If you are not being sarcastic, then you guys are waiting for something that came out a long time ago. This video was uploaded on March 21, 2012 just after the release of Mass Effect 3 which is March 6. On June 26th, Extended Cut DLC has been released which is the exact same DLC the guy is talking about in the video. Bioware thought this DLC would end players confusion and anger, which it kind of did, but still left so many other players dissatisfied with the ending (including myself)
You missed out a major point that pretty much sold me on the theory: synthesis and control, the two options that the "Catalyst" tries to persuade you to choose, are exactly what Saren and the Illusive Man, two people who we KNOW were indoctrinated, were preaching to us. Saren kept talking about how machines and organics would be stronger as one and the reapers can do that = synthesis. The Illusive Man became hellbent on controlling the reapers even though it was clear he was being controlled by them = control. 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. Because the reapers are in your head. That's why those two endings are so contradictory to the rest of the game's focus. Also, the thing is, if the indoctrination theory isn't corrected, then the only way to explain the ending is shitty writing - which is what I thought at first, but it seemed so odd that such a well written, well-developed series would suddenly go off the rails at the end. The ending makes no fucking sense without this theory, but with it, it ties the whole story together. There are too many leads and foreshadowing for this to have not been intended in some way. Think about it!
A big piece to all this from what I remember was that the Starchild took the form of the child on earth who gets killed. Unless he has access to Shepard's mind then how would he know the child at all? Unless the Child on earth was also an illusion created by the Reapers. IT always made more sense than what we actually got, but I guess Bioware didn't have the foresight.
When you meet the Starchild in the crucible there's music playing while your meeting takes place. This perticular track is only heard when you have your conversation. The name of the song is "Wake up." Think about that for a second. The Starchild is a reaper and everything it says is to misdirect and decive. Shepherd is still on earth. Injured and hallucinating, the reapers makes one final push to take over the commanders mind. From a tactical standpoint it absolutely makes sense since Shepherd is at the center of the resistance against the Reapers. Completing the game on insane difficulty with a united galaxy and choosing the destroy option (thus staying true to your principles on what was the goal since the first game) you will get a cutscean where you see a person lying in the rubble with charred, blackend N7 armour. The chest rises and a breath is heard. It end there. Who is that if not Shepherd? Shepherd is not some special snowflake who can negate the reapers indoctrination. No matter how strong the mind the indoctrination will bore into them. By the third game you can clearly see its effects on shepherd. No matter how strong the mind, indoctrination wins at the end. It even stated multiple times in the lore. He has the weight the galaxy on his shoulders. Wouldn't that be the perfect time to fully exploit the strain that's on him. Think of the doubt, fear and hopelessness that must undoubtedly go through his mind when considering the task in front of him. For an enemy that exelles at instilling these emotions in those they face, it would not be hard for them to exploit that. However, what shepherd has going for him is his mind. As seen when you choose your origins and in games one and two, he's got an extreme willpower. Pushing on against impossible odds and emerging victorious time and time again. He is able to motivate himself because he doesn't believe that's there's something that cannot be done. Failure just isn't in his vocabulary. But he has doubts as seen in the end cinematic of Citadel DLC. The war is getting to him. Shepherd is fighting an uphill battle in his mind, and the indoctrination IS slowly winning. But can you delay it? Yes, yes you can. There was another spectre who also fought the same battle in his mind. Saren. Saren shows that you Can resist it. Doubt and fear are the reapers most powerful weapons. But shepherd helped Saren push that fear and doubt aside and resist the indoctrination. I belive both knew that the resistance could only be temporary. And so to stop Sovereign, Saren killed himself. So that he would not be it's instrument. What most deniers to the indoctrination theory seems underestimate is just how powerful the reaper indoctrination really is. Indoctrination is a red line throughout the series. And it makes everything so much more interesting. That's my take on it.
Andrée Kanth The catalyst is NOT a Reaper. It's an intelligence the Leviathans created which turned on them, and it made them into the first Reaper, Harbinger.
I think it's most likely that IT was 100% part of the story at some point (just like the dark matter plot from me2) but was later scrapped for one reason or another. But eliminating all those clues from the game was to big a task to do that late in the game's creation, so they probably changed or deleted the most obvious clues leavinh all the smaller ones we now know analize and debate. Some of the clues mentioned in this video are rendered null after the extended cut but still...so many of them still remain, too many for me to believe that everyone is just over-analyzing it. Hell a lot of them fit prefectly not just from ME-3's perspective but all the way back to ME1. If nothing else it totally remains an interesting topic.
But then how come Bioware doesn't just say that. I don't however find it lazy writing by any standard, it was still a good ending even if not the best one possible.
Indeed it is,just lazy writers that were more lazy than usual in the ending. Just wanted to get over it and get their paychecks People just make stuff They're like:"Hurr durr bioware did this on purpose hurr durr"
I believe that Shepard is somewhat immune or much more resistant to indoctrination than others based on his incredible amount of will power, which an Asari tells him he has. Also we did sort of destroy the Reapers in the end, at least that's the ending that seems most likely to be cannon, right. So in the end Shepard resisted long enough to destroy them and save the galaxy.
Oh, yeah, whatever happened to that asari item she gave you In Mass effect 1? She said it would no doubt help you later. but then never once mentioned it after that.
@@sumireravenclaw8034 It’s in Mass Effect 1. Gotta go to a planet and use the artifact. Basically just tells you that protheans were watching humans 50,000 years ago.
True. I had heard about it but never really bothered to look it up in the past - glad I did. But some evidence now seems have lost credibility because of one thing: Mass Effect Andromeda. If the final moments with the Illusive Man, Anderson, God-child and Marauder Shields didn't occur and was Shepard suffering hallucinations, then the Reapers presumably won? Doesn't Andromeda's existence deny that? I know this video is 4 years old and I haven't played through in a while, but I'm still confused. I'm probably missing something though.
bioware has never supported the indoctrination theory so it has always been a non-canonical ending. if that wasn't enough to dissuade people i'm sure many will find a way to make it work with Andromeda.
Argorok87 Bioware confirmed that Andromeda doesn't have any relation to the trilogy. I think they're going with the arks leaving before the ending happened? I'm not too sure, only that they said the endings have no effect on Andromeda at all.
Watching this it does make so much sense. But maybe they were planning a trilogy of Mass effect 3 instead of one game like Xenosaga and they ended up having to cram content together or had changes happen to content and got sloppy putting everything together.
You made me see the light. Conclusion: If Shepard chooses to control the reapers or to merge syntethics and organics, then he gives in, and he gets indoctrinated. If he destroys them, then he will awaken from his hallucinations and will find himself alive, conscious and in the middle of a wretched battlefield. Correct me if I'm wrong. There's still a problem, though. It's really cool that Shep is conscious, freed from Indoctrination and all that, but there's still a whole goddamn fleet of Reapers out there.
PoYo MaRiO Yeah, under that interpretation, Destroy does not actually destroy anything, and the actual ending is just not in the game then. It makes more sense if you see Shep as awake again after the Catalyst says, "Wake up." Shep, at this point, just won the boss battle over his/her mind and is fully awake now, ready for taking any of the actions presented, and the rest is all real. Again, Shep is only hallucinating the part from first waking up on the Citadel to waking up the second time.
enter Mass Effect 4, you finish the fight against the respers, only to find the galaxy unsuitable for any and all life, forcing a mass exodus to another galaxy. (This is just my theory which seems to be plausible if the indoctrination theory is correct)
+Mirror's Edge the poorest comment i have ever read in relation to the IT. what he says is true and undeniable. so in a desperate attempt to save your silly theory you throw away most of "the evedince" used before to "proof" the IT. even with your little emergency exit the "main problems" are still there. no armor, how did he get there etc. plus it means that destroy is not the only good option. but maybe you bring up something new to make it work for you. something like parttime halluscinating. just keep on changing it gradually and you dont need to admit you are wrong.
