I have always been a "damn that sounds cool" kinda guy when it comes to the Indoctrination Theory, but it has a lot of holes... Not to mention Bioware has said it isn't true. It is a shame because the theory was, in my opinion, a really well thought out theory. I give mad props to those who broke down the entire Mass Effect Trilogy just to create the videos on this theory. Honestly, I like the Indoctrination Theory, however since it is likely not true I suppose I can choose Control with a smile(that epilogue scene with Shepard AI still creeps me out tho) Awesome video, dude. Have a great day, or night if you're in the UK like myself. 😃
I always chose synthesis myself. I don't trust any kind of Reaper AI even one with Shepard's conscience not to go corrupt...Also some Shepard's are evil. I'm also unwilling to let EDI or the Geth die because I like them and I'm not going to have all that work it took to build peace between them and the Quarians go to waste (They've suffered enough!). And the Refusal Ending is a joke and not something any kind of Shepard would ever do.
The developers explicitly make it categorically clear that they don't even want to so much as put an ounce of influence in prescribing an ending for the 3rd game. They've made it very clear they want it open to interpretation.
There's also the Levithian if Shepard was indoctrinated why did they say nothing to indicate this was the case? Added to the multiple times the Reapers try to kill Shepard throughout ME 3 this theory is nonsense.
Think about this: Harbinger tells the collectors constantly throughout Mass Effect 2 "Bring Shepard alive." Yet at the beginning of the game, they killed him. Sometimes crap just happens in a warzone. Also Shepard was not indoctrinated, Shepard's mind is being tweaked by the Reapers and he has not succumbed to indoctrination until possibly the very last decision you make. There is a grand amount of evidence in support of shepards mind being afftected by reapers influence, but one of the biggest signs of manipulation I can give is the appearance of the catalyst. The fact that it looks and sounds like the little boy is proof that some form of manipulation is going on. The only other explanation would be that Bioware said "F it, it would be cool for him to look and sound like the kid from earth just for the heck of it.
@@sagearmaggedon7307 If Shepard's mind was being influenced at all, Vendetta or at least Leviathan would have noticed. And he doesn't say to bring g Shepard alive, he says to preserve the body.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment That is hard to state. We do not know if Vendetta is capable of detecting someone who is under "works" by the reapers, we only have one case of Vendetta detecting an indoctrinated presence, and that is someone who is fully indoctrinated. Multiple characters that have had their minds taken have been called out on it by multiple people. It does not seem to be very hard to detect someone who is actually indoctrinated. The codex itself states that the process of indoctrination specifically is an insidious means of manipulation that is very subtle. Its easy to argue the case against Vendetta not being able to detect the indoctrination process. However, the case for Leviathan is a good point and worthy of debate. It can go either way with Leviathan.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment We know reaper tech is constantly attempting to indoctrinate everyone within range, Shepard and the crew has fought Reapers and been close to Reaper tech on multiple occasions, so IT or no-IT, Shepard has received Indoctrination attempts. There's no reason to conclude Vendetta and Leviathan would be triggered by someone who has faced indoctrination attempts but hasn't succumbed, it's perfectly reasonable to believe Shepard was still of sound mind until the last sequence.
The catalyst has essentially already admitted defeat, it tells shepard blatantly what to chose to destroy the reapers lol. Afterall, the crucible was designed to destroy the reapers so having a destroy option is a given no matter what the catalyst would say,
Also I had a conversation with someone he/she said if the destroy ending allows Shepard to resist indoctrination then that means the war with Reapers in the real world is still ongoing and Shepard still needs to fight and win. And Bioware simply wouldn't leave the story hanging to just Shepard breathing under a pile of rubble.
Why not? They seemed very clear that they want the ending of the game to be open to interpretation. Think of the Matrix and how open ended it was. Do the machines ever attack Zion again? Is Neo (Shepard) even alive at the end? What was the Oracle and the Architect even talking about at the end scene? Very much the story of Mass Effect follows a lot of parallels with the Matrix Trilogy.
Saren thinks of himself as "the future", a true cyborg, a fusion of both organics and technology, comprising "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither." the sistesis it is a lie control Tim believed it and now he's dead in the destruction Shepard wakes up and now he is going to open the citadel for real, the extended ending shows how Shepard knows that his friends would not give up, then he takes strength and wakes up. I think the allusion starts after shepard is attacked by the reapers with the lightning when he is weak trying to talk him to use the crucible in his favor. You haven't asked yourself why the reapers want shepard alive in the dlc on arrival because shepard is part of the same catalyst is the only one who can use it jvik says so shepard is the avatar of his time Sorry for the most English I use google translator Why would the intelligence even tell us about destroy? Well simply put because he has to. The entire point of the catalysts construction was built for that purpose in mind, having it not even be an option would be an obvious attempt that there indeed was something not right
You seem to be under the impression that IT says the Destroy ending is real. It does not... In the Destroy Ending, Shepard still WANTS to use the Catalyst to destroy the Reapers, and if your war assets are high enough, wakes up... Why would The Reaper King tell you how to destroy the Reapers if it was real? How does The Reaper King take the form of the dead child from your dreams it's not in your head? Why would you activate Destroy via Metaphor by Literally Destroying something? Do you think Anderson briefly came back to life and tried to shoot the tube, or was that in Shepard's head?
I say that the Destroy ending being the only real one is a *subsection* of the IT. Some people believe that to be the case, and use the main IT as "proof". And of course Anderson and Illusive Man choosing the options was in Shepard's head. That doesn't mean the Catalyst *showed* him that via thought-manipulation. It's just a story-telling technique. Albeit, not a great one, in this case.
I always thought the same rhing about the catalyst s appearance. Literally the only other reason he would take that form, other than for manipulative purposes, would be because Bioware thought it would be cool. And there is also Shepards voice echoing with the catalyst words. That is the power of suggestion through ones own voice in full effect. I am just not sure why they used both male and female Shepards voice at once though.
I've always thought that IT says that basically everything that happens after getting hit by Harbinger's beam is not real and is taking place only in Shepard's mind. If you choose destroy, you are not actually destroying anything but manage to break free from the indoctrination attempt. At least that's the way I understand the theory, and to me it makes sense. I understand that this is disappointing to people because in this scenario the war is actually not resolved by the end of the game, while this is true I still think that the theory is very satisfying because it deals with the core themes all the way from the first game. The extended cut is a little bit more flesh to the different endings and maybe makes the theory a little less relevant but on the other hand that wasn't the ending that was originally given. I think it was an emergency solution to appeal to the people who thinks the theory is nonsense. And I'm totally fine if someone doesn't see things the same way as me. 😊
@@escudo86 Yes that is the theory. Though it may not be necessarily true, it was borne from very strong in-game evidence. Something strange is definitely going on in he game, thats for sure, even if the end isnt a hallucination.
