here we are 9 years later...... the legendary edition is out..... i dont care what bioware said...thats a red herring...this is still my absolute head canon
If you understood the technical terms of the reaper indoctrination you would be horrified. This technology is all around us and yet, no one seems to notice. Maybe when people start talking to invisible creatures in mass numbers people will 'wake up'. I have ringing buzzing in my ears, I also am starting to feel watched and I hear people in my home. The enemy is mocking us with our own entertainment. lol.
It is just fiction. Stories are written by a script writer. The art on Mass Effect is analogous, maybe to the player to understand the message about our real word not to a fictitious character. The name of that music is for you not to Shepard.
in the end bioware either fucked up mass effect ending or made it the best masterpiece in the history of video games... to think we might never know is driving me crazy
There is a third option. But few will likely accept it as truth. The series like many others are actually a mix of subtle indoctrination and propaganda being used against the gamers. Rather ironic actually.
The first minute or so of the codec is basically talking about televisions, music and various other sources of images, audio sources. The magnetic spectrum that is mentioned is basically smart technology. Myself and others have started having buzzing with flashes of light and various other problems with smart technology. I quite literally mean that games are used as a means to indoctrinate (to teach or enforce an idea,) in this case that these symptoms are a work of fiction and should be seen as a sign of insanity. most researchers that attempt to bring these side effects up either get discredited or lose their job. Something is going on but I am uncertain of what. It maybe nothing more than a struggle to keep a multi billion dollar industry from potentially losing a lot of business due to a safety hazard. Work is starting to be done to prove these signals are harmful, I just hope the people doing the tests don't get laughed out of the building like most groups. But that leaves several holes that I won't fill on this page. www.hindawi.com/journals/mi/2014/924184/
If the theory states that in the destroy ending Shepard wakes up from indoctrination under that pile of rubble. Then all he's accomplished is just resisting indoctrination. But the war isn't over yet. The Reapers are still trying to harvest all organic life. If BioWare wanted this to be true I don't think they would leave it on a cliffhanger like that. And no I don't believe in this theory.
Doesn't matter what other people think Once you you see the truth you can't go back The creators cannot openly say Shepherd was indoctrinated because it ruins the entire concept We experienced Shepherd's struggle Just a whole bunch of grown ass adults just can't admit that they got fooled by a videogame
Yup. I think EA/Bioware didn’t have the courage to just admit that it was correct at the time - not with so many people upset at the ending of ME3. But I’ve seen people go to jail for the rest of their life on far, far less evidence than this. IT is the only thing that give ME3 logical coherence.
+Anibal Morales I understand your frustration man. I was there. I haven't come back to ME in two years. The other day I decided to look up the extended cut destroy perfect ending. Well..it actually wasn't that bad for me. As much as I love the indoctrination theory and haven't decided completely for myself, that ending wasn't as bad as I remember. I'd explain more but I don't want my comment to get cut off. Maybe give it another shot? Dude.. I bought all the books, comic books, collectors edition games, I teared up in the beginning of ME2. If I can look past the discrepancies and let down of ME3's ending to enjoy the amazing ME universe again maybe you can too.
+Anibal Morales Also, you can almost bet money BW is not going to garbage another ending to a ME game after the colossal outrage over ME3. I bet their endings from now on will be spectacular. I'd also venture to say that will clear up a lot of discrepancies of Shepards story and "ending" as time goes on.
+kris tindell It's enough for me to play Leviathan DLC to be sure that IT is correct. Just compare both DLC and main storyline endings on two screens and you will get it :) Imo when BioWare was talking about DLC with 'improved' ending, they didnt mean Extended Cut. they were talking about Leviathan. And talking about BW 'endings', I think they wanted player to be indocrinated in some way too. What is the point of magic if you know how it works? Whole 3rd part would be useless if we knew we are indocrinated from the start by being told we are. So it's something we have to see by ourselves, not by game developers. The sad thing is that gaming community is not ready for it because we have never 'truely' been in game characters shooses and allways been told what the ending is. I hope you understood my point, my Englando is not good at all :D
The growing popularity of the ME series, for example? Even I started to play ME after reading articles titled "Worst game ending ever? Gamers gets furious!" etc. Bioware will release or say something in about 1-2 years, some tip or anything, and the game will start the storm again, getting new potential players in the same time. More noise = more players = more buyers = more cash.
There's another thing. Even if you take the IT aside, the game itself tells you that DESTROY is the right choice. Let's say the Illusive Man is really at the Citadel talking to Shepard. He clearly is indoctrinated. His eyes are Husk-like, and for us not to take that lightly, Bioware even make his face different, so you know he has Reaper influence. So, If he's indoctrinated, he WILL advocate in favor of the Reapers, guess what he tells us to do? CONTROL. Control is what the Reapers want, no indoctrinated being would say anything otherwise. And what other character was indoctrinated? Saren! Guess what he told us to do? SYNTHESIS. It works in the exact same way. So at the end the Catalyst is LYING. Even with the sacrifice of EDI and the Geth, (that may not even happen, since he was lying, and they may be reconstructed), YOU'RE SHEPARD, ACT LIKE IT, DESTROY THE REAPERS.
AND in the end sequences NO dead Geths are shown, when you used destroy and they were still alive. Only dead quarians, if they died before but NO Geths, that proves it, too.
The only thing is... EDI is on the memorial board when they show the love-interest hesitating with the nameplate. :( EDI and the Geth all had Reaper code. It's an unfortunate truth. Even though I like to pretend that I didn't see her name there and that they were all exempt from it.
You're Shepard, you've given every galactic race a second chance, and you've been proven about sentient synthetics. Therefore unless you're a spoiled imbecile thinking you can win without solving the cyclic variable, you choose Synthesis. Some people has seen too many movies it seems, and their brains have followed suit by choosing a default ending.
In the end it doesn't really matter. Once one of the three choices is made, the game is over. Maybe in the choice of destruction you see Shepard draw a breath, we just don't know if he drew his final breath. I chose synthesis and still would. It allowed for symbiosis between organic and machine. To control and destroy would have made is no different from the reapers. Only through synthesis do organic and machine stand together.
But there's also a chance the fans have better writers than Bioware, and if they came together, no matter what you gave them, they could give you the best script in all of history.
Eric_Vidfarne it’s been 5 years, but no. It isn’t the best ending, because if it were true and he was still alive, and became conscious on earth, then that means that there’s still army of reapers alive, and still to get rid of.
I don't think it's reversed. Paragon means co-operation, working together with your adversary to the mutual benefit of both. We consider it a virtue as it binds our society together, but, if you are talking with Reapers, then cooperation means you work *with* them and their intent to destroy all life! Renegade, which represent actions that prioritize your own self-interest, means you are putting the interest of *mankind* first. Hence, this is the correct colors. Bioware may be showing how immoral a binary morality is.
I gotta disagree. Compassion, heroism, cooperation vs. ruthless, selfish, apathetic. If you are showing paragon qualities towards the Reapers, you let them win.
Paragon is also about taking a stern stance against what is wrong (e.g. Shepard's Paragon interrupt in ME2 where he rants at the volus and C-Sec officer for behaving so disgustingly to the quarian). Paragon is also about convincing people to stop doing wrong (in ME1 you can convince a criminal leader to break up her little empire and reform it into something good after eliminating her seedier competition). A Paragon Shepard would never side with the Reapers (thus dooming all innocent life in the galaxy) no matter what.