@@timblake1989 You're incorrect. Multiple articles were published in February of 2021 in relation to an interview with Chris Hepler. The theory has been officially debunked by BioWare.
The Indoctrination theory is wrong because: 1. Shepard fights the Reapers. If he was indoctrinated, the Reapers could simply just get to him, make him stop and the whole war effort would have collapsed. 2. In the Leviathan DLC, those creatures get in his head. They would have found signs of indoctrination. 3. On Thesia, Vengeance, the Prothean VI, can detect indoctrination. He only detects indoctrination after Kai Leng gets there, not on Sheppard.
ece alparslan Indoctrination is not absolute, as the fight with Saren has proven. Sheppard has a strong will, otherwise the beacon on Eden Prime would have killed him. Plus, he was able to resist with some success the indoctrination by the Leviathan.
ece alparslan Yeah... you are right about the Leviathan. And true, the theory has some solid evidences, but ultimately fails... at least in my opinion.
Alexandru Avram-Rusu "3. On Thesia, Vengeance, the Prothean VI, can detect indoctrination. He only detects indoctrination after Kai Leng gets there, not on Sheppard." In the Leviathan DLC, it shows that after opening the ORB, the NOT indoctrinated person, BECAME CONTROLLED/INDOCTRINATED within SECONDS of opening the Reaper orb. Therefore your points are false. Because even THE RACHNI QUEEN was talking about OILY SHADOWS and whispers from the reapers. That´s all you get when you go to the citatadel.
ece alparslan they never said either way whether IT is true or not. they wanted the gamers to have their own imagination and to believe whatever you want. I don't know where you are getting that source about them saying it wasn't true
Indoctrination ending would have turned this games ending from WTF to "How FUCKING awesome is THAT!?!" I felt it coming, 3 games, 100+ hours, giving into the Reapers and then the final showdown between Harbinger and Sheperd. That DLC will be released soon right? RIGHT?
Dlc already was released. And it proved that the indoctrination theory was really just how people who were disappointed with the ending could deal with it. The game just had too many plot holes which had to be filled in by the dlc.
I chose Control (finished it for the first time last night) and I had the extended ending DLC installed. Am I too late to say I didn't care by the end, I just wanted to see Mordin live to do experiments on sea shells?
Yeah it was, but the developers said that there where going to be "wildly different" endings. Not just "A, B or C" (I guess refusal was D) Oh well. Looking forward to Andromeda
I want to see the whole crew on at a beach house in swimsuits and watching the sun set and taking in billions of credits from royalties from their books and movie deals.
To be honest, I think the indoctrination ending was the original ending Bioware came up with, but then they turned face because they were worried about backlash from having such a nihilistic ending, and because they lied in marketing about giving us multiple endings. We cannot rule out EA wanting DLC and more sequels... The indoctrination theory would have made both of these impossible.
I've heard that EA Games rushed the game and released it sooner than Bioware had originally intended. I definitely believe something was up, but that Bioware was pushed into a time shortage and made a quick ending with the little time they had left.
heiveldboy It is what happened. When ME3 got released, you saw the results of what happened when a game company wanted to take its time to work on their project. The current multiplayer you see now was to be greatly expanded as well but EA has a habit of ruining smaller companies they buy out. I really hope EA doesn't mess with Bioware too much while they are working on ME4 (probably will happen and the issues from it will be blamed on Bioware). This is the same reason why Dice is starting to hate EA since they aren't able to work on their projects without some kind of deadline or withdrawal of support. Case in point, Star Wars Battlefront and Battlefield 4 upon releases.
I know. The sad truth remains that EAgames is going to keep pulling stunts like this so long as they keep selling their games. Although, they're making it difficult to even do that. I wanted to buy Dragon Age games off of Origin, but they won't let me do it without a credit card. The idiots pretend we have the option of using a Paypal account, but they keep trying to get a credit card out of me. So I'm not going to buy their products anymore, unless I can do it my way. May not mean much. May hurt Bioware and it may even hurt Dragon Age IV when/if it releases. But I'm just tired of this anti-costumer businesses.
King Derner Cousland I half agree with you. Some points are dumb, but some actually make sense, like the fact that nobody can see the kid, and how he randomly disappears from the vents
Great points, but I'm sticking with Occam's Razor here. Bioware had a deadline and the ending was rushed. Though I think they kind of set themselves up for failure from the beginning. Don't get me wrong, the trilogy was great. But during the first game, Sovereign stated that humans can't possibly understand the Reaper's motives (which is fine - kind of makes the Reapers like a cyborg Cthulhu). But of course, plots abhor an unsolved mystery, so the writers felt required to explain the Reapers before the end of the trilogy and that explanation was surprisingly simplistic and empirically flawed. Edit: Argh, I've had ELO's "Strange Magic" stuck in my head since watching this video. Except I keep hearing it as "Space Magic".
Agreed. Most of this stuff in the video just looks like coincidence and there is no way Bioware came up with a whole indoctrination story in the time they had
+Phlebas well , even a simple fan won't make up this shit as an end there must something that makes the fan eager to play the next game to understand the ending , however as he said in the video even if it was a VERY bad writing that's a second chance to have a legendary ending to the trilogy and an epic start to andromeda
A good counter to the counter that you only get the destroy option if your score is too low is that the reapers don't even need to try to stop you because you've already lost. Even if you get up and continue to fight you'd still loose because your force isn't large enough to win. In this low score scenario they aren't doing it out of desperation but because keeping Shepard out of the fight means that they can win it faster.
Brennan Hall well im assuming they were still partially functional, maybe he managed it with just the maneuvering thrusters? the ship does have a massive eezo core so he could have used that to reduce the mass of the ship to nearly zero, which would make it easy for the tiny little thrusters to fly it around
+oldnotweak It seems you guys never talked at Engineer adams hu? , He specificly says , that if you push the Normandys core to its limits , it will practicly explode and flod the endiniering bay . but then he says :: we could avoid that by geting some ::bla bla bla cooling rods If you do get theese upgrades for the Normandy in the extendet DLC endings , the normandy does not explode and it launces again and flys away in the distance .
Mario Georganas we were talking about the crash landing and why it happened in the first place. not the take off. my ship was 100 percent upgraded by the end
It's not weak, it has a good basis, it has a lot of traces/patterns/hints (dunno the best suited word in english) can be debated or hinted through numerous materials, however it can't be proven yet. It follows the same pattern as the theory of the big bang, which has a good basis, but it can't be proved, and with a lot of debatable arguments you can descontruct the big bang theory. Theory is something that can't be proven yet and can be descontructed, debate about it and etc, thus probably because of that you think it's "weak". If you want something strong, go search for a theorem
Obviously those who say the Indoctrination Theory is weak know something about single player content being cut out of the game. Bioware did this to give EA an excuse to abuse the hell out of that multiplayer. With the Extended Cut DLC I honestly hate EA with a passion, they absolutely want to milk this franchise to death and Bioware's not even taking this seriously because of them.
I am stunned that in all the DLC BioWare released they didn't just claim it was real. The Indoctrination Theory is a shit ton more compelling than whatever they wanted their original ending to be.
Yeah but how did we actually win the war if the IT was true? Did I fight my ass off in all three games only to fight off a mind fuck and realize I can't get up to the citadel to use the Crucible? That sucks balls!
***** Yeah but wouldn't be nice if you do win even if it's with a few side effects. That happens in canon. So I'd go with that over this overly complicated and totally out of place theory that says it was all for nothing.
Too bad it's not real The reality is just that EA ruined bioware, causing them to rush their magnum opus and the result was that ending sucks and is full of plot holes
11 years later. It amazas me how much the indoctriantion theory explained everything about the ME3 ending, how it made perfect sense and yet was absolutely, 100% wrong.