Funny thing is Javik did sense an indoctrination attempt in Shepard, he is just extremely vague in what he is mentioning. His words verbatim ‘I sense fear and anxiety in you, the reapers are winning.’ Its not exactly clear whats this means (likely done on purpose by Bioware). Its a bit hard to notice, but when Javik grabs shepard on the Normandy, you can hear mechanical grunts and roars, which you can hear the exact same sounds in Shepards second dream-if you allow the whispering shadows to surround the boy.( Also incessant whispering, which we know is a sign of indoctrination from the salarian in mass effect 1.) Now Shepard is not indoctrinated at all throughout the game, but Shepards mind is being assailed by the Reapers, probably Harbinger as his words verbatim in the arrival dlc are “struggle if you wish, your mind will be mine”. Shepard only undergoes full indoctrination when selecting control or synthesis.(interesting thought, why would it work for shepard to choose control or synthesis and actually make a difference when both of the villians in the prior games believed in these same options and ended up with their minds hacked?)I did watch your entire video to see what points you have. From my research, the indoctrination theory in its entirety, which states that the last moments of the game are a hallucination, is highly debateable. But after spending far too much time researching this topic, as well as seeing almost every argument on youtube from both sides, I can say with certainty that the reapers are putting the squeeze on Shepards mind throughout the game, regardless of whether the ending is real or a hallucination. Any who would disagree with this stance, I implore you to really dig in and pay very close attention, as alot of the evidence is more noticeable than one would think. I will stop rambling, but any who would like to discuss the theory or is interested in what evidence I may have, just let me know. Keelah salai
@@TheKingdomEntertainment I posted a response to you in a comment made by another youtuber that could give a possible explanation, but I can give another as well. Can we be sure he is telling the truth? He states that the crucible would not discriminate in eliminating synthetic life, and that even Shepard is part synthetic. However, Shepard can still survive even after the explosion if you have a high Readiness State. Jessica Merizan of Bioware once posted a response to a very similar question on Twitter. Her response does not make what Im saying automatically true, but she gave the idea that maybe the catalyst is not being completely honest. A skilled enough trickster does not have to lie to trick you. Its all about perception.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Forgot to add, destroy is the only option where the catalyst gives any pushback by basically saying "are you sure you want to do this? It will kill you too you know?!" He does suggest synthesis and control with statement s such as " or maybe you can control us" or "you are ready, and you may chooses it" for synthesis. He supports these options which have led others to be indoctrinated, but never once gives a positive spin or affinity for destruction. Just a wee bit of bias on his part there.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Illusion of choice I would say. With the other choices, the catalyst says "wait, maybe you can try this". He does not do this with destroy at all. He states " I know you thought about destroying us" in an attempt to derail shepard from his mission. Throughout the game it was all about destroy the reapers, but the catalyst gives Shepard doubt, when not even the illusive man could do that. The catalyst gives a negative spin only on destroy, not having anything good to say about it, even if Shepard unites the geth and qurians. (Theres his bias again). He had to mention it, because that is what Shepard was there to do and everyone was hoping the crucible would do. And then he began to introduce other options after giving Shepard an idea of what he would lose if he picks destroy. You make a solid point, and it is worthy to ponder on. It is just that his arguments actually make some people feel bad about making the choice to destroy, which is what indoctrinated does. Even those that were aware of it still were tricked(TIM, Saren, Rana Thanoptis), so it must be very ambiguous and debatable to have so many people fall for it. Maybe the catalyst was not trying to deceive us... or maybe he was. This is the whole fun of it, its crafty enough to cause arguments debates. But we must consider the possibility that he is tricking us, as this whole discussion is what indoctrination does to the victim.
I'd have to agree that the Indoctrination Theory is damn cool but ultimately doesn't make any more sense than a plain reading of the text. Ok, need to stop binging vids and go to bedfordshire.
Personally, I felt that Indoctrination Theory was a coping mechanism by a fandom that expected a lot and was flying high on a series that was praised for its storytelling. When the ending failed to deliver a satisfying conclusion there were people who would not, could not believe a team as creative and inspirational as BioWare (at the time) produced something so lackluster. How could they when Mass Effect 1 & 2 were building so much emotional tension and suspense? The storytelling of Mass Effect hinged on that build up, and as a consequence created an expectation for a satisfying pay off. But then the ending boiled down to Choice A, B, C, or D (if you count the Shoot the Star Child ending). During the time period when the Mass Effect trilogy was being developed and released, the BioWare fandom amassed a substantial following and became a community to be reckoned with. Mass Effect was considered a cultural highlight in gaming on par with Halo. People could not stop taking about it. Its fans were everywhere on the Internet and in conventions. Hell, Mass Effect one time made the news for it’s portrayal of same-sex relationships. Mass Effect made a mark in people’s collective memories. So I don’t think it would be entirely inaccurate for me to say that people had an emotional attachment for the Mass Effect series, whether they were aware of it or not. People got invested in the story, world, and characters of Mass Effect. When Mass Effect 3 finally came out, I think it emotionally devastated people. All of their grand adventures, the hours they spent, were pigeonholed into constrained endings when they were promised freedom of choice and nuanced conclusions. But I believe some people had faith in BioWare that was somewhat misguided, maybe even zealous. In their minds it was impossible for BioWare to fail. It was not realistically possible. BioWare could do no wrong. I think there was a cognitive dissonance with believing that BioWare was too epic to fail, but experiencing great disappointment at the finished product. Thus Indoctrination Theory was born to fluff up the ending and make it seem more elaborate than what was experienced. To nitpick and obsessively watch every pixel, every game file, every code in the game for something to prop up a “theory” that serves merely as a distraction from the emotional hollowness the endings gave to some fans. But that’s all it is. Needless fluff. A delusion to believe in something much grander than it actually is, because the reality is so much more disheartening. Indoctrination Theory is elaborate and built on conjectures and interpretations from usually unrelated sources of information. Not unlike a conspiracy theory. However, the truth is more akin to Occam’s Razor where there is no need for convoluted explanations. It could be something as simple as the writers messing up and not living up to everyone’s expectation.
No IT was simply thought up because how else would you even attempt to explain Shepard surviving the Citadel getting blown to hell? That very scene single handily gave berth to the indoctrination theory. It was a simple rabbit hole that got people just go "Wait a minute." You start to notice Shepard is on Earth and not even on or near Citadel rubble. If you can give a very good explanation as to how any of that could even be possible then people won't believe the indoctrination Theory. It really is as simple as that.
I wonder if this is the ending the writers kick themselves in the foot for not coming up with on their own. I love it. It’s always made EVERYTHING make sense to me and I’ve yet to hear a rebuttal to crack it for me. Sadly it’ll always be a what if.
Why did the camera, after Anderson dies, focus directly at Shepard’s chest, him/her looking at a bullet wound, when Shepard wasn’t shot there and Anderson was during Tim’s confrontation? Seems like it was intentionally put in there to imply that maybe Anderson and TIM weren’t really there, but were figments of Shepard’s consciousness, Anderson resisting indoctrination, TIM being the Reapers trying to enthrall Shepard. Seems dumb that that specific camera angle was put into the cutscene if it meant nothing whatsoever with indoctrination.