Shepard became a eternal protector the first time I got my ending. I struggled to reach my conclusion, but I realized that destroying the reapers would cause more harm than good, though disagree with the claim that the elusive man was right in every respect except that it is possible to control the reapers through some means. I realize, however, stripped of context, to seize power like that would not be something morally congruent IF it was for the sake of justifying a means. But there was no means for Shepard to justify, if you stuck to paragon decisions. The aforementioned "altered variables" may have meant that the assumption about human volition was offset because it became possible to prove end up in a position of acquiring power without acting in line with mere self-preservation instincts (as brought up with EDI, as she asked about why prisoners would not prioritize survival over compassion), which might have been recognized through the fact Shepard already had died to save another. It was pointed out that the reason the Elusive Man could not seize control was because of the fact he was indoctrinated, which, looking at the series as a whole, seems to mean that your beliefs align with the ideology of the reaper collective AI, prioritizing self-preservation over other qualities that make us human, such as empathy. The indoctrinated lost free will, or did not demonstrate it, because they were unable to see things in such a way that differentiated them from the will of the collective, so there was no guiding framework to make a difference, regardless of the choice made, if the underlying ideology and motivation remained the same, thus no purpose for a successor. there was no reasoning that surpassed that of the AI until faced with the virtue and idealism Shepard held: that there was a greater reason.
The fact that a video game can make humans think so far into a concept based on knowledge gained from within a series is phenomenal. Genius, even. Regardless of whether this is true or not, or unintentional, it is genius. And now everyone is eager for the next game only because of the interest sparked within the conclusion of this one. Fantastic theory.
AND NOW WE CAN ONLY THINK OF HOW MUCH THE MICROTRANSACTIONS WILL COST FOR THAT SWEET 2% EXTRA DMG ( THAT THEY WILL CHARGE US ANTOHER $50 FOR)... GENIUS,,, I MEAN FOR THAT DUDE THAT THOUGHT OF THAT, AND THAT EXTRA $3 DOLLAR BONUS FOR IT HE WILL GET... my... how times change...
i come back to this vid after a while, i still love this theory, the way everything clicks in and makes sense, can be argued sure but if it was true, the ultimate story telling heel turn in Mass Effect
Jonathan Bzovsky It 'is' true! Its just that it wouldn't have been as cool if Bioware told it themselves, so they left it for the fans to unravel. Did a pretty good-job, I'd say.
Jonathan Bzovsky He tells a good story and it only would take a slight effort by the dev team to make this true in game. However, it's VERY easy to have a well-put-together theory to convince others of headcannon. They're called conspiracy theories and there are a lot of fanfictions for other games and anime as well (even normal American TV shows). As well put together as they all are, they can't ALL be true, if any, because a lot of them contradict each other.
Jonathan Bzovsky Maybe it's just me but after I read BioWare changed the endings while the endings before the change got leaked so they changed it instead of the whole story. I mean I think BioWare was doing something with indoctrination a continue after the breath scene would've been so awesome before the real fight starts but anyway ME3 is still good but also opens for me more question than before and now ME: Andromeda is coming :S *sceptic mind* It's just my opinion I still
***** On the contrary, it wasn't the ending intended at all, they just saw potencial and didn't disprove it. At best, it may have been the ending intended somewhere along the way, but after a while they decided to go with another ending, but kept some things (like the eyes and other IT clues). although i choose to believe IT (because it is awesome, way better than the original), i know it can't be the ending Bioware was thinking when they released the game... because it isn't an ending at all. If the indoctrination theory is real, shepard wakes up in the concrete rubble, all burnt up, destroyed, with harbinger staring down at him (or at the very best Harbinger is incapacitated because shepard won the "mental" battle for his sanity). but he still can't do shit to stop the reapers... because everyone's dead around him and can't reach the beam.
Gonzaga78 Yes, it isn't an ending. Its just an experience where the player gets pulled into the game, so the idea is nice. Well, he took a breathe-in, so he surely is gonna fight his way through to activating the Crucible. Or, maybe you don't need to enter the beam anymore as Shepard just activated the Crucible with his mind's signal. But its too far-fetched, I don't know.
@@Changetheling No because they actually tell you *Would you kindly* is a trigger mechanism. Bioware actually had the balls to leave the ending open for interpretation just like the Matrix ending or donnie darko
My first ending without knowing this theory and without even playing the whole trilogy because I only have ME 3, was destruction, I guess I won against indoctrination ;)
From what I've come to understand through various forums and leaked ME3 script documents prior to the game's release, the original intent of the Reapers were to be a perverse Noah's Ark. The reason that they harvested the species wasn't because the reapers feared a devastating war between organics and synthetics (a war only originally between Geth and Quarians that you have the chance to resolve for better or worse in ME3), but because they feared the "big crunch" scenario caused by rapidly decaying universes due to an over abundance of Dark Energy which is produced when using biotics or Element Zero. Tali's investigation on the home world of the Quarian stated that the sun was rapidly decaying and they didn't know why. This was never brought up again despite its clear importance to the Quarian people. Its assumed to be a Geth strategy through the majority of ME2 but never directly handled. This was meant to be a description of what Dark Energy would do when exposed in vast quantities to the universe, expanding at an exponential rate with each new species that uses it. The reapers harvested and looked similar to what they were harvesting in order to prepare for the big crunch and subsequent big bang so that the universe can be more rapidly populated with intelligent species that could potentially overcome the impending problem and continue on that new universe from scratch with a much greater amount of time on their hands since so many other species before them had already used up time unwittingly. War assets are a leftover functionality of this storyline since, largely, it has no baring on the events. There was supposed to be an option to allow Shepard to make the choice to allow the species to be harvested rather than fight them on it since Shepard may or may not have the war assets/research partners to aid in dealing with the Dark Energy problem themselves. To me, this sound like a much better ending than what we got because the game and anything after it feels more final. Like no matter what happens, its no longer the Mass Effect Universe we came to know and love because the relays are destroyed and the universe is forever altered to the point of unrecognizably. Any prequel will by marred by the thought that any actions taken are ultimately meaningless because in 200 years (first contact war) your actions will be void. A billion years is a far greater stretch of time to feel your actions have made some kind of difference, but a finite 200? And any sequels will have the problem mentioned above that nothing will be the same aside from, perhaps, armor and ship designs. Arguably even those might not be the same since the Mass Relays are completely destroyed and most civilizations are now left stranded again. That's my thoughts, let me know yours.
Actually, if you played through ME3, it has been confirmed that the Reapers were created by the Leviathans with their original purpose being to protect sentient life, however they turned on their creators. "Eventually, the Leviathans utilized this thrall species' civilization to achieve spaceflight and spread throughout the galaxy, despite their immense size and aquatic nature. Every new species they encountered was enthralled to serve them and provide "tribute", and in return, the thralls were cared for and protected. With their dominance assured, Leviathans considered themselves the galaxy's apex race. Over time, however, they observed that their thralls would frequently build synthetic constructs to aid them; these synthetics consistently rebelled, wiping out many thrall species. In response, the Leviathans created an Intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at all costs." -masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Leviathan
CheetosVikings Leviathan was a post hoc attempt to justify the ending that didn't really make sense with the universe of mass effect. If their intent was to keep synthetics from achieving dominance then they failed on two levels because they themselves are synthetics ruling the fate of the galaxy AND depending on choices made Shepard could unite the geth with the quarian in a cohesive relationship which should have made the reapers reconsider their position.
Andrew S Again, post hoc. This was meant to address player complaints, not actually designed into the story itself as it was mentioned in Mass Effect 1 that the technology of the Mass Relays was so far beyond them that they didn't understand it in the slightest. Hell, the Protheans barely got a semi-functional miniature mass relay in the Citadel and they were, for all intents and purposes, more highly advanced than the races we know in the game. How were they supposed to work out how to build one? Especially if you didn't chose control for the ending where you could potentially state that the Reapers knew how to construct them. The Extended Cut was nothing more than a bandage for what needed stitches.
Eleo235 They ARE arks. They lived in the blackness of space outside of the horizon of the galaxy for not just generations, but eons at a time. So the theory was that they could keep out of reach of the massive collapse and survive to see the next 'big bang'. Its a video game, no one said it had to be COMPLETELY logical. It just makes more sense than the ending we got.
I'm still disbelief that most people didn't believe this years ago... Especially if you were to watch CleverNoob's almost 3 hour long documentary back then. Everything adds up for the indoctrination theory to be the true ending. Not sure why this popped up in my recommendations after 9 years but I appreciate the nostalgia.
