Mass Effect 3: Dismantling the Indocriation Theory (Official Debunk Video)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2019
- Hello there!
Important links and information are in this description!
This video is a great example of Occam’s Razor everyone. The theory makes things WAY more complicated than they need to be.
I've decided to take another crack at the Indoctrination Theory. Since my last video garnered so much criticism, this one is more aggressive and more detailed. I did my absolute best on this video and I personally find it very compelling. I learnt from my mistakes and have drastically improved my arguments. The last video was suppose to be more relaxed, with just me explaining my ideas. This video however, is more of a legitimate attack against the theory. I hope those of you that watch it through its entirety will also see it as a credible source of information against the theory.
If you need more clarification, feel free to watch my prior upload regarding the Indoctrination Theory. This video is much longer than my last, but it also covers more ground and does a better job at conveying my ideas. Most of the arguments from my last video are also present in this one, so it is not required to watch the last one to understand this one better. However watching the last video may help you see where my thoughts originated.
Cheers!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPOILER ALERT: This video contains footage from Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3. Including the ending and consequences of Mass Effect 3. View at your own discretion! You have been warned.
Reviews of the Extended Cut DLC that are against indoctrination:
- • ME3: Extended Cut Anal...
- • Mass Effect 3 Extended...
Video I based my original arguments against:
• Video
IT wiki page:
indoctrinated.fandom.com/wiki...
Other online resources:
- / was_the_indoctrination...
- fextralife.com/forums/t507705...
DISCLAIMER:
All content shown is owned by BioWare and EA Games respectively. I do not claim ownership over Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, or Mass Effect 3 and their respected soundtracks or clips represented in this video. This does not however, extend to my commentary. I claim full ownership over the video's narrative/commentary aspects. - Ігри
TIMESTAMPS:
Skip the intro- 2:32
Rana Thanoptis- 2:38
Indoctrination- 5:44
The Beam Rush- 10:30
The Citadel- 18:35
The Illusive Man on the Citadel- 24:38
Into the Catalyst- 32:48
Extra Information- 44:24
Conclusion- 58:56
Thank you!
Considering the cosmic horror themes of the mass effect series, im sad that indoctrination wasnt explored more. If not with shepard, it would have been cool if a party member like kaiden or ashley became indoctrinated at some point.
what do you mean, the illusive man is indoctrinated and you only get subtle clues till the final showdown, like for example his blue eyes
@@Cichyhub the iilusive man isnt a party member, hes the villian. The player doesnt have a close relationship with him.
Indoctrination was the main staple since the first game. The entire first game emphasis heavily on the Reapers ability to indoctrinate you and the use of other mind control species like the Thorian
@@Cichyhub Saren gave you subtle clues since his first appearance in ME1 also, see the blue highlights in his face and the tubes in his torso.
Imo, the Control, and Synthesis Endings are fun what ifs, kinda like there's the what if you, and your entire team dies off in Mass Effect 2.
Mass Effect doesn't do "What ifs", the Choices are always Paragon/Neutral/Renegade, and they always have an effect on the Galaxy/Team/Mission and or Shepard.
The manner in which DLC is implemented seems to also hard disprove "What ifs" as well, as to my knowledge every DLC and their Choices are canon: Terra Nova meteor, Kasumi, Zaeed, Project Overlord, Arrival, Eden Prime (ME3), Omega invasion and Leviathan. Etc. If they're canonising DLCs, then the notion of "What ifs" would seems to be gone, as DLCs are usually where "What ifs" are put.
I never liked the indoctrination theory main reason they give indication far too much credit if the reapers could just indoctrinate everyone they wouldn't need to invade if you actually look at indoctrination it's kinda weak take saren he was sat in a reaper for what appears to be months and you can talk him down with a 5 minute conversation same with the illusive man.
you're so far off the mark its terrible. you literally don't have an idea what you're talking about
@@urvermin2682 says the guy who just suggested I don't know what I am talking about dispite not actually saying a single bloody thing to back it up do you have any evidence to say otherwise or any actual thoughts in your head or you just a keyboard warrior.
You misunderstand indoctrination. It exists to further the final goal of the reapers, which is to make the strongest sentient species into a reaper to preserve it while wiping out the rest. They don't want to indoctrinate everyone they want to wipe out everyone
This is one the videos that have helped me understand why I don't like the IT.
I just hate anything that is "it was all a dream LMAO"
Also even before Shepard could EVER be indocrinated, Benezia stated how indocrination feels like. It's nothing like having a big f** dream to keep your mind entertained while your body goes the Reaper's way.
Your mind watches your body act against their will IRL, whatever it is the body is doing
If it wasn’t, why does the secret destroy ending have Shepard waking up in the rubble if London when we witnesses him burn. And if that is the case, how did Shepard magically make it from the Crucible to Earth when both are in two entirely different systems?
@@thebk247 his armor is pretty charred th. Also it's not that unbelievable, since if the crucible happened to be sent flying after the burst, the most likely place it would gcrash would be earth, due to its gravitational pull.
@@C4lmaria The Crucible was in the Widow System, not the Sol system
@@thebk247 The citadel, along with the crucible, were moved by the Reapers to Earth's orbit right after the mission in Cerberus headquarters. Also, anyway, in the end we make it to a "Conduit", which is a type of construct designed by the reapers to transport beam stuff straight to the Citadel, like the one we have found 2 years ago on Ilos. So Citadel could be in the literal Terminnus Systems, and a Conduit could still make the travel. That second part only explains the travel, not the landing on earth. The first part does th
I think that Bioware never intended something like IT and it covers some holes, but creates others, so it's very unlikely to be real. But one thing that doesn't add up if endings are real (not really one tbh, thanks to poor writing, but one in particular for me), is Shepard's survival in Destroy 5000+ ending. Why is he waking up under concrete? Why is he waking up at all? It never made any sense to me. I can't really think of an explanation. Any thoughts?
P.S. great video btw
Very interesting, thanks for bringing this up! I have seen bits of this argument before but hadn't taken the time to look into it extensively. From what I gather, Shepard is definitely killed/dead if he chooses either the synthesis or control ending. He is also proven dead in the destroy ending if you have low EMS (Effective Military Strength). The IT would say, If Shepard had low EMS and thus lower galactic preparedness, then he would become indoctrinated even if he chooses the destroy ending, just like the other decisions. Hence the reason he doesn't wake up. In this explanation, IT is automatically assumed correct (as most hardcore fans like to perpetuate) without any form of further explanation that can account for the details after said event (after the final decision) properly.
I have some problems with this explanation. For one thing, what does EMS have to do with Shepard's will power/mind anyway? I genuinely do not see the connection between the amount of forces Shepard is able to rally, and his ability to withstand Reaper indoctrination. Those two aspects are completely separate in my opinion. Now, if we just assume IT is true, it actually makes sense because while Shepard is unconscious/being indoctrinated at the end, if there are enough combined forces (high EMS score) to activate the crucible and hold back the Reapers, they would be able to destroy them on their own and save Shepard. But again even this doesn't hold much water, because now it's demoting the final ending to an even smaller decision than what I discussed in my video (reduces the IT theory's, "only 1 of the 4 decisions is the right one", to an even smaller, "only 1 of the 4 decisions is the right one BUT you also need high EMS, otherwise it's just as wrong as the rest").
Also, in every interpretation of the ending, Admiral Hackett says, "someone made it to the Citadel". This never changes, no matter what final decision is made. This in itself contradicts the IT because if the, "somebody" that made it to the Citadel was not Shepard, according to IT, the synthesis and control endings aren't even possible (those ending are just a means to Shepard's full indoctrination apparently, and are only available to Shepard in his own mind...Yet the game still plays out properly if you choose either of them?). If we ignore that massive contradiction, and say IT is still true, EMS shouldn't/wouldn't have any affect on the death the Shepard if the destroy ending was picked anyway. Because somebody else is the one who is activating the "real" crucible to initiate the destruction sequence. Shepard should in theory be alive if the destroy ending is chosen, because EMS would have no affect on Shepard personal capacity to withstand the Reapers.
As for the game at face value (ignoring IT altogether), I'd say the reason he is waking up has more to do with the player's overall investment in the game, rather than an actual story aspect. When we break it down, EMS, again, shouldn't be having an effect on Shepard's ability to survive the Crucible/Citadel breaking up after firing the destructive blast. Another thing to note, the mass relays still explode completely (not just the cores) if you do destruction with low EMS, even with the extended cut added in. Also, when the Normandy gets hit with the crucible's shock wave during the final cut scenes, the consoles and engines explode if you have low EMS, they stay intact in you have high EMS. These examples help support the idea that the game's narrative shifts slightly depending on how much time you put into the game. This in turn supports the idea that Shepard waking up ONLY after the destroy ending with high EMS and not just the destroy ending in general, has no real narrative value and only serves to slightly alter the story for the better if you invested more time in the overall game. In short, it's not just Shepard's "wake-up" scene that is affected by low EMS during the ending sequence. There are many little narrative shift depending on you're level of EMS. It's simply a reward for putting more time into the game. It's the "happily ever after ending" that a lot of people wanted.
I assume Bioware did this in the extended cut to help make us feel like our decisions matter more. There are more details in the story that help to support the non-IT "wake-up" ending over the IT "wake-up" ending (especially with the extended cut). For instance, when your love interest places Shepard's name on the wall with low EMS, they are distressed and slowly put it up under Anderson's tag. With high EMS, the love interest looks with hope up at the empty void of space and refuses to put the name up. This is the game telling us that Shepard really did survive the explosion. In IT this wouldn't make sense because the cut scenes shouldn't even exist. As for him waking up in concrete, all I can say is that it is likely debris from the Crucibles decent to earth. The hill that you rush the beam on doesn't have any concrete either, so we can't just say he's waking where he got beamed by Harbinger (as the IT likes to say). Don't get me wrong, it seems odd that Shepard would survive the fall to earth but that's why it's easier to say it's just a narrative reward for investing time into the game. Perhaps the part of the Citadel he was on had extra structural reinforcements? Who knows, all I'm saying is that it's POSSIBLE he survived the fall but it's easier to say it was just a reward for high EMS.
Those are my thoughts lmao, sorry it's so long! To recap: IT can't explain it properly because of contradictions and the face value argument has problems explaining how he survived the fall in the first place. So I'll say it's a narrative aspect to reward players. He wakes up because some people needed the "happily ever after" ending.
Thank you for bringing this up and thank you for your kind words! I really appreciate it.
@@consensus810 thanks for such detailed answer. The whole "high EMS reward" actually makes sense. I remember how in Max Payne 2 there was an alternative ending with Mona Sax surviving if you played on the hardest difficulty (which ended up being non-canon in MP3). Most likely the same thing in ME3. And ow many people actually got high EMS destroy ending? You had to play the multiplayer, the mobile app to increase readiness rating (always did it with save editor). With stock 50% rating (which was the case for 90% of the players), you'll never get to 5000 EMS. I can't say that I like ME3 endings all that much, but can't really say that I hate them either (w/ ext. cut of course. Original endings were way worse). And I'm just so tired of people spiting acid and pissing all over ME3 just because of them. The game on itself was amazing and had so many great moments (and not so great, like some plot holes, but ME1 and 2 had plenty too). I agree, it could've been better, but some people even comparing it to Andromeda. Toxicity around the game is just so over-the-top dumb - I bet, if endings were good (not "happy", but "good written"), then nobody would really complain about the whole game.
P.S. Forgive me for any grammar and punctuation mistakes, non-english speaker.
SIlentSNOOP No problem! Yes I agree with you. I believe the 5000 EMS was lowered to 3500 in the extended cut? I’m not sure if that’s the exact number, but I know for a fact it was lowered. It was ALMOST impossible to complete the game with 5000 EMS in the original cut. BioWare realized their mistake and lowered it to appease fans. It was simply too hard to complete with 5000 EMS (as you said, you needed to play multiplayer so much that you get up to about 100% readiness and all possible side quests in the main game needed to be completed. It was ridiculous).
People like to hate on ME3 for its poor ending. The entire fanbase supported the Mass Effect team until the ending was released. I don’t agree with people hating on it either. Like it makes sense, but I don’t agree. The developers had to crunch time to make the deadline, and they apologized with the Extended Cut DLC which was everything fans had asked for. People shouldn’t have been so vocal after the cut was released, but I can’t help but feel the IT helped fuel more hate.
@@consensus810 (I know its been over a year, but I still want to reply to this sorry). If you take the ending at face value, there is absolutely no way for Shepard to survive, the Citadel core exploded, Shepard drifted into space, without a helmet mind you, crashed down to London from space onto concrete rubble, and still survived, that cant even be called far fetched just impossible.
As to how EMS is tied to the ending, at least in the theory, its said that it represents how hard Shepard was actually opposing the reapers, as in Shepard with a sound mind would do everything in his power to stop them, so by not doing anything Shepard already started giving into the subconscious indoctrination while preparing (remember indoctrination is just subliminal suggestion, so Shepard suddenly deciding not to do his all to gather up as many forces as possible, could be seen as him subtly being led to do things that benefited the reapers), which in turn made his actual indoctrination at the end much easier, where as Shepard getting a max EMS rating would be him not giving into the urges not to do his utmost, and leads to him having enough strength to fend off the final indoctrination attempt at the end of the game.
Now in all fairness, I don't think that the developers actually intended for the indoctrination theory, but it does fill up all of the plotholes quite well, and makes for a pretty compelling story, that's yet to end.
@@thrax1831 No worries about the time, I try to respond no matter what! I appreciate the comment :)
It does seem like it would be impossible for Shepard to survive the explosion of the crucible and its descent through Earth's atmosphere, however a community coordinator at BioWare made a post in 2012 (prior to the extended cut) that stated he survives. So, take that as you will, but that means officially BioWare has endorsed Shepard’s breathing cutscene and his survival. It becomes difficult to analyze the outcome of a video game when people want to bring up how possible or impossible certain aspects seem. It’s a video game, and that means a lot of it doesn’t really translate well into the real world. It’s just easier to work with what we have, and what we know, rather than making assumptions about what is or isn’t possible in a digital fantasy. That’s what I mean when I say I like to take this game series at face value, just take what we know and process the ending accordingly. That doesn’t mean everything in the game has to translate properly to the real world, it just means we shouldn’t try and make assumptions when we have all the information available to us already. Sure, it should be impossible for Shepard to survive, but he does. The developers made that clear. So, as impossible as it seems, and no matter what people’s beliefs are towards the IT, Shepard survives in the high EMS destruction ending. That’s all there is to it.
As for how the IT explains EMS, I just feel like it takes away from the player experience as a whole. If someone decides not to do some side missions because they are super interested in the main story, or decides not to invest time into the multiplayer mode because they only ever enjoy playing single player, that shouldn’t be considered (on a gameplay level) as them being indoctrinated into ignoring resources. Shepard is a character in a video game that is played by a person. His/her actions are dictated by a person, and if said person chooses to skip or ignore certain things in the game it shouldn’t have some underlying connection to it, especially not one connected to the IT. It all boils down to what the player wants to do, and the IT sounds like it’s trying to create a narrative out of the EMS system where one doesn’t exist.