Not necessarily. There is legitimate evidence here to show that something manipulative is going on. However, it is possible that IT theorists took the evidence and ran too far with it, creating the idea of the ending being a dream. Whether that is true or not is debatable.
No it was definitely born to make sense of how the freak could Shepard possibly be alive after blowing the citadel to hell. A lot of people didn't just go oh crap what a stupid ending lets make up a way to make it all make sense. It was indeed simply just people going "wait a second, how is Shepard alive?" and from there a rabbit hole is formed you start to notice he's still on Earth and based on the rubble and you realize well there is no way he could survive re-entre so that must mean he never left and from their it gets deeper and deeper. If you don't subscribe to IT then give me another explanation as to how that could even be possible???
@@gibster9624 Sorry for the most English I use google translator Saren thinks of himself as "the future", a true cyborg, a fusion of both organics and technology, comprising "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither." the sistesis it is a lie control too Tim believed it and now he's dead in the destruction Shepard wakes up and now he is going to open the citadel for real, the extended ending shows how Shepard knows that his friends would not give up, then he takes strength and wakes up. I think the allusion starts after shepard is attacked by the reapers with the lightning when he is weak trying to talk him to use the crucible in his favor. You haven't asked yourself why the reapers want shepard alive in the dlc on arrival because shepard is part of the same catalyst is the only one who can use it jvik says so shepard is the avatar of his time Why would the intelligence even tell us about destroy? Well simply put because he has to. The entire point of the catalysts construction was built for that purpose in mind, having it not even be an option would be an obvious attempt that there indeed was something not right nothing exploded it was an attempt to convince shepard to use the crucible
A hint of truth is the best way to lie if you tell someone the side of truth but encourage them that the lie is better they will more likely lean towards “your” truth e.g the lie. This is always the best way to lie with the hint of truth
This is true. The catalyst, if he truly is the collective intelligence of all reapers as he claims, is dramatically more intelligent than even EDI. If there is anything in the galaxy that can trick Shepard into making the wrong decision, it would be the catalyst.
There were plenty of clues during ME3 for an Indoctrination route but I think Bioware dropped it, like they dropped the Dark energy/entropy plot . So you're right at the end of the day the Indoctrination theory doesn't make sense sadly.
I still don't understand why people would *want* it to be true. It means we lose and everyone dies. And there's even less possibility for sequels than there already is. 🤔 I just don't understand it
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Yeah it's like an ending for Doomers. Maybe the indoctrination crowd thinks the Reapers are the good guys and they are trying to save the universe (dark energy/entropy) but I don't know, maybe they just want a really bad and sad ending.
@@valebonfi4482 No it doesn't mean we lose and everyone dies, the indoctrination theory means, that if Shepard choses destroy(breaks the indoctrination), the story continues from the part where they were rushing downhill, they still haven't reached the crucible and the war still isn't over, Shepard was knocked temporarily unconscious, that's it.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Why would you think that indoctrination theory means we automatically lose? All the theory is stating is that the reapers are merely attempting to indoctrinate us. The destroy being that it failed and we destroyed the reapers upon waking up. Seems to give the sequel much more flexibility into what details are actually real and what ones were not.
@@valebonfi4482 Definitely no on thinks that. And if anything it means quite the opposite. If indoctrination theory is true then we could also discover that the star child simply lied that the blast would destroy synthetics. With the next sequel we very much could still be in a world where the Geth are indeed alive along with EDI and one of the ending in which our efforts to find harmony with the Geth and the Quarians would not go in vain.
For my "headcanon" I go with the Indoctrication Theory. Though I think the ending of ME3 was Just rushed, since bioware wanted to change it after the plot tot leaked.
True or not pretty sad the fans came up with a better ending than bioware. These other endings are unexplainable at best. Tim and Anderson's being there is unexplainable as well as the catalyst being a human kid. Also the fact that it even gave us options? It was stated multiple time that repears utterly obliterate life cycles every 50k years. Giving us an out and no race b4 us just seems like bad writing
Well, the idea of him giving us an out is because the fact that we completed the Crucible and made it to him, was proof that the Cycle was broken and his solution wouldn't work any more. Did you see my other videos about the ending?
The whole point of the theory wasn't to give the game a better ending so we could be happy with our feels, but to simply put an explanation as to how Shepard could possibly be alive at the end of the destroy option. The only way that anyone could disprove that is to find a full proof way of explaining how Shepard could be on Earth alive and breathing. You do that you disprove IT.
A bit of flawed logic with the Catalyst; the is no direct evidence of truth or falsehood within its dialogue, so saying all must be one way or another is incorrect. Not to mention it might well be Unreliable Narrator, particularly since its merely a high functioning VI
My point is, why would it lie about some but tell the truth about others? Especially if the one it tells the truth about is the one which ensures the reapers lose?
@@TheKingdomEntertainment ambiguity. There is not enough data to say one way or another. Particularly given the quality of the writing upto (and beyond) this point, definitives are impossible and by accident to boot
The Kingdom I do see what you mean, but this entity possess intelligence that likely dwarfs any other being in the galaxy, if he is what he claims to be. As we know with Solas, or even Gaunter o Dim, the best liars typically dont literally lie, they just manipulate your perception and understnding of a thing to get you to do,what they want. For example, when questioning the catalyst about Synthesis, he looks to the side and says “ We have tried..... a similar solution in the past, but it has always failed.’ If we were to assume this is deception, what he really means is they have indeed tried it before, thousands of time actually. If we think about it, the reapers are a form of synthesis, bio organic constructs that are a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. And if we assume what he is saying is deception, he is also right about it never working in the past. The reapers have been at this for eons and they still have not found the answer to the problem. Shepard should be suspicious if the catalyst tries to strong arm him/her from destroy. Its not a good idea to deal with demons, or “machine devils” in this case.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment It's not lying and telling the truth, it's presenting a twisted version of reality to Shepard in his mind space. It's common knowledge that mixing truth and lies is more effective than pure lies. The Reaper does not have the ability of completely control Shepard, so they cannot tempt him in his mind-space without acknowledging that Shepard has the choice to continue fighting the Reapers, hence the existence of the destroy option in the dream sequence.
Thinking out loud any reaper tech can in doctrine and the citadel was built by the reaper's. Maybe the thare is a last ditch effort to influence Sheppard once he boardes the crusible
Just as an argument: Prothean's VI indoctrination detector might not be perfect. Just like antiviruses can miss viruses. Since Shepard is obviously special he could've received a special treatment of indoctrination that's harder to detect.
I was always so into this theory. My far fetched dream was mass effect 4 with you having to fight your shepard at the end. Could be so emotional/dramatic. But thats obviously way too much, and would never happen.