The Indoctrination theory is 100% true for 2 major reasons. 1. The reapers beams cut through military warships like butter, there is no way Shepard can take a blast from the most powerful Reaper and live, UNLESS Harbinger was intentionally trying not to kill him. 2. There is no way a billion year old catalyst would have the appearance of a human child that didn't exist when he was made. That "child" died on Earth which is nowhere near the Citadel and is only in Shepard's dreams. Synthetics cannot read minds and he never touched Shepard or hooked him up to anything, the meeting with Shepard is an Indoctrination dream. No matter what anyone says the facts are that Shepard survived a blast from the most powerful reaper and the catalyst has the form of a species that came a billion years after he was made.
Well 1) yes harbinger could've been trying to avoid killing him, but there could be another reason for this. It was the reapers plan all along that an organic race assemble the crucible and make the choice because they wanted synthesis but did not wish to do so with an unwilling species that wasn't worthy. This makes sense because think about it, the crucible just happened to need the citadel (something designed by reapers) to work? Likely the crucible was designed by the reapers in the first place 2) How the hell do you know they can't read minds? Reading brainwaves would frankly not be impossible for a race as advanced as the reapers, the human brain is just a computer after all. They may not need to hook him up to anything for all you know. 3) finally why would they bother indoctrinating him at the end? By that point Shepard was no longer a threat and as the reapers had basically won by that stage there was no real need to indoctrinate him. All they wanted at this stage was more corpses to build more reapers and they didn't need to hypnotise shepard for that
I hope that everything is resolved in ME4. I hope that instead of bullshitting their fans with an entirely different protagonist, Bioware starts ME4 with Shepard waking up, regrouping, and finally getting rid of those damn Reapers. I hope.....
But Bioware is filled with a bunch of assholes who like to trick people. They could have just said that as a sort of M. Night Shyamalan twist. Regardless of whether they disproved it or not, I'd rather believe that Shepard isn't dead and Bioware hadn't righteously fucked the ENTIRE trilogy in the ass.
I hope that Mass Effect 4 is really a true Mass Effect 2. Actually I think that Mass Effect 1 was such a self contained story that it was not capable of existing alongside a direct sequel.
I have a way to reconcile this theory with the new Mass effect game. It goes like this, indoctrination theory is true, Shepard never leaves Earth and beams to the citadel and all this happens in his head (that's why you see him wake up) but in real life the reapers are still destroyed. I think this happens because in the game Admiral Hackett says that *SOMEONE* made it to the citadel. I believe this, but I believe that it *WASN'T SHEPARD*. Instead it was someone else (doesn't matter who) who then actually made it to the citadel and destroyed the reapers. This would explain why humanity is still around in the new game but are not the cyborgs like you see in the synthesis ending and it explains why you don't see any more reapers casually flying around. If someone big on youtube already thought of this then I apologize.
The Reapers only invade this galaxy. The next game takes place in a different galaxy. There's no reason to have to explain what happened to the Reapers. It would take generations to travel to Andromeda. What could happen, is a crew is genetically frozen, or they just live and die traveling though dark space (although I don't know how they would fuel the ship). Or, a primary mass relay is found that goes into dark space, and connects with several more primary relays until it reaches one in the Andromeda galaxy. Deez nuts.
Ciggy Bones The crew is clearly human, and they don't have cybernetic implants, which means synthesis can't be right. They could explain it away by saying that everyone rejected it after they got it. But this sounds unlikely as the slideshow suggested people were having a great time. They really do need to explain what happened to the reapers, if not they could simply say that the humans making the trip are from before the reaper war started and therefore the war's outcome can be ignored. But the trailer suggests the humans in Andromeda were sent after the war, just by the looks of the ships. This begs the question of what happened after. The humans in the ship that went to Andromeda aren't removed from the effects of the reaper war. Sure, you could just leave it to people's imagination about how they can reconcile the new game with the ending they chose in ME3 (perhaps that would cause the least potential controversy) but still it would be nice if gaps were filled, for clarity's sake.
Vincent Hitchin I've been under the impression they were sent before the reaper threat. But if it is after then an explanation of what exactly happened would be nice.
The thing is, the colony ships in Mass Effect: Andromeda were sent out before the Reapers invaded. So they were not affected by any of the choices in the endings, as they were in a different galaxy by then.(Because the effects of any of your decisions only happen in our galaxy)
It made it... manageable. Somewhat. It makes a little of the sickness go away. Not all. Not even half. Or half of a half. (What?) Still, this was not the ending Mass Effect deserved. A brilliant series of games, even the last one, up until the very end. And that makes it so much worse, in my eyes. That we were NEARLY there. Entering into the final, grand escapade of the Shepard! Finishing the good fight, at long last. I imagine THAT would have been so satisfying. A final, epic, clash. With no bullshit like picking your favorite color. Also, it's also fucked up with how they only show a FEW companion slides. Depending on what ending you chose. You know, those brief little flashes, as Shepard fades away? That. Is. Unacceptable. I loved every single part of the Shepard crew, and they all deserved to have their spotlight in shepard's thoughts, at the end. *Sigh* enough ranting. 'S been a long time since I've thought about Mass effect. Sorry for the massive paragraph.
The DLC made the endings better defined, but it did nothing to combat the fact that they made no sense whatsoever. ME3 had good atmosphere and good gameplay (minus the space ninjas), but it's plot is an undercooked mess. It looks okay up to the ending the first time, but you look at it again, and you find there is much that got shoehorned in at the last minute.
I think Bioware should try again from the beginning, and put some effort into the plot this time. Like adding characters with personalities! And not having SPACE NINJAS! But it will never happen. Still, after all the bullshit gamers put up with in this lousy excuse for a conclusion, Bioware owes them an apology, and an official admittance that they fucked up, and pissed of the Mass Effect fanbase.
The thought of marauder shield got me here. I still remember he tryied to save us. I probably wont buy any new mass effect games. I easly had over 500 hours between all 3 games and the last 10 minutes just left a bad taste in my mouth. One bad enough I just cant bring myself to get back into the universe that i loved soo much.
Idk why everybody hates it. I did the Destroy ending where shepherd lives and I thought the ending was a great wrap up to the series, it was everything I could ask for. Plus, it's not "Maurauder shields" it's just "Marauder"
oh, besides bioware saying that the indoc theory is wrong and he was never indoct. the VI senses kais indoctrination, wouldn't it sense sheps as well, on both occassions
Also, I like this fan ending much more than the cannon ones, but lets be real, it's a fan ending. If it was the real ending, it would have been the one in the game, and wouldn't require a "titanic was inside job" level of conspiracy theory linking events.
Watch the whole Theory vid, it's pretty convincing, the guy even did one for the extended cut and some of the DLC, if anything it further enforces his theory, at least in his mind. I agree with this theory, but Bio is quick to slap anything like that down.
That's always been my bet, though the original idea of the Dark Energy, lame that they ditched that. Made the whole part in ME 2 with Tali's mission a waste
+ANTIU JAVIK, the prothean explains INDOCTRINATED Protheans were the main reason for their fall. Those VI's failed to detect indoctrination then. Besides, Kai Leng (ninja guy) was extensively using Cerberus reaper tech; alerting the Thessia V.I. + Shep is in the early stages of Indoc. There was no change in his views or behavior during game indicating he is fighting it.
+Zed Zamorin To better sum up your point, Shepard only gets indoctrinated when you chose to control or combine with the reapers. All that he experienced up to the point of the V.I. were the side affects of attempts at indoctrination by being in close proximity of reaper technology for years.
Hard to say if this is what Bioware intended, (or maybe there were conflicting voices within bioware?) but it makes the most sense. On my first playthrough I picked the control ending and it felt a little too convenient; dreamlike. The destroy ending felt real, and and was more satisfying after getting all that EMS.