Bioware lied when they said “We weren’t smart enough” Given all the evidence and things included (the dream, the boy), this theory was likely the oringal ending But Bioware changed it because: EA wanted them too since the ending wouldnt be casual experience (like how the RPG elements were dumbed down in ME3) Bioware thought the ending was bad because there was no “Real” choice or the choices from the other two games wouldnt matter (which still didn’t end up mattering in their original, bad ending) The theory wouldve been so much better than their original ending (which goes to show that if all they could have was a color swap meaning the ending was scrapped at the last minute, leading further evidence into the indoctrination) I remember thinking the nightmares had a reason only to find out they didnt matter in the end. Seeing this theory, they made sense: Shepards mind was fighting indoctrination the whole game I even thought Shepard was partially corrupted after playing the ARrival DLC and how he had a ringing noise and headaches
I don’t think I would’ve believed this theory, it only exists because of the countless plot holes in the story. I’ll admit though, while it does seem like a desperate attempt to make sense of the confusion regarding ME3’s ending, it’s a damn good theory, and I would’ve gladly accepted it as the canon finale, were it confirmed.
@@wyslanniknewworldorder9525 Of course it's not true people always want to create theories, one of the most masterful theories I ever saw was on for Naurto that was so detailed and so insane it had too be true and guess what, It wasn't. People wanted to believe Rinoa was Ultimecia in ff8 for years as theory until Square finally had enough said it wasn't fucking true. Bioware obviously didn't want the indoctrination theory. If you think the pre DLC ending were a sign of cut content it just a sing of EA, Ea are famous for rushing any and everything out the door. Anything can be a theory you can find and create one of the smallest thing.The Extended DLC ending was already being made before ME3 came out since it was suppose to be there from the start. Indoctrination is a interesting theory yes but not real. If anything Leviathan and the new Mass Effect Teaser shows this isn't true and Destroy is the canon ending.
The child itself said that it's the collective mind of all reapers. Also it thinks the previous solution does not work anymore. The fact that the voice changes does not prove anything. I am not saying that IT is not good or anything but the voice change can be interpreted either way.
@@Eliteplayer1988 I don't trust a word that spooky hologram utters. I always go through that dialogue correcting the Child from things I've done through out the trilogy. Shepards answers to what the Child tells you are somehow ridiculous. Shepard should answer very differently to most of them. Specially if you broke a truce (well more of a full alliance) between Quarians and the Geth. Specially knowing what Saren and IM were trying.
@@thekageryuu776 People seem to forget, the Starchild didn't give you the choices, you are given the choices depending on the state of the Crucible. He can't change any of the outcomes, but people think he can. Besides, the Reapers trying to destroy the Crucible as you sit there and talk. None of the Reapers believe peace is possible and that damn kid is no different. In fact, there is no kid standing there at all. He is a manifestation of Reaper indoctrination, but anybody who thinks they can try and reason with it is someone who is taking the ending way too literally. The child is NOT real. There was plenty of hints in the game to back this up. Shepard is talking to himself the whole time during that final conversation. He is losing his mind.
@@Eliteplayer1988 Sorry to break it to you but he never says he's the collective mind of all the reapers. He just says he controls them. Which is entirely illogical because if that were true then Sovereign wouldn't have tried to use the Citadel to make all of the Reapers return. He would have gone to find the Crucible first instead of trying to pull the reaper flock out of dead space first. There just doesn't seem to be a reason for the star brat to go full reaper voice here. All he wants is a new method to fix the flaw in the cycles and I think it's clear that it is an indoctrination attempt but they want Shepard's mind and they fail to control it. So they drop the ruse and just say SO BE IT and proceed to kill every as usual.
Even looking back at this video today, it's still a far more compelling story/twist than the actual ending was. Unfortunate that Bioware was stubborn and unwilling to accept input on the ending and instead made something banal and STILL full of holes and unanswered questions. GG Bioware...
This theory is still true..if you played through all 3 games and paid attention...they gave you the hints and clues...we all know the true ending is destroy as Bioware mentioned Renegade isn't always "evil" and the color Red can be misleading to moral choices.
Now with the announcement of a new Mass Effect game, the IT it's almost on spot. I mean i was a fan of this theory and i saw all the clues and pieces like a puzzle in the games, and now with the new game, i guess this somehow confirms that those last 15 minutes, were the fight in Shepard's mind, the last fight against the indoctrination. And with the teaser we got, i guess he prevailed and he destroyed the Reapers since we saw a mass relay destroyed and a Reaper corpse too.
@@warwolf3005 i agree that was the case at the time. I do wonder if they are going to change it. Maybe why Casey Hudson left because he didn't like this idea or art changed.
Even if that wasn't the intent during ME3 development, Bioware would be smart to make this theory canon in the new game. That patches the problems with the ending.
Another clue that supports the indoctrination theory is the tone of voice that the Reapers use when they interact with Shepard: When Shepard talks to Sovereign, and later Harbinger in ME1 and ME2, their tone is one of sadistic glee, of triumphant arrogance, a feeling of absolute (almost fascistic) superiority. However, in the end, when Shepard talks to the Star Child, his tone is completely different. Suddenly, the Reapers seem almost harmless, they're doing organics a favor, it's not personal for them. Even before I heard of the indoctrination theory, I found that contrast in attitude jarring. If the Reapers are indeed merely galactic lawnmowers curating organic life in the galaxy, as the Star Child claims, why would they gloat and insult and belittle? Wouldn't they have the same tone of voice as their master, Star Child? No. Their true nature is that in ME1, when Sovereign tells Shepard that for the Reapers, organics are nothing. It makes much more sense that the conciliatory tone in the last segment is just a last, desperate attempt to get Shepard to accept indoctrination and view the Reapers as reasonable.
5 years later and I still believe to this day that bioware intended to go with this ending. Clearly something happend, they pulled out at the last second and gave us this nonsensical ending. In the collectors edition artbook, they hinted how they planned on going with an ending such as the indoctrination theory but ended up getting scrapped. Unfortunately, they didn't scrap the evidence that surrounded the theory such as the boy on earth, the dreams, Shepards weird behavior throughout the game etc. It sucks that they never fully went through with it and it still hurts to this day, but it is what it is.
The ending was the way it was because it was rushed and wasn't review by the writing team. The lead writer Casey Hudson and Mac Walters literally locked themselves in a room and wrote it, without letting any of the other writers review it. I mean Shepard actually barely came into contact with Reapers for prolonged amounts of time, most of the indoctrinated people took weeks whereas Shepard only ever did for a few hours at a time.
@@Glorfendal You can be indoctrinated by a reaper from just one encounter depending on your will Those other people didnt take weeks ot indoctrinate all the time. They already were subtle. Its just weeks later, it becomes obvious and such. Depends on rapid indoctrination or “slow, patient” indoctrination Also Shepard: Spent time inside a Reaper Encountered and had reapers talk to him in his head The human reaper
@@aceclover758 indoctrination theory was debunked by the writers. While it's an interesting theory, it's a bit if a stretch and can't be proven. It's nothing more than a series of coincidences, and Shepards direct exposure is way too fleeting for it to be plausible imo. If Shepard could be indoctrinated that easily, then the reapers job would be a lot easier and they would barely have to fight anybody
@@Glorfendal agreed. Bioware are just too stupid even to make this theory happen and they admitted even last year. this theory is debunked and the ending is the worst ending ever
When you meet the Starchild in the crucible there's music playing while your meeting takes place. This perticular track is only heard when you have your conversation. The name of the song is "Wake up." Think about that for a second. The Starchild is a reaper and everything it says is to misdirect and decive. Shepherd is still on earth. Injured and hallucinating, the reapers makes one final push to take over the commanders mind. From a tactical standpoint it absolutely makes sense since Shepherd is at the center of the resistance against the Reapers. Completing the game on insane difficulty with a united galaxy and choosing the destroy option (thus staying true to your principles on what was the goal since the first game) you will get a cutscean where you see a person lying in the rubble with charred, blackend N7 armour. The chest rises and a breath is heard. It end there. Who is that if not Shepherd? Shepherd is not some special snowflake who can negate the reapers indoctrination. No matter how strong the mind the indoctrination will bore into them. By the third game you can clearly see its effects on shepherd. No matter how strong the mind, indoctrination wins at the end. It even stated multiple times in the lore. He has the weight the galaxy on his shoulders. Wouldn't that be the perfect time to fully exploit the strain that's on him. Think of the doubt, fear and hopelessness that must undoubtedly go through his mind when considering the task in front of him. For an enemy that exelles at instilling these emotions in those they face, it would not be hard for them to exploit that. However, what shepherd has going for him is his mind. As seen when you choose your origins and in games one and two, he's got an extreme willpower. Pushing on against impossible odds and emerging victorious time and time again. He is able to motivate himself because he doesn't believe that's there's something that cannot be done. Failure just isn't in his vocabulary. But he has doubts as seen in the end cinematic of Citadel DLC. The war is getting to him. Shepherd is fighting an uphill battle in his mind, and the indoctrination IS slowly winning. But can you delay it? Yes, yes you can. There was another spectre who also fought the same battle in his mind. Saren. Saren shows that you Can resist it. Doubt and fear are the reapers most powerful weapons. But shepherd helped Saren push that fear and doubt aside and resist the indoctrination. I belive both knew that the resistance could only be temporary. And so to stop Sovereign, Saren killed himself. So that he would not be it's instrument. What most deniers to the indoctrination theory seems underestimate is just how powerful the reaper indoctrination really is. Indoctrination is a red line throughout the series. And it makes everything so much more interesting. That's my take on it.
