how 500 years later they devised some chemical reaction and saved the galaxy, cut to: some single-celled organisms splitting into two-celled ones on a planet that will never know the danger of Dark Energy. Optimistic and happy. Our sacrifice was not in vain.

That's the ending ME3 needed to have.

90 minutes?

Jesus Christ. Theres no way I am watching that.

x EvilErmine x:
Basically it means that the ending should be self contained and wrap up any lingering plot points that remain. You should not need a video that is longer than the actual ending of the story to explain what happens in the ending of the story. The exception to this rule is if you are setting up a sequel...which considering that ME3 was supposed to be the conclusion of the story arch, is not the case here hence the extreme levels of fail.

Yes, but this video wasn't made by BioWare. It's a fan-made breakdown of the ending. I see nothing odd about it being longer.

Kron_the_mad:

Vault101:

Kron_the_mad:
There are currently three big problems with indoctrination theory:

1. EAoware has dismissed it completely already. They've outright denied that's what they were aiming for with the ending which is a shame because it's the only way to may sense of the garbled mess they've released.

have they?

Yup it was part of the announcement for the extended cut DLC, along with telling us we still won't be getting the promised diverse endings just an explanation of why they think it all made sense.

This is incorrect.

I believe the response was something along the lines of "we can neither confirm nor deny this theory".

Vault101:
-snip-

Okay, so I watched all but the last 5 minutes of that video. I found him to be as irritating as some of the worst of the pro-Mass Effect ending crowd. He displayed a number of misunderstandings of the lore and a number of logical falicies. For the latter, a particular favorite of his was circular logic - at several points he raised the following as proof for Indoctrination theory:

Paraphrased Video:
An event is happening. Indoctrination Theory says we should interpret these events like so. Therefore, we should interpret these events like so. Therefore this is great evidence for the Indoctrination Theory!

Just my 2 credits.

Thank you Vault, I appreciate being sent the video. I do think he was wasting our time though.

Zen Toombs:

Vault101:
-snip-

Okay, so I watched all but the last 5 minutes of that video. I found him to be as irritating as some of the worst of the pro-Mass Effect ending crowd. He displayed a number of misunderstandings of the lore and a number of logical falicies. For the latter, a particular favorite of his was circular logic - at several points he raised the following as proof for Indoctrination theory:

Paraphrased Video:
An event is happening. Indoctrination Theory says we should interpret these events like so. Therefore, we should interpret these events like so. Therefore this is great evidence for the Indoctrination Theory!

Just my 2 credits.

Thank you Vault, I appreciate being sent the video. I do think he was wasting our time though.

Guess what?

I can tell by your paraphrasing that you actually didn't watch the video.

He says something specifically a few times in the video which actually contradicts your ENTIRE paraphrasing.

So if you actually watch it and are willing to admit your paraphrasing was incorrect, I'll debate the theory with you all day if you like, but otherwise you're not really giving it a fair shot.

Oh lordy that is a long video... I could watch a movie in that time. I'm already fairly convinced that the IT is true or on the right track. The theory has problems, but there is some evidence for it that is extremely convincing that I haven't ever heard explained away by its critics. We just have to wait and see, everything is speculation at this point.

The only thing worse than making another ME3 post, is the Masshole that spent 90 minutes blabbing about the Indoctrination Theory. They cry because they spent 100 hours playing and sculpting their story only to have it destroyed in minutes, so instead of cutting their losses and moving on they spend another 100 crying about it. Like playing another game already!! Jesus Christ.....

TomLikesGuitar:
Guess what?

I can tell by your paraphrasing that you actually didn't watch the video.

He says something specifically a few times in the video which actually contradicts your ENTIRE paraphrasing.

So if you actually watch it and are willing to admit your paraphrasing was incorrect, I'll debate the theory with you all day if you like, but otherwise you're not really giving it a fair shot.

For one: snip parts of my quote for space. Repeating my talking to Vault is irrelevant and only serves to clutter up the thread.
For two: for the love of all that is holy, get off your high horse. You're getting a nosebleed.

Because guess what?

I can tell by your comments that you didn't actually read my post.[1]

You say that I said something that I never said.[2]

So if you actually read it and are willing to admit your comments were incorrect, I'll debate the video for a moment longer and the Theory all day if you like, but otherwise you're not giving it a fair shot.

Zen Toombs:
I found [the maker of the video] to be as irritating as some of the worst of the pro-Mass Effect ending crowd.
-snip-
[The video also used] circular logic - at several points he raised the following as proof for Indoctrination theory:

Paraphrased Video:
An event is happening. Indoctrination Theory says we should interpret these events like so. Therefore, we should interpret these events like so. Therefore this is great evidence for the Indoctrination Theory!

Jynthor:
I still don't believe the Indoctrination Theory.
And I wish people would stop bring up Shepard's eyes. Shepard has had those implants since the start of ME2, they show up when you play Renegade. And when your face gets burned off I'm pretty sure they will show even as a Paragon.

I'm probably a believer in the IT, but I never liked the eye thing either. Fot me it's because The Illusive Mans eyes have always had the wierd blue glow, even before he went off on a reaper control bender. Throughout ME2 he clearly believed the reapers were a genuine threat, and his goals were at odds with the collectors (and therefore reapers) goals, yet he still had the supposedly 'indoctrinated' eyes.