I’d have to to disagree on this. Shepard isn’t really indoctrinated to the extent of Saren or Tim, but he has spent considerable time around reapers and reaper tech. Also, harbinger has had his eyes on Shepard since me2 so he probably focused on trying to indoctrinate him the most. The indoctrination “hallucination” starts when Shepard is knocked out on his way to the beacon. Everything from then on is an attempt to indoctrinate Shepard. If it succeeds, then he will not wake up with the blue or green endings. If it fails, then you will have the cutscene where you wake up in the rubble (on Earth) with the light of the beacon still emanating. The destroy ending is there because Shepard would obviously notice something was wrong if he only had choices to accept the reapers. I agree with you on the point of Vendetta not declaring Shepard as indoctrinated, i think Shepard’s first attempt of indoctrination occurs at the beacon when Shepard gets knocked out.
The main idea of Indoctrination Theory is not that Shepherd is indoctrinated, but that he is going through the process of Indoctrination. His choices determine how close he is to being Indoctrinated by the Reapers. It's these choices the Reapers are influencing. This idea that choice is important is supported by the interaction with the Catalyst at the end of ME 3, who could have very easily killed Shepherd 1. The Shepherd of ME 2 & 3 is not the same Shepherd of ME 1. He has been rebuilt from death, by Cerberus, under the watchful eye of Miranda Lawson. This rebuilt Shepherd spends much more time interacting with Reapers before the ending of Mass Effect 3. This interaction is what would lead to indoctrination. Vigil did not interact with this rebuilt Shepherd 2. If the Illusive Man wanted to indoctrinate Shepherd, why not build an Indoctrinated Shepherd at the beginning of ME2? Miranda Lawson had to be stopped from implementing a controllable Shepherd 3. Vigil, the Prothean AI, is found at the end of ME 1. Upon first interacting with it, Wrex describes it as, "Pretty badly damaged" There is no telling if it could actually detect indoctrination in all beings. Just that it feels it could in Saren. The Shepherd it interacted with was not the rebuilt Shepherd of ME 2 & 3 4. 5:28 "He [the Catalyst] either lies about all of them, or none of them." Why is this true? He allowed Shepherd to live. If his goal was to simply get Shepherd out of the way, he had many chances to kill him. The Indoctrination Theory was a brilliant bit of deduction that spent at least 1 1/2 hours giving detailed questions to be answered and evidence.
Without getting into anything else, I'd like to point out that there's a major flaw in your argument (a straw man fallacy, actually). In your argument, you characterize the Indoctrination Theory as stating that Shepard is indoctrinated throughout the final game (or that it happened at some point). Your evidence is then designed to refute that thesis. However, that is not what the Indoctrination Theory posits. Instead, it says that throughout the game, the reapers are TRYING to indoctrinate Shepard, but he successfully exerts his will to keep from giving in. This is then why the VI doesn't detect indoctrination in Shepard, because they haven't been indoctrinated. And thinking about it this way, it explains why the Starchild gives you the destroy option. If Shepard was already indoctrinated, Starchild would not have given them this option. They wouldn't have given them any option. Why would they? They would have already won. The reason they give Shepard the option is because up until that point Destroy was the only option in Shepard's mind. If Starchild would have omitted it, it would have been a red flag to Shepard, since destroying the Reapers is why he was there in the first place, and they would have seen through the lie. And in that case, you're right that Refusal would be the only other positive outcome (but only if Destroy isn't there). To put a finer point on it, think about the 3 choices as presented by the Starchild. Destroy is the only one that has any negative consequence (which incidentally is the theme of the entire series - living with the consequences of your actions). If the Starchild is impartial (as he claims) then he wouldn't spend so much time trying to sell Shepard on Control or Synthesis. He would just simply lay the 3 options out without trying to influence him. Anyway, this went on longer than I'd planned. Curious to hear your thoughts on my rebuttal to your rebuttal.
Well for starters, I've gotten the "You don't understand the Indoctrination Theory" comment a few times. As I said in the video, there are several versions of the Indoctrination Theory. My rebuttal is against the idea that the endgame is just in Shepard's head, and against the theory that Destroy is the only real option. Notice, the Catalyst doesn't *try* to get Shepard to surrender and let the cycle continue. He only accepts it if Shepard chooses not to choose. It could have been presented as 4th choice; if it was, that may have even further encouraged Control or Synthesis.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Can you link me to a version of the theory that states Shepard WAS indoctrinated the whole time? Not trying to be snarky, I've just never heard the theory presented as such, except by people who didn't understand the theory. More to the point, an Indoctrination Theory that posits Shepard was always indoctrinated would fold in on itself. If Shepard were indoctrinated the whole time, why would he still be fighting? The Reapers would have already won. That's why the theory states that they were TRYING to indoctrinate him, and continually failing. As to why the Catalyst doesn't present the 4th option: how could it? How would that conversation go? "You can destroy us, control us, merge with us, or do nothing and we'll wipe you all out." That would not be an option for Shepard. She wouldn't get that far just to lie down and die and let the Reapers win. It only works as an ending if Shepard doesn't know the consequences of choosing Refusal.
@@HorizonsEndComics I don't have a link to any source for those alternate versions, I've just read it in places like reddit and Facebook, with people discussing it and laying out "evidence." As well as word of mouth with people I have personally spoken to.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Gotcha. Sorry, wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was just really curious to see how anyone could argue that version of the theory. Have you watched Clever Noob's documentary series on the Indoctrination Theory? There are 3 of them, and they're on the long side, but they're really well done. He compiled all the various parts of the theory, presented it in a pretty compelling way, but he also points out a lot of the arguments against it. Some of the rebuttals he argues against with evidence, some he agrees with. The link to the first one is below. If you haven't watched any of them, you should check them out. ua-cam.com/video/BSE0osxQvA8/v-deo.html
Honestly there aren't really even any plot holes in the theory, Vendetta and Javik can only tell when people are indoctrinated, not when an attempt is being made to indoctrinate them. That also relies on Shepard being indoctrinated before making physical contact with Harbinger's beam, and his only other arguments rely on the events after the beam as being real and not taking place during indoctrination. A lot of the Indoctrination Theory has to do with that entire sequence being fake, and he ignored that, rephrasing it completely to suit something he could argue against.
I have always been a "damn that sounds cool" kinda guy when it comes to the Indoctrination Theory, but it has a lot of holes... Not to mention Bioware has said it isn't true. It is a shame because the theory was, in my opinion, a really well thought out theory. I give mad props to those who broke down the entire Mass Effect Trilogy just to create the videos on this theory.
Honestly, I like the Indoctrination Theory, however since it is likely not true I suppose I can choose Control with a smile(that epilogue scene with Shepard AI still creeps me out tho)
Awesome video, dude. Have a great day, or night if you're in the UK like myself. 😃
I always chose synthesis myself. I don't trust any kind of Reaper AI even one with Shepard's conscience not to go corrupt...Also some Shepard's are evil. I'm also unwilling to let EDI or the Geth die because I like them and I'm not going to have all that work it took to build peace between them and the Quarians go to waste (They've suffered enough!). And the Refusal Ending is a joke and not something any kind of Shepard would ever do.