Indoctrination is so dangerous, one of the top Salarian scientist that helped created the genophage states Reaper indoctrination is a bigger threat than even the Krogan species at their prime. Unlike being indoctrinated by a human, the only way to escape reaper indoctrination is to destroy the reapers and all their tech or realize you are under control, followed by committing suicide
If indoctrination theory is true, and Shepard is laying unconscious on earth in the rubble, and all those "choices" are going on in his head, then who makes the final decision up on the citadel? How are the Reapers ultimately destroyed (or not) if there is nobody to make the decision? Did he somehow destroy the reapers with his mind whilst being knocked out? Neither Indoctrination theory nor the "real" ending make any sense!
Going with the theory, its likely that the citadel being destroyed was just Shepard's imagination; possibly him/her imagining the outcome of each choice. I like to think that Harbinger's beam never hit Shepard, the impact resulted in him/her being under all that rubble so they're not fatally wounded. Once Shepard awakens, free of indoctrination, he/she can make the final push to the citadel and the rest is up for you to imagine. There's plot holes for the theory, sure; but there's a hell of a lot of plot holes for the "cannon" endings too. I think this is a brilliant theory and a fantastic twist were it true, but I think Bioware debunked it :( won't stop me from believing it though - there's too much evidence there
quigleyfox well you see, the conflict in sheperd's head could have taken like a minute or so, so if he destroy the reapers in his head he can lead the army he made to fight the real ones, remember the Indoctrination make you see them with a superstiches owh without it they are big machins that can be blown up
quigleyfox That's where the theory falls apart. I never believed in IT. It's interesting, but it is very flawed. IT does not explain what if your Shepard didn't do this or that, nor does it explain why squadmates aren't indoctrinated. Also, the crucible is not a deus ex machina.
This theory is still completely fascinating to me. There is so much incredibly solid evidence, so many almost undeniable connectons and yet still, Bioware never seemed to fully commit to the theory. There is still some really weird gaps of logic that punch some unfortunate holes in the theory. Leviathan seems to try it's hardest to give validity to the starchild and that's really tough to argue. And yet I just... Still don't know if this is what Bioware was intending or not. It's almost like the indoctrination theory was an ending that they were going with at some point and then changed their minds. There is evidence everywhere but no conclusion to it. What we are left with is a bunch of compelling bits and pieces that don't ever converge to deliver a satisfying ending. Oh and people who say that this theory came out of nowhere are just completely blind. The Arrival DLC provides some evidence that is near-irrefutable.
End of the day it's a theory I think it's intentional that bio ware never flat out denied it because that's the point of ME you have your own experiences and write your own narrative within the story
Head canon works tho . There's a reason why Destroy is the only ending where you see shepard alive , he broke the indoctrination and the war can still be won if you have a lot of war assets ( which are also requied for the Shepard alive ending )
Then why isn't Control & Synthesis available at low War Assets, if they were then I would have hade more confidence in the indoctrination theory, but if it's all about beating Shepard's resistance then why is "winning" and seeing through the illusion the only option available at the minimum level of War Assets? The order of which you unlock the various options are completely out of sync with the indoctrination theory. If the indoctrination theory was originally intended and not just a fan hallucination then all endings should have been available, possibly only Destroy should have been unavailable.
It is illogical for a Reaper to waste time convincing you to join their side if they were already going win. Harbinger may decide "I will convince Shepard to join us" - only to say, "Meh, whatever. We just crushed everyone." So they let you wake up to your certain doom. In contrast, if they are losing the fight, then it is logical to continue the indoctrination. Hence, why indoctrination is only an option when the fight will drag out - i.e. at higher war assets.
making it canon would solve a lot of problems in the plot. Devs could continue Shepard story, and wouldn't need to create another heroes living in another galaxy like in ME:A which was a disaster in many ways.
"They're controlling YOU" "Controlling ME is a lot different than controlling a Reaper" "Have a little faith" These sentences alone prove there's something going on, the way TIM says "Have a little faith" sounds like there's hidden meaning behind his words.
So I actually know a story writer who worked on Destiny 1, not sure if anybody knows but Destiny 1 was a dumpster fire storywise. The story was bad and so on. Truth is that the story(that he worked on too, side note he worked on the Mod Series Blue Planet for Free space2, if you like good stories and space Pew Pew, give it a go) The story of Destiny was huge, full of twists and incredibly rich. However the higher ups went against it because they said it would be too much for casual gamers. so they dumbed it down and the dumpster fire that is Destinys story was born. This made me think of ME3's story and I thought it was the same, but as we have confirmation, the writers never thought that far, its true that they changed the story cause of the "leak". However even otherwise ME3s general feel is way below others, be it side quests or whatever. The Mood in the game is also way different, almost satirical. And theres one reason for this, Mac Walters. Mac Walters wrote the story and was overseeing it all, while in ME1 it was Drew Karpshyn and ME2 was them both working on it. To this day I feel that is the reason. All the hints this video picked up were literally just the team being inconsistent and overlooking things that should be different for their ending to make sense. We can only hope that the new Mass Effect theyre working on will not be written by Mac Walters and instead by someone as good as Drew Karpshyn, if not Drew himself.
...I turned everyone into a husk. My whole vision of the game was tainted by the Reapers, and I couldn't even see it. This honestly is a revelation that, I'm not sure I'll get past until I replay it...
All I want Bioware to do is state that the Indoctrination theory isn’t impossible, cause if it is correct, then one of the worst endings in gaming history will transcend into one of the greatest. That’s quite a turn around.