Overall, EMS only really exists as a game mechanic that brings reward and variety to the game’s ending. It has little narrative purpose beyond this. Looking into what the Extended Cut DLC alters and adds can serve as an example for this, as many changes were incorporated regarding EMS and the endings. The total EMS that must be achieved to be considered high went from 4000 to 3100, cutscenes depicting victory or death are shown differently depending on the players EMS score, and the relays completely exploding or remaining intact depend on whether the player has low or high EMS. Those are just a few of the changes that the Extended Cut brought to the ending with regards to EMS, and it all goes to show that EMS is a narrative tool rather than an actual aspect of the game’s story. It changes based on the player’s decisions, if they choose not to collect war assets, they get a worse ending.
Again, thanks for the comment. I don’t believe the IT was intended either, considering it was fan theory. I’m sure it stands as a compelling ending for some, but I feel like a broken record when I bring up the Extended Cut and all its changes. I played the game long after its release, meaning I never knew the Extended Cut was added later. Not once did I question the validity of the ending. I didn’t know IT was a thing, and when I found out about it, it didn’t make a lot of sense because I had already played through the game with the Extended Cut. IT was created by fans prior to the Extended Cut, fixed some plot holes and tried to rationalize the idea that there was a secret ending that was really creative and planned out (because so many fans were upset with what the ending actually was). Then the Extended Cut came around and fixed a long list of people’s problems, and subsequently put the theory to rest. If you still want to believe it because you like it, and you can competently rationalize it to yourself, then by all means go for it! Overall though, I just wished more people thought like you and would accept that it was never intended.
The Paragon and Renegade options are presented in the ending with their color shifted.
No way the Paragon option is Elusive Man's option and the Renegade option is Anderson's option.
I touched on this briefly in my video at 38:09.
@@consensus810 Vendetta tells you exactly why Control is a fake choice.
Um, you seem to forget that most of Paragon's reactions are: protective, comforting, relaxing, helpful and yes, often merciful, sparing and controlling.
Where as Renegade is the opposite and is usually the unhelpful and Ruthless asshat that blows stuff up and likes it.
Anderson is basically Renegade with enough Paragon to tow the line, where as the Illusive Man is debatably all Paragon and or Paragon corrupted by too much Renegade amplified by his Indoctrination.
Brilliant video.
What always perplexes me is that a theory should always welcome speculation.
"A theory that has withstood rigorous testing should be deemed to have received a high measure of corroboration, and may be retained provisionally as the best available theory until it is finally falsified and/or is superseded by a better theory."
If your theory can't withstand critique it's not a good theory. If you can't look at arguments made and give answers backed in further evidence then all you are doing is spiraling further and further into unfounded speculation. You cannot prove or disprove a idea completely reliant on faith, and the more you make up answers to questions without anything to back them up, that's what you're relying on. You are not using the evidence, any longer, to prove your theory, but instead taking your theory as _gospel_ and doing whatever it takes to justify your faith in it. Indoctrination Theory, to some, has become almost like a religion. Some will never be convinced that it just isn't a thing. But many of these people can't accept not being right, can't just go write a fanfiction that ties it all together in their playthrough. They need the game to tell them they're right, which is just wild to me.
I may wholehearted believe that Destroy is the only right ending, that Synthesis is horrific beyond belief, and that Control is cliche and we all know what would happen there. But I still know the intent is to give people 3 (or 4) options where the player is supposed to feel like what they did is right and they saved the galaxy. I can super easily turn every ending into a horror show just as easily. I like thinking that Control is there to trick a Renegade into killing themselves, and Synthesis is there for Paragons to do the same. That there is really only one right ending. But I _know_ that isn't some secret puzzle box only a select few are "capable" of realizing. I mean, sure, I'm not surprised an upper team of mostly all, like cis, straight men didn't really comprehend why Synthesis is the worst thing. But I appreciate what they were trying to say with it. Just like I think the kid was stupid to impose of everyone's Shepard but understand what he represents and can just choose to ignore him or deal with that representation in other ways.
Theories and headcanons are great. Being sanctimonious pieces of shit to everyone else you have to impose your will on is not. Forcing people to accept Indoctrination Theory is basically trying to indoctrinate people, which is kinda hilarious.
So, thank you. It’s not always easy to take on these big theories that try to take over the fanbase, but holy crap are they needed. There was no way I would have been able to make it through an actual Indoctrination Theory video, or post, but this lets me understand what everyone is going on about without pulling my own hair out.
I never hated the endings of ME3, at least after Extended Cut. I was more confused and upset at how blatantly unfinished they were, and how the BioWare higher-ups thought it was acceptable to release the game with the finale in such a state. Ultimately, I blame EA being greedy. Even as great as ME3 was, it needed more development time that it simply didn't get.
Coming here as a palette cleanser after watching a reupload of clevernoob's old video on the subject. His video has a few good points but some points were just excruciatingly dumb.
I never bought into IT. Shepard fighting indoctrination is a potentially amazing plot device, but only if it was revealed and resolved within the narrative before the ending. Not as some vague cliffhanger that makes one ending the “right” ending.
Also, if the catalyst is solely malevolent and indoctrination is capable of making one hallucinate detailed, lengthy visions of the future there is no good reason to assume that there’s even a positive outcome at all. There’s no good reason to assume that destroy actually destroys the Reapers. There’s no good reason to assume that all the options aren’t just whatever the catalyst wants. There’s no reason it should present Shepard with a choice or any explanation of any kind at all.
IT is average fan fiction at best and wasn’t necessary to make sense of anything. I’ll never defend the extremely vague original ending that lacked closure, but IT is little more than a fan response to a lack of a truly “happy” ending despite that everything about the circumstances of the story suggested the opposite would be the case.
Before the ending? Hell nah, thats what makes it cool. That theres hints of indoctrination scattered around the game but we dont really realise it and neither does Shepard and at the end of the game some of us pick the options which were promoted by Saren, illusive man and every other indoctrinated character... and only afterwards we realise we've been manipulated just like Shepard even tho we've been told through 3 fucking games control and synthesis options are what Reapers tell us to convince us of their harmlessness.
I dont believe the indoctrination theory but if it was what Bioware wanted it woulsve been an amazing way to show how easy it is to manipulate and convince someone to go against everything he fought for for years (and for players through 3 games) just because.
@@aw2584 This idea requires the assumption that destroy is the only “right” ending. That the other options have zero redeeming qualities. Which is simply untrue. What you’re suggesting is comparable to saying that players were literally indoctrinated to pick anything other than destroy because there’s no other possible resolution with any merit. Which is absurd. It requires assuming that everyone was fighting with the simplistic view that the Reapers were the issue. They were not. They exist because of the issue. They are a symptom of it. Stopping the cycle was the goal. Which requires understanding what led to it.
Put simply, the IT theory reduces the story to something far less compelling and for me personally, less interesting. A non-ending where no antagonist motivations are actually known.
Also, the Saren comparison that often gets used for synthesis is just not a very good. Saren submitted out of fear and allowed himself to be implanted. He was also indoctrinated. I’ve never seen anyone that prefers the synthesis ending allude to anything even remotely close to that in any way as for why they prefer that ending.
Never cared for the indoctrination theory myself. Shepard would have had to be indoctrinated faster than anyone in the game, since the Vis on Ilos and Thessia could both detect indoctrinated persons. The only beings (shown) that could do it that quickly were the Leviathans.
That being said, I go back to the “Vent Kid”. It seems possible that the Leviathans could have created the Kid as someone who Shepard cared for strongly, knowing that if Shepard ever encountered the Catalyst, it would find that image in Shepard’s mind and use it as a friendly face. I like to think that if Shepard hadn’t seen the Kid die, the Catalyst would have chosen the form of the person lost on Virmire.
Also, I don’t see Destroy as the “cannon” ending. I see it as the “We want to do a sequel and make more money!” ending. Once you play the Leviathan DLC, you really cannot justify Destroy.
The Reapers are the only thing in the galaxy keeping the Leviathans in check. If you destroy the Reapers, the smart thing to do would be to immediately EXTERMINATE the Leviathans. Otherwise they would have a galaxy “bending to their will” in short order.
@@jakephocas1396 I agree, but if it's the ending that is going forward into the next game than it's going to be canon. I'm sure there are still other possibilities though!
I like the *Idea* of Indoctrination theory, but... yeah, there's too much inconsistency
I think the fact that BioWare is making ME4 with a cannon ending to ME3 sort of puts all this discussion to bed anyways.
Agreed it seems its based on the reapers winning the last battle no matter the choice you make liaras time capsule seems to be the real ending and plan.
@@Chessheromusic what makes you say that? She's clearly alive in the ME4 trailer. I'm pree sure you can see some wreckage of reapers in that trailer.
Edit: BioWare said the destroy ending is apparently the canon ending
@@noobslayer10101 and she is clearly over 250 years older and London is a frozen wasteland.
@Laura McNeall i think it will still be the Reapers
@Tom Gibson yeah it was at a panel where they were asked about indoctrination theory and which end the developers considered canon. I can't remember exactly what they said but they mentioned Shepard being successful in his mission to destroy the Reapers. I'll see if I can find the article and come back and paste a link if I can. Plus like why have all those destroyed reapers and a clearly destroyed mass rely on the trailer.
in response to your point about the illusive man killing himself, i think its plausible to say that yea he was a representation of the reapers indoctrination but not the whole thing. the star child is supposed to be the more subtle agent. the star child wants Shepard to choose synthesis. and the illusive man serves to drive the player away from the control option, and then the star child speaks very poorly of the destroy option. presenting both options as being extreme, and then says synthesis is the best option because its a mediation of the two extremes and benifits all involved. and the star child lies because it is possible to get the geth and quarians to cease their war against each other and it says the destroy option will kill Shepard when in fact that's not true, you can see the breathing scene after picking destroy.
the illusive man serves to try and herd shepherd to making the choice the reapers want i think.
The Star child is literally Harbinger
My thoughts exactly regarding the "star child", very good points made.
If you care to read give it a look this is a part of my (unfinished) critique of the indoctrination theory, specifically on the child (and the nightmares that are directly related to it).
The star child is the first major key element of the theory, at least chronologically when examining the progression of the game. The major criticism is that it is never noticed by anyone other than Shepard. However the game itself starts with a very blunt attempt to sympathize with the innocence and the HUMANITY (which would imply it being real) of the child as we see it flying that model fighter around and only later does the shot close up on Shepard observing it.
From an aesthetic perspective, this does not suggest even a hint of the developers trying to make you question the reality of this occurence, but granted that this is only the beggining of the game you could say this could come later, even if in my opinion if they wanted to give you a hint they could start with the shot focusing on Shepard maybe squinting his eyes and THEN the shot would turn to the child, presenting some slight but dismissible distortions in his view.
As i said though, a hint of questioning the reality of the child only comes later when Shepard directly confronts and talks to it. This is where i can see why someone would believe that the indoctrination theory has its merit. The words of the child are very deep through their simplicity ("Everyone's dying", "You can't help me") but very vague at the same time and thus raise questions both in Shepard and the player. The latter may make the player more susceptible to thinking that something is off with the child but i don't think that's the point. The point i think is centered around the former, Shepard. Through this child the developers try to express and mirror the insecurities of Shepard when it comes to his struggle. He is hit with shock and is filled with despair when he sees the power of the reapers being manifested into such a familiar, safe place, Earth itself. But the main insecurity expressed is the realization that he can't help everyone, that he is bound to lose even his closest friends as he is finally directly, face-to-face, confronted with the unmatched power of ALL the reapers. Many point out that the child immediately vanishes and that this proves that the child is a figment of his immagination. However when it comes down to it, he turns around for something like 5 seconds, which i think would be enough for the child to go down the small distance needed to go deeper in the air-shaft and dissapear, after all it was standing at the back of the shaft before the turn already. I wouldn't think it would be audible either if it meawhile crawled back since Shepard was talking to Anderson and at the same time he had an ENTIRE FUCKING CITY COLLAPSING JUST OUT THE WINDOW BEHIND HIM. Believing that the sound the reapers make afterwards proves that they failed to indoctrinated him is cherrypicking i believe. They make that sound multiple times not only through while you're on the mission but also throughout the entire franchise (especially ME3). All in all i believe the statements by the child are a means of expressing Shepards internal despair and it's sudden dissapearance was not THAT weird and far-fetched.
Now at the end when the child boards the shuttle the only criticism i heard is that the soldiers were not helping it but were helping others get on the shuttle, i didn't see that though. The shot shows two CIVILIANS helping people get in the ship, one distinctively helping a woman approach the shuttle, then only AFTER they get in, a soldier tries to pull up the civilian who visibly was struggling to get on board. The child on the other hand almost immediately made it in, they also only closed the door when the child was well on-board. I also heard that it seemed weird that nobody else standing next to Shepard saw the child, but the shuttles were pretty far away and the reason that Shepard noticed and focused on the child was probably because he saw it before and could distinct it from the rest of the people. As i pointed out before though, the soldiers in and around the shuttle clearly acknowledged it as they waited until it was in.
Moving on to the nightmares, i'll first address the "Rachni oily shadow" thing and then move on to my subjective interpretation which i hope holds some truths.
People say that dreams of oily shadows are directly referenced by the Rachni queen in ME1 as a result of indoctrination. I'd like to point out 2 flaws here. First and foremost, the rachni queen never mentions DREAMS of oily shadows. She says "It forced the singers to resonate with its own sour yellow note, songs of oily shadows" a vague and poetic typical Rachni manner of speech (WTF DOES YELLOW NOTE MEAN???), i don't think what she EXACTLY speaks of truly becomes evident, but merely the essence of the words (as Rachni usually do), the fact that the rachni collective consciousness is hijacked by a dark (reaper) influence. Second of all can we even know if the Rachni dream in the first place so as to compare it to Shepard? Weird to humanize such an evidently different form of consciousness.
That being said i think the dreams of Shepard very successfully and "soberly" represent and express his initial fears as brought up by the child in the air shaft while still indicating that Shepard is very much in touch with reality, hearing the voices of his deceased comrades which he grieves and feels that he has or will let down. That does not indicate a gradually isolating, hollow individual that as you mentioned should start to disregard his people in favour of the reapers, as indoctrination generally does to its victim (f.e Saren betraying Nihlus with the slightest of regret and hesitation at the beggining of ME1). Shepard's fear of not being able to save everyone is expressed with the child burning everytime with him unable to do anything and reaches its peak when the stakes also reach their peak before the last mission where he comes to question even his ability to save himself, thus truly losing EVERYONE. His fear of everyone dying is expressed by the whispers of the people he has lost as i mentioned above.
soide Thank you for this! Well said buddy. Your shuttle observation is very unique; I have never actually broken it down enough to spot what you said, nor have I heard anyone else bring that up. Good on you for that! I like your breakdown, definitely agree with what you have said. It upsets me to see how many fans refuse to let this theory rest though. Even the dislikes on my video prove people just aren’t willing to let it go! I wish people could accept the game for how it is, and give it credit for having a good story (especially after the extended cut fan service).