I feel as if you choose the synthesis or control ending the reapers win because that's what the people who were indoctrinated wanted and if this theory correct I feel that destroying the reapers is Shepards way of fighting indoctrination
I thought joker was running because he didn't want edi to die in destroy, but that falls apart if he never got with her or if you picked other endings like control/synth
My reasoning in choosing Destroy: It is the only option the Reaper can DIE. My only regret is that crucible didn't blow them to pieces but simply "unplugs" them, which looks much less satisfying.
Oh shit. So if the indoctrination theory has something to do with this, and it all took place in Shepards mind then does that open a new possibility that the reapers are not fully destroyed yet and maybe you just bought some time and that's where the sequel comes in where you actually finish the fight this time..? o.e
So if Shepherd never left Earth, then his choice doesn't actually effect the battle with the reapers. If he manages to break free, the reapers won't be destroyed by the crucible and everyone is still going get harvested by the reapers unless they see him break free and decide to give up.
Here's something I found against the Indoctrination Theory (I've only just now played through the game for the first time). When you're on Thessia and you're talking to the Beacon, it says "indoctrinated detected" when Kai Leng shows up, but not before when it's just your squad. This is also after Shepard was having those bizzaro dream-sequences.
+The Avenger at Ilipa ...Sheppard was never indoctrinated. end of story. this argument was poorly supported even before the extended cut came out and when it did it pretty much eliminated any remaining support. half of the points this guy makes contradict themselves or are invalid on their own.
I know this is an older video, but for those who still believe in the theory: 1.) The Child was Bioware's attempt at creating a PTSD-esque survivor's guilt paradigm. It had no other purpose than grounding the player and recalling the loss of others in the war. 2.) Normandy exploding was just bad writing. Supposedly the overwhelming amount of energy is supposed to destroy Mass Relays and likely overheat certain technologies. But that was implemented crudely with so many changing variables it was just a plot hole. 3.) The planet scene was supposed to be some sort of adam & eve, new beginnings type of closure representative of a galaxy without reapers. The LI showing up was also bad writing later fixed in the Extended Cut. (Although it still makes no sense that they would extract Shepard's teammates and not anyone else who's injured?? Baaad writinggg) 4.) There are other people still alive on the ground besides Shepard, yet Coats and the lady seem unaware and call a retreat so they can regroup. It's perfectly plausible that Anderson and the others were still alive but presumed dead because of a human mistake. Shepard killed all the nearby enemies- of which there were few for gamer convenience- and Anderson likely stumbled after them, the way clear of baddies thanks to Shepard. Then they get sucked into different places, easily explained seeing that the reapers were using the citadel to carry human bodies and they couldn't all be held in that one hallway Shepard popped up in. The beam likely randomizes where the bodies are sent, and with the shifting corridors, Anderson probably got a faster path to the control panel. As for The Illusive Man, he was there before the reapers moved the Citadel to the Sol system. He probably found a safe spot on the citadel and hid out while informing the reapers of the Crucible plan. Either that or Reaper forces left him alone because he was already indoctrinated. He might have even been a line of defense- the reapers informing him of Shepard and Anderson's presence and guiding him to the control panel so he could. guard it. Perhaps the reason he's not interested in the console (if that reason isn't simply bad writing) is that the reapers allow him to believe he's achieving his own agenda, but really they've given him their own purpose which doesn't involve using the Crucible. So he's like a slave that doesn't realize he's a slave. 5.) The Illusive Man can control Anderson and Shepard because of the scientific breakthroughs on Sanctuary. In the video logs at the Cerberus base he's seen getting the special cybernetic implants required to indoctrinate others. Shepard then makes a comment about how it make be easy to indoctrinate humans like themselves but not to indoctrinate a reaper, which TIM admits is too difficult, even after all the work he went through. The Illusive Man is a show-off. He's very much about making sure people know he's right. He doesn't want to kill Shepard right away because he wants to "explain his evil plan" and try to convince Shepard (who he admires and respects) that he is right. And later, he does kill Shepard if they don't pass the paragon/renegade check so... 6.) Hackett knows Shepard is in the Crucible because the arms were open from somebody on the inside and everyone would assume it's Shepard because the #1 rule of Mass Effect is that Shepard is the best. If a miracle happens, Shepard is behind it. Eh. 7.) The Catalyst's reasons are a credit to Mass Effects bad writing. The writers were trying too hard to make their ending twisty and "not cliche". Whatever. As for the lying, the Catalyst has been wrong about other things and even admits to underestimating organics. 8.) The Illusive Man's eyes have always looked like that because he has cybernetics implanted. People like Rana and Saren didn't have eyes like that. It's just TIM's aesthetic. Shepard's eyes are likely a texture/lighting issue that reflects poorly on the dissolving lights. The destroy ending just uses generic explosions so this isn't an issue, as those are standard effects. 9.) Because in the destroy ending, Shepard isn't dissolved, the likelihood of them surviving isn't as slim. Because of the massive surge of energy from the Crucible, Shepard was probably beamed back down to Earth. The energy from the Crucible expanded the beam's radius and reached Shepard topside. Either that or Bioware didn't take that into account at all and just came up with some dark, concrete model for effect. Take your pick. 10.) Bioware's refusal to comment on the Theory that may seem like it's canon in their writing is actually just a tactic to keep up discussions in the fanbase and make sure the hype train never stops chugging. Bad writing is not an excuse. It's a legit problem. As someone who writes, the indoctrination makes no sense from a writing viewpoint. If this indoctrination theory were real, Bioware would play off of it and make sure the player KNOWS it's real and that they came up with it. It makes no sense to have something that is canon be so vague and obscure that fans have to really use their imagination to understand it.
I love to see all the various idea sbaout the actual ending but like..tonthe people that do say the ending is rushed, yes it rushed, however. It isn't rushed because of EA nor Bioware. Kotaku leaked the entire script for ME3 before the game was released, forcing Bioware to COMPLETELY rewrite the entire game. Hence the ending not being up to par with the other games or making it become really nonsensical. Kotaku even announced this themselves a while back and it has resurfaced again on social media.
The leaked ending was nearly identical to what we got... Blog explaining it: rabidgames.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/mass-effect-3-the-leaked-story-and-the-final-plot/ Full thing: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=docs.google.com/document/d/17vTg6rwmHIywnC54Whkmj01fv840GgrJEf92z1ce_qg/mobilebasic&ved=0ahUKEwi8h8-rl6fLAhULKyYKHZq2DzcQFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNHgqRGHtR62_Aa6Wt1NUa1OrdvNXQ&sig2=DHOhxxG5SdWNz65X2fYQyg
I think the true story is that the guys in Bioware was working on an indoctrination-ending, but EA came over and sold the unfinished game, with a rendered-in-thirty-minutes closure.
This seems to be the most logical explanation. The game was simply rushed out months before it was finished. Perhaps they actually did toy with that indoctrination idea considering how non-nonsensical final ending is. But EA as always, destroyed everything.
Really to me the most terrible thing about the Indoctrination theory is that a large group of people are basically saying: "And then he woke up and found it was all a dream" would be an improvement on the ending they got.
If I were Bioware, even if this theory wasn't correct, I would say it is. It'd get a lot of fan satisfaction (more that the current, that is), and it could make Bioware seem deeper and smarter than they are. It'd be like Portal's side stories if it were true (and dear God I hope it is).
Actually, if I was bioware, I would wait for people to lower their expectations wayyy lower so if this was conformed to be correct through DLC, it would have a larger impact.