First: BioWare got sloppy with the writing. IT came about because we wanted to fill the holes. Now to the questions: The dreams are from PTSD. After what shepard has been through, you really think he won't have PTSD to some degree? No one notices the boy because everyone is in the middle of a reaper invasion. Everyone else has bigger fish to fry. Combat tends to do that. Not that he is immune, just hasn't had the extensive exposure that Saren and TIM have had. Saren lived on a reaper for a bit and had reaper tech implants, and after ME2, TIM and Cerberus have had access to large amounts of reaper tech. Shepard had comparatively limited exposure to reaper tech. One mission on the derelict, limited close interaction with Sovereign, one mission in the collector base, and limited interaction with the thing in Arrival DLC. Indoctrination seems to be like radiation. Both proximity and time are factors. He has basically had maybe a couple of days of close interaction with reaper tech (troops don't seem to count) over the course of nearly 3 years. Arrival DLC is also a bit interesting because when Shepard is seemingly controlled by the artifact, you see blue-ish glowing around him. Glowing like a biotic field. No indoctrinated person has ever had that kind of aura. Biotic persons, on the other hand, have. The glow can be blue and black. Nothing says that biotic glow has to be blue and white. Javik's biotics are green and black. Banshees have purple-blue and black. Harbinger takes interest in Shepard because Shepard is responsible for Sovereign's destruction and for what happened at the collector base. Simply put: it is personal. Shepard directly interfered with Harbinger's plans. Harbinger wanted payback or was otherwise intrigued that a human could do so much to fight him. Shepard was in close-proximity to a reaper blast. Probably has head trauma. Head trauma can result in visions/hallucinations. Combine with PTSD point from earlier. Sidearm: No good answer here. Chalk it up to being necessary for game play. Relatively minor point anyway. Nitpicking. Beam does not lead directly to the control room. IT got that wrong. It leads somewhere inside the citadel and Shepard stumbles his way into the control room. Corpses because the Citadel had been moved to earth. Probably because it can act as a reaper processing center. Just like the collector base. The Citadel has been shown to have other purposes already. Not reasonable to think that the reapers produce other reapers only at the collector base. They would need larger facilities for that, especially when you consider just how many of them there are and how long it takes to build even part of a reaper. Collector abductions in the terminus systems began mere months after ME1 was done. Shepard died as was out of action for 2 years. When he got to the collector base, weeks or months after he came back, the human reaper wasn't anywhere near being done. The major reapers (like harbinger/sovereign) are all different. The human reaper was going to become a major reaper. It takes the form of the species used to make it, and then gets encased in the general reaper shell. Leviathan DLC states that almost explicitly. Shepard is knocked out on the ground after the reaper blast. Nearly impossible to know how long he/she was out. Anderson could have easily made his way to the beam. The beam doesn't have to teleport to the same place. And Anderson could have easily gotten to the beam first and/or easily could have been teleported somewhere closer to the control room. No way to know exactly where the beam spits anyone out. Since TIM is clearly very indoctrinated and willingly put reaper tech into himself (footage of him just prior to surgery w/o anesthetic). Easy to see that the reapers put him on the citadel intentionally, to act as their agent. He isn't seen in the cerberus base. There is a hologram, but the image shown could have easily been modified so that he looked "normal" I also wouldn't put too much stock into the eyes thing. Shepard's eyes glow green when interacting with prothean tech. TIM's eyes glowed at the beginning of ME2, and Shepard's eyes had the same type of glow during Citadel DLC courtesy of contact lenses that can display information and what not. Hackett could have easily found out when he saw where Shepard's communications where originating. The radio in ME has almost always been shown to be based on omni-tool tech. Nothing physical to destroy or fry. Reaper blast causes a lot of shrapnel. Could have been hit prior to getting to the beam. You also see him limp while holding that part of him well before Anderson gets shot. Just checking on the wound. Extended Cut explains how the squadmates get out. They get injured by the blast, the Normandy evacs them, and Shepard charges off to the beam. Extended Cut again handles the mass relay explosions. They get shown as being damaged, but not destroyed. Plus the one in Arrival was the Alpha relay. Relays with special names often do special things. The alpha relay, citadel relay, and omega 4 relay are all prime examples. A gunshot to the abdomen is not a wound that would cause instant death. Anderson could easily survive that. The keepers are a minor point and not very important, nitpicky. BioWare could have easily made it to where players couldn't fire the weapon at this point, and just got lazy. Also: we know almost nothing about the keepers. For all we know, bullets might not have any effect on them. That growl? Citadel systems at work, or just atmospheric soundtrack. Leviathan DLC also points to the starchild being the AI that controls the reapers. Also consider what Vendetta says on Thessia. He says that the reapers are servants of the pattern (the cycle), but not its masters. He also says that the presence of the master of the cycles is inferred rather than observed. This holds with what is known about the starchild via Extended Cut and Leviathan DLCs. BioWare has decided not to say anything about IT because it is more interesting than what they could come up with and/or had in mind. Nintendo did a similar thing with the Zelda franchise and the debates about the timeline. Then came the "official" timeline (which is wrong because it violates Aristotle's law of non-contradiction) and almost every fan hated it. I don't know if the official zelda timeline or IT came first, but it is clear that BioWare did not want to cause every fan to hate the ending to ME3/trilogy. So they left it up to interpretation. I will admit that the theory is very interesting, and many of the pieces fit. However, there are alternate, simpler and equally likely answers to most of the questions and arguments that IT raises. IT also fails to peek behind the curtain, as the case may be. While it fits nicely in the story of mass effect, it doesn't take into account factors that are outside of the story of mass effect. There are external factors at BioWare and EA that also have an impact on the story of mass effect. IT also has a startling number of ad hoc hypotheses. Occam's razor is your friend. IT also relies way too heavily on dream theory. Where everything is a dream or otherwise not real. In that case, what are the bounds, what are the limits? Who's to say that the mass effect games have anything that is actually canon? See the problem yet? Dream theory is just way too slippery to be reliable because you can just call anything that disagrees with your theory to be a dream. Just another case of ad hoc explanation. Finally, let's all be honest with ourselves. IT is just a way to find closure and satisfaction from an unsatisfying story ending. Both ME1 and ME2 had very concrete, cut and dry endings. There was no ambiguity about how those games ended. ME3 is the only game in the trilogy that has a fuzzy ending. It breaks the pattern. Makes me inclined to believe that it was just bad writing.
My boyfriend and I have been replaying the Mass Effect trilogy and I've been trying to argue with him just exactly WHY I always choose the Destroy ending. His arguments are always that it's going to destroy the Geth and Edi and he worked too hard to bring about peace between the Geth and the Quarians and to bring Edi and Joker together. I tried to tell him that the Boy literally tells you that if you choose destroy, you will die too, but you don't. The boy is lying to you. So what's to say he wasn't lying about the complete destruction of Synthetic life? And even if it does, I have to make a decision to ensure that the future of the world is set on a good path - WITHOUT the Reapers. Because in the end, any other option is just indoctrination with a pretty name.
Ashlea Johnston The "boy" is not lying, "he" has absolutely no reason to lie to you. If you choose the "destroy option" then EDI and the Geths will be destroyed too and all the Reaper knowledge will be lost forever, the galaxy will be in ruins, Legion's sacrifice would be for nothing and you wont fix anything, eventually someone will create new AI and the cycle will begin all over again. In other words... you royally fucked it up in long term. The catalyst and the Leviathan are right about it. BTW... the Indoctrination theory is just that.... a fan theory, it's full of holes. That theory sunk even before the extended endings came out. Even Bioware debunked it.
Doing what you're told to do is a less subtle form of indoctrination where you preserve the status quo without breaking the cycle. Seems nobody learned from Bioshock's legendary "Would you Kindly". Peace is a consensual indoctrination. Therefore, Synthesis is the only way to break the cycle. IF you managed to learn something about galactic races during the course of the three games, of course.
It makes perfect sense now. I never looked at the ending like that. I had my doubts as well about the sidearm and the single path. I lost my mind at the ending to ME3 at first, but now it makes PERFECT sense! Thank you for explaining it to me. Now I HAVE to replay the whole series again to experience this! THANK YOU!!!
Wonderful theory. It makes so much sense. ... :/ I liked Saren. I feel sorry for him. Guy has a shitty job for 30 years (Spectre is like glorified janitor duty from the council), still wants to save the world, and then realizes someone else is the goddamn hero. And no one credits him for it.
I still love watching this video. The editing and structure is superb and it remains the sharpest argument for the indoctrination theory being the most logical and thematically coherent interpretation of both ME3 and the entire trilogy.
@@Zero-0-Cypher yeah mass effect was very unique in its story telling and giving a ending you had to PAY for people didn't like so they had to change it to appease the fans
I just beat the legendary edition after having never played mass effect in my life and felt there was something wrong with the ending lol. I loved nearly every second up until the ending and I felt the e tire conversation with the ghost kid was off. I didn’t pick up on the other stuff, but I felt like the kid was trying to manipulate me to go against Anderson which made me very confused. Everything after the ending doesn’t make much sense and isn’t very satisfying to me. This is honestly my head canon lol.
