Indoctrination Theory

"That's not what I said" - Hmmm - I cut and pasted that sentence from your OP... but whatever.  I know you weren't talking about me specifically in that sentence... but in your next two posts, you were addressing me specifically... and now you're questioning my ability to understand the concept of someone misunderstanding something.  So, let's just not go deeper into that rabbit hole, OK?

I am merely saying that, since this is a roleplaying game... the player can also choose to have their Shepard do things that don't make perfect sense... that can be a roleplaying choice as good as any other.  They can logically choose to have their Shepard find the catalyst totally believable to their Shepard without totally "believing" the catalyst themselves.  Your statement doesn't reflect that... it seems more about commenting on the frame of mind of the people playing the game - you just said again... you find them "illogical."  Well, I play the game to play the game... I select the different endings because I can... because Bioware wrote them as a choice of endings to the game... I find nothing illogical about that.

In your spoiler, you say "but we know Saren himself was indoctrinated" - Saren was also "implanted."  However, there is an "underlying theme" present in the game that talks about loss of the mental capacity from several sources, not just from indoctrination... from food, for example, and how that can be used to dominate/enslave people.  Bioware presents the concept of domination over people on several different levels and in several different ways.  I don't think they were intending people to interpret indoctrination in only one way... but were writing in openings for people to "imagine" it in different ways.

Even if we just accept Saren as being fully indoctrination, Bioware also presents the idea, through Saren and Benezia, that a subject can break out of indoctrination for a period of time and still make a "lucid" decision and independent choice... this opens the possibilty for the player to decide that Shepard's ending choice is completely rational despite his/her being indoctrinated.

 Alright, folks, party's over!

For those who do not know me, I am one of Indoctrination Theory's biggest naysayers. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because I lost my archive of BSN posts, which had quite a bit things I wrote about IT, but I'll try my best to remember things off the top of my head...

I could talk at length about all the in-game stuff that leads me to conclude IT is bunk, but I think the most compelling evidence is out-of-game, meta-knowledge from the writers/devs that unintentionally tell us that IT was not the writers' intent....

---

1) I read both leaked scripts on ME3, one where almost nothing written became part of the final product, another where almost everything went into the final product. Both scripts had an ending more or less like the one we got, and the writing said clearly that Shepard takes [x] action and the result is Destroy, Control or Synthesis. It was really just that black-and-white. Nothing about indoctrination at work or player choice leading to an indoctrinated Shepard.

2) Mark Meer says he liked the Control ending, saying it was cool to see Shepard become a Reaper god. Why is this significant? If anyone would have seen the final script on ME3, it would be that guy (and Hale, ofc), and his words indicate that what we saw can be taken for its face-value.

3) On occasion, the writers/devs responded to fan questions about the ending, mostly on twitter. Specifically, I am thinking of a question asked about Synthesis and another about why Control requires higher EMS than Destroy. When they have answered these questions, they played exclusively to the face-value interpretation of the ending.

If their intent was IT, one would think they would play to both endings equally or just not answered. The only other explanation is that they wanted to pull a bait-and-switch, playing up the face-value interpretation only to reveal later that IT was the true ending, but... where is that reveal? It's been over four years since ME3 was released.

4) While EC threw some obvious bones to IT, it mostly just squashed a lot of their talking points in favor of face-value information to provide rational explanations (things like, "How did Hackett know Shepard made it up?" or "How did the squadmates following Shepard to the beam get to the Normandy, as shown in that scene on jungle planet?"


There are at least 2 other biggies like the above that I've since forgotten, but I think you get the idea.

Questions for IT:
Why bother indoctrinating Shepard?
Why would choosing destroy break the indoctrination?
Did the reapers create the indoctrination "visions", or was that Shepard's subconscious?
If its Shepard's subconscious, why did he see TIM as being indoctrinated?
If it isn't, why would the reapers reveal that to him?

Those are cute responses and all but just saying the last 25% of ME3 was in Shepard's mind doesn't make it so. If Protheans really do know so much about indoctrination, and their creations can sense it, Shepard isn't indoctrinated.

