Indoctrination Theory

I watched all the videos. I've read through threads on the old BW BSN page. Nothing has convinced me it's true. If we're believing the Catalyst, IT literally cannot be true. Shepard wouldn't be able to control the Reapers, same as TIM. To me, that's plenty. And, seriously, people get nightmares over bad things that happen. That the Catalyst would use those nightmares against Shepard isn't so strange. If he was indoctrinated, the Reapers did a terrible job of making sure Shepard didn't defeat them.

Now, I'm on board with the meeting with Starkid as a dream but that's just my personal headcanon. It's because I choose Destroy every time and headcanon it that the Crucible only has one setting.

If you chose to control the Reapers, they controlled you. You are defeated, Reapers win.
If you chose to merge with them, they take their DNA and merge it with yours. You are defeated, Reapers win.
If you chose to destroy the Reapers, with enough EMS, you win.
If you don't have enough EMS and you cause significant damage to the galaxy and kill yourself in the process.

They use their power of suggestion to make you not pick destroy. A lot of people didn't choose this option because all synthetics would supposedly die, mass relays would be destroyed, etc, etc. So they believed everything the Reapers told them, and chose control or synthesis, and let the Reapers win.

You spend the better part of three games wanting to destroy the Reapers, and with a little conversation with some kid claiming to be the thing that created the Reapers, you believe everything it says and more or less go back on everything you've done and do whatever he tells you and let the enemy win by the mere power their of suggestions. 

I think it's genius, but that's just me.

That's hardly new. The ME series is full of things that were DLC exclusive but appeared in later games, such as the destruction of the Baterian system... First time I saw that in ME3 I had no idea what they were talking about, since I didn't play that DLC in ME2 by then.

I have no idea where you get this. What does Leviathan has to do with anything? The only theory I know of is that it began in ME2's Arrival (I think that was the name of the DLC).
That is of course something anyone has to decide for themselves, but I find it far more believable than the regular ending...
However, in all fairness, I have never heard any theory other than the endoctrination theory and the original ending which says "we believe the star kid just because and therefor the ending sucks."

But again, the theory isn't that Shepard IS indoctrinated, it's that he's going through the process of indoctrination (which we know takes some time).

Also really? I remember the Baterians being mentioned in the game even before I played Arrival... Odd...

In case Shepard didn't smash the relay, an Alliance squad sent by Hackett did it. So of course the outcome is the same, but for people who didn't play it, Shepard never went there. The dialogue also changes with the wounded batarian terrorist on the Citadel.

On topic of IT... not buying it for reasons UpUpAway already stated.

First off multiple disclaimers:

1.  I only completed the series last weekend, so I missed all this discussion before, as well as the general discussions on the controversial endings.
2.  I actually liked the ending.  At least as far as the 3 (or 4) choices went, although I understand why everyone was annoyed about the presentation of the endings, especially pre EC.
3.  I think it's perfectly fine for a story to end on an ambiguous note, which is open to interpretation.  Whether it was actually intentional for the story to be interpreted this way or not ,I don't know.  Even if that was the intention, it wouldn't mean that it should be interpreted that way.  I wouldn't expect the writers to either confirm or deny that either.  It's up to the audience (if that's the right word) to decide.
4.  Apparently, many people used to push IT as the "correct" ending, even going as far as to predict there would be DLC to complete the story.  I can see why that got on people's nerves, but I see no reason not to discuss things that could support it or counter it.  There doesn't have to be a right or wrong.

So, this is all my impressions on playing the last game fresh.  I found scene with the kid in the air duct a bit odd and wondered if he'd have significance later in the game (then he got blown up, and I thought it was it for a while).  The later dream sequences seemed at the time like they could either be early stage indoctrination, or maybe something else trying to communicate through the subconscious.

The show down with the Illusive Man and Anderson did strike me as particularly odd.  Either you are fighting some kind of mind control from the Illusive Man or it's a battle inside your mind, with Anderson and the Illusive Man representing different sides of your subconscious.  I prefer the later, especially since when discussing your options with the catalyst, you clearly see destroy represented by Anderson and Control represented by the Illusive Man (who are obviously either dead or not there at all).  Of course even if that scene wasn't actually real, it could just as easily be down to being mortally wounded and hallucinating and not necessarily indoctrination. Personally, I'm going with this as a battle against indoctrination.

The last part with the catalyst, I take to be actually happening and not just in your head.  Although here it is trying to paint the option you've spent the last 3 games trying to achieve as the least good option.  That's why I like the 3 choices.  2 are things your character (well, at least my character) clearly stated were not options, yet 5 minutes of talking to the intelligence behind the reapers and you're seriously considering (if not actually choosing) to go along with what it says.  You can view this as a test for Commander Shepard, or a test for the player.  Either way, I thought it's a pretty good twist.



2 possible other ways to look at it:

1.  Vigil and Vendetta are only able to detect indoctrination once the process is fully complete.
2.  It takes some time for Vendetta to scan you.  It could be that Kai Lang just happens to show up at the right moment to make you think it's talking about him.

Supporting evidence for number 2: 

When Vendetta detects an indoctrinated presence, it enables it's security protocols.  When you speak to it a second time, it makes a point of saying that it's security protocols have been disabled and therefore it will grant you access.  I found it interesting it would bother to say this if there was no indoctrinated people present.

Not so supporting evidence:

It does take Vendetta a good long while to detect you.  And it looks at Kai when he arrives.

Probably clutching at straws, then.