The whole "we harvest to keep synthetics from killing organics" came out of no where in the last minute. The starchild is a fucking hypocrite tho cause /it/ is fucking synthetic killing organics so that synthetics dont kill organics, its logic was flawed from the start and its too dumb to realize the irony.
To me the new trailer just confirmed this theory. The dead reaper in the Background and the other one Liara walks on uphills points out that destroy was the right choice. Also her eyes aren't glowing blue nor green. Can't wait 😍 I just hope Shepard is still alive.
I would add just two more issues to the list of conflicts to answer. First issue is with Crucible and Catalyst, or rather Catalyst as an AI aboard the Citadel. Let´s say that Prothean device - the Crucible, the one that we are building has been created by the countless of cycles and with certain purpose to interact with Catalyst, the AI aboard the Citadel. The kind of AI, which was supposedly to be invisible to the countless of cycles while its creations - the reapers were harvesting civilisations, leaving no witness alive. The problem itself presents firstly with the idea that Protheans or the cycle before them even knew about existence of Catalyst and how to interact with it. They had no idea about the Reapers, how would they find out about Catalys, when the Citadel was always first to fall to the invasion force. Second problem with this issue is the idea of being even able to physically deliver the device to Citadel and to interact with it. First of the issue could be adressed with lore, as we have the Leviathans who were able and even admitably pulling the strings with previous cycles to plant a blueprint for Crucible. In that way it is possible for previous cycles to know about inner workings of Catalyst as they have been the whole time led by the Leviathans. However the second issue to unpack is the problem with the infrastracture or rather lack of it. It has been said that each cycle begins with an invasion of Citadel and shutdown of the whole relay network, making impossible to travel on long distances or creating an organized ressistance, impossible to win through convetional means as the whole infrastructure and means of traveling, trade, communication are crippled by the Reapers. Javik said that and Vigil on Ilos said that too, that by the time that they realized of what is happening was the empire shattered into pieces. The second problem simply cannot be adressed unless Leviathans also know how to hack the relay network, which they doesn´t seem to know, or if they knew - all they would need to to hide some portion of slave population and later on in betwen the cycles to use it and to deploy their own Crucible, while the reapers are still in the dark space in sleep mode. You could argue that they know how to shut down the Reapers and hack the AI, as they did managed to kill a reaper through the black pearl artifact. However my assumption is that they did not kill the synthetic part of reaper rather than its organic parts, otherwise all they would need is to place one of those pesky black pearls into the Citadel and shut down the Catalyst. The second issue partially belongs to the first one. If the Catalyst is highly advanced AI that is based on the Citadel, why would it need something - such as the keepers to push an invasion button. I get that it needed workforce to keep the station in working and habitable condition, but It´s beyond retarded for self-proclaimed super advanced AI to handle its own shit through the analogue. The argument could be that Protheans that came from Ilos did managed also to cripple the AI´s ability to control the internal systems of the Citadel, however all they seemed to do was to put funny radio packs on backs of Keepers, to block the signal that is sent by the Reapers each 50k years to refresh the clock. They simply did not engage with Catalyst, they had no idea about its existence, all they did was to block the Keepers from radio signal that was comming out of deep space, that´s why Sovereign was trying to get into the Citadel - to manually command the relay network. The entire existence of hyper advanced AI that is based on Citadel is plothole that consumes whole plot of ME1. The AI - Catalyst, that is supposedly to be based on Citadel simply does not exsists, otherwise it wold not need the keepers to keep an eye on the apocalypse button - it would push it on its own. The AI that Leviathans have mentioned however does exists, and it does not matter if it was or is the first Reaper, or what was its purpose or even goals in all of this. What matters is that it has a simple plan that works. That plan was always to hide in the deep space and when times comes, then they to divide by shuting down the relay network and conquer with brute force one system at the time. Occam´s razor says it all, an AI is a reaper, Harbinger probably, and it sent Sovereign to manually open the Citadel relay and shut down the whole network. The Catalyst ? That is a lie, there is no ghostly boy - an AI, waiting on the top of the Citadel. This brings me to my last point, while convetional means of winning the war seems impossible, it´s not unlikelly. Reapers always used divide and conquer tactics, they channeled their highly advanced fleet one system at the time, taking them even centuries to fully harvest entirety of cycle. They´ve never before faced war on multiple fronts, and that´s why they´ve choose to charge the homeworlds instead. To cripple civilisations by taking the centers of their gouverments and military. If they coulnd´t take the command of Citadel control by "peaceful" means, they woulnd´t risking it taking it by force. That´s why they tried multiple times to use indoctrinated agents to take it, direct battle would be too risky, especially if it could damage or destroy the CItadel which is also a huge relay.
Thanks for this analisys. It fits well mate. I like that this time a software house talks about the anthropocentrism. Humans won't stand with something more powerfull than themself, so they do the impossible. This is a pure meta-game. Great job Bioware. Hope is a human concept. Used so much in the ME3. Reapers used their hope on their in favor. I remember the Rannoch Reapers saying:"you still resist...". I don't think he's talking about fighting...
One thing I noticed lately was that the view on the Normandy crash planet is similar to a planet called Aite, which is the setting for the ME2 DLC Project Overlord. This is interesting because, in that DLC, the VI on the Firewalker specifically tells you to appreciate the amazing view. That would be something that Shepard would remember, when creating a fantasy in his mind he may well recall a landscape he found beautiful.
I think I'm missing something major about this theory: what's the point? If everything after approaching the beam was in Shepard's head, doesn't that mean the Reapers are left to free wipe out and reset all biological life and continue the cycle? Isn't the whole game about stopping that outcome? With Shepard MIA and the armies pulling back, what hope is there and why does anything that happen in his head matter? (They've already won by disabling the last ditch effort so whether Shepard is dead or indoctrinated doesn't really further Reaper goals in any way from my recollection.)
+Jaqen Essentially, the outcome of what happens in shepards head is almost inconsequential beyond his own survival. If he gets indoctrinated, well, he gets indoctrinated. But if lets say, he does resist the reaper influence and chooses to destroy there are only two real possible outcomes, and both depend on how well your army was fortified. If your army was subpar, they lose, end of story, shepard wakes up from indoctrination just to be killed or indoctrinated by the reapers more directly. End of story. The reason that the destroy ending only works if you have the largest possible warforce, is because that's needed for them to have the resources to be capable of launching a second assault on the crucible or just survive the battle in general and get shepard out of there. In terms of indoctrination furthering their goals, that could simply be put down to "this guy charging us is nearly indoctrinated, lets give him the push he needs so he stays down/ gets up for us". The artifact from ME2 just zapped shepard because he was getting handsy and seemed to be in charge. For the reapers it's entirely possible this wasn't a long term plan and more of a happy coincidence.
+Jaqen Also, I myself amn't 100% sold on indoctrination theory. But if it is true, the premise means that inherently the choices shepard makes at the end matter less. Conversely though, it does put more emphasis on the players decisions before this point through the whole galactic readiness system. If it was done well it wouldn't feel like the only decision that really mattered was the last one, as opposed to all decisions having a strong knock on affect that would impact the ending.
It's intentionally vague, but the way I see it, it's more like a hallucination, or being drunk kind of. Shepard still has to make a choice, but the reality of it is blurred. Like how Fight Club was really happening, but Tyler Durden wasn't really there. The consequences remained. Shepard is choosing to control or destroy the reapers, but due to the indoctrination attempts, Shepard can't tell if what he/she's experiencing is real. So he's actually in the Citadel, but Anderson and the Illusive Man are in his head.
I have to agree that the ending seemed vague. Which doesn't make sense because they're launching a fourth mass effect. My idea was that the Shepard woke up and was in a drunk stage. Shepard made it to the cidital, but isn't fully there. Shepard's perspective is screwed due to the reaper's indoctrination. I'm pretty sure Anderson and the illusive man aren't up there. I agree that I think that the two might have been the reapers trying to fight Shepard's willpower. I do believe that Shepard really was presented with three choices and that the reapers didn't have anybody on the cidital except for a lousy hologram. I'd like to think that they tried to manipulate Shepard the whole game but fail if Shepard continues with their goal of destruction and that Shepard crashed along with the crucible after the use of it. That's my theory. It's messy. I just finished the third game last night. I'm still sour. But the reapers must have been neutralized because the extended cut suggests that.