@@consensus810 The ending is definitely not ideal and certainly does not live up to the reputation of the legacy of a trilogy of thrilling, almost unflawed storytelling. However after the extended cut and leviathan DLC's it's at the very least decent and reasonable. The indoctrination theory compelled a lot of people pre-extended cut since all they had to work with was a far more plothole-filled material and it came in pretty nicely to fill those holes. Even if it wasn't perfect it was better and more in-depth than what we initially had. But when the developers themselves go on and take the time to make extra content to support the canon storyline/ending and even officially deny that the theory is canon you're pretty much just hopelessly circlejerking around an already dead assumption that keeps showing its obvious holes as time goes on.
Another criticism in the critique i wrote is as following
"I would like to point out that game developers generally DO NOT make you go Sherlock Holmes on their stories and narratives (Unless we're talking about build-ups in which them making you question the story by leaving it blurred out only serves to make the revelation of the story at the end more appealing and intriguing).
Not even by any ethical means, it just simply isn't a good marketing/self-advertising tactic. Millions of people bought Mass Effect, I wouldn't think BioWare would bet that the overwhelming majority will take the time and research the "TRUE" ending. It's counterproductive in the long run in terms of sales and the potential of the consumer buying a future title developed by the company. If they wanted this to be the true ending they would at least make it FAR more obvious as they have done with all previous in-game mysteries.
Don't be surprised, unlike us, most people who weren't satisfied with the ending just went "Meh, fuck this shit" and rarely ever bothered again instead of going in and start drawing circles on small details just to feel the slightest degree of peace at heart. Companies know this to be the case and would most definitely avoid it, trying to satisfy the majority through face-value means.
"
And this is what this comes down to, unless you have conclusive evidence against the mainstream canon narrative of anything (ESPECIALLY A GAME), something that directly debunks the very BASIS of the canon narrative, you're just stuck with drawing circles on 50 different minor details and saying you've reached a conclusion. The thing is though that if the developers wanted the indoctrination theory to be true they would have made it OBVIOUS. It's completely against the nature of Mass Effect storytelling to work like a subjective puzzle. This is a very "cold" realization that many people don't want to reach since they've probably invested some time in eithe researching or developing the theory. All in all it's nice to see that a community can be so dedicated but in reality they'll never get what they want since it's sadly just not true, it does not add up, it would take much more than what they present.
Good work on the video, keep it up!
soide Again, couldn’t agree more. I even said some of that in my video! Particularly the conclusion. I’m glad I’m not the only one that feels this way about the indoctrination theory haha. I just don’t understand how so many people can cling to an irrational and dead concept after so long. There is just too much against it. Thanks for the kind words about the video as well. It took me quite a while, as I wanted it to be much more compelling than my last one! There are still some things I wish I did better, and some details I could have added. All in all I think I picked apart the theory as best I could and it was a great improvement over my last. Cheers buddy!
What kills me is that the child is as you say, a clear representation of the cumulative trauma Shepard has experienced and the sense of fear/anxiety he feels. There are so many times in ME3 where squad mates express their concern for Shep and the paragon responses reflect his insecurity and uncertainty about their chances of success.
Never mind that there is a whole fucking hologram that explicitly states up to the final fucking mission that no indoctrination is detected in Shepard and therefore it could’ve only happened in that final point under which Shep’s brain would’ve just melted.
I like the indoctrination theory only because it gives me hope that there was some sort of good, thought through ending for the trilogy. Yes, it doesn't make much sense in places, but with how crap the three endings are, all we really can rely on is fannon.
I understand, for sure. I totally get why people like to go along with it. I have a problem when IT fans try to deem it as a legitimate fact though. Rather than calling it a well written fan theory, they act like the developers were geniuses/masterminds and created it intentionally. It should be uniformly accepted in the mass effect community in 2020 that the theory was created by fans, and is just that, a fan theory. Not canonical or lore related.
@@consensus810 Yeah it's super definitely a fan theory. There shouldn't be any arguments, no one interpretation is more or less correct, when there's evidence that both disproves and proves everything. The ending is a situation where almost if not everyone came away feeling robbed, and resorting to elitism doesn't help. Totally agree with you.
@@consensus810 Even as a guy who likes the theory, it's still not the bandaid IT people seem to use it as. It would just make the game have 3 bad endings. 2 worse cause they just don't happen and the reapers win, and 1 where regardless of your choices all synthetic life is wiped out, but heeey organics get to live right guys?
@@sailtoharbor2223 You're actually wrong on this point! (about all synthetic life) :D The starchild says that you will die because you are part synthetic, however we absolutely know that in the 'perfect' destroy ending at face value, Shepard lives. (It's written as such in an official collectors guide). Also, EDI can also be alive exiting the Normandy, she is also synthetic and survives.
When questioned on twitter, community manager Jessica responded along the lines of "Well, do you really believe everything that the Starchild says to you? ;)". The geth were also referenced in this debate.
So even ignoring the entire IT debate, it has absolute been officially suggested that the starchild may not have been telling the entire truth to you at the end, and that there is the possibility that the Geth may have survived.
On the ending debate itself? Personally I think the IT is very compelling, and has many actual pieces of evidence ingame to support it (although some things people point out are not evidence). And in a way I think it almost doesn't matter whether they wrote it to be that way or not. Either they messed up, or they were secretly geniuses. Regardless, I think it's actually gone past the level of just the writing staff now and that their creation, shared with so many people, has now effectively taken on a life of its own in the same way as Star Wars did with the Expanded Universe before Disney shat all over it by retconning it out..
Another way to look at it is that every possible permutation of the ending, at face value or not, is true. The whole point of the Mass Effect universe is that it's supposed to be your version of the story and it has been suggested officially in the past that there is no canon ending*.
There are a lot of conflicting snippets of official debate on the subject, you can find pieces that point both for and against. And as pointed out elsewhere, they have no reason to definitively end the controversy. It keeps people talking about the game, allows them to try and please everyone slightly, and makes them more likely to buy the next thing in the series...
*Speaking of which, since a trailer for a new ME game came out only in December! (*with liara!? which definitely would make some stuff from ME3 canon, we'll find out what...)
Something tells me that we have far from heard the last of this debate! haha
@@cycorix4614 Yes, I agree with you. The release of the trailer for the next Mass Effect game has brought up the discussion all over again, as has the release of the Legenday Edition in the coming months. However, I'm rather hopeful that the next ME game will be able to bring closure to the topic and explain what the true cannon was/is.
I just wish the Catalyst took the form of Saren instead of the Star Child. The kid's acting is actually horrendous and I'd rather hear Saren's fantastic voice work through Fred Tatasciore.
Didn't the Leviathan create the Catalyst to solve the chaos and the Catalyst made the reapers? Not the other way round?
That’s correct, feel free to check out my most recent video on the Reapers!
@@consensus810 Will do, only found this vid today after finishing LE :)
@@ukLeeham720 That's awesome! I appreciate your comments :)
best mass effect theory video ever
So I just recently finished my playthrough of Legendary Edition and a friend of mine told me about the Indoctrination Theory. I have been on a 6 hour rabbit hole of videos for and against it. It raises good questions but makes some silly claims in others. The fact comes down to that the developers were so rushed for time they had to shit out what we got for the Face Value ending. My one thought to give the Indoctrination Theory credit for would be the possibility for the Citadel events being in your head (but not necessarily an attempt of indoctrination per say). In the Leviathan DLC, it shows that the creature takes you to your brain's shadow realm and talks with all sorts of different people's faces. Harbinger, being the ultimate Reaper daddy that he is, could have very well done the same thing in the final events of the game. Shep gets knocked out and brought to his brain's shadow realm which is a projection Harbinger is forcing on him and the events that play out are just Harbinger pounding visions in his head. Which is why with the so called "perfect" ending, Destroy, Shep gasps with breath back on Earth. Meaning within Harbinger's visions; Shep forced the Reaper's projections out of his head by "destroying" the concept. That could be the canon start for ME4 since they will need to pick a canon ending anyway. ME4 starts with ending the Reaper threat in a flashback into which comes from Liara's perspective, then jumps to whenever the teaser took place. This is all pure speculation of course but I'm just trying to rationalize the chaotic mess of what the trilogy ending really is. (And for what it's worth, don't want my choice for Quarian/Geth peace just be glossed over for the Geth to be destroyed two hours of gameplay later because some Destroy ending has to be the "perfect" one.)
Hallucinations
But this whole comment shows why the theory holds no water.
If the Reapers had claim over Shep’s mind then he’d obviously try to convince him to work for them NOT to take control or synthesize, let alone destroy. They would want him to become the general of the Reaper forces just like how they duped Saren. Even then, if Shep “rejects” it and wakes up then that means nothing fucking happened. The game never ended.
The indoctrination theory is fucking dumb.
I'm sorry but after the first 3 arguments I have to say you don't understand the indoctrination theory. If you are still active and interested I can write counterarguments but I don't want to start writing an essay if no one gonna read it.
Hey! Feel free to leave whatever information you’d like. I’m still around, just haven’t gotten to make a video recently. I’m not as passionate about this anymore, since I’ve come to the realization that people can’t really be convinced one way or the other with this theory, haha. I’ve been told countless times that I have no clue what I’m talking about, despite making multiple hour long videos on the topic.
Most of my points in this video are a direct response to an old video posted by CleverNoob, which to my knowledge is no longer up on UA-cam. So I apologize if the arguments seem odd without that context. Feel free to skip to the extra details and conclusion sections to get my thoughts overall. And feel free to check out my more recent videos!
first 50 second, heard "aboot", immediatly think "Hes one of my people who live in the great white north" XD i started Mass effect recently, so i'm pacing myself but also trying not to go in blind on some of the stuff I still dont get(the indoctrination being one of them since ME2 kind of messed that up after ME1)
Edit: and now, after way too much distraction and interruption, finaly done watching and I do enjoy the way you went about it logicaly and with fact that made sense for someone only starting their journey through the Mass Effect Story, I fully intend to try every class, every branching option and so on. But I do like that the fanbase made their own ending considering the orignal ME3 finale. Its a shame that they fight a losing battle when the dev pretty much confirmed without admiting it that the indoctrination, despite being interesting, is not the dirrection the game went by the end of ME. Side note..I had no idea who Rana was, I only explored half of the available space at the vermire's breeding facility so it took me some research on wikis and such to find who she was and why she was talking to me XD
Haha, glad to have you here! I Hope you enjoy your experience with Mass Effect. The theory is interesting that’s for sure. Just know that it was created by fans of the series after the negative reception of the ending of ME3. So don’t spoil too much for yourself!
@@consensus810 yeah I know, but the ending have been spoiled to me for years thanks to the internet. Considering I play on the legendary edition, I do have some pacing issue due to dlc being available from the getgo but I now found out about the ME2 reaper IFF countdown and considering getting a save editor to avoid it if I can, dont feel like missing out on Legion
38:21 nah, Destroy asked you to sacrifice a friend and extinguish a whole species (BILLIONS of individuals) in order to destroy your enemies, that is definitely a "screw your feelings and consequences, I'm completing my mission no matter what" ending. Renegade.
A Shepard that picks Destroy foes nothing more than prove the Catalyst correct in thinking that organics and synthetic people can't possibly coexist by annihilating every single sentient synthetic in the galaxy, including their dear friend, treating them as disposable "necessary sacrifices " do they can win the war. It's ruthless, ignorant and EXTREMELY appropriate for a Renegade Shepard.
Another thing unless it was covered somewhere in there. The prothean VI Vendetta on Thessia went into lockdown when Kai Leng shows up, stating that an indoctrinated presence was detected. Clearly the prothean tech is able to detect indoctrination and yet it spoke to Shepard and gave him information. Clearly he wasn't indoctrinated on Thessia.
If time aboard the dead reaper, time in close proximity to Sovereign, 2 days unconscious with object rho nearby, and time near the baby reaper, not to mention the myriad of other instances of him being in close proximity to reaper tech, then walking under the dead reaper larva(if you even save the base) briefly and the other comparatively limited exposure to reaper tech after Thessia just wouldn't do it.
Yes, thank you! :)
I did cover this, check out 44:41 if you're interested in hearing me argue this exact point. I'm my opinion this is one of the harder pieces of evidence that the theory has to defend itself against.
As you stated, he clearly isn't indoctrinated on Thessia, and more so, he isn't indoctrinated when he interacts with the VI again at The Illusive Man's base. This interaction is literally during the mission before Priority Earth, which means it's the second last mission in the entire game, essentially. I'm not sure how Shepard wasn't indoctrinated or undergoing some form of battle against indoctrination prior to the final mission, but also still somehow deep enough into its influence to have a mental break at the end of the game resulting in him fighting off the final stages of indoctrination... It just doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense.
@@consensus810 Agreed. Been a while since I fully heard out the IT arguments, but I just hit Thessia again today and had a "waitaminute" moment and felt like sharing.
I will disagree on 1 point though. There do actually seem to be varying levels of indoctrination. On Virmire, Saren talks about this. The more control the reapers exert the less capable the subject becomes. Husks and cannibals and banshees are near mindless drones with no free will. Agents like Saren and TIM maintain their mental faculties and often believe they aren't indoctrinated at all. In this case reapers exert subtle control, seemingly using suggestion to make the indoctrinated person believe they're acting of their own free will, when in fact they're following the reaper's orders without even realizing it. At this stage, they can still resist, as we see with Benezia, Rila, TIM, and Saren in their final moments.
Funny thing is this makes IT even less believable. Kai Leng was straight up indoctrinated and was still as capable as ever, yet somehow Shepard leapfrogs him in terms of being indoctrinated in that brief window between Cerberus HQ and and the end of the game? Aside from briefly being in proximity to a few reapers during the last mission, it's dumb to think he'd be so far gone as to be waging this massive battle in his mind.
I mean I get that ME3's ending wasn't what any of us asked for or wanted, but I facepalm a bit every time people go to such lengths to avoid facing the reality that they fumbled the last few minutes of a game. Like, shit happens dudes.
Anyways, nice debunk.
The entire point of the IT was to fully submit Shepard into being Indoctrinated. Why would Vendetta detect Shepard being Indoctrinated if the entire point of the IT theory is to fully make Shepard you know...Indoctrinated....Shepard Isn't supposed to be Indoctrinated at this point of the game. Shepard never is Indoctrinated at any point in the game..The whole fricking point of the ending choices of the and the theory itself is wether Shepard becomes Indoctrinated or fights off Indoctrination hence the Control and Synthesis succumbing to it and destroy fighting itoff. It's hilarious how some of you fail to understand the theory and everyone that disagrees with it always says this vendetta thing. Which makes me laugh honestly lol I'm not saying Boiware planned this or anything cuz they sure as hell did not. But it''s funny to see so many fail to grasp the theory and ALWAYS bring up this Vendetta argument which holds ZERO weight and shows your lack of understanding.