Do you know where Bioware directly refutes the indoctrination theory? I cant find find but I know they did.
@@shekarian93 They didn't. He's indoctrinated, and the Reapers are trying to throw him off.
BioWare has never confirmed or denied any theory
The developers explicitly make it categorically clear that they don't even want to so much as put an ounce of influence in prescribing an ending for the 3rd game. They've made it very clear they want it open to interpretation.
There's also the Levithian if Shepard was indoctrinated why did they say nothing to indicate this was the case? Added to the multiple times the Reapers try to kill Shepard throughout ME 3 this theory is nonsense.
Good catch with Leviathan! Forgot about that!
Think about this: Harbinger tells the collectors constantly throughout Mass Effect 2 "Bring Shepard alive." Yet at the beginning of the game, they killed him. Sometimes crap just happens in a warzone. Also Shepard was not indoctrinated, Shepard's mind is being tweaked by the Reapers and he has not succumbed to indoctrination until possibly the very last decision you make. There is a grand amount of evidence in support of shepards mind being afftected by reapers influence, but one of the biggest signs of manipulation I can give is the appearance of the catalyst. The fact that it looks and sounds like the little boy is proof that some form of manipulation is going on. The only other explanation would be that Bioware said "F it, it would be cool for him to look and sound like the kid from earth just for the heck of it.
@@sagearmaggedon7307 If Shepard's mind was being influenced at all, Vendetta or at least Leviathan would have noticed.
And he doesn't say to bring g Shepard alive, he says to preserve the body.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment That is hard to state. We do not know if Vendetta is capable of detecting someone who is under "works" by the reapers, we only have one case of Vendetta detecting an indoctrinated presence, and that is someone who is fully indoctrinated. Multiple characters that have had their minds taken have been called out on it by multiple people. It does not seem to be very hard to detect someone who is actually indoctrinated. The codex itself states that the process of indoctrination specifically is an insidious means of manipulation that is very subtle. Its easy to argue the case against Vendetta not being able to detect the indoctrination process. However, the case for Leviathan is a good point and worthy of debate. It can go either way with Leviathan.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment We know reaper tech is constantly attempting to indoctrinate everyone within range, Shepard and the crew has fought Reapers and been close to Reaper tech on multiple occasions, so IT or no-IT, Shepard has received Indoctrination attempts.
There's no reason to conclude Vendetta and Leviathan would be triggered by someone who has faced indoctrination attempts but hasn't succumbed, it's perfectly reasonable to believe Shepard was still of sound mind until the last sequence.
The catalyst has essentially already admitted defeat, it tells shepard blatantly what to chose to destroy the reapers lol. Afterall, the crucible was designed to destroy the reapers so having a destroy option is a given no matter what the catalyst would say,
Also I had a conversation with someone he/she said if the destroy ending allows Shepard to resist indoctrination then that means the war with Reapers in the real world is still ongoing and Shepard still needs to fight and win. And Bioware simply wouldn't leave the story hanging to just Shepard breathing under a pile of rubble.
Why not? They seemed very clear that they want the ending of the game to be open to interpretation. Think of the Matrix and how open ended it was. Do the machines ever attack Zion again? Is Neo (Shepard) even alive at the end? What was the Oracle and the Architect even talking about at the end scene? Very much the story of Mass Effect follows a lot of parallels with the Matrix Trilogy.
@@gibster9624 mass effect 4 is following the destroy ending.
I’ve never understood why people like this theory.
I mean why would you prefer an ending that’s even worse than the original ending?
Saren thinks of himself as "the future", a true cyborg, a fusion of both organics and technology, comprising "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither." the sistesis it is a lie control Tim believed it and now he's dead in the destruction Shepard wakes up and now he is going to open the citadel for real, the extended ending shows how Shepard knows that his friends would not give up, then he takes strength and wakes up. I think the allusion starts after shepard is attacked by the reapers with the lightning when he is weak trying to talk him to use the crucible in his favor. You haven't asked yourself why the reapers want shepard alive in the dlc on arrival because shepard is part of the same catalyst is the only one who can use it jvik says so shepard is the avatar of his time Sorry for the most English I use google translator Why would the intelligence even tell us about destroy? Well simply put because he has to. The entire point of the catalysts construction was built for that purpose in mind, having it not even be an option would be an obvious attempt that there indeed was something not right
You seem to be under the impression that IT says the Destroy ending is real. It does not...
In the Destroy Ending, Shepard still WANTS to use the Catalyst to destroy the Reapers, and if your war assets are high enough, wakes up...
Why would The Reaper King tell you how to destroy the Reapers if it was real? How does The Reaper King take the form of the dead child from your dreams it's not in your head? Why would you activate Destroy via Metaphor by Literally Destroying something? Do you think Anderson briefly came back to life and tried to shoot the tube, or was that in Shepard's head?
I say that the Destroy ending being the only real one is a *subsection* of the IT. Some people believe that to be the case, and use the main IT as "proof".
And of course Anderson and Illusive Man choosing the options was in Shepard's head. That doesn't mean the Catalyst *showed* him that via thought-manipulation. It's just a story-telling technique. Albeit, not a great one, in this case.
I always thought the same rhing about the catalyst s appearance. Literally the only other reason he would take that form, other than for manipulative purposes, would be because Bioware thought it would be cool. And there is also Shepards voice echoing with the catalyst words. That is the power of suggestion through ones own voice in full effect. I am just not sure why they used both male and female Shepards voice at once though.
I've always thought that IT says that basically everything that happens after getting hit by Harbinger's beam is not real and is taking place only in Shepard's mind. If you choose destroy, you are not actually destroying anything but manage to break free from the indoctrination attempt. At least that's the way I understand the theory, and to me it makes sense.
I understand that this is disappointing to people because in this scenario the war is actually not resolved by the end of the game, while this is true I still think that the theory is very satisfying because it deals with the core themes all the way from the first game.
The extended cut is a little bit more flesh to the different endings and maybe makes the theory a little less relevant but on the other hand that wasn't the ending that was originally given. I think it was an emergency solution to appeal to the people who thinks the theory is nonsense.
And I'm totally fine if someone doesn't see things the same way as me. 😊
@@escudo86 Yes that is the theory. Though it may not be necessarily true, it was borne from very strong in-game evidence. Something strange is definitely going on in he game, thats for sure, even if the end isnt a hallucination.