Actually that last scene where Shepard wakes up isn’t on earth either it’s on a completely different planet this is proven by the mass effect 4 trailer where liara finds a piece of his armor on a snow covered planet
Great vid. You gave credit where credit is due to others. My conjecture is that the ending was a rushed tacked on ending, and that the clear indoctrination plot going on was too hard for Bioware to pull off given the time and budget they had been allotted. Thus, much like how KOTOR2 left out the robot factory, they left out a whole plot line, and assembled things together as best they could. I'm probably dead wrong but that is why it is a mere conjecture.
I was unsure, right up to reason #9, the one about the exploding Citadel and waking up in the rubble, that was what convinced me. I've just finished my very first playthrough, and I chose synthesis. I thought ensuring peace forever was worth the violation of everyone else's free will. Now, I have to start a new playthrough to get an ending where i'm not a puppet dancing on the Reaper's orders. So both thanks for enlightening me, and screw you for deciding how my down time gets spent for the next week.
Honestly, I don't know what choice I would choose. Every choice has its perks and negatives. The only one that has the most negatives in my opinion is control. I wouldn't like the idea of someone or something having the power to either help all life or destroy all life. It wouldn't even be a God thing. It would almost feel like at any second, this being could change it's mind and begin the cycle all over again. And synthesis is tempting because the idea of peace is great. But the fact that we would not have free will is a big factor in being an oraganic life form itself.
This theory cant be right remember thessia the prothean vi said indoctrinated presence detected when kai leng entered the temple and it went into lockdown yet this didnt happen when Shepard started talking to it
TheSolitudePiano Indoctrination is a slow methodical process as it so states in the game Codex Shepard is not fully indoctrinated for it to detecte it but Kai Leng is indoctrinated or becoming very close... for the most part I haven't seen any strong reasons WHY Indoctrination Theory is wrong... but it is a "Theory" but if it's true... I think be a awesome endding :D and be cool to see mass effect 4 start off with you as one new ... because the wwar is still going on :3
Ludwig Cornely Synthesis is the best choice unless the catalyst is lying and is using that option as a way of controlling everyone/thing. I switched to renegade/destroy long before I viewed any of the indoc theory information because I just don't trust that lil guy.
***** I still would pick Control....Cuz I have strong believe in Shepard. Maybe in a Alternate universe shepard becomes corrupt. But in MY universe, synthesis is meant for Reaper indoctrination, and Control seems the best to me. Use the Reapers to rebuild the galaxy and the Hero Shepard lives on as a paragon Al that will protect the galaxy. Destroy is cool but damn hella technology gets destroyed and I feel like it will take a long time to rebuild all that technology. But we'll see what happens in Mass Effect 4....shepard trilogy is done but the story moves on. Then that's when we'll see the true ending hopefully. But I bet it's going to be destroy.
Definitely grasping at straws. Bioware did release extended endings and I highly doubt they put all that work in just to ruse the players. Bad writing is bad. Often times the most simple explanation is the accurate one.
The hints are too coherant, and were even before the extended endings. If it is bad writing, it is incredible that nearly everything fall into place under the indoctrinement theory.
Marmalade Phantoms I'm sorry, I don't understand why you are saying this. How is it important to know that this video was made before the release of the extended cut to build your opinion on the Indoctrination Theory? I think AngryJoe said later that the endings contradicted the IT, although he never said how, which is why at this point he still is "hopeful".
Bro. Based on the new teaser from the new Mass Effect, can you all imagine if the actual Refusal ending its canon, and the Indoctrination theory was actually right all along? Just imagine the SHITSTORM that would be. 😅
I'm just fine with the Destroy ending. Reapers die, Shepard lives and wakes up wherever he is and continue to seduce space people for the rest of his life. The end.
That's my favourite ending as well. Its just a bit difficult for me to believe that Shepard survived the Citadel explosion and the descent back into earth and the crash landing and still lived. If that is what "really" happened, then man did bioware royally screw up that one. Its just not scientifically possible.
dyingfoetus Shepard has been brought back to life before and was given upgrades in ME2 so that could help? Also, when Shepard is around, he/she is so bad ass that the laws of science OBEY HIM.
First reason seems a bit off to be honest but if I can be nitpicky... even though I'm usually not. Cereberus was a privately funded group that basically drained the bank to bring back Shepard and after the war with the ravaged economy and with the need to make repairs and reboot life would have taken precedence. The second reason however is 100% valid.
dyingfoetus Yeah but I'm saying that the upgrades from the ME2 could keep him from dying, or from being injured too heavily. Plus, healing Shepard would cost much less than the lazurus project.
The upgrades from ME2 dont make him/her a terminator. (S)He will still die if shot a couple of times(depending on difficulty). In this case (s)he had to have survived the blowing up of the destroy tube, the blowing up of the citadel itself, re-entry into the earths atmosphere(half the temperature of the sun's surface) and finally crashing back into the surface at bullet speed velocity. Shepard is a hardy son of a bitch but (s)he isn't super(wo)man.
One reason why the IT doesn't make any sense to me, is if you remember in ME3 on the Thessia mission, the Prothean VI shuts it's self off when it "detects" the indoctrinated Kei Leng. Why then would the VI of NOT shut it's self off when it was interacting with Shepard IF he was indoctrinated the entire time? By that point in the series, he would have been WELL indoctrinated if we're going by the IT. Any additional thoughts or perspectives, i'm interested in hearing them?
Well, Kei Leng was already fully indoctrinated at that point in Thessia. And as Joe said, Shephard's indoctrination was gradual, I believe it wasn't the Reaper's plan for Shepherd to be gradually indoctrinated, but it was Shepherd's strong will that kept him from being indoctrinated way back in the beginning, in the fight against Sovereign's conscious in Saren's dead body.
Basically saying, Shepherd's indoctrination process was so slow that even the VI couldn't detect it. Shepherd wasn't fully indoctrinated until the very end, when Harbinger had to speed up the process because Shepherd was too close to the end and was over-coming the process.
xXSiiKqpShotzXx The IT was debunked when they released the extended ending. It was an interesting theory before, but It just was not what they were looking for. They honestly never said whether it was true or not, but it was just one of those conspiracy theories.
"Unlimited ammo in the handgun? Indoctrination! Low resolution textures on bodies? Indoctrination! Shepard's wound didn't perfectly line up with the bullet trajectory? Indoctrination!" Is a perfect summary of the IT.
I see this is pre-Extended. The minor continuity bugs are fixed in that version. Howeaver Joker fleeing is not. I would howeaver submit that Joker dose NOT know what the wave actually is, and it just came from a superweapon, as far as he knows it's a death field. The ship might just explode under any conditions as it is exposed to what must be an impossibly large amount of energy, regardless of the type, that much energy will effect something on the ship as it has to go a few AU's to reach the first mass relay, that's a lot of energy. It might be disrupting the Eezo in the engines causing an overload. But that is small potatos, what I know is, if I saw a big energy wave come from what I know is a super weapon, I'd high tail it.
The Normandy uses Anti Proton Engines not Eezo The Drive core is Eezo I Doubt that blast could pierce thru metal Plus They were in FTL In the Codex if the Ship Doesn't Discharge the Static Buildup in an atmosphere It WILL Kill the Entire Crew Joker Knows that the wave is coming but he Does not Leave Because he thinks Shepard's Still Alive Somewhere the The Exploding Engines are Probably The Normandy Getting Disrupted by the field not the Engines but the FTL
Seth Krist An EMP wont damage most things but will stop electronics. VX gas wont harm anything but organic life. You need to remember, Reapers are half technological, you can screw up a computer very easily without causing external damage. A big magnet for example.
Bioware say it's not true only because they can't back track twice (and it would be a spoiler...). I was indoctrinated (picked green 1st time) and was BLOWN AWAY after I found this theory! The ending was AMAZING indoctrinating the actual real life player along with shepard but people are too salty and can't deal with that idea.