@@MistahJay7 no, the IT fanboys fail to understand how indoctrination works. They think it just happens all of a sudden, when it's stated numerous times to be a gradual process.
The point is if Shepard wasn't indoctrinated to any extent at this point(which would be detected) then he wouldn't go from 0% to 100% in the brief window of the Cerberus hq and Earth missions. That would be entirely inconsistent with the lore.
The IT theory is just a butthurt attempt to headcanon out an ending that fell short of expectations, and it has more holes than Swiss cheese.
@@Jarsia VI has only been shown to us to detect people that are fully Indoctrinated slaves. Shepard is not fully Indoctrinated yet and is still fighting off it off since the arrival DLC. The entire point of the IT theory is one last final attempt to finally submit Shepard into fully becoming Indoctrinated. If the VI were to detect Shepard as Indoctrinated then the whole IT theory wouldn't even make sense. Doesn't make sense why Harbinger would want to Indoctrinated someone that is ALREADY Indoctrinated and a full on slave of the reapers.I'm not arguing such a basic thing to understand anymore. Also I never said IT theory is headcanon or whatever. Never even said it was real or the true ending. Just saying stop using stupid arguments that have no relevance.
The original indoctrination theory that was created when the Retake Mass Effect movement rebelled against the original mass effect 3 ending was about Indoctrination taking place from the start of ME3. The little boy at the beginning of the game is basically Harbinger attempting to gain a foothold in Shepherds mind, which is why noone else seems to be able do see him. As 3 progresses Harbinger attempts to make Shepard susceptible to indoctrination through dreams and nightmares all centered around the boy you met at the beginning of the game. By the time you get to the ending, Shepards mind is starting to merge the dreams with reality which is why you see the trees and shrubs from Shepards Dreams everywhere in the charge the citadel sequence of the game. When Harbinger hits Shepard with the beam, he's making his move to fully indoctrinate and control Shepard and the final sequence of the game all takes place in Shepherds mind.
Points I'd like to make that you've missed
1, you forget that Shepard was implanted with tech to keep him/her alive after the loss of the Normandy. The tech would have made it easier for the reapers to gain a foothold in Shepherds mind, where as it would take them a lot longer to gain a foothold in normal "organic" mind like Ranna..
After number 2 ending you got Harbingers attention. Up until then the only reaper in the galaxy was Sovereign, who was cut off from the reast due to the prothians reprogramming the keepers. After the Arrival DLC the rest arrived making the reapers presence a lot more powerful. With the reapers now invading slow indoctrination to control people over the course of years is no longer necessary, meaning it will take less time to indoctrinate people as they won't be needed for very long. Unlike before when they where still preparing to invade.
Does Shepherd’s body have cybernetics in it?
Yes, at the beginning of Mass Effect 2 Shepard was resurrected through the Lazarus Project which was funded and performed by Cerberus. Shepard was given cybernetics implants to reconstruct his skeleton.
@@consensus810 and Cerberus has been experimenting on reaper tech since ME1. Gee… i wonder what type of tech gave them the ability to bring Shepard back to life?
@@thebk247 Is that a fact or speculation on your part? Although it is true that Shepard has cybernetic enhancements, it is never specified how complex they are or to what degree they are truly utilized. Unfortunately there is no way to prove whether Reaper technology was incorporated or not.
@@thebk247 It is also stated that TIM wanted Shepard to be fully himself when he had him rebuilt, hence refusing the controlling ship that Miranda suggested. It doesn't make sense to think that he would have used Reapper tech for the cybernetics knowing that it would affect Shepard's mind.
15:50 I dont think part of the theory is that the beam was an indoctrination beam, just that he intentionally missed since he just nailed a bunch of dudes running you think he be able to nail shepard, wasnt that much more difficult of a targer
Although the theory itself may not have stated that the beam was some form of indoctrination weapon, I either read about its speculation on a forum somewhere or heard about it in a video. No matter where I heard it from, it was still a speculative point that I wanted to get out of the way. A lot of the points I bring up throughout the video are in response to other people's answers across the internet as well as the theory itself, not strictly the theory. I apologize if that makes it confusing!
@@consensus810 no thats fine, I've never heard anyone say that though and honestly like you say the theory that it is an indoctrination beam just doesn't make sense
OR ME3 was just cluster fuck of bad writing ... im going to go with that.
I think Mass Effect 3 is possibly the greatest example of a fanbase not understanding the narrative of a story they spend hundreds of hours with.
The meaning of the word Crucible is a severe trial that creates something new. Say what you will about the story and ending, the purpose of the ending was always to present the player with a difficult choice that was tough to decide and would change the universe. How that choice is presented and visually plays out may be underwhelming but that is absolutely what it is.
There is plenty of evidence that shepard has likely been indoctrinated
The narrative of the story was that “resistance is futile” - Harbinger. Saren and the Illusive Man showed you exactly what happens with Green or Blue. Anderson showed you exactly what happens if you choose red. Every outcome ultimately leads to death. Be a slave or die fighting.
@@thebk247 personally i chose green
Hasn't bioware come out and confirmed ihe theory was purely fanmade?
Well, the theory has always been a fan creation. There was a period in time where a lot of people were trying to state that it wasn't created by fans, but rather, "found" by them. As in, the theory was implemented legitimately and intentionally into the game by the devs. However, this has never been true and BioWare has never stated that its true. I'm not sure if they have denied it either though? If they confirmed it to be false, I'd be very happy, but I haven't been made aware of that happening.
@@consensus810 it was from 5 days ago. A writer said "we weren't thst smart" in reference to the theory.
@@Fyrdman I'll look into that then! Thanks for letting me know. I can only imagine it was brought up due to the legendary/remastered edition being released.
Edit:
Turns out you're correct! So happy people can finally put it to rest. Far too many people have been believing it was intentional for far too long. Thanks again for bringing this up!
@@consensus810 No problem.
Tbh, the theory was essentially a coping mechanism, to ease how hurt people were by the ending of 3. That being said, I don't know how they could have really made a satisfying ending for 3. I have a feeling that, no matter what, people would have been upset at how it ended. No one wanted to let go of the series.
@@Fyrdman That writer doesn't exactly speak on behalf of BioWare. There is one developer who said that Indoctrination was on the table and now one is saying it never came up. Best to take it with a grain of salt when these minor developers speak and wait for the main developers who actually speak for BioWare.
I also played didn’t play this series until long after the series had ended. I knew very little about it, and had cleverly avoided most spoilers, so I was mostly going in blind (the only thing I did know about was the choice on Virmire). I can safely say that the idea that Shepard was indoctrinated never once crossed my mind. I hadn’t even heard of the theory until I stumbled across your other video, where you share the comments from the writers confirming that it was never a thing.
The thing to remember with any fan theory is this. If they were real, and intended by the writers, they wouldn’t be theories, they would be canon. And this applies to all theories, whether it’s the pokemon theories that Team Rocket are the good guys really, or that Ash has been in a coma since episode 1, or this indoctrination theory, they are just theories. They only become real in a death of the author situation (in which the original writers intentions no longer matter because the fan interpretations have become canon).
Having fan theories is fine. I do enjoy plenty of fan theories myself (especially the team rocket theory above) because they are fun. Whatever sparks your imagination is great. You can have your fun parties where you theorise about Shepard’s dream states and internal battles, he may be having. It’s your fan theory. But don’t force it on others. That is the thing which is irking me somewhat about this particular theory.
And while I’m on the subject, for the theory to hold weight you are saying that the only correct choice is Destroy and all overs are invalid. I am someone who (after a lot of agonising deliberation) chose Control, and you are telling me I am wrong?
I’m happy to have a debate about the merits of each option, and if you chose Destroy or Synthesis then that is fine, but I do not accept that there is a wrong choice. Control was what I went with, and i believe it fits best with my story. Btw I didn’t get the synthesis option when I got to choose (not 100% sure why) so I only made the choice between Control and Destroy.
Couldn't agree more, thank you for your comment! I have been saying the same thing for a while now, that people can believe whatever they'd like for their head canon. However when they start stating that their head canon is the true ending and everyone else is for whatever reason incorrect in their interpretation, it becomes an issue. If people enjoy the theory, they have every right to enjoy it; but they shouldn't be spreading false information about it being the true canon or belitting others that disagree with them.
@@consensus810 you're welcome. I probably wouldn’t mind so much if it weren’t for the fact that this theory seems designed to make Destroy the only valid ending. And I am so tired of people saying that Destroy is the "correct" ending. None of them are more valid than the others. The whole point is that there is no perfect option, Shepard has to make a sacrifice to save the galaxy, you can argue over which one is best but that is open to interpretation.
Hi, I'm a week late but I'm going through my yearly mass effect phase again, you know how it is.
I headcanon the indoctrination theory and I don't really see people who picked control or synthesis as people who made the 'wrong' choice. It'd be more accurate to say the indoctrination theory is my headcanon because I picked destroy, it just makes for a more interesting end in my opinion. The toxic fans who claimed IT was 'correct' and acted like douchebags have long since died out.
@@feedmeyourcows9883 I wish you were correct, but I've had my fair share of rude comments from people defending the theory as if their life depended on it. I agree with you though, if there is one way for someone to interpret the ending in a manner that appeals to them the most then have at it! I really wish more people were inclined to think this way, and it seems that over time more people are. However, there are certainly still people that are angerly defending the theory and how "canon" it is despite everything that has best said. Hopefully they will come around soon enough.
Lmao, Shepard is indoctrinated you guys. Like, the reapers who have spent millennia purging organic suddenly wanna trick you into synthesis or control lolol. Dude, the indoctrination theory is the truth haha.
…please like my fan theory you guys, I can’t cope with BioWare fucking up the ending to my space fantasy
I think IT is so enticing because otherwise the ending of 3 is pretty bad. It's cinematic, and I think it's a good series of choices, but it doesn't much compare to fighting eagle Darth Vader or a giant terminator made out of thousands and thousands of people. There's no big boss fight at the end, there's just this choice. Call it a failsafe, backdoor indoctrination. If Shep makes it to the crucible, the code executes. So you, the player, are given choices by the devil himself. A chance to compromise, no more deaths, harmony between synthetic and organic life. Destruction would directly kill your allies: Legion and EDI. Or you can refuse to play the game, and die a martyr, letting the next cycle figure out a better way (if they even make it as far as you did). You have to call the devil's bluff, and destroy is the only option that beats him.
But at the end of the day, IT is just a massive cope for bioware failing to land the plane well. I can't blame them too much though
I love the idea that Shepard was indoctrinated; however, I think it all can be disproven very simply. Indoctrination can occur by being in proximity to Reaper technology. If that’s the case, everyone that uses the Mass Relays and visit/live-on the Citadel would be subjected to indoctrination due to them both being created by the Reapers. It would be the absolutes easiest way for them to control the organic races.
That's a good point, thank you for raising it!
What about the arrival dlc when shepard encountered the reaper artifact shown to him by dr kensen
Actually not necessarily true cause the mass relays and the citadel were ment as abit for a trap, so it's entirely possible the reapers intentionally made it so that nether the relays nor the citadel would indoctrinate on there own
@@hyperscion5749 if shepard is already indoctrinated it wouldnt be relevant
Being close to Reaper Tech causes Indoctrination, we see this with Arrival DLC and with the Derelict Reaper
Shepherd has also been in contact with an absurd amount of Reaper tech compared to everyone else in the Galaxy
I think the Mass Relays and the Citadel are exempt, if they weren't then that'd be a plot hole in general, no matter if IT is true or not (and it isn't, it's just really fun headcanon that people need to stop taking seriously).
I think you didn't understand the theory...
The Indoctrination theory doesn't state that Shepard is indoctrinated. It states that the reapers are trying to indoctrinate him all through out the entire trilogy and the last 30 minutes, after being hit by the harbinger beem, is an attempt to finally break him and get him indoctrinated. Shepard is only indoctrinates, according to the theory, if he chooses the Control/Synthesis endings. If he chooses to control the reapers he is following in the footsteps of the Ilussive Man. If it is synthesis then he follows the same path as Saren...
As for the evacuation scene you can see your team mates in the ending scenes when the normandy crashes on a planet or in the rest of the extended cut. So it is completely irrelevant the level of military preparedness...
Moving forward to Mayor Colts and when he orders a regroup it doesn't make sense for Admiral Anderson not to report he is still there and not request for reinforcements... Especially when he is about to follow Shepard into the beam...
When confronting the Illusive man is not the only time we see shadowy figures and wispres. We also see them in Shepard's dreams (when chasing the small boy). It is also confirmed by what is told by the Rakni queen.
Regarding the reaper upgrades on the Illusive Man why is he the only one receiving those kinds of improvements? For example banshees where very powerfull biotically and didn't get any hability similar to that of the illusive man.
As for the confrontation with the Illusive Man. Here is proof that the Illusive man represents the part of Shepard falling to the indoctrinated and Anderson the part that is holding on:
The Illusive man forces Shepard to shoot Andreson in his left abdomen. After the confrontation is over and Anderson passes away/out we can see exactly the same wound on Shepard... Shepard was not hit before there. Not even in the confrontation with the shield marauder, who shots shepard in the right shoulder.
As to why Shepard has to break out of the indoctrination twice. First of all it is a continuos attempt to indoctrinate and weaken Shepard and every other organic... Secondly I think it is all a play in Shepard's mind and not an actual break out of the indoctrination attempt by the reapers. If Shepard actually managed to break through the indoctrination attempt he would wake up back on Earth as he does in the destroy ending.
I won't continue debunking the entire video. I think you should take a look at the documentary by CleverNoob take notes and then try to question the theory...
I appreciate your explanation but I can assure you I understand the theory and I've heard it all before. This video is over an hour long and it's difficult to produce content of that length without having done the research. Clevernoobs video is what compelled me to make this, so I have seen that at well.
I just dislike the theory and I did my best to counter it's many statements. The internet does not paint a clear picture of this theory and my video attempts to cover everything I read and was able to find. Many of us are set in our ways and will not be convinced otherwise, me included.
@@consensus810 I am sorry but when you say that the theory states Shepard is indoctrinated and the Prothean AI should have detected that indoctrination. And that not detecting that Shepard is indoctrinated debunks the theory for me it is like you haven't seen Clevernoobs or Game Theory videos... The most concise definition of what the theory is about is in those vídeos. Shepard is only indoctrinated if he chooses the Control/Synthesis endings. Not in any moment prior to that..
@@Yordanovskii These VI’s did not detect the sleeper agents that sabotaged the construction of the Crucible as stated by Vendetta.