And Shepard wakes up in the rubble of London. How did he make it there from the Crucible
Funny thing is Javik did sense an indoctrination attempt in Shepard, he is just extremely vague in what he is mentioning. His words verbatim ‘I sense fear and anxiety in you, the reapers are winning.’ Its not exactly clear whats this means (likely done on purpose by Bioware). Its a bit hard to notice, but when Javik grabs shepard on the Normandy, you can hear mechanical grunts and roars, which you can hear the exact same sounds in Shepards second dream-if you allow the whispering shadows to surround the boy.( Also incessant whispering, which we know is a sign of indoctrination from the salarian in mass effect 1.) Now Shepard is not indoctrinated at all throughout the game, but Shepards mind is being assailed by the Reapers, probably Harbinger as his words verbatim in the arrival dlc are “struggle if you wish, your mind will be mine”. Shepard only undergoes full indoctrination when selecting control or synthesis.(interesting thought, why would it work for shepard to choose control or synthesis and actually make a difference when both of the villians in the prior games believed in these same options and ended up with their minds hacked?)I did watch your entire video to see what points you have. From my research, the indoctrination theory in its entirety, which states that the last moments of the game are a hallucination, is highly debateable. But after spending far too much time researching this topic, as well as seeing almost every argument on youtube from both sides, I can say with certainty that the reapers are putting the squeeze on Shepards mind throughout the game, regardless of whether the ending is real or a hallucination. Any who would disagree with this stance, I implore you to really dig in and pay very close attention, as alot of the evidence is more noticeable than one would think. I will stop rambling, but any who would like to discuss the theory or is interested in what evidence I may have, just let me know. Keelah salai
But the problem remains as to why the Catalyst would tell you the truth about Destroy if that is the case
@@TheKingdomEntertainment I posted a response to you in a comment made by another youtuber that could give a possible explanation, but I can give another as well. Can we be sure he is telling the truth? He states that the crucible would not discriminate in eliminating synthetic life, and that even Shepard is part synthetic. However, Shepard can still survive even after the explosion if you have a high Readiness State. Jessica Merizan of Bioware once posted a response to a very similar question on Twitter. Her response does not make what Im saying automatically true, but she gave the idea that maybe the catalyst is not being completely honest. A skilled enough trickster does not have to lie to trick you. Its all about perception.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Forgot to add, destroy is the only option where the catalyst gives any pushback by basically saying "are you sure you want to do this? It will kill you too you know?!" He does suggest synthesis and control with statement s such as " or maybe you can control us" or "you are ready, and you may chooses it" for synthesis. He supports these options which have led others to be indoctrinated, but never once gives a positive spin or affinity for destruction. Just a wee bit of bias on his part there.
@@sagearmaggedon7307 But why would he even tell you about Destroy?
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Illusion of choice I would say. With the other choices, the catalyst says "wait, maybe you can try this". He does not do this with destroy at all. He states " I know you thought about destroying us" in an attempt to derail shepard from his mission. Throughout the game it was all about destroy the reapers, but the catalyst gives Shepard doubt, when not even the illusive man could do that. The catalyst gives a negative spin only on destroy, not having anything good to say about it, even if Shepard unites the geth and qurians. (Theres his bias again). He had to mention it, because that is what Shepard was there to do and everyone was hoping the crucible would do. And then he began to introduce other options after giving Shepard an idea of what he would lose if he picks destroy. You make a solid point, and it is worthy to ponder on. It is just that his arguments actually make some people feel bad about making the choice to destroy, which is what indoctrinated does. Even those that were aware of it still were tricked(TIM, Saren, Rana Thanoptis), so it must be very ambiguous and debatable to have so many people fall for it. Maybe the catalyst was not trying to deceive us... or maybe he was. This is the whole fun of it, its crafty enough to cause arguments debates. But we must consider the possibility that he is tricking us, as this whole discussion is what indoctrination does to the victim.
I'd have to agree that the Indoctrination Theory is damn cool but ultimately doesn't make any more sense than a plain reading of the text.
Ok, need to stop binging vids and go to bedfordshire.
Personally, I felt that Indoctrination Theory was a coping mechanism by a fandom that expected a lot and was flying high on a series that was praised for its storytelling. When the ending failed to deliver a satisfying conclusion there were people who would not, could not believe a team as creative and inspirational as BioWare (at the time) produced something so lackluster.
How could they when Mass Effect 1 & 2 were building so much emotional tension and suspense? The storytelling of Mass Effect hinged on that build up, and as a consequence created an expectation for a satisfying pay off. But then the ending boiled down to Choice A, B, C, or D (if you count the Shoot the Star Child ending).
During the time period when the Mass Effect trilogy was being developed and released, the BioWare fandom amassed a substantial following and became a community to be reckoned with. Mass Effect was considered a cultural highlight in gaming on par with Halo. People could not stop taking about it. Its fans were everywhere on the Internet and in conventions. Hell, Mass Effect one time made the news for it’s portrayal of same-sex relationships. Mass Effect made a mark in people’s collective memories.
So I don’t think it would be entirely inaccurate for me to say that people had an emotional attachment for the Mass Effect series, whether they were aware of it or not. People got invested in the story, world, and characters of Mass Effect. When Mass Effect 3 finally came out, I think it emotionally devastated people. All of their grand adventures, the hours they spent, were pigeonholed into constrained endings when they were promised freedom of choice and nuanced conclusions.
But I believe some people had faith in BioWare that was somewhat misguided, maybe even zealous. In their minds it was impossible for BioWare to fail. It was not realistically possible. BioWare could do no wrong.
I think there was a cognitive dissonance with believing that BioWare was too epic to fail, but experiencing great disappointment at the finished product. Thus Indoctrination Theory was born to fluff up the ending and make it seem more elaborate than what was experienced. To nitpick and obsessively watch every pixel, every game file, every code in the game for something to prop up a “theory” that serves merely as a distraction from the emotional hollowness the endings gave to some fans.
But that’s all it is. Needless fluff. A delusion to believe in something much grander than it actually is, because the reality is so much more disheartening.
Indoctrination Theory is elaborate and built on conjectures and interpretations from usually unrelated sources of information. Not unlike a conspiracy theory. However, the truth is more akin to Occam’s Razor where there is no need for convoluted explanations. It could be something as simple as the writers messing up and not living up to everyone’s expectation.
No IT was simply thought up because how else would you even attempt to explain Shepard surviving the Citadel getting blown to hell? That very scene single handily gave berth to the indoctrination theory. It was a simple rabbit hole that got people just go "Wait a minute." You start to notice Shepard is on Earth and not even on or near Citadel rubble. If you can give a very good explanation as to how any of that could even be possible then people won't believe the indoctrination Theory. It really is as simple as that.
Nailed it. IT is the product of a bunch of whiney man children.
I wonder if this is the ending the writers kick themselves in the foot for not coming up with on their own. I love it. It’s always made EVERYTHING make sense to me and I’ve yet to hear a rebuttal to crack it for me.
Sadly it’ll always be a what if.
Very interesting. Thank you.
Lol this is like 7 years late. Thanks though. I enjoyed it.
I mean the remastered just came out so maybe it’s the perfect time
Yea it's actually a pretty good time to go over this.