@@Grim67894 Right? I mean if they were to say "hey, IT is real, you were right" imagine how many players would be pissed off after understanding they got indoctrinated in like 5 minutes of conversation with the Star Child. You spent the first game trying to stop Saren from going Synthesis (although it was not going to happen, Sovereign's plan was the old cycle one, opening the relay to Dark Space), the second and third (mostly third) trying to stop Cerberus (Illusive man) from attempting Control. But there they are, 5 min until the end of the game and they chose... Saren or Cerberus and to hell with that Anderson idiot... Wow, that should hurt.
@@mrdovahkiindragonborn1446 Well they expanded the original endings because of the massive outcry by people who "didn't get it" and were mad when they picked the green or blue endings that didn't make sense.
@Mister Comment yeah... its depressing but i think the focus should be on the spirit of life; the sense of defianance and never giving up! Even when its impossible to win
The Indoctrination Theory had some good ideas, but some things are answered if you actually payed attention to the game. For instance, The Illusive Man didn't actually try to control the reapers because he was indoctrinated. Also, the reason they don't just destroy synthetics is because organics will just create more synthetics. Also, Anderson got their first because he was teleported to somewhere different than Shepard. Another thing is at that point the Geth weren't just synthetics anymore, they had advanced Reaper intelligence. Another thing is that the Reapers were probably just choosing something to display the catalyst as, and chose something from Shepard mind, the child, just like the Geth did. Another thing is that the reason that Shepard is still alive in destroy is because that is the only ending where his physical form is not destroyed. Also the radio is probably in the omni-tool, hence why it is not broken. Finally, you can't just treat the Catalyst like a person, because unlike the Reapers, it is just an AI, it doesn't have reason in it's head because it is just lines of code, it might have had a bug preventing a better solution from being found. There, I have more, but I don't feel like typing anymore.
Yeah, still the ending did have some faults. Most of which were fixed by The Extended Cut, Leviathan, and Citadel. Good to see that they listened to their fans when they said the endings were bad and made stuff like this.
I have to admit, The Indoctrination Theory was a really cool idea. Also, luckily I actually started Mass Effect 3 with all the main (not weapon pack) dlcs, I can understand being annoyed for not having it for a really long time, even if I did always have it.
You realize all that crap you just said to prove him wrong wasn't originally there? All that explanation and all the extended ending was a couple months or so after the game actually came out. You're beating a 2-year old dead horse. "Also, luckily I actually started Mass Effect 3 with all the main dlcs" Further proving you got the game too late. Use a little bit of intelligence before you post next time, or don't bother posting at all.
I checked to make sure, stuff like the omni-tool, Anderson being teleported somewhere different, TIM being indocrtinated, and the Geth part of the story were in the base game. Plus I saw the original endings first, just didn't play them.
18:32 Fuck back when we thought the DLC was going to be set after ME3, hoping that Shepard survived and can offer an explanation just what happened after that dumpster fire ending. Many players have been introduced to Mass Effect through the new legendary edition, and they will never know the pain and frustration of what we were given before the extended cut was released
1. The locked door opened. The locked sign probably is just a bug. I mean seriously, the reapers are able to halucinate shepard into seeing a open door and a child, but the locked sign is to much for them? 2. The radio problem. We are talking about a future where different alien races just talk and you can understand them becuase of universal translators in (presumably) the ear. A little device in the ear beeing undestroyed and allowing for transmission? Voila, he can communicate with anderson. 3. Maybe anderson ordered the retreat because he wanted the reapers to focus on a different point. But this point is highly questionable. 4. Harbinger leaving? Yes, because there was a huge space battle. And he is the most powerful reaper. And we saw reapers beeing destroyed/heavily damaged by the fleets. So he wants to minimise reaper casualties by participating. Remember, he has to ensure the reapers are next cycle still as strong as they are currently. But every cycle only has a limited amount of organical material harvestable. 5.The illusive man was completely indoctrinated. So why shouldnt he be near the console? He is no threat to the reapers. He is helping them. 6. Dream sequences/others not seeing the kid? Yes very good points. Wound at the wrong place. Good point. 7. Illusive mans unexplained powers? HE was indoctrinated. The reapers had those powers. He just acts as if he has the powers, the reapers do it in reality 8. Geth and biologycs are currently allied. But what in the future? One hacker and they are enemies again.
3. What makes me think the most that the radio broadcast is a hallucination is in the mission briefing Anderson explicitly says that there "can be no retreat, no stepping back;" retreat is the same as mission failure.
lol I was thinking this to, except they did say 'entire' so I would assume the word is being in a context that does mean every last man and woman killed, rather than the historical sense of roughly 1 in every 10 men died in battle. You use this definition in retrospect of large battles, that jerk on the radio is just not very grammatically correct haha ;)
Remember when Angry Joe put actual effort and passion into his videos through editing and scripts and it wasn't a bunch of lazy first-take movie reviews, half-assed gaming reviews, and a oversaturation of "Other Joe" jokes? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
@@josemiravite3289 Yeah man, been watching him for years. He always did the angry thing but it used to always be justified. He stood up to greedy corporations and toxic gaming culture, but nowadays he seems to embody those same things.
@@josemiravite3289 Yeah man, been watching him for years. He always did the angry thing but it used to always be justified. He stood up to greedy corporations and toxic gaming culture, but nowadays he seems to embody those same things.
PonzooonTheGreat What are you talking about? How about the end of Mass Effect 3? The inconsistency when it comes to Dragon Age characters in the first two games? ***This isn't all directed towards you, but I wanted to air my grievances when it comes to Bioware's writing lately.*** Also: Apologies for bringing up a 4 week old post. I know how annoying that is. When it comes to Dragon Age, Bioware is more than willing to retcon and alter characters' fates for their "vision" which usually ends up being lackluster. Leliana's death, for example. Anders' sexuality for another example. The fate of Flemeth is hand-waved and a half. In Leliana's case, she can be killed in DA:O. But she's always present in DA:II, regardless of the Warden's actions in DA:O. Anders is an entirely different character from DA:A to DA: II. In Awakening he was an overly confident womanizing Alistair-lite--he would even openly flirt with a female warden. In DA:II he's a pathetic mage that is all-of-a-sudden gay (if you're playing as a male) and won't shut up about being oppressed. And I feel there is too much handwaving when it comes to "Oh, he's sharing space with Justice/Vengeance, so therefore that explains X, Y, and Z!" No. He's an entirely different character with an entirely different orientation because Bioware decided to be more progressive. Even if I'm wrong, at the very least he could have been written better because he's certainly not a popular character. And the rest, such as Fenris, Isabella, etc. are caricatures of themselves. Fenris looks, acts, and sounds like a FF character because he's a FF character. Isabella looks, talks, acts, and behaves like a prostitute because she is a prostitute even though her design and writing was fine in DA:O. Marrill looks, acts, and behaves like a deer in headlights because she is constantly a deer in headlights, even though her design and writing was fine in DA:O. The only redeemable characters are Varrick and Aveline, which arguably have the weakest character arcs. David Gaider was writing the characters based on art direction--The characters' stories were partially told by their art design. He said so in his blog and I find that lazy. (In an attempt to find DG's position, I found that he has password-protected his tumblr and his other blog is invite only. So believe me or don't.) When it comes to Mass Effect: Kaiden was also inconsistent. Despite being a female-only romance in the first game he turned herosexual during the third game, while also seemingly ignoring his reaction of Shepard's involvement of Cerebus in the second game. It's almost completely out of character. At least Ashley was mostly consistent, given that she's a soldier and all. I have no problem with bisexual or gay characters (hell, Leliana, Zevran, and Liara were great and had the most interesting backstories IMO.) But Bioware really shouldn't change a character's sexual orientation halfway through a series like Kaiden and Anders. It reeks of pandering and is completely inconsistent when it comes to character development--it feels lazy. I mean, It's not like people of a particular persuasion wake up one day and decide "I like a different sex now!" but that's how it comes across. And where sexuality is not disclosed, such as in the case of Marrill, stop turning a guardian/ward of the woods into some warped version of Radagast. All I want is consistency :I
Coltonh65 C'mon we all know Dragon Age II was bad ........ in the case ...... games that import saves in a trilogy and if somehow even one game in that trilogy is really horrible then the whole trilogy is affected ...... especially THE STORYLINE
Oh, of course. I agree. DA: II was horrible--kind of implied that when it came to the writing and characterization of the, well, characters. Also enemies dropping from the sky was beyond dumb. It threw any inkling of strategy out of the window. DA:O was predictable in a good way. You load a map and the enemies will be in the same spot every time. So if you failed it was your fault--not because of some random-chance templar dropping down from the sky. The only saving grace of DA:II was act 2. The Arishok was well voice acted and well scripted. Even if the mechanics of the fight were a nightmare, he was still the most interesting character in that game. **SPOILERS FOR MASS EFFECT 1~3** Mass Effect 3, aside from the acquisition of side missions, was great if you don't count the last 10 minutes. The conversation with Anderson was great IMO. Especially if you chose him to be the representative of humanity for the council. At this point he's done it all; he was a soldier who has earned so many metals that he could melt them down to make a statue of himself (according to Pressly--obviously an exaggeration, but still), a representative, then forced out of "retirement" to become a soldier again, just to protect Earth. He's tired. He just wants to "sit down." The game should have ended there. Shepard defeated the Reapers, it ended on a beautifully touching moment. Just tell us what happened to the crew and the results of our choices throughout the trilogy. The end.