For the past 10 years, everytime I encounter someone who claims that the IT doesn't make sense, turns out the person didn't really get it. Not that this matters anymore, bioware has said the IT is not canon, but I'm with you @yordanovskii, IT would have been great for a following ME game.
I have seen the Clevernoob video, I have stated that a few times in other comment threads. Clevernoob’s video is actually what compelled me to make this “debunk” video in the first place. His video was good, but the points he brought up could still be argued against. The theory was never true, so in that regard, no matter how good his points were, they were still incorrect. Most, if not all of my arguments from my first 30-minute video were based directly off the Clevernoob video. This more recent “debunking” video was more refined but still incorporated a lot of the same points. Just because Clevernoob was able to think abstractly and come up with ideas that supported the IT, doesn't mean there was no other way to explain them. By that I mean, since his points were in complete support of the theory (which is a non-canonical fan theory that has officially been denied), they were somewhat biased and presented in a very close-minded way that ignored any other possible explanation.
Clevernoob’s video and the Game Theory videos may truly be the best source of information regarding the Indoctrination Theory in your opinion, however I spent hours reading through old message boards, forums, and threads across the internet to gain a vast amount of knowledge on the theory and how it has been interpreted over the years. At the time of this video’s creation, if you look up, “Indoctrination Theory” the Wiki page was one of the first results. I pieced definitions together from countless sources to develop as coherent of an understanding of it as I could, that doesn’t mean I was concise though. The theory itself is interpreted differently by different people, so I don’t really think it’s worth pointing out how concise one person’s definition may seem. There are a plethora of explanations pertaining to how different aspects of the theory play out, and I tried to provide my own answers to counter the large mix of explanations. That’s why my video lacks any further structure other than what is present. I have timestamps to indicate when a new section of the video begins, but what is said in each section does not always flow smoothly together. The reason for that is that I was providing answers for more than one narrative. I have had a lot of people commenting to tell me, “You don’t understand the theory, I have never heard anyone argue in favour of *insert point I argued against*!”. This isn’t true though, because as I’ve already stated I pulled definitions and explanations from across the internet. Just because one person has one very specific view of the theory doesn’t mean it’s how everyone else views it too. Sure, the main idea is the same, but there are differences in the details.
Now, with regards to me saying the VI should have detected Shepard’s indoctrination, yes, I stand by my statements. Please feel free to re-watch the section in which I discuss this (45:00) and also read the definitions that I display on the screen. My statements are in response to the Wiki definitions, not Clevernoob or anyone else specifically. The point I’m trying to get across is that the VI doesn’t detect any indoctrinated life forms when it speaks with Shepard on Thessia AND on the Illusive Man’s base (which is just one mission prior to Priority: Earth). If Shepard is undergoing the process of indoctrination throughout the series, then it would have been almost entirely complete by the time he interacts with the VI at the Illusive Man’s base. If he hasn’t been undergoing indoctrination throughout the entire series, then that means Shepard was somehow quickly indoctrinated at the very end of the game (which goes against a lot of the lore in the series). Neither of these explanations make much sense in my opinion because we legitimately cannot know at what point enough indoctrination is enough for someone to be deemed indoctrinated. What is the threshold? When does an individual go from normal to indoctrinated? If it’s a process, when is it noticeable? These are the types of questions that the theory struggles to answer in Shepard’s case. Whether he’s undergoing indoctrination or fully indoctrinated, his experiences seem to be much different than those that have been indoctrinated before him. Based on all this, it is easy for me to say that Shepard is not undergoing indoctrination and as a result cannot be indoctrinated at the end of the game.
You say that he is only indoctrinated after picking synthesis or control, but that’s beside the point I’m trying to make. Synthesis and control should not lead to an indoctrinated Shepard if the indoctrination process had not already been underway. There is very little hard evidence that suggests Shepard is undergoing indoctrination throughout the series and many of the claims seem to only surround the third game.
Anyway, I answered your statement about the control and synthesis indoctrination argument in the video at 50:16 as well.
You got a good voice, just putting it in there
Thanks, I appreciate that! I'll try to put it to good use again soon haha.
As far as the ending thing goes I've got two points. 1st you can literally die in ME2's ending and be perfectly fine in ME3. Bioware has stated multiple times that your choices matter but ultimately this is Shepards story. You can actually go through the entire ME1 without ever recruiting Garrus and still by ME3 Garrus says there is no Shepard without Vakarian. So yes very much the Developers can indeed give you paths and other decisions that are canonically wrong. It happens multiple times through out the entire series. And as far as the endings go all IT is telling us is that Shepard hasn't even fired the Crucible, for all we know the crucible destroying synthetics, was invented by the reapers was all just a bunch of BS if IT is completely true.
Yes, I understand the implications of the theory, but personally I dislike the ambiguity of the whole situation. If the developers can give us endings that are canonically incorrect, why does that automatically verify the validity of the Indoctrination Theory? Who's to say that the theory is the perfect canon in a game that wasn't meant to have another follow-up game? A game that was purposely meant to have multiple endings and no further storyline can be interpreted in many ways. This all comes down to personal preference, and I personally don't like the idea of my final choices meaning nothing in the name of the theory. As I stated in my video, if the theory is correct then only 1 out of 4 of the endings is the, "right" choice. Only 1 out of 4 of the endings results in Shepard being given the opportunity to make a difference. Not to mention it means we don't actually get to see how the true ending plays out. That's a worse outcome than what was given to us with the original release, in my opinion anyway.
Fans complained that their choices and decisions didn't matter enough, so the developers released the Extended Cut DLC to try and make amends. One of the changes in the DLC was an added fourth ending regarding the Catalyst. If you shoot the Catalyst, Shepard's galactic cycle loses the Reaper war and what they left behind is used to aid the next galactic cycle. So, the developers added an ending in which Shepard can legitimately lose. This added ending based on fan complaints means nothing if the theory is true. Why would they go through all that work for nothing? All in all, I think you understand what I'm getting at. I like stories that give me closure and the theory simply doesn't give me any. Others will disagree with me but that doesn't mean my criticism of the theory or my interpretation of the game are invalid or incorrect.
I appreciate your comment, thank you!
Garrus is also in me2 you know -_-
I’d honestly laugh if Liara survived to ME4 and during the story we find out that Shepard is a Reaper
@@consensus810 probably because the series put heavy emphasis on Indoctrination and that ME1’s entire premise revolved around it and other means of mind control. The Rachni queen tells us over and over what it looks like as they see everything in colors(fully explained in ME1) and then we see these exact things during Shepards dreams in ME3.
8:30, there is a reason the reapers are taking their time with Shepard indoctrination, the codex lays out that a quick and powerful indoctrination would leave the subject a husk of their former self. Harbinger and the leviathan AI want Shepard as strong as he / she is for future cycles. Shepards mental fortitude is one part of why it is taking so long, another is his relatively low rate of contact with reaper artifacts that would indoctrinate quickly like the scientists on the dead reaper / cerburus forces implanting themselves with reaper tech. But the majority of why shepard remains largely non-doctrinated is years of indoctrination are required before it takes hold of an individual while leaving them at full potential. If a subject is strong willed like Shepard, not only will the process take longer in order to harness all that potential without effecting effectiveness, but the attempt will also be better resisted due to the mental fortitude. In the case of Shepard, it may take nearly a decade for indoctrination to start to effect their actions.
How do we know the reapers want Shepard? In ME2 Shepard is KO for 2 days around a reaper artifact and indoctrinated forces (by happenstance just after this event is when the "starchild" starts showing up) they easily could have killed him anytime yet when asked if shepard should he killed, Harbinger specifically says "no we need him /her" what for? to continue messing up their plans for harvesting thr galaxy? Likely not
exactly. there were so much point the author of this video has not completely thought through, but it's so much I'm just too lazy to type that lmao
@@noahnachnameerforderlichlo2879 the indoctrination theory is full of plot holes it's also basically just it was all a dream ending that would make the already shit endings even worse.
Seems people believe what they want. People who believe in the theory ignore or dismiss the holes so big you could drive a truck through and those that dont do the same. In fairness there are good arguments for both. In the end though Bioware denies it and that means from here on out the games will be based off the indoctrination theory being false.
@@justsomeguy4099 Is there anything I said that isnt correct? Im not saying the indoctrination theory was intended by bioware, im saying its the only way the ending makes any sense
@@veterankarlos5723 What are the plot holes?
I have a number of statements I'd like to address.
1. Hackett talks about how the Crucible will dispense the energy, and in what form, wondering how the energy can be used without killing everyone. The Crucible was designed to function with the Citadel to destroy the Reapers. Nothing more. Nothing less.
2. How is Shepard closer to the beam on London if he was further away from it before he was hit by Harbinger?
3. How does the Illusive Man's appearance explain the existence of the oily shadows and whispers if Saren and the Cerberus troops were also implanted with Reaper tech? They couldn't control anyone or produce the whispers.
4. During the citadel confrontation with the Illusive Man and the conversation with the Leviathan AI, there are no windows present. Shepard is exposed to space. Yet, in Mass Effect 1, Shepard and his squad had to wear their helmets to survive.
5. When the Leviathan AI explains each of the choices in greater detail, brief visions of each outcome appear which shows the exact same thing that happens after the respective choice was made. Why? Why do they even appear in the first place?
6. If the player has a low EMS and destroyed the Collector base, only the destroy option is available. If the player has a low EMS and the Collector base was kept, only the control option is available. Why would the destruction of a space station that has nothing to do with the crucible and the citadel have anything to do with the final choice(s)?
7. Shepard and Anderson's weapons swap after Shepard is blown away by Harbinger. When Shepard is blown away by the explosion in the destroy ending, his weapon changes back.
8. After the events of Sanctuary. EDI tells Shepard that the Reapers are repulsive, and that they are devoted to nothing but self preservation. She was willing to fight to the death. But in the Synthesis epilogue scene, she goes back on her word and seems pleased that the Reapers are helping to rebuild, and talks about how everyone would transcend mortality, Harbinger in ME2 said something similar. Everyone seems to go along with being with the Reapers even though the whole point of the series was to destroy them.
9. In the control ending, Shepard's speech is similar to that of Sovereign's speech in ME1. They both talk about imposing order. Shepard keeps saying things like "The man I was." and "The Many." The Reapers consider themselves many. The Reaper on Rannoch says this. Like in the Synthesis ending, people don't seem to mind that the Reapers are still alive.
10. During the funeral scene. Why does the crew assume that Shepard is dead? They haven't left the jungle planet yet, but they have his name ready to be placed on the wall.
11. The entire game talks about how not everyone can be saved and hard choices need to be made for the sake of the entire galaxy. But in the control and Synthesis endings, everyone is saved, and those endings are where the Reapers still exist.
I won't argue with your perspective on the ending(s). You can believe what you want to believe. I respect that. I just think that the Indoctrination theory makes sense based on everything that Shepard has gone through.
I'd only like to say that point #7 is probably just an oversight on the part of the devs, nothing more, as for the rest of it spot on.
@@thrax1831 "spot on"
no, not really. allmost everything he pointed out can be explained.
1. nobody really knows how the cruisible really works. they know how to build it, not what it does or how to use it. hackett saying that is is created to destroy the reapoers is simply because that's the one solutions everyone has, and because he's a military person. that you can deal with them in other ways is something nobody really considered, except cerberus
2. thats one point that's neither for or against the IT. the most reasonable explanation is that is simply an oversight, but if you belive in IT, the points go to you.
3.TIM is not simply indoctrinated, he also learned how to control lesser reaper vessels and he is surrounded by the reaper army. their control over him is simply sensable for other people, especialy to shepperd who is now in a very weak state. again, he is in the middle of the whole reaper army.
4. in mass effect 1, even after a part of sovereign destroyed the windows, the could still breath. as long as you are not directly outside of the citadel, you can breath
5. these visions simply show how these character would've acted if they could chose. why do they appear? don't know, gameplay mechanic to show the player what to do? I mean, that does the IT say to this?
6. it is not that destroying the base enables the destroy ending. it is more like an intact base enables the control ending. remember, cerberus was experimenting with the brain to controll the reapers. after the invasion, it is the same brain that is used to complete the cruisible. the same technology is in there, the whole focus is in controlling, not destroying.
7. oversight of the devs? I mean, how is this important?
8. why is everyone Ok with the reapers now? simple, the synthesis ending changed every beeing in the whole galaxy, everyone is changed in their body and mind. everyone is now part machine and part organic, they now see that conflict between each other is pointless. basically, they all got brainwashed.
9. don't know what your point is in the first half. yes, a reaper once said something similar to ai shepperd. so?
and the second point is, why bother with the reapers when they did not only stop attacking you, but also started to repair all the damage the caused? and besides, I'm sure that shepperd has some way to comunicate with other people, so he could've just told him tha the reapers are under his control
10. hm. why do they think that shepperd did not survive the giant blast that deestroyed the whole citadel? maybe because surviving that is very unlikely?
and how do you know they are still on that planet.
11.well, I mean, the game does just that. it gives you choices and not everytime you can save everyone. only when you import character from ME 1 to 2 to 3 and makes every right decision, only then it is possible to save everyone. if you did not do that, then yes, you can't save everybody. that is also why synthesis needs a high war asset score. and even then, not everyone survives.
Great video. You obviously did your research and put a lot of time and effort into all of you counter arguments for this video. However, I still believe in the indoctrination theory even after watching this video because there are a lot of things you didn't mention that don't add up or don't make sense so I'll run a list of my problems.
For starters lets start with the one thing that made me believe in this theory in the first place. When you start walking toward the beam after being "hit" by harbinger's laser, you can see 2d textured mounds of bodies that are stacked on either side of the path way. The bodies weren't there before you got hit with the laser and there are entire mounds of them, so it can't be the 5 or 6 soldiers that ran to the beam with you. Also even if it is, why are they stacked and not scattered, who stacked them, why are they stacked. Another thing that is pretty bone chilling in my opinion is that if you get up close to them, they're really only 2 bodies that repeat and they're all wearing the armor that Ashley and Kaiden wore in ME1. Some have even confirmed seeing them actually modeled in the body stacks in the Citadel. The speculation is that since that decision has haunted Shepard through the entire trilogy, it's coming back to haunt him now because he's being indoctrinated. The question still remains, why would bioware, who's already pressed for time at this point and rushing to make a new ending, bother to put this detail in unless they were hitting that things weren't as it seemed.
The second point is the child. Not only do we see this dude die like twice, but when he gets to the shuttle, nobody seems to see him or care that he's the last one to get on. The soldiers don't see him and not even the people on board see him. Also before he disappears like batman in the vents, you hear this low reaper grow sound effect twice. This is actually discussed in a Mass Effect book stating that this low growl from a reaper means an indoctrination attempt has failed. This is heard no where else in the game and it happen conveniently when Anderson gets his attention and snaps him out of it. You think Anderson would've heard the boy talking or at least try to help. Another thing is that being indoctrinated means you start to hallucinate and see people you have briefly seen earlier. That might be why Leviathan can only take the form of the scientists you've just seen and saved. Why not take the form of people Shepard knows well, like Garrus, Tali, or anyone he's close to. Shepard sees the boy playing and then also see him running into a building which then explodes. Either the boy is a hallucinate the whole time or he was real, actually died in the building, then Shepard perceives him as an illusion than on out.