@@vanitasdarkness8795 yeah but my comment is like 1.5 years old
Why did the camera, after Anderson dies, focus directly at Shepard’s chest, him/her looking at a bullet wound, when Shepard wasn’t shot there and Anderson was during Tim’s confrontation? Seems like it was intentionally put in there to imply that maybe Anderson and TIM weren’t really there, but were figments of Shepard’s consciousness, Anderson resisting indoctrination, TIM being the Reapers trying to enthrall Shepard. Seems dumb that that specific camera angle was put into the cutscene if it meant nothing whatsoever with indoctrination.
The theory was born out of frustration / desperation due to the horrendous ending. What a shame. Great video!
Not necessarily. There is legitimate evidence here to show that something manipulative is going on. However, it is possible that IT theorists took the evidence and ran too far with it, creating the idea of the ending being a dream. Whether that is true or not is debatable.
No it was definitely born to make sense of how the freak could Shepard possibly be alive after blowing the citadel to hell. A lot of people didn't just go oh crap what a stupid ending lets make up a way to make it all make sense. It was indeed simply just people going "wait a second, how is Shepard alive?" and from there a rabbit hole is formed you start to notice he's still on Earth and based on the rubble and you realize well there is no way he could survive re-entre so that must mean he never left and from their it gets deeper and deeper. If you don't subscribe to IT then give me another explanation as to how that could even be possible???
@@gibster9624 Sorry for the most English I use google translator Saren thinks of himself as "the future", a true cyborg, a fusion of both organics and technology, comprising "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither." the sistesis it is a lie control too Tim believed it and now he's dead in the destruction Shepard wakes up and now he is going to open the citadel for real, the extended ending shows how Shepard knows that his friends would not give up, then he takes strength and wakes up. I think the allusion starts after shepard is attacked by the reapers with the lightning when he is weak trying to talk him to use the crucible in his favor. You haven't asked yourself why the reapers want shepard alive in the dlc on arrival because shepard is part of the same catalyst is the only one who can use it jvik says so shepard is the avatar of his time Why would the intelligence even tell us about destroy? Well simply put because he has to. The entire point of the catalysts construction was built for that purpose in mind, having it not even be an option would be an obvious attempt that there indeed was something not right nothing exploded it was an attempt to convince shepard to use the crucible
A hint of truth is the best way to lie if you tell someone the side of truth but encourage them that the lie is better they will more likely lean towards “your” truth e.g the lie. This is always the best way to lie with the hint of truth
This is true. The catalyst, if he truly is the collective intelligence of all reapers as he claims, is dramatically more intelligent than even EDI. If there is anything in the galaxy that can trick Shepard into making the wrong decision, it would be the catalyst.
I'm glad you've made the video Cole thank you.
There were plenty of clues during ME3 for an Indoctrination route but I think Bioware dropped it, like they dropped the Dark energy/entropy plot . So you're right at the end of the day the Indoctrination theory doesn't make sense sadly.
I still don't understand why people would *want* it to be true. It means we lose and everyone dies. And there's even less possibility for sequels than there already is. 🤔 I just don't understand it
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Yeah it's like an ending for Doomers. Maybe the indoctrination crowd thinks the Reapers are the good guys and they are trying to save the universe (dark energy/entropy) but I don't know, maybe they just want a really bad and sad ending.
@@valebonfi4482 No it doesn't mean we lose and everyone dies, the indoctrination theory means, that if Shepard choses destroy(breaks the indoctrination), the story continues from the part where they were rushing downhill, they still haven't reached the crucible and the war still isn't over, Shepard was knocked temporarily unconscious, that's it.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment Why would you think that indoctrination theory means we automatically lose? All the theory is stating is that the reapers are merely attempting to indoctrinate us. The destroy being that it failed and we destroyed the reapers upon waking up. Seems to give the sequel much more flexibility into what details are actually real and what ones were not.
@@valebonfi4482 Definitely no on thinks that. And if anything it means quite the opposite. If indoctrination theory is true then we could also discover that the star child simply lied that the blast would destroy synthetics. With the next sequel we very much could still be in a world where the Geth are indeed alive along with EDI and one of the ending in which our efforts to find harmony with the Geth and the Quarians would not go in vain.
For my "headcanon" I go with the Indoctrication Theory.
Though I think the ending of ME3 was Just rushed, since bioware wanted to change it after the plot tot leaked.
True or not pretty sad the fans came up with a better ending than bioware. These other endings are unexplainable at best. Tim and Anderson's being there is unexplainable as well as the catalyst being a human kid. Also the fact that it even gave us options? It was stated multiple time that repears utterly obliterate life cycles every 50k years. Giving us an out and no race b4 us just seems like bad writing
Well, the idea of him giving us an out is because the fact that we completed the Crucible and made it to him, was proof that the Cycle was broken and his solution wouldn't work any more.
Did you see my other videos about the ending?
The whole point of the theory wasn't to give the game a better ending so we could be happy with our feels, but to simply put an explanation as to how Shepard could possibly be alive at the end of the destroy option. The only way that anyone could disprove that is to find a full proof way of explaining how Shepard could be on Earth alive and breathing. You do that you disprove IT.
A bit of flawed logic with the Catalyst; the is no direct evidence of truth or falsehood within its dialogue, so saying all must be one way or another is incorrect. Not to mention it might well be Unreliable Narrator, particularly since its merely a high functioning VI
My point is, why would it lie about some but tell the truth about others? Especially if the one it tells the truth about is the one which ensures the reapers lose?
@@TheKingdomEntertainment ambiguity. There is not enough data to say one way or another. Particularly given the quality of the writing upto (and beyond) this point, definitives are impossible and by accident to boot
The Kingdom I do see what you mean, but this entity possess intelligence that likely dwarfs any other being in the galaxy, if he is what he claims to be. As we know with Solas, or even Gaunter o Dim, the best liars typically dont literally lie, they just manipulate your perception and understnding of a thing to get you to do,what they want. For example, when questioning the catalyst about Synthesis, he looks to the side and says “ We have tried..... a similar solution in the past, but it has always failed.’ If we were to assume this is deception, what he really means is they have indeed tried it before, thousands of time actually. If we think about it, the reapers are a form of synthesis, bio organic constructs that are a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. And if we assume what he is saying is deception, he is also right about it never working in the past. The reapers have been at this for eons and they still have not found the answer to the problem. Shepard should be suspicious if the catalyst tries to strong arm him/her from destroy. Its not a good idea to deal with demons, or “machine devils” in this case.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment It's not lying and telling the truth, it's presenting a twisted version of reality to Shepard in his mind space. It's common knowledge that mixing truth and lies is more effective than pure lies. The Reaper does not have the ability of completely control Shepard, so they cannot tempt him in his mind-space without acknowledging that Shepard has the choice to continue fighting the Reapers, hence the existence of the destroy option in the dream sequence.