Coltonh65 Would've been better seeing Shepard with his love one and friends at the beach retiring or anywhere really but they're all together well ................. WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER WAS TO SEE THE SIDE EFFECTS AFTER THE WAR.......... EA just has to ruin lives don't they? Those bitches only care about money ...... rushes games so they can get their greedy hands on that sweet sweet cash
I hope Joe realizes that Harbinger actually whispers to you " Come join us Shepard " When he flies off. Not to mention the Illusive man mentions he was helping the reapers they could have brought him ONTO the Citadel.Their actual radios are in their chest plate Beneath all the plating their a piece in the ear you must click. He didn't immediately make Shepard commit suicide to prove his POINT before anything. Not to mention the conduit, and crucible were supposively "built" by the reapers they must have known that eventually things would go a bit far.
Mass effect andromeda all but confirms the destroy ending. You can listen to Alec Ryder's logs discussing how the Milky way has gone silent. If the system was really protected by a fleet of reapers or merged with machines im sure a message or two could of gotten out if Alec could talk to Garris' dad and the Illusive man. Like "Hey dude fuck that new galaxy we got big ass space squids doing all the heavily lifting now. You guy must me sucking out there lol gg milky way for the win"
That's all well and good, but how do you explain the artifact on Thessia. It knew Kai Leng was indoctrinated which looked like he still had all his faculties, so then why didn't the artifact know that Shepard was indoctrinated who would be at the same level of indoctrination or higher than him. Also the Leviathan would know if he was at any stage of indoctrination and kill him, but I don't think that was out when this video was out. Really Bioware, and the fans are just letting it all go to a deeper meaning to avoid making a better ending for Bioware, and feeling cheated as a fan.
He was never indoctrinated the whole concept was he was being influenced and in the process of being indoctrinated. The final portion of the game is him fighting it and it is probably happening because of the proximity to the Reapers.
+Sursion Stating that the Prothean AI was "highly damaged" is just pure speculation. There was no actual damage done to it until after Cerberus tampered with its safe locks. The AI was able to promptly identity indoctrinated personnel the moment Shepard reactivated it, and Leviathan would've also noticed if Shepard had been indoctrinated too. So he's right, these are both pieces of evidence that prove Shepard wasn't indoctrinated during the game (at least not until the finale).
+Sursion Stating that the Prothean AI was "highly damaged" is just pure speculation. There was no actual damage done to it until after Cerberus tampered with its safe locks. The AI was able to promptly identity indoctrinated personnel the moment Shepard reactivated it, and Leviathan would've also noticed if Shepard had been indoctrinated too. So he's right, these are both pieces of evidence that prove Shepard wasn't indoctrinated during the game (at least not until the finale).
Put it this way Angry Joe, I wish I could accept the Indoctrination Theory was a real thing, I really do, but I just don't have that kind of faith in Bioware nor EA.
by the way, in my extended cut of me3, in the final push toward the beam, i head javik and garrus, and those two got wounded when shep called the normandy to pick them up, that is why those characters can be seen later stranded on the planet. i am refering to the part 6:14 So, it's not a dream :) Also, there is a cutscene where Hackett says that someone managed to get in the beam, refering to the part somewhere around 08:00
There was a reason they gave shephard Reaper Eyes. Nobody could have made that happen unintentionally. It happened to Benezia, Saren, and many others. Shepherd eventally joined the club.
Indoctrination theory does have some compelling evidence, but it just doesn't make good business sense. Why, if it was the real ending, would Bioware hide it and make it look like an inept piece of shit? That's a little pointless, and the character of the previous games, or the rest of ME3 for that matter just don't set up the "it was all in your head" conclusion. It would be really out of character for the franchise. Either way, Bioware should not be commended. It's still a bullshit ending, and if there were any justice, they should have to do the whole game over again.
The rest of ME3's plot aside from the ending doesn't hold up all that well either. It's a string of cliches and tearjerkers with a bit of an illogical setup. How do the reapers get here? Don't they need a mass relay to do that? Didn't the arrival DLC blow up the one they were going to use? Explain Mass Effect, explain!
Also, the militaries act like complete idiots, making Hitler's decision to invade Russia look like solid tactical judgement. "Oh no, the reapers showed up, what should we do?" "Let's close our eyes and hope they go away!" I know they've been reluctant to believe Shepard in the past, but there's just no fucking way they would ignore an invasion! Especially when they have a chance to quarantine the Reapers in Batarian space, before the Reapers expand to another mass relay, and spread through the galaxy. No military would ever have such levels of inept decision making.
Joseph Glatz They did explain via the Arrival DLC, that the mass effect relay that you blew up was the Reaper's quickest way to the system but not the only one. They explained multiple times via multiple characters and multiple games that the Reaper's would come eventually, you could only hope to delay them. How you missed a multitude of opportunities for understanding of a simple concept is on you.
Then why did they just come out of Batarian space? Why did the military act like morons, why was there none of the clever story writing and edgy feel of ME2? (Well the story writer left) and why would they have a hidden not ending which looked like a terribly written real ending? ME3 had good gameplay, and good atmosphere, but a fairly mediocre plot up to the ending where it took a nose dive.
Fine I missed that bit in the Arrival DLC, but I was not saying that the reapers should not be able to return, I just wanted more clarification as to how.
This is the way i understand it. I believe that the illusive man, Shepard and Anderson are sharing a dream state or vision induce by the reapers or the AI but for Shepard and Anderson this is not an attempt to indoctrinate them. The illusive man is already indoctrinated by this point in Mass Effect 3. This dream state or vision that the illusive man, Shepard and Anderson are sharing is an attempt to communicate with with Shepard. The other two illusive man may be there to confuse or make Shepard doubt his or her reasons for being there and Anderson being there may represent Shepard's strength of will or it maybe a chance to say goodbye. Shepard is able to freely make any choice he or she wants but the illusive man has to fight to make a choice and Anderson's choice is clear he wants the reapers dead. I hope this helps.
Игры
I think we all learned a little something today.
Mine is that Mr. Marauder Shields is the real hero in this story.
Rest in peace my sweet.