Third point, Shepard can survive if you pick destroy, but dies for sure if you pick the other two options. Lets say that everything on the Citadel and Catalyst actually happened. First off, how did Shepard survive a fall from fucking SPACE!?! Also why is he under concrete and not under material from the Catalyst or Citadel? Shepard already had a fall to space in the beginning of ME2 which rendered him dead to the point Cerberus needed to rebuild him almost completely to revive him. Not to mention the man was already bleeding out and dying before anything got destroyed. He has no protective gear on (or at least it was badly damaged) and he certainly didn't have a face mask or breathing equipment this time. Another thing is that if you choose the other two options besides destroy, Shepard's eyes start to look exactly like the illusive man which are the eyes of indoctrination. Shepard also goes from being barely able to crawl to the switch on the Citadel, to being able to stand and limp again, to being able to full on speed walk toward the destroy option, or running and jumping into the beam for the Synthesis option.
Those are just some major points that don't make sense, so here are some other points that also don't but could be disputed.
Anderson sees the walls moving when he gets to the Citadel. Ok, why are the walls moving and since when can the walls move? Also if the walls could always move, then why is Anderson surprised as if he's never seen them do that? Anderson lives there and even had an apartment, you think that he would've seen every nook and cranny of that place by now even with it being remodeled. Especially an important place like the fucking Citadel arm controls. I don't think there are multiple controls because why would it come down to either Shepard of Anderson getting them to open? If there where multiple, couldn't anyone have opened them? Also, if Anderson has never seen that part of the Citadel, how does he know exactly where the controls are even getting a head start before Shepard? Anderson also says that he went after Shepard. Ok when? Like when exactly after, because we don't see him jump in when Shepard walks to the beam. And when harbinger leaves, why not take out Anderson too? If you only need Shepard, you sure as hell don't need a friend of his to foil your plans.
Why does Harbinger leave after Shepard is hit? If the Reaper's goal is to not kill Shepard but to control him, why not make sure he's alive after nearly deep frying his ass with a death star beam? Also why does one of the reapers actually try to kill Shepard on Rannoch? I thought the goal was to keep him alive? What happened to that?
Arrival DLC. When Shepard learns about the asteroid facility, he's lead into a trap by the indoctrinated scientists. He's eventually captured and knocked out for 2 days straight. Ok, what's stopping the reapers from indoctrinating him then. If their goal was to really indoctrinate him, would they waste 2 whole days of him being unconscious and in grasps to not at least speed it up, or try to get it going? Also he touches a reaper artifact which cause him to see visions like the prothean beacon, the reapers couldn't have got him there? But the game also confirms that he has been influenced by the Artifact for 2 days, which is more than enough time for the effects of indoctrination to start taking place. Some might say, "Well what if I don't buy and do the dlc?" Well Liara still becomes the new shadow broker in ME3 whether you played or bought the shadow broker dlc in ME2 or not. This shows that bioware makes some of the dlc canon whether or not you've played or bought it.
The rachni queen describes the effects of indoctrination as hearing songs of oily shadows. We see oily shadows in the dream sequences which by the way, Shepard just starts having all of a sudden after seeing the boy. Another thing is all the dream sequences are in slow motion, but after you get hit with the beam from harbinger, everything goes in slow motion again. This only happens one other time in the game, and it's when you shoot down the reaper on ranoch at the last second but that was like super slow motion for dramatic effect. Maybe it's the same thing for the dream sequence and the walk to the beam but idk for certain.
Lastly, some people who where digging in the files noticed a texture called "dream foliage" which is the texture for the foliage, or leaves and trees, that we see at the end of the game when Joker lands the Normandy on the earth like planet. Why call it dream foliage, why not call it just foliage or new planet foliage? Especially when the developers are pressed for time, why do all these unnecessary things to the end of the game? Also how did the crew get back to the Normandy and how did it survive the blast when we clearly saw it get destroyed from it?
Anyway I think it mainly comes down to bad writing, and major plot holes in the story because of time constraints. But there are a lot of important question that are unanswered here. Maybe the theory is right, maybe it's wrong, but I think it's possible. If anyone managed to read this pretty much entire essay, then thanks so much. If the creator of this video sees this and also manages to read the whole thing, leave a comment about your thoughts of what I said thus far. Thanks.
Not the creator of the video, but I've read through and you raised a lot of interesting points! It was a fascinating, well-explained read, but I'm not entirely on board with all of it, so I'll try my hand at wording my response as well as you did:
The armor on the bodies is easily explained by what you mentioned, that Bioware was rushed for time. I doubt they deliberately put in a detail, rather than just re-using assets. Same thing happened on the Collector ship, where the same two bodies and outfits (not armor there) were reused in the body piles.
They do see the kid, as you can tell by the soldiers providing covering fire until he's crawled into the shuttle. Turning around to help him would put everyone in danger. There were no one else getting on the shuttle while the kid climbed, and they specifically waited for him to make it. And in the vents, he didn't disappear, he simply turned the corner. If you turn up your brightness, the shaft takes a turn to the right, the kid just backed through there.
Comparing a sound to a description in a book is alright, but it is innaccurate to say they made that sound when losing someone from indoctrination. There are a lot of reaper sounds all over earth. I do love the timing of it, and it could definitely support the theory, if a little weakly.
As for Leviathan appearing as people Shep has seen, that's true. However, it's also entirely possible that the kid really just got aboard that shuttle. I'll talk about my take n the starchild later.
The concrete bit is probably because of the impact the debris made. I think surviving is entirely up to Cerberus' rebuilding - lots of extra parts in Shep. The "open windows" on the Citadel are protected by kinetic barriers which probably also braced the fall. Just like when the Normandy was tore up in ME2 and Joker was sealed by a barrier.
The walls moving is faily easy to explain - no one has figured out how the station works. Who's to say they can't when the reapers control the station as was intended? In previous cycles, moving walls was likely used to "herd" people.
The oily shadows thing is interesting, but ceepy forests are pretty standard for fictional nightmares.
Now, my take on the ending is this: the active indoctrination of Shepard begins once those oily shadows appear on screen with the illusive man present. It's not TIM controlling Shepard, but a reaper. That's why they shoot Anderson.
Here's where it get interesting: if you choke on the hard decision, you prove Shepard's indoctrination, as you said with the eyes changing. Chose control, you're indoctrinated. Synthesis? Still indoctrinated. Destroy is the only way to break free with, and that is why that option isn't avaliable when you have too few war assets. Shepard wasn't invested enough in the galaxy to manage fighting.
This was fun to write and I hope I didn't come across as rude at any point! I like discussing and seeing what a good job you did presenting your points, I wanted to try my hand at it. Disagreements and discussions is part of why the community is fun, after all, provided everyone is civil.
@@helloworld1249 You didn't come across as rude at all. I enjoyed reading this reply and you make a lot of great refutes. To be honest, now that I had looked more deep into it, yeah this theory doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I think this theory works better as a mod or something rather than canon. Thanks for your reply!!!
Imo this theory was just people unhappy with the ending and just wished something different had happend.... the theory was already debunked by bioware, so we know now that this is just rambling
The scene with the normandy evacuation to me makes sense since the ship had the reaper iff from me2, so harbinger would read a signal from the ship marking it as a reaper vessel. The reason that the normandy cant reach the ground with no enough galactic readiness is justified that the ship couldnt pass trough the reaper forces to reach the squad in time (even with the iff, just ignore a massacre on the orbit to save two people on the ground its just nonsense on a strategic point of view)
I agree! It's interesting that so many people still prescribe to the theory today.
Mass effect 3 starts with retrofits where they remove all Cerberus additions except EDI. There's no way they leave the reaper IFF on the Normandy in the retrofits.
On Ilos, Vigil actually says that it didn’t sense any indoctrination in Shepard and his team so he was NEVER indoctrinated in the first game! That theory is wrong!!
Vigil can only sense those who are under it’s effects. Shepard at that time was not being manipulated.
@@thebk247 In another comment you were insinuating that Cerberus implanted Reaper tech into Shepard, which was one of the reasons he was able to be resurrected, but it still stands that Vigil would be able to detect any kind of Reaper presence whether it's indoctrination or technology.
@@thewarden3554 Vigil is the VI on Ilos. Prothean VI’s can only sense those who ARE indoctrinated.
The theory says it takes the course of 3 games to indoctrinate shepherd so no it's not wrong because of that
That may be true but I was talking about the first game, not the whole trilogy. Shepard might be indoctrinated by the third game but he was strong enough to resist any indoctrination by the third game therefore any theory is open to interpretation.
I think in the end the indoctrination theory comes down to plot armor, rushed writing and a poorly executed Shepard has PTSD subplot. It also wouldn´t make a good ending itself. I would be pretty pissed, if I´ve put in 30 hours only to find out I have been playing Harbingers wet dreams all along.
I see IT as just fans trying to fix some poor writing.
My mind would've been blown if the Indoctrination Theory was true, but if you fight off the Indoctrination then you get to choose the actual endings.
Indoctrination Theory by it's self leaves out a pretty crucial part to a trilogy, that being a satisfying ending lmao.
Thank you for this video, what mostly annoys me about Indoctrination theorists is how I keep seeing more and more of them introducing this theorectical unproven ending as canon for people out there, even introducing it as the canon choice for new players which will now have the wrong and uncanon experience while playing it.
idc .
The indoctrination theory never made sense to as the real ending. There are just too many things that done fit.
I'll say that the idea that once you see an ending if your impulse is to dig deeper that therefore means that IT was not intended I must point out that a fck ton of stories indeed actually do this very thing where the second time you watch a movie or read a book you notice an absolute ton of details. For example the movie Basic has a murder investigation where Samuel L. Jackson's character is killed but by the end you find out he is alive and well and his "death" was a set up in an elaborate plan to discover who the killer was.
Likewise when you see the very last scene where Shepard breathes that is in fact that type of thing that would get you to take a moment and relook at a lot of details. I think a lot of people who don't understand IT don't understand it simply because they actually don't know what indoctrination is. The reason it raises so many questions is because many just simply don't know what reaper indoctrination is.
If you can even possibly come up with an argument as to how it is as all possible for Shepard to even be alive after the Citadel is blown to hell and end up in a pile of rubble that is common for Earth Architecture then you will have successfully debunked the IT. So far not one single person can give a proper explanation for it. IT is not a theory developed by people who were upset with the ending but cultivated from the fact that there is no possible explanation that Shepard could be alive after being at the center point of a massive explosion. That alone is a bigger hole to explain than ALL of the "debunked" videos of IT have even presented.
Well, unfortunately the indoctrination theory has been officially dismissed by BioWare. So, as it stands now, there is simply no reason to argue its validity. It's over, simple as that. It's a fan theory and it was never the intended.
With regards to Shepard surviving the ending of ME3, it should be noted that this is only achievable with a high EMS score. With the Extended Cut DLC, it is required to have 3100 EMS to have the Shepard breathing cutscene. Without the Extended Cut, 4000 EMS is required. Now, I don't intend to try and argue how Shepard lived through the destruction ending, but it would seem that it was added in as fan service for those that collected a lot of war assets. I think it should also be noted, that the cutscene of Shepard taking a breathe is seen after the ending slideshow. To me, this makes it seem as thought it isn't that important from a narrative perspective. It's meant to be ambiguous and keep the player wondering. I don't think it was intended to make players completely rethink the ending.
@@consensus810 The guy doesn't speak for bioware he's not an executive. He's a minor writer who covered lore and was not at all involved in the directors/editor/ main story components stage of ME3 ending decision making once they scrapped the original ending. He very well could be write that it wasn't the intent from the start but it is not hard to had all of the scenes with the kid involved that he would have never known about. Plenty of other devs contradict a lot of what this guy said.
The failure to explain a deliberately ambiguous element is not proof that a barely related theory is correct. That's not how fan theories work.
You have to come up with the evidence that supports your theory, not us.
If your personal head canon is that Shepard survives because it was all a dream that’s fine. That’s your story. Mine is different to yours. I picked control.
And sticking your fingers in your ears about the BioWare employee's statement helps no one.
@@intergalactic92 Bioware has been playing both sides so right back at ya buddy. Also there is a ton of pointed evidence so I have no idea what you are talking about.
@@intergalactic92 it was one writer and not even a main writer
If you actually pay attention shepard is around too much reaper tech not to be indoctrinated
Indoctrination Theory always struck me as fullblown denial, I hated the OG ending to ME3 and still dislike the EC but Believing in this Theory was like suggesting that a story ended 2 chapters short,
The entire 3rd game is the ending. It’s more like denial to ignore the constant emphasis on Indoctrination throughout the entire series. The entire first game completely revolves around it and mind control in general.
Shepard was around Reaper tech for 3 and a half years, inside a Reaper, brought back with Cerberus tech in which Cerberus was experimenting with Reaper tech for years, spent tons of time around enthralled proteans…
Your argument about being brain dead falls flat by simply using your logic, Shepard would have absolutely no memory of past events, since he does in fact retain such memory, there is absolutely to logic reason why he would not retain the seeds that have already been planted.
Next point. “Those who support the Reapers become violent against those who oppose the Reapers” - absolute fallacy. The 3 games go through lengths to explain to you both “rapid” and “subtle” indoctrination. RAPID indoctrination turns those infected into violent babbling idiots. where as SUBTLE indoctrination turns those into undetectable sleeper agent. This is even explained by Vendetta(the Prothean VI, which is commonly used as a debunk straw to disprove IT) why they are undetectable. Yes , Willpower(even in real life) effects how easily an individual can be manipulated. Break someones willpower, assume control(this is literally how it work IRL. Its amazing how traumatic events can manipulate a person….) Rapid indoctrination would turn Shepard into a babbling idiot, Harbinger has made clear that he does not want that.
No dude, Neither Benezia nor Saren were 100% indoctrinated. Benezia sealed off a part of her mind which allowed her to temporarily overpower Sovereign.
Saren spent a lot of time studying the effects of indoctrination in order to prevent total control. Saren even stated that Sovereign allows him to think free based off the circumstance. Saren also says that he should not have accepted Sovereigns tech implants which “assumes total control.”
“Shepard experiences no such mental break throughout any mass effect games. He sticks to his beliefs and continues his missions to destroy the reapers.” Yeah… unless you choose Synthesis or Control ending(exactly what IT says.) Thanks for proving the willpower point.
“Shepards crew members do not experience any form of indoctrination either.” Shepards crew members constantly experience and comment on buzzing and humming sounds. The rest said about crew members…… you completely ignoring how subtle indoctrination or the concept of sleeper agents work.