Here after watching the new reveal, man if this theory gets officially confirmed, then I would feel really stupid for choosing Synthesis ending, for the first time watched the destroy ending and it's the only ending where Shep is alive
One thing that truly gives it away, or used to, is the ''they're all gone'' transmission in the radio. Ther orders before going were clearly stated as ''no going back'' due the depletion of men
You know you fucked up your game when people don't even believe your own ending, and don't even believe when you say the 3 endings that you get, do exactly what they say they do. GG Bioware and EA, G Fucking G
In my opinion they could have solved this problem very easily. Make the IT canon, dish out a FREE dlc of around an hour playtime in which you ACTUALLY go aboard the citadel and activate the crucible. The aftermath? Reapers die, Geth/EDI used the reaper code/IFF to find a way to survive this shit, the quarians get rid of their space HIV, Shepard marries Garrus, they adopt a Krogan, TIM commits suicide, Javik wants to fight Shepard so he dies with dignity, Anderson takes a dump on Udinas grave and Shepard is gonna get pissed that everyone is praising her, Al Jilani gets punched in the face, blackscreen before the fist connects, we still hear the smack, she hits the floor and then the credits roll. Sounds better than what we've got, right?
SuperKami Guru sounds a lot better,just do that destroying simply removes the reaper code shit bad writing. and do that male shep goes with Tali to build that house on Rannoch
Not happening, bro. Easier to make shitty game which will piss off fanbase and THEN make a NEW game ("ME 5: Final" stand or something) to take more cash prices (like, 120$ or so) on new product with some boxes, dlc content and may be some unfair online weapons, because EA.
If they did that, it basically says "there is only one true ending and all the other ones are wrong". People would be kind of pissed. During the height of the ending debacle, throwing gas on a fire is definitely not the right thing to do. Ultimately it's better to let us as players decide which ending is best, and not go "Bioware said this or that ending was canon, so this is how we must all think too". In my mind, there was no "resisting indoctrination" and further content followup. It was just the Reapers trick you, and you realize this and destroy them or they harvest/enslave you. Despite the numerous hints scattered throughout the game, many tweets, and promo trailers for DLC hinting at IT subtly, people simply did not understand this was the case. They needed a big object with the word "Shepard was indoctrinated" to come by and smack them in the face. Or the way they viewed the ending (eg. literal) was not how the writers wanted you to perceive the ending. The story that was being told, was not the one they were hearing or comprehending. I mean, people thought Shepard was still on the Citadel after it blew up, and somehow fell back to Earth for god sakes. Or he's still on the Citadel with some kind of magical bubble keeping him from floating into space. No, it's just like when the Normandy got blown up in the beginning of ME2. People got spaced and tossed out the airlock and are floating freely through space with nothing to tether them to.
@Sanguine this IT is fun but the sad truth is they fucked up the whole ME3 story so people even made a "leaked scenario ideas" about dark energy and shit
It's a pure logical outcome. Anything else is just denial. Bioware saying it's not true proves that they either rushed the game or are just trolls who thought it would be funny to make an entire canon ending based on indoctrination and then say "naw bro it aint that lol"
Remember how the original ending was just a color swap between three choices? IMO, that shows Bioware scrapped the oringal ending, which was more than likely this theory Playing the game again and ARrival DLC, it just has too many hints, and scenes supporting this
I believe this to be true as well. The cost for "Control" And "Synthesis" is your life. Like Saren, and TIM, it cost you your life. You end up killing yourself believing you achieved one of the two, and the endings from the two are the reapers tricking us the players thinking we did the right thing
Almost ten years and this is still my head canon ending. Even with the dlcs aditions like Leviathan. The Leviathans to me just didn't know why they created the reapers, and the organic vs. machine bullshit was the lie they told themselves to try to justify their actions. Destruction is the right ending or in any case reject and they better acknowledge that in ME4. Great video to iniciate the count down to the Legendary Edition launch.
Well now we know that destroy is Canon and that the Reapers probably really tried to indoctrinate shepard with the synthesis and control Option. So this theory is at least to 80% true. Nice one
Yup it's basically all but canonized at this point. Lots of things are pointing to that ending and honestly it would be a great way to start a new'ish series because then you could play where you are not only filling the gaps from the ending events of ME3 but also what other story plot that is the main driving force for the game. My guess with what info we have, which isn't much, is they will have us try and figure out how to bring a reaper back to life. I think there is a few ways to make that a logical move to send us on this journey that is terrifying the entire way for the Pandora's box we could be opening.
I refuse to call it the indoctrination theory because Shepard resisted and in the end, he broke the reapers hold on his mind. I call it the Indomitable Theory
Anyone who doesn’t see the renegade ending with the breath of shepard on earth in Earth-like building rubble is thick af. How else dies Shepard’s body go from the citadel in space to Earth after the choosing to destroy the crucible while on it by shooting snd causing a massive explosion in his face. This is a great video but so many other points of proof not included
Watching this video almost made me cry. It reminds me of the 300 + hours I put into the mass effect trilogy, only to get disappointed by the ending. Then I had hope after watching this video..I believed. But Bioware went Hollywood and gave us a shitty ending. Now they are starting a new trilogy. Never again Bioware...never again will i put a dime into mass effect.
I've played ME 3 at launch, so many years ago. Finished it with a sense of...nonesense. I did embraced Indoctrination theory at the time, as a more fulfilling ending. Im playing the Legendary Edition rn. The indoctrination theory still make so much sense.
I will NEVER FORGET ! first 3minutes and one EPIC particular moment Shepard: Why are you DOING this?! + the music! (this is the strongest sentence of everything) And I think this is why the Indoctrination was Invented...the Reapers are more older then 34milion years old like IFF mission from ME2 They definitely come across some races which had strong leaders like Shepard and almost lost Battle/Harvest. Take example Proteans. They was Military race like ROME in our timeline. Reapers had fighting them centuries.
Would have made a pretty ingenious ending, but alas. It's been a while since I watched this so I'm not sure if I applauded your efforts here. Loved the video. I would have been indoctrinated, btw.
This is the best trailer fan made of all of time. I prefer litteraly eat sheet than agree with ME 3 real end. There is only one truth, one fucking DECENT truth, and it's yours. You did good son. Be proud.
It's incredible how accepting this theory (which, for me, is highly plausible) is BioWare's saving grace, yet they have not committed themselves to it. They probably did that to tease fans and do what Christopher Nolan did with Inception (ambiguous ending). I'm convinced, after replaying the Mass Effect series numerous times, in co-operation with this theory, that the Indoctrination Theory is the truth. If BioWare really did what this video suggests, then for me, the story and the writing is impeccable. Just a thought!
Kyle Gilmour The point of the ambiguous ending is lost if you show up and explain it. Also Ridley Scott did it with Blade Runner Directors Cut, it is rather common in Sci-Fi
Shepard is a supersoldier not a superhero, his mind is still Human. Even though Shepard is incredibly strong-willed and possesses a strong ability with logic, he can still be turned, it just takes longer. I kind of like the idea that the extensive reconstruction at the start of ME2 kind of "reset" Shepard's indoctrination, erasing, even if temporarily, the beginnings of indoctrination that occured in ME1.
But this theory isn't ideal, unfortunately. M-6 has a unlimited thermal clip after Harbinger's hit. But I can't remember that you could shoot any, who wasn't an enemy before this mission (remember mission on Benning). Author forgot than any armour suite changes to heavy damaged N7 armour suite. Any weapon changes to M-6 Carnifex. The main part of this video - there are Harbinger's words from ME 2 missions with Collectors, if I didn't forget ME 2 Javik can feel emotions, but Vigil in the ME 1 told, that prorhean empire fallen very fast "thanks to" indoctrinated "refugees".
am I the only one that is scared about how much sense this person made. and also this video changed how I look at the ending of mass effect 3 and I actually like the ending now.