The main reservation I have with accepting at least some elements of the Indoctrination Theory is that it's apparently a slow process without turning you into a zombie.  I'm not convinced that the dreams alone are enough.  I would have expected to have some elements of general weirdness spread throughout the game.  It actually would have been quite cool had they done this very subtly, but I don't remember anything.  Unless it was too subtle, of course.


Oh, God yes.  I watched one.  It had some good arguments for some level of indoctrination as well as some real shoddy ones.  Things taken from the story as presented to the player are fair game (even then there were some spurious arguments, IMO), but hacking the game to look around the scenes for hidden clues ?  Come on.  It was also highly patronizing, with lots of "do you get it yet?" type comments.  A struggle to get through.  I don't fully agree agree with your "pseudo-science" comment though.  After all, it is just analyzing a work of fiction.

And finally-

I do actually quite like the idea that the the whole end sequence is just a fight for your own soul as you lie dying while the war itself is all but lost.  It's a strikingly powerful if utterly depressing end to the series if you want to view it that way.  I just choose not to, because I'm fine with a happy ending. 

Ironically, that narrative would be utterly ruined if (as it seems many hoped for) Shepard then gets up and saves the Galaxy anyway. 

Good post with some good points.

To me the point was that the Illusive Man was trying to convince Shepard that Control is always the better option, to gather knowledge instead of destroying it. He shows off what they achieved with their nice experiments at Sanctuary and tries to still convince Shepard of this idea.

But Vendetta also asks Shepard if they came to recover it from indoctrinated forces. This is at the end of Cronos, and immediately after, Shepard & Co. travel to the Sol system. If they were indoctrinated at that point, Vendetta should've noticed. If not, it's a little late for this "twist", at least for me. Even the Catalyst being the head of the Reapers was hinted at earlier.

Overall, I see IT as fans being pissed off at what happens at the ending and trying to paint it nicer in a way so they can accept it. It's a cool theory and all, but there isn't a lot that can convince me it's true. Maybe I'm also reluctant to believe it because I see no issues with the ending, even pre-EC. I really enjoyed it.
I've noticed through some discussions in the past that people tend to project their hatred on the Catalyst, instead of the Crucible. This is after all the device that makes all these options possible, not the Catalyst. Synthesis is not mentioned earlier in the main game, but the idea of destroying or controlling with it is mentioned a couple times.

Oh yeah, and the dreams for me only stand for all innocent lives lost. At that point, Shepard suffers from PTSD and I've been told that dreams of people suffering from it are coloured in exactly this way.

I'm not saying it's imposssible to interpret IT into the game...I  have never said it's impossible.  It's not the ONLY way the game can be interpreted.  It is NOT RIDICULOUS, etc. to interpret the game taking the Catalyst at face value... and I resent, quite frankly, that continued implication.  Taking the catalyst at face value is merely one possible way to interpret the game.  IT is also one possible way.  Now, if I may be allowed to discussed the points.

Indoctrination is presented in ME1 as being a process where the subject loses ability to function and is complete when the subject becomes a "mindless husk."  Therefore, since Vigil and Vendetta both detect the "taint of indoctrination," I believe it is being fully implied that they can sense indoctrination that is not complete.  Saren and Leng are both very capable mentally at the stages they encountered Vigil and Vendetta.

My other criticism of the formal IT is that it is really over-complicating the issue.  IF the player wants to use indoctrination as a means of explaining Shepard's frame of mind at the very, very end of ME3, all they need to do is do Leviathan after Thessia and blame Shepard's indoctrination on that.  They don't need to go scouring the game for all these other picky tidbits of indicators to try to build up the case for EVERYONE's Shepard being unavoidably indoctrinated throughout the entire game.

I have played Shepards who I've wanted to end the game indoctrinated... that's my privilege and joy in playing an RPG.  I believe I am correct in assuming that what Bioware intended to write with the ME Trilogy was in fact an RPG that would adapt and change and allow for a broad range of interpretations as different players made different choices throughout the game.  If they had wanted to write a linear game with only one possible story in it, they would not have gone to all the trouble of making bipolar dialogues and choice options available throughout the game.  The game would be more like, say, AC Black Flag, where Edward's character and choices can only go in one direction.

Don't think it holds together well as a theory. As pointed prothean vi's failuure to notice would be a major oversight alone. Seems a desperate clutching at straws theory.

I long gave up on the ending being anything but a train wreck and ignored their nonsense.

Also on a personal level whilst no doubt they could have explained it I absolutely despise the notion of railroaded indoctrination of shep.

To me, it was certain fans attempting to canonize Destroy and making themselves feel superior about it at the same time. 

Of course, that doesn't prevent your impression from being true as well.

The Catalyst sequence could be plausibly seen as playing out in Shepard's mind, but I'm not seeing the least hint of indoctrination, and the decision and their outcomes - all of them - are nonetheless real. The EC should be enough evidence for that.

Sorry if I sounded harsh.... I've got other ME frustrations going on today... doing a play through to track a P/R thing for another poster here and it's not working out all of a sudden.  I must have made a mistake in it somewhere, but I can't find it... yet.

I think you didn't follow the first game. Indoctrination is NOT the same as being a husk. A husk is created by the reapers by capturing them and changing them. Indoctrination is the reapers influencing, and later controlling, a regular person's mind.
Leng wasn't a husk, he was indoctrinated. That's not at all the same thing.

As for the end - it's not a matter of accepting it That can be said for anything in these forums, but that would render conversations moot The whole idea of a thread is to talk about the different ways people interpret the game, and try to show your own