Shepard not being indoctrinated is the default state, both because we experience them that way and because you can't empirically prove that a state of things doesn't exist except by absence for evidence for it. And - absence of evidence actually is evidence for absence if the evidence should be there but isn't, and nothing at all in the scripts and in anything the developers ever said points at anything else but Shepard being as they always were in the trilogy.

In order to support rational arguments for IT, you need to find evidence *for* it, and I mean real evidence, not just things that aren't in opposition to it. Also, it would need to be conclusive enough to overcome the evidence from the scripts, that suggests Shepard being as they always were. I am confident in the statement that such evidence does not exist.

That the Catalyst scene takes place in Shepard's mind, that's a plausible interpretation, simply because that way the symbolism of the decision makes sense, as it doesn't if you assume that "shooting the tube" and "jump into the beam" are real. I do not see any indication of an indoctrination-like influence, though. First and foremost, Bioware has always been *really* bad at subtlely, as evidenced by almost everything in the ME trilogy up to and including the ending. To assume that they suddenly chose to - and acquired the ability to - be so subtle that it escapes most players in this scene exclusively, that makes no sense at all. Then consider the scripts and statements from the devs, and the scenes of the EC. The scripts as well as the published game including the EC come as close to telling you IT is wrong as they can without explicity saying it.

I actually do like it as a fan theory/headcanon, even if I don't believe it was intentional on the part of the writers at all.

I think what makes the theory compelling though, is that it rather feels like Shepard ought to have been undergoing some indoctrination attempts, just as Saren and the the Illusive Man had before him/her.

The reason I don't think it is intentional is because I don't think the writers intended to make destroy appear to be a more correct choice. And the reason I don't is because I think the intention was to show they all have a high cost/price and that there are no real winners or losers in war. The stuff with the child in the vent and Shepard's dreams I think were more likely an attempt to humanize Shepard a little bit, which fits with some of the themes about Shepard being "tired" and possibly having flashbacks and PTSD at this point.

It's also possibly making a philosophical/metaphysical statement, which I think was inspired by works like The Matrix, according to some of the writers notes that have been shared.

That said, I do think it makes sense as a headcanon and fan interpretation, and especially if you did prefer the destroy ending.

Most voice actors don't typically see a complete script, just their roles In fact that's kind of one of the things they're striking about right now.

Of course, Shepard being the protagonist, you expect Meer and Hale would get the whole picture. But that's not necessarily true. Dialogue ends once you stop talking to the holokid and the stuff ITers go on (the textures of the liquified people totally resemble your squad! Or however that goes) has nothing to do with their lines.

So, what proof do you have Meer and Hale know the whole script and that the script tells the whole story?

I don't see why he wouldn't. Paragon control is the "guardian". And the stuff he said he likes about that ending still applies: Shepard ascends to godhood and he gets to voice the epilogue.

Unless he just wanted to try something different.

Shepard does not ascend to godhood.  Shepard dies.  The AI Shepard uploaded his/her memories to voices the epilogue

Read it.  Don't agree.  Shepard's dead, sorry.  Even the Catalyst says so.  Justice didn't become Kristoff just because he had access to some memories of the dead man.

You can take a bucket of p*ss and call it granny's peach tea, but I'm not gonna drink it 

As I said, the Catalyst says so itself. "You WILL DIE.  You will control us BUT LOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE"

And later "YOUR CONNECTION WITH YOUR KIND WILL BE LOST"

This is not "lalalala"  This is paying attention to the game

But I'm sure you've heard all this before.  Just don't blow anyone up because I'm not buying what you're selling;)

No, I believe "dying" is quite literal.  All that's left of Shepard is data.  Memories and thoughts without any "human" context to them.  The Shepalyst is a copy, lacking Shepard's connection to the galaxy he/she fought to protect, friendships, enemies, or emotions.  For lack of a better term, it lacks Shepard's soul.  This is no ghost in the machine.  It's not even Tom Riddle's diary.