How could somebody make this video so good a little after the game came? Actually how could somebody find all this clues and stick them together so perfectly? Have you ever seen a video with this much description?Why the publisher has uploaded only mass effect videos not any other thing? Come on Bioware!we found out that this video is from you!but its 8 years late! Anyways thanks for your awesome game
The only real way the game could have ended is with the reapers winning the war. The reapers are easily one of the most horrid creations in fictional history. Their power and numbers were so great, not even a united galaxy would have beat them. So, in my mind' s ending, the reapers win, despite Shepards effort. The cycle ends, and we are all broken down into organic paste in order to give live to the new cycle, and also replace the reapers destroyed in the battle. Human reapers, Turian, Krogan, ect. They will be the new face of destruction in 50,000 years.
Uhm no, The Human race was determined to be viable for Reaperification, thus there wouldn't be Human collectors, there'd be human Reapers and Asari/Krogan/Turian collectors possibly.
This is so painful to watch... trying to hear the dialogue and at the same time trying to read the text that lasts .01 seconds. I'm not saying the message of the video is wrong or anything, it's just hindered a lot from the design choices.
Here's the problem with the whole thing: You lose. Regardless of what path you take, you lose. If you're indoctrinated then you never reach the beam. If you never reach the beam the Citadel arms never open, the Crucible never docks, and the Reapers aren't wiped out. It doesn't matter what choice you make. Whether you choose to be indoctrinated, or think you're wiping out the Reapers, you're laying in a pile of rubble on Earth. That alone means there's no way anything depicted could've been real. And if the Reapers aren't destroyed, baibai galaxy. So long and thanks for all the fish.
And that is true to real life. What is our purpose? Why do we exist? All we know is that we had a beginning, and one day will have an end. But it is not the destination that matters, it is the journey to it. The choices that you make that define who you are as a person. This is why choice is such an integral part of the game. No matter what you do, the ending is the same, but how you got their, who you are, that's what matters, no matter the outcome.
You actually don't know if you loose. Shepard makes a breath nearby beam and now if the amount of Allies you found is enough to kill Reapers without Crucible then Galaxy has chances to survive. And that would be the ME4 Game - It would start after Shepard's resist of Indoctrination happens. And now after the Earth fight where part of Allies' fleet survived and possibly retreated. Would be really good one. But looks like no more.
There's no way to beat the Reapers conventionally. And the game flat out says nobody made it to the Citadel. Taking a breath in some rubble after you failed to kill the thing killing you isn't a very positive sign. Plus, if the Reapers destroy enough of the combined fleet, the other races will be basically helpless.
It was meant to take place inside his mind as the choice for him to make, whose side does he really fall on. Then when he wakes up he would of known what to do depending on what he decided to do when the Reapers were indoctrinating him. The Reapers took a gamble and knocked him unconscious from the beam...everything after that was in his head, and after Shepard makes the decision he wakes up, either indoctrinated or not
Just realised: If you look at the big picture...the real picture, Bioware chose 'chaos' over 'control' by intentionally (of course) leaving plotholes, then contradicting this theory with an Extended Cut DLC providing multiple-endings. Thus, supporting the Allied forces. P.S. - That shot of Shepard taking in a deep breath is all the proof a fan would need that Bioware supports, and created in fact, the Indoctrination theory.
***** While i admire the fans that came up with that magistral idea,i think that was a desperate attempt at "no Eaware didn't do this for real,they can't write bad endings" Eaware didn't do anything on purpose to create IT,but it was just because a retarded writer wrote the ending alone
King Derner Cousland Not looking for an eternal discussion right now, but that kid on Earth in the prologue was a setup by the Reapers. And even if he was real, the way those scenes were directed gives you some idea what the director was aiming for. 'Tis confusion. The game plays with your mind. P.S. - You're part of the chaos.
King Derner Cousland Yes, that is one way to see it (and, here we go again). The bigger picture... But when you look at the details: like how the kid tells Shepard during their conversation from the vent, "You cannot save me." Why is an 8 year old(?) acting so sincere and mature instead of just being frightened? How no one else ever seems to observe it? Then, you cannot say that its a coincidence. Its-being-done-intentionally! Maybe Shepard's hallucinating under pressure, but in a game-world with Reapers, indoctrination seems to be a more reasonable explanation. As the kid actually helps (the Reapers, through the constant dreams) melt Shepard's will, and through him, during the final choice, ours! But in either case, the director is playing with our mind. Chaos detected. LOL!
King Derner Cousland how can a hallucination be a victim? & why is the hallucination the victim & not the person hallucinating? Not only that, why is Shepherd hallucinating & hearing voices throughout the game? On top of it all; how come we just spent two games where we've learned of indoctrination & the effects it has on people & their psyche. Then the 3rd game we start experiencing those same effects; even to the point where it tells us Destroying the Reapers is a "renegade" option & either Saren or Illusive Man's solutions (who're under Reaper control) are now suddenly the "paragon" option; almost as if someone or something is trying subtly influence our decision.... hmmm... & all the "fans" say "no no no, that's tote's mcscrotes not what happened 'cause I wanna be superman; & I expected Mass Effect 3 to be like 7 diffferent games depending on how you played 1 & 2. 2+2 also = 5, because the game said so; they also said reapers try to influence people thoughts but idk what that's about, how would they do that lol" like jeez, you have a straightforward story with some deviation available for choice & cosequence throughout. Sequel remembers choices but still has its own straightforward story, next sequel once again remembers & has own choices throughout - including realizing you're being indoctrinated or not, although I guess the indoctrination worked too well on people 'cause even after being shown clear evidence there's somehow doubt.
does anyone know what drew karpyshyn thinks of the IT theory? HE was the creator of mass effect and I could care less what bioware and ea think they took a shit on the series
***** he was the first "lead" writer though, if you look at the credits for ME1 he was lead writer. so the way mass effect became mass effect was a lot because of the direction he took the writing staff
Drew was not the creator. A Lead Writer in a video game, even a narrative driven one, isn't the be-all for story decision making. In fact, it is often the opposite (the writer walks in, is told what to write about, and has fair to strict guidelines on what they can and can't do). The closest to the creator of Mass Effect, to name an individual, is Casey Hudson. And he's still there. Drew.. I don't think has remarked on the IT (what is 'IT theory'? lol). What he HAS basically said, is that the ending(s) he had in mind or could have made, wouldn't have been much better than what we got, even if it was better. Heck, I don't even think he said that, but instead that it was as good as it was going to be. Mac Walters was a pretty major writer in ME1. He simply graduated to Lead Writer (a JOB TITLE) in ME2 while Drew left part way through to work on SWTOR (a game in which his contributions have been criticized, especially treatment of Revan). ME1 is a partial result of Mac Walters, a major result of Drew K, and a huge result of Casey Hudson. ME2 is a major result of Mac Walters, a major result of Drew K, and a huge result of Casey Hudson. ME3 is a major result of Mac Walters, a small result of Drew K, and a huge result of Casey Hudson. Not to mention all the others involved with this TEAM project. 'ME4' will have, as far as we know so far, Casey and Mac more on as creative consultants and directors. They'll be working on Bioware's new IP, while probably having a hand in the next game, but still more 'hands off' than before. Where we could point to Drew in ME1, Drew and Mac in ME2, and Mac in ME3... we might have to point our fingers at some other different lead writer for ME4. But I have to repeat my sentiments - the lead writer is not even responsible for the direction of the story. For video games, that is often the job of the project lead, and in this case, it was Casey Hudson. Blame Mac for how he *communicated* the story, but to pin everything on him is just to look for a scapegoat.
Malcolm Swoboda well take the books for example, the 3 mass effect books he did were great. Then he steps out and someone else comes in and completely fucks up the 4th book
***** My point is that no one stepped in. Mac was there from the start. Casey was there from the start. Your words might be better saved for if the next game fails in the eyes of players, in terms of story.