Yes, i agree with you on the explosion kill Shepard point, HOWEVER…… killing Shepards crew would only strengthen Shepards will to destroy the Reapers. This is a tactical play. War Assests should absolutely play a role in this as most video games require you to do everything to get the real endings or experience the full reward. With that said…HOWEVER….. Your crew does not die based off EMS pre extended cut, Harbinger hits everyone directly except you, the secret ending still exists before the extended cut. Harbinger pre extended cut did not hit shepard, harbinger extended cut did hit shepard. In both conditions, Harbinger never missed anyone, you didnt notice that there were less soldiers in front of you after each explosion that covered your screen. If you want to argue that point, why did we not come across them on the crucible? I personally have never heard of the”indoctrination beam” at all. I have only ever heard supporters stating that it was a lower powered.
Completely indoctrinated after waking up from the beam? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. The IT theory does not, at all claim this. Where are you getting your sources? The IT theory claims that this in entirely a dream sequence. You ARE NOT fully indoctrinated unless you choose SYNTHESIS or CONTROL at the very END.
Destroy is the right choice but synthesis is the choice that has been indirectly pushed on you. Because of your relationship with EDI/Legion , the interaction with geth and quarians, the use and in some cases reliance of implants and whatnot. So one could say that if you choose synthesis (or even control), you (as the player) have been succesfully indoctrinated by the game xD Because deep down i feel the developers wanted people to pick synthesis. It really fits with the real world fantasy of (some) people that in the future there will be some union between humans and AI/machines.
Hi. I agree with your video in most places: however I'd like to offer some minor critique.
First things first, I really don't think that it is necessary to create a conflict in a fanbase, especially when the game is THAT old. Some of your comments seemed a little condescending and perhaps that would explain not so great like to dislike ratio on this video.
But not to dwell too much on that, here's where my opinion lies regarding strictly the merit of your arguments: Indoctrination Theory is NOT real. HOWEVER, it is creative, explains most of the glaring plotholes and fixes many, many things that BioWare just screwed up.
To give it a little context: I played the game when it first came out in 2012 and was utterly disappointed by it's ending. It was not only bad, but also incredibly confusing. That's when I first stumbled on UA-cam at Julian Kluk's long-ass documentaries that try to present to the audience that the theory is real. When I was first watching them I was fascinated by the reasoning and ultimately convinced.
Fast forward to the year 2021. Couple of days ago I just finished the Legendary Edition. The ending didn't seem AS idiotic as I thought it was originally (perhaps thanks to the Extended Cut that was included in LE and that I didn't play until now), but still, there were major, major plotholes staring me right in the face.
So, of course, for nostalgia's sake, I searched for those documentaries that 9 years ago were so fun for me to watch. I found them, if only in the form of reuploads. And I was surprised at the fact that this time most of Kluk's arguments... didn't convince me (granted, when I was first watching his videos in 2012 I was maybe 16 years old). His reasoning was stretching the bounds of logic as much as humanly possible in some places.
Kluk was doing the format of presenting every IT's arguments that were dug up by fans, then discussing them in great detail and then finally concluding the topics they bring, either by giving them a "confirm", "plausible" or "deny" stamps. Many of his "certain confirms" were very hard for me to agree with. One thing to consider, though, is that perhaps it is not fair for me to judge those videos so harshly, given the fact that I know now that BioWare's writer denied the existence of IT (saying that the writing staff "was not that clever"). At the time of making these documentaries entire Mass Effect fanbase, Kluk included, were kept by the studio completely in the dark.
And although Kluk's videos are ultimately not correct and his reasoning leads up to wrong conclusion, I think they do two things very well: they list up plotholes in the intended ending and also provide proofs that the Catalyst is a liar - and therefore, that the Destroy ending IS still the only "good" one (or the least "bad" one) that the player could achieve.
To name some of the plotholes: magic pistol with unlimited ammo that you don't need to reload, magic armor that changes regardless of what you were wearing before, even if you were wearing a freaking Collector's armor (the ONLY time it happens in the entire series!), Anderson's positioning, TIM coming out of nowhere, the stomach wound and finally the lying Catalyst itself. And I mentioned maybe 1/10th of Kluk's list.
Granted, your video provided some counterpoints, which I thank you for. You convinced me to drop the stomach wound criticism: you're right about the whole thing. Initially I thought that it was a bullet hole, but upon closer inspection (and how Shepard behaves in the cutscenes prior to camera showing us this wound in a close-up) I think you are correct.
However, I do not agree with your reasoning regarding the Anderson's positioning. It still doesn't make sense. He followed Shepard to the beam, yet was ahead of him. Shepard WASN'T unconcious for undisclosed amount of time after entering the beam: we see exactly what is happening to him after he lands on the Citadel. The map also doesn't make sense. You pointed out different doors (and I didn't notice them before, so chapeau bas to you for that), but also you forgot to mention that they don't have a platform to connect to. The room where the confrontation between Shepard, Anderson and TIM takes place is lead to by a straight line, with one entry point and one exit point. It's not a proof of Indoctrination Theory by any means: but it is a proof that BioWare just fucked up. Your reasoning for covering that is stretching the bounds of logic in the same way that some of Kluk's arguments were doing in other aspects in his documentaries.
I also don't agree with TIM's coming out of nowhere explanation. Yeah, he could be hiding on the Citadel. Still, the way this scene was directed really was showing him almost teleporting. The proper entry point is a long ass walk on a long ass platform. Where would he be hiding? Behind Shepard? And if so: WHY? What the hell was he doing all that time on the Citadel? His presence has very little sense, and although I agree with you that that's what the BioWare writers probably wanted to convey (that he was indeed there already when you were having a mission in his base), the form they did it in was confusing as fuck and ultimately created a plothole in players' eyes.
But you know what the biggest plothole of ME3's ending is? The fact that in Destroy option Shepard lives. It is undefendable. It is outrageous. It is stupid as fuck. He could not survive. We are shown in the cutscene that the center of the Citadel blows up. Not in a small way: it is a huge-ass explosion. Right where Shepard was standing. It would kill him instantly. But yeah, sure, let's assume it wouldn't. That somehow he would be able to withstand this insane explosion, almost like Palpatine was able to do so in Star Wars (it's just as absurd). Where would he end up later? That's right: in space. And could you remind me how Shepard died in Mass Effect 2? It wasn't because the Normandy blew up - or at least not directly because of that. It was because he suffocated to death, while wearing fully functional N7 armor and a helmet and also being in top physical condition at the time. Yet here, on the verge of death, after being hit by Harbinger's beam, with multiple open wounds and bleeding to death, with his armor scorched up and without a helmet, he survives. What. The. Actual. Fuck.
But I'll do you one better. Let's assume that SOMEHOW he also survives THAT (it is already ridiculous, but let's do it for fun). The Citadel was orbiting around Earth. What would happen to Shepard then? He would enter the Earth's atmosphere (exactly the same way his corpse entered the atmosphere of the planet The Normandy crashed on in ME2). With enoromous speed. He would burn. But let's ignore that, too, because why the hell not. He somehow hits the Earth with full force and ends up in London's rubble (it may be some other rubble, but it looks almost exactly like the rubble from London level). And then he draws his breath.
Shepard is Goku confirmed.
The Indoctrination Theory deserves credit, if only for attempting to somewhat reasonably cover that massive and idiotic plothole. [1/2]
But let's come back to our Reaper Child. Earlier I mentioned that he is lying. And he is: in several places. He says that the whole reason Reapers exist is because there is a conflict between organics and synthetics and that they will never reach peace with each other. Guess what. Couple of days earlier I managed to convince geth and quarians to reach peace with each other (not to mention the existence of EDI on top of it). Not only is the Child's whole argument wrong; my Shepard practically denied Reapers their reason for existence. And yet his ghost ass never mentions that, ignores the problem, and for some fucked up reason Shepard, who is always questioning things, who always wants more information, and who always contests everything that is laid before him - in this final, decisive moment, does not have the ability to disagree with an obviously false statement. What the fuck, BioWare.
Second thing that the Catalyst is lying about: he tells us that they don't exterminate species, but rather let them "ascend" as a new Reaper. I mean... have you looked out the window, my little dude? They take a small percentage of organics to create new Reaper and then exterminate the rest of the species. Even Sovereign talks about extermination in ME1. Harbinger does the same in ME2. And now this figure that supposedly represents collective Reaper intelligence tells us that the extermination is NOT what they are doing? I understand that some things are left for interpretation, but no, that's stretching it waaaay too much. It's a lie.
Third thing that is PROBABLY a lie: Control option as a legitimate choice. Saren tried to control the Reapers and failed. TIM tried to control them and also failed. We know from Prothean VI on Thessia that the rogue faction of their species also tried to do the same and also failed. Because the same happened in our cycle (Cerberus), we could also assume, that in previous cycles the idea of controlling the Reapers was also prevalent. And, by how it ended, we also know that it failed. So three CONFIRMED cases of Control being the wrong option (and probably many, many more in previous cycles), that causes it's proponents to be controlled by the Reapers and not the other way around, and somehow we are supposed to believe that the (at least) fourth time it will be tried will be the charm? Why? Because it's Shepard? I get that he comes as close to being a space jesus as possible, but still, the dude is ultimately human. Everything in the in-game lore suggests that wanting to control the Reapers is not a legitimate option. And yet, the Child is giving it to us.
The fourth thing that is a lie: The Catalyst presence itself. He decides to appear before Shepard as a boy that haunts him in his dreams. A boy that is a representation of every innocent life that Shepard couldn't safe. A boy that only he saw in this way. It proves two things. One: Reapers want to gain Shepard's sympathy (and why would they want that? Well... perhaps to convince him to do something). Two: the Child has direct access to Shepard's mind.
One other thing that begs a question: if The Catalyst is an AI that created the Reapers, then why he refers to them as "US" ("I know you thought about destroying us", he says) and not "THEM"? He isn't above them; he treats himself as if he was A PART of them. That also leads me to believe that The Catalyst isn't telling the whole truth about how he functions. One of the IT's arguments is that he is not what he says he is, becuase he is just a Reaper; perhaps even a Harbinger himself. And if you shoot him or decide to ignore all the three options given to you by him, his voice changes to the Reaper-like voice, further proving my point that the whole Child thing is just a facade, created only to convince Shepard of something (and TO DO something).
So, in conclusion, The Catalyst isn't what he says he is (at least not entirely), he gives us bad options to choose (Control) and also straight up lies (which Shepard proves himself by the actions he takes regarding geths and quarians). And now this entity wants us, almost desperately, to choose the Synthesize ending. He bashes the Destroy option (implying that Shepard would die from it, because "even he is partly a synthetic", which as we know is another lie), he doesn't entirely approve of the Control option (but only saying that it would be an inconvenience to him) and he wants you to choose Synthesize option, painting it as a solution for all the problems of the galaxy.
No. Too many things don't add up. Too many red flags in his behaviour. That's why the Destroy option will always be my canon. That's why I will never trust The Catalyst. And that's why it's the only way that Shepard survives in the end, provided you have high enough EMS.
And also: that's why I would like for IT to be true (although it's clearly not at this point). Because how the, and i cannot stress this enough, actual fuck, Shepard survives that blast on the Citadel. [2/2]
@@adrianhadasz Personally I think there has to be something going on in ME3. It might not be indoctrination theory, but there has to be *something*. I refuse to believe that Shepard survives that explosion in the Destroy option, all the rubble collapsing on him doesn't kill him, and falling back to earth is basically just a mild inconvenience (though if he did fall back to Earth is technically debatable as we don't see enough of the rubble to know for sure). I just can't believe that and it seems so obviously terrible writing and so illogical that I can't see any professional writer giving it the ok, and If the breath at the end of the "True" ending can't be taken at face value because of how obscenely ridiculous it is then what does it mean?
I saw a comment on another video that talked about how the two other options (synthesis and control) are what Saren and TIM wanted. To quote the comment--
"From an outside, non-indoctrinated perspective, these guys sound absolutely crazy and ridiculous. But when YOU'RE the one being indoctrinated, suddenly they seem like fair and viable options."
When you're against Saren and TIM Shepard's all, ""No you guys are wrong! we can become/control the reapers. The only reason you think this is because you're being indoctrinated by them," but then when the catalyst presents the options their seen as legitimate and hand waved as "You can do it because you're the protagonist!" It's so weird that the game would just 180 like that and say "Nope! actually those aren't bad ideas! The other guys just can't do it because they're not COMMANDER SHEPERD!!!1111!" The writing feels so obviously bad that there needs to be something more. Maybe I'm just holding out for hope that the breath at the end will make some sense IDK.
I guess all we can do is hope that whatever the next Mass Effect has in store for us gives us some more closure.
@@TONEYHAWK1 I mostly agree, though after all these years I think it's all just shitty writing, unfortunately. Indoctrination Theory was grasping at straws in places where it tried to explain those ridiculous inconsistencies made by BioWare.
Let's hope that the next Mass Effect will be better.
@@adrianhadasz I was gonna say after reading all that, I agree that the writers just rushed some shit plot out. I heard the original ending got leaked so they rushed this new one, which is unfortunate if it’s true
@@xNoktemAeternus2 Yeah, there was something about that. Original ending was supposed to be linked somehow with dark energy or something like that, right? I don't recall exactly.
If it's true, then it is absolutely idiotic. A leak shouldn't be enough to quickly change the whole game's ending. Avoiding spoilers that probably only the most die-hard internet fans knew about and read at the cost of ruining the whole game? I hope whoever made that decision is not working there anymore.
1. I've always thought of reaper indoctrination is a bit like radiation, you don't see or feel it at first, particularly if its low level radiation, but over time the affect become apparent, epically high levels like Gamma.
2. I've also always thought that the reapers and all of their armies emit this indoctrination radiation as it were only its very low levels unless its coming from a reaper itself or like the artefact found in ME2s Arrival DLC.
3.Its clear that through out ME3 Shep is experiencing indoctrination, his dreams are proof of this if nothing else there are oily shadows just like the Rachni queen spoke of, and the boy Shep is chasing in the dream each time he get close to he ends up being engulfed by flames and the last one with another Shep along side him, if this is not some kind of subconscious warning the shep the i dont know what is.
4 Also when charging down the Hill Harbinger dead eyes all the other Soldiers running down there but for shep he moves the laser beam towards him, so why not kill Shep with a direct hit unless he thinks controlling Shep is more important than just killing him, as Shepard's reputation as the prophet for the impending reaper invasion and all his heroics in stopping them it make him a good choice for indoctrination as they could use Shep to spy, sabotage and destroy the moral of his allies.
5. The Extended Cut DLC scene where the Normandy rescues Shepards companions was added not for 'fan service' but rather to fill the gap in their story as whoever Shep takes with him at the end suddenly appears on the Normandy and disappears once Shep is hit by the beam where as if you have low war assets you see them die which before the Extended Cut DLC came out modders found files in the game containing a unused scene where his companions dies so it seem Bio ware planned to flesh out the ending but ran out of time and didnt want to delay.