Shinigami Sama He is the hero we all deserve
+Shinigami Sama You mean this unfunny Marauder Shields meme?
+Shinigami Sama Keelah Se'lai Marauder Shields.
Keelah Se'lai
anyone know what song was playing at that time?
Man they're taking a damn long time releasing this DLC.
still waiting, now its the time lol
maybe when it gets remastered for PS4/5 in 2021
Jajajaja, yeah,
It's 4th October 2020, DLC is still TBA.
If you are not being sarcastic, then you guys are waiting for something that came out a long time ago. This video was uploaded on March 21, 2012 just after the release of Mass Effect 3 which is March 6. On June 26th, Extended Cut DLC has been released which is the exact same DLC the guy is talking about in the video. Bioware thought this DLC would end players confusion and anger, which it kind of did, but still left so many other players dissatisfied with the ending (including myself)
You missed out a major point that pretty much sold me on the theory: synthesis and control, the two options that the "Catalyst" tries to persuade you to choose, are exactly what Saren and the Illusive Man, two people who we KNOW were indoctrinated, were preaching to us. Saren kept talking about how machines and organics would be stronger as one and the reapers can do that = synthesis. The Illusive Man became hellbent on controlling the reapers even though it was clear he was being controlled by them = control.
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. Because the reapers are in your head. That's why those two endings are so contradictory to the rest of the game's focus.
Also, the thing is, if the indoctrination theory isn't corrected, then the only way to explain the ending is shitty writing - which is what I thought at first, but it seemed so odd that such a well written, well-developed series would suddenly go off the rails at the end. The ending makes no fucking sense without this theory, but with it, it ties the whole story together. There are too many leads and foreshadowing for this to have not been intended in some way. Think about it!
Yes!
A big piece to all this from what I remember was that the Starchild took the form of the child on earth who gets killed. Unless he has access to Shepard's mind then how would he know the child at all? Unless the Child on earth was also an illusion created by the Reapers. IT always made more sense than what we actually got, but I guess Bioware didn't have the foresight.
So if sheperd never made it to the citadel, the cycle continues?
@Melody Borg You’re right, great thinking.
@@JamesCarmichael And don't forget that the child also has the voice of the Shepards (male and female) as echoes of his words...
seeing kid walking through the locked door
Anderson: SHOT HIM
lol
Thought the same thing.
omg im glad some others caught that xDD i had to rewind the video i was laughing for the 5 mins after that xDD
Hahahaha XD.
RIP Marauder Shields
Died trying to save us from the ending.
Beautiful
lololololll
Never forget
Robert Parker McCollum and the 3 husks too
Ending was a good one
When you meet the Starchild in the crucible there's music playing while your meeting takes place.
This perticular track is only heard when you have your conversation.
The name of the song is "Wake up."
Think about that for a second.
The Starchild is a reaper and everything it says is to misdirect and decive.
Shepherd is still on earth. Injured and hallucinating, the reapers makes one final push to take over the commanders mind. From a tactical standpoint it absolutely makes sense since Shepherd is at the center of the resistance against the Reapers.
Completing the game on insane difficulty with a united galaxy and choosing the destroy option (thus staying true to your principles on what was the goal since the first game) you will get a cutscean where you see a person lying in the rubble with charred, blackend N7 armour. The chest rises and a breath is heard. It end there. Who is that if not Shepherd?
Shepherd is not some special snowflake who can negate the reapers indoctrination. No matter how strong the mind the indoctrination will bore into them. By the third game you can clearly see its effects on shepherd. No matter how strong the mind, indoctrination wins at the end. It even stated multiple times in the lore.
He has the weight the galaxy on his shoulders. Wouldn't that be the perfect time to fully exploit the strain that's on him. Think of the doubt, fear and hopelessness that must undoubtedly go through his mind when considering the task in front of him. For an enemy that exelles at instilling these emotions in those they face, it would not be hard for them to exploit that.
However, what shepherd has going for him is his mind. As seen when you choose your origins and in games one and two, he's got an extreme willpower. Pushing on against impossible odds and emerging victorious time and time again. He is able to motivate himself because he doesn't believe that's there's something that cannot be done. Failure just isn't in his vocabulary. But he has doubts as seen in the end cinematic of Citadel DLC. The war is getting to him.
Shepherd is fighting an uphill battle in his mind, and the indoctrination IS slowly winning. But can you delay it?
Yes, yes you can.
There was another spectre who also fought the same battle in his mind.
Saren.
Saren shows that you Can resist it.
Doubt and fear are the reapers most powerful weapons. But shepherd helped Saren push that fear and doubt aside and resist the indoctrination. I belive both knew that the resistance could only be temporary. And so to stop Sovereign, Saren killed himself. So that he would not be it's instrument.
What most deniers to the indoctrination theory seems underestimate is just how powerful the reaper indoctrination really is.
Indoctrination is a red line throughout the series. And it makes everything so much more interesting.
That's my take on it.
To clarify, shepherd isn't indoctrinated yet. The reapers are trying to indoctrinate him.
Andrée Kanth The catalyst is NOT a Reaper. It's an intelligence the Leviathans created which turned on them, and it made them into the first Reaper, Harbinger.
Still my point stands.
Andrée Kanth It's Shepard, not Shepherd...
Dubious Cyclist Thanks bro
It would be funny if it was just lazy writing and everyone is just over analyzing it...
I think that's probably the reality, the theory is more interesting though.
I think it's most likely that IT was 100% part of the story at some point (just like the dark matter plot from me2) but was later scrapped for one reason or another. But eliminating all those clues from the game was to big a task to do that late in the game's creation, so they probably changed or deleted the most obvious clues leavinh all the smaller ones we now know analize and debate. Some of the clues mentioned in this video are rendered null after the extended cut but still...so many of them still remain, too many for me to believe that everyone is just over-analyzing it. Hell a lot of them fit prefectly not just from ME-3's perspective but all the way back to ME1.
If nothing else it totally remains an interesting topic.
Not lazy, rushed if anything.
But then how come Bioware doesn't just say that.
I don't however find it lazy writing by any standard, it was still a good ending even if not the best one possible.
Indeed it is,just lazy writers that were more lazy than usual in the ending.
Just wanted to get over it and get their paychecks
People just make stuff
They're like:"Hurr durr bioware did this on purpose hurr durr"
It's been seven years Joe.
Where's my DLC
Still here in 2020?
Apparently the extended cut dlc was supposed to be this dlc
Joe’s just a dumbass and bought into that bullshit that Clevernoobs made prior to this shit video.
They released it, there was just no game play added to the end like all of these idiots thought there would be.
RIP Marauder Shields: Died Trying To Save Us From The Ending.
Lawd that made me roll with laughter!
This makes me feel extra proud of my decision to pick the destroy option
Me too
Shepard is not indoctrinated
Multistrangedude1 he is being indoctrinated
well i like to think that he died like a hero in a real war
Lighiting Red but he still didn t die :p
I believe that Shepard is somewhat immune or much more resistant to indoctrination than others based on his incredible amount of will power, which an Asari tells him he has. Also we did sort of destroy the Reapers in the end, at least that's the ending that seems most likely to be cannon, right. So in the end Shepard resisted long enough to destroy them and save the galaxy.
Oh, yeah, whatever happened to that asari item she gave you In Mass effect 1? She said it would no doubt help you later. but then never once mentioned it after that.
@@sumireravenclaw8034 It’s in Mass Effect 1. Gotta go to a planet and use the artifact. Basically just tells you that protheans were watching humans 50,000 years ago.
Not to mention him being a cyborg too.
It's the only canon ending cos shepherd can survive
I still believe in Indoctrination Theory, even if Bioware doesn't. Not only is it far, far more compelling than what we got, but it fits perfectly.
True. I had heard about it but never