Thinking out loud any reaper tech can in doctrine and the citadel was built by the reaper's. Maybe the thare is a last ditch effort to influence Sheppard once he boardes the crusible
Just as an argument: Prothean's VI indoctrination detector might not be perfect. Just like antiviruses can miss viruses. Since Shepard is obviously special he could've received a special treatment of indoctrination that's harder to detect.
I was always so into this theory. My far fetched dream was mass effect 4 with you having to fight your shepard at the end. Could be so emotional/dramatic. But thats obviously way too much, and would never happen.
I’d have to to disagree on this. Shepard isn’t really indoctrinated to the extent of Saren or Tim, but he has spent considerable time around reapers and reaper tech. Also, harbinger has had his eyes on Shepard since me2 so he probably focused on trying to indoctrinate him the most. The indoctrination “hallucination” starts when Shepard is knocked out on his way to the beacon. Everything from then on is an attempt to indoctrinate Shepard. If it succeeds, then he will not wake up with the blue or green endings. If it fails, then you will have the cutscene where you wake up in the rubble (on Earth) with the light of the beacon still emanating. The destroy ending is there because Shepard would obviously notice something was wrong if he only had choices to accept the reapers.
I agree with you on the point of Vendetta not declaring Shepard as indoctrinated, i think Shepard’s first attempt of indoctrination occurs at the beacon when Shepard gets knocked out.
The main idea of Indoctrination Theory is not that Shepherd is indoctrinated, but that he is going through the process of Indoctrination. His choices determine how close he is to being Indoctrinated by the Reapers. It's these choices the Reapers are influencing.
This idea that choice is important is supported by the interaction with the Catalyst at the end of ME 3, who could have very easily killed Shepherd
1. The Shepherd of ME 2 & 3 is not the same Shepherd of ME 1. He has been rebuilt from death, by Cerberus, under the watchful eye of Miranda Lawson. This rebuilt Shepherd spends much more time interacting with Reapers before the ending of Mass Effect 3. This interaction is what would lead to indoctrination. Vigil did not interact with this rebuilt Shepherd
2. If the Illusive Man wanted to indoctrinate Shepherd, why not build an Indoctrinated Shepherd at the beginning of ME2? Miranda Lawson had to be stopped from implementing a controllable Shepherd
3. Vigil, the Prothean AI, is found at the end of ME 1. Upon first interacting with it, Wrex describes it as, "Pretty badly damaged" There is no telling if it could actually detect indoctrination in all beings. Just that it feels it could in Saren.
The Shepherd it interacted with was not the rebuilt Shepherd of ME 2 & 3
4. 5:28 "He [the Catalyst] either lies about all of them, or none of them." Why is this true? He allowed Shepherd to live. If his goal was to simply get Shepherd out of the way, he had many chances to kill him.
The Indoctrination Theory was a brilliant bit of deduction that spent at least 1 1/2 hours giving detailed questions to be answered and evidence.
Without getting into anything else, I'd like to point out that there's a major flaw in your argument (a straw man fallacy, actually). In your argument, you characterize the Indoctrination Theory as stating that Shepard is indoctrinated throughout the final game (or that it happened at some point). Your evidence is then designed to refute that thesis. However, that is not what the Indoctrination Theory posits. Instead, it says that throughout the game, the reapers are TRYING to indoctrinate Shepard, but he successfully exerts his will to keep from giving in. This is then why the VI doesn't detect indoctrination in Shepard, because they haven't been indoctrinated.
And thinking about it this way, it explains why the Starchild gives you the destroy option. If Shepard was already indoctrinated, Starchild would not have given them this option. They wouldn't have given them any option. Why would they? They would have already won. The reason they give Shepard the option is because up until that point Destroy was the only option in Shepard's mind. If Starchild would have omitted it, it would have been a red flag to Shepard, since destroying the Reapers is why he was there in the first place, and they would have seen through the lie. And in that case, you're right that Refusal would be the only other positive outcome (but only if Destroy isn't there).
To put a finer point on it, think about the 3 choices as presented by the Starchild. Destroy is the only one that has any negative consequence (which incidentally is the theme of the entire series - living with the consequences of your actions). If the Starchild is impartial (as he claims) then he wouldn't spend so much time trying to sell Shepard on Control or Synthesis. He would just simply lay the 3 options out without trying to influence him.
Anyway, this went on longer than I'd planned. Curious to hear your thoughts on my rebuttal to your rebuttal.
Well for starters, I've gotten the "You don't understand the Indoctrination Theory" comment a few times. As I said in the video, there are several versions of the Indoctrination Theory. My rebuttal is against the idea that the endgame is just in Shepard's head, and against the theory that Destroy is the only real option.
Notice, the Catalyst doesn't *try* to get Shepard to surrender and let the cycle continue. He only accepts it if Shepard chooses not to choose. It could have been presented as 4th choice; if it was, that may have even further encouraged Control or Synthesis.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment
Can you link me to a version of the theory that states Shepard WAS indoctrinated the whole time? Not trying to be snarky, I've just never heard the theory presented as such, except by people who didn't understand the theory. More to the point, an Indoctrination Theory that posits Shepard was always indoctrinated would fold in on itself. If Shepard were indoctrinated the whole time, why would he still be fighting? The Reapers would have already won. That's why the theory states that they were TRYING to indoctrinate him, and continually failing.
As to why the Catalyst doesn't present the 4th option: how could it? How would that conversation go? "You can destroy us, control us, merge with us, or do nothing and we'll wipe you all out." That would not be an option for Shepard. She wouldn't get that far just to lie down and die and let the Reapers win. It only works as an ending if Shepard doesn't know the consequences of choosing Refusal.
@@HorizonsEndComics I don't have a link to any source for those alternate versions, I've just read it in places like reddit and Facebook, with people discussing it and laying out "evidence." As well as word of mouth with people I have personally spoken to.
@@TheKingdomEntertainment
Gotcha. Sorry, wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was just really curious to see how anyone could argue that version of the theory. Have you watched Clever Noob's documentary series on the Indoctrination Theory? There are 3 of them, and they're on the long side, but they're really well done. He compiled all the various parts of the theory, presented it in a pretty compelling way, but he also points out a lot of the arguments against it. Some of the rebuttals he argues against with evidence, some he agrees with. The link to the first one is below. If you haven't watched any of them, you should check them out.
ua-cam.com/video/BSE0osxQvA8/v-deo.html
Honestly bioware should just take credit for the theory and fill in the plot holes
Honestly there aren't really even any plot holes in the theory, Vendetta and Javik can only tell when people are indoctrinated, not when an attempt is being made to indoctrinate them. That also relies on Shepard being indoctrinated before making physical contact with Harbinger's beam, and his only other arguments rely on the events after the beam as being real and not taking place during indoctrination. A lot of the Indoctrination Theory has to do with that entire sequence being fake, and he ignored that, rephrasing it completely to suit something he could argue against.