6. two of the 4 endings parody the choices of Seren and the Illusive Man, in ME1 Seren got the Idea Organics and Synthetic should become one and the same in order to please the reapers so they don't kill everyone, and the Illusive Man wanted to control the reapers, and both of then failed and lost there live because of the reapers trickery, so Destroy is the only choice never chosen.
7. to end I think everything up to the point before shep passes out and is lifted up to the final choice room is real or semi real with Anderson and the Illusive man maybe being fake and the Reapers still not wanting to kill Shep as they think they can complete his indoctrination and use him a one big moral destroying symbol to the galaxy, which is why we they dont destroy the Normandy or shoot Shep directly and if shep chooses Destroy then what really happens is he wakes up at the base of the control panel fires the crucible and then high tales it as fast as he can to the teleporter he entered the citadel with and some how uses it to get back to earth or, more likely everything is fake after shep is hit by the beam and when he wakes up someone else got through or maybe Shep get goes through and destroys the reapers and we just see thing in reverse.
8. or even the more likely ending is that Bio ware tried to be clever and made a load of plot holes or just wanted a bull shit reason to make Mass Effect 4 and have that take place after Shep wakes up with the reapers still killing everyone
If you think the end of the game actually happened the way we saw you haven’t been paying attention. It is impossible for Shepard to have survived harbingers blast. As harbinger said in arrival dlc “ your mind will be ours” harbinger will never stop until he accomplishes that. To sum up harbinger toned down the force of his blast to put Shepard into critical to where the indoctrination can take the maximum effect. The destroy ending with maximum EMS shows Shepard alive in the rubble of London. He isn’t a god. He couldn’t have survived a blast at the center of the crucible let alone reentry into the planet. There’s no argument here.
I think they wanted Shepard to be the AI for the Human Reaper, thats where that was going, and in every game, we are reminded that Shepards mind is specially resilient the indoctrination theory is not possible without concrete visual and written evidence, look at how the game is written is not possible
Man, one of the writers said this about the theory: "We weren't that intelligent". Someone asked on Twitter.
good on you for your effort, and I might change my mind, but IT just makes too much sense. it would at least explain the various oddities and then make total sense in narrative and be awesome.
in the end, at least, we can all wish we had an IT ending than this
advancedlamb Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation:) I’m glad you enjoyed the video though.
Does the indoctrination theory really still give you the closure you once had though? I’m honestly curious to hear why so many still choose it as their cannon ending. What makes it so much more credible than the actual game ending?
@@consensus810 for me it would be the fact that the reapers win because if that would be reallity I see 0 chances to actually defeat the reaper invasion
@@DerelictSong I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Are you talking about the theory or the in-game ending?
@@consensus810 yup that the indoctrination theory sounds more like what would actually happen in a more realistic scenario.
You know that in the end all those effort's really didn't matter and the reapers win pretty much uncontested
@@DerelictSong I can agree with you from a realist standpoint I suppose. However, all the work that is put into understanding and preparing for the reapers throughout the trilogy would be for nothing. Personally, that's just not a satisfying end to a beloved series. I would rather have Shepard's work pay off and through the united strength of the galaxy as well as the use of past civilization's knowledge, be able to defeat the reapers. I don't want to invest so much time into gathering galactic resources just to lose. This game rewards you for the work you do. If you rush the game, there's a possibility of getting a less satisfying ending. I like getting happy endings when they are deserved.
That being said you CAN still get an ending where the reapers win. Like, it's a legitimate in-game ending. All you have to do it refuse to make ANY decision at the end, and simply shooting the "star child" reaper. Shepard's cycle loses, but all their effort isn't in vain, as the next cycle IS able to defeat them. Liara leaves behind a holographic message detailing the reaper war as well as all the information required to defeat them once they inevitably come back.
So at the end of it all, you can choose whatever ending you wish. My point is, if there's already an option in the game to have the reapers win, then I don't think the other choices would also lead to the reapers winning.
The moment you called the star child a Reaper AI and continued to do so and claimed he said "that's what he tells us he is" you lost me.
That's not what he said at all and Indoc theory or no, hes not simply a "reaper AI"
Well, it is... The Catalyst (or star child, or whatever you wish to refer to it as) was/is an artificial intelligence created by the Leviathans. This AI subsequently created the Reapers. I apologize if my explanation in this video is unclear, but rest assured the Catalyst is indeed the AI which embodies the Reapers and as such can be referred to as a Reaper AI.
No apologies needed. This is the fun of debating.
Like what the star child says when Shepard asks him directly if hes "just an AI" would you want someone referring to you as "just an animal"?
His reply is to Shepards question is "in as much as you are just an animal" or something like that. Yes at it's very basic, core level, it's an AI much like we are animal, but obviously we are much more than that, and so it is much MUCH more than an just an AI. Much like we are much more than just animals.
Honestly my only issue 😂. The IT was fun to believe but the extended DLC pretty much killed it unless you are really really wanting to believe all those slides and cut scenes and character dialogues for synthesis and control are just dreams. I, personally, cant get behind that xD.
Only other thing was your take on quick indoctrination. Yes they say its possible but it also says the Reapers try to avoid quick indoc. The faster they indoctrinate someone, really try to force it, the faster the persons mind deteriorates and become no better than husks.
My biggest issue with the theory is if the Reapers don't or aren't trying to kill Shepard cause they want him indoctrinated then someone forgot to tell the Reaper on Rannoch and Earth. Or maybe they were late to the part of the staff meeting that mentioned that 😂. Cause those 2 are very much trying to kill you and succeed if you dont dodge the beams 😂
Anyways, sorry for the rambling and a year late at that, just recently played through and beat the Legendary edition so Mass Effect been on the brain 😅
@@espadasescapades9021 Feel free to check out my most recent video discussing the Reapers' intelligence and sentience. I think you'd find a lot of the information and commentary interesting!
I did not like the Indoctrination Theory when I first heard it, but came around to really enjoying it. And now, I DO believe it is true...to an extent. I think most people who believe in the I.T. go waaaay overboard with it. I believe that Shepard is NOT indoctrinated in ME1, ME2, or even for most of ME3. It's only when Harbinger blasts Shepard in that final charge down the hill to the teleporter that the indoctrination starts. The finale aboard the crucible is all in Shepard's head. Think about it:
Assuming the I.T. is completely fake and the entire ending IS actually happening, why are there any other choices besides 'Destroy'? The Alliance built the crucible solely for the purpose of destroying the reapers, so why would those other options even exist? And even if they did, after fighting them for 3 games now, why would Shepard choose any other option besides 'Destroy'? Or not choose at all? Choosing either 'Control' or 'Synthesis' shows Shepard's eyes turn blue and his/her skin burn away as they're turned into a husk. So if real, the Starchild lied and Shepard is killed, and if I.T., Shepard has given in and been indoctrinated. Choosing 'Destroy' shows Shepard waking up. So if real, Shepard not only survived the direct explosion, but also the huge (red/destroy) energy wave. If I.T., Shepard is simply waking up, still on Earth, after breaking the indoctrination attempt. Too much of what happens onboard the crucible doesn't make sense if it is real.
Why does it all have to be in his head? Couldn't it be just hallucinations but really on the citadel and he really does what he does just that harbinger is trying to manipulate his choice by hallucinations talking to him.
Btw Protheans made the citadel.
I don't agree but I liked commented and subscribed 👍. Stay safe
David Sabillon Thanks buddy! Really appreciate that.
Ok im watching it ... I think the best way to do this is one arguement at a time.
1.Rana thanoptis
Lets start with her name.
The name Rana is a form of arabic that means to longingly gaze.
Going further back rana in sanskript means queen. Since there is no queen like characterization and her character eventually is to be indoctrinated then prolly go with the arabic meaning.
I believe her last name fits with her first in meaning. Thanonaptis seems like of variation of thanatos which is the Greek god of death. Much like the marvel big bad being named thanos.
Rana Thanoptis then means to longingly gaze at creating death,,, this seems to summarize her overall work and research every at virmire. This is where we meet her.
Every meeting shows that rana is still completely in control of her mind and the second time she is helping okeer to try and redeem herself, by helping okeer help the krogans. She says she did not waste her chance as she is not there to help the mercs but okeers plan. She isn't sure what his true goals are, she is sure that he is doing for noble desire to help his people. At no point, does it state she is working around reaper tech.
Your arguement seems to based on time of exposure to reaper artifacts.
But time of exposure is NOT listed as any kind if factor in indoctrination. Some are only exposed once and indoctrinated within days and then some weeks and finally like rana, udina and the illusive man, and possibly attempts on Shepard, years. Also, the key to the start of her indoctrination becoming active is the proximity of the reapers and their hypersonic bi neural sounds have basis in real science as affecting humans truly negatively.
These was so researched that if you put the sounds and growls the reapers make into a spectrometer you will actually see yellow resonance that the rachni speak of. The same event affects shepard as a few minutes before they reapers attack earth shepard is watching a child flying a Normandy sr3. This is a clue since this ship does not exist. Also this is the first glance at the catalysts child who seems to do some impossible things. So both shepard and rana are set off at the time when they come in physical proximity with reaoers. There is no proof rana was around any reaper tech after me1. So where is the proof that she was working on it the whole time????
Even if your completely making up that she was around reaper tech at all after virmire, then you still have to give her sometime working with okeer away from reaper tech?! If you have proof that she was, why haven't you introduced any even in this updates take????
Not that it matters, BC its not stated anywhere that time of exposure is a important factor in being indoctrinated.
This is absolutely a rebuttal of the idea of Shepard had less time witn reaper tech then rana thanoptis. This is silly for a hosts of other reasons. For one, shepard is actually dead as dead could be and all Jacob saw was meat and tubes. Then miranda says the damage is way more extensive and shep was brian dead. With the revelation of the citadel dlc in me3 we learn that not only after 2 years Shepards original body could not be kept from rotting or useable for 2 years and had to switch to cloning. Shepard waking up is a clone that received Shepards memories perhaps using a brain scan but the second clone was not giving this BC it was only created to give shepard good perfect organs. This is the clones primary motivation behind the ability to be shepard. If a clone can be believed to be shepard then why not him.
Shepard had dialogue trying to understand this in the dlc and the files on the cerberus base when they are taking out cerberus. He says " I did not know it was that bad. I still feel like me but maybe im a high end VI that only believes they are shepard"
This is further evidence that the shepard in mass effect 2 is a clone meant to be commander shepard.
Or this really has no function or place in the story BC its meaningless.
Ok I hope this gave you a few things to think about.
1. That Miranda was not the original lead and took over BC she was willing to experimental even dangerous things to bringing shepard back. She makes clear she doesn't really believe shepard is the right fit or idea and they should put in a control chip. This shows her motivation to give the illusive man what he desires to pay him back by protecting and freeing her from her controlling father. She actually just finds another controlling father w very high expectations. She makes it clear that Shepard motivations worry her. After all Shepard is given a choice, he can just walk away.
This is before miranda see a cerberus for what they are.
After the clone shepard receives reaper tech to maximize bringing him back as the real shepard- its only me2 story then 6 months before the reapers attack and indoctrination is set off by the reaper attack of earth. Not very much time at all. Also , since most of Shepards exposure comes from cerberus. Don't know how long he was braindead till the clone, but the clone would had a complete clean slate if it was not implanted with reaper tech. Its the clone in the collector ship and dirlect reaper and finally the collector base. So, im not sure if looking at shepard in a continuous fashion is even plausible given this evidence.
I will try and give answers to the rest of your theories but this takes a lot of research and time and then i have to make sure you can understand this.
I hope you realize that im not doing this bc I think im right.
I genuinely would like to know all the evidence and i find the best way is to speak to people who disagree with me. I hope this helps with an understanding that this ending was not the intention of the writers and got way simplified dowm. The original ending had to do with dark energy and what using it would mean- essentially by not really trying to understand the reapers and destroying them.with their tech you in a sense become the evil you try to stop and the cycle continues.all 3 games have taught , that no being is an enemy and understanding and finding common truth is the way forward. This works for the krogan and the genophage and the geth and quarians. The way to end any war is understanding and healing- even to the reapers.
Their ending was changed for time for EA pushing and a lot of writers were more then upset when they learned what they ending was decided to be. Many writers storming EA with emails demanding answers for why their ending was changed. As a way to give some secret ending the writers did seed the indoctrination attempt ending. Its also the idea of this ending no matter what shepard does the reapers will win.
There is a plot hole i agree with.
Why are none of your crew members indoctrinated.
I believe shepard seeing a couple of crew mates become indoctrinated would have given more sincerity to show big this problem was. So I agree, huge plot hole no one else is affected.
My only consolation is that BC of what Shepard and the crew know about indoctrination they actively protect against with gear and mordin studying the collector tech. Shepard seems very worried that project rho does not have a covering over the artifact- gm is suggests this is standard knowlege. In 3 Miranda dad studies indoctrination and never seems indoctrinated so there is a case for protection for this crew.
This means it is actually the implants responsible for the quick effects of indoctrination in drams to start after the reapers invade.
Saren simply discovering Sovereign and being inside of Sovereign was enough to start the indoctrination. Shepard was also inside of a Reaper in ME2 as well as in proximity of a Reaper artifact that indoctrinated an entire space station for days.
You crew members constantly make statements about hearing humming sounds.
The leviathans didnt create the reapers the star brat states he created the reapers and the first reaper created was harbie
Also edi is composed of reaper tech too so technically he is around reaper tech continuously with her around i think the IT gives bioware far too much credit majority on the writing staff are just either lazy or not that talented
The Leviathans created the artificial intelligence (the thing you referred to as star brat) that embodies the Reapers' collective intelligence. The Reapers are not necessarily individuals, instead they are a collection of knowledge operating through a hive mind. So, although the Leviathans did not legitimately build Harbinger or the other Reapers that followed, they were in fact directly responsible for the creation of the Reapers through the creation of the AI. If you play the Leviathan DLC this is made clear. Feel free to look into my most recent video if you want an in-depth breakdown of the Reapers' origin and their calculated processes.
@@rufus3715 Yes, you're correct about EDI having Reaper technology incorporated into her design, but we have to take into account a few different things if we are going go suggest that EDI can influence individuals through indoctrination. The first being Shepard's death at the beginning of Mass Effect 2 and the second being the citadel and the mass relays. If every piece of Reaper technology is supposed to be able to induce indoctrination, then every single space-faring race would be indoctrinated already due to the use of the citadel and the relays (as they were created by the Reapers). This is simply not the case and the more you look into it, the less sense it makes.
The star child is Harbinger
@@consensus810 Sovereign explains the mass relays in ME1. They were solely designed to control how a species evolved, not to indoctrinate.
it is still only your opinion
Shepard was indoctrinated-_-
Depends on your final choice whether or not Shepard succumbs.
@@thebk247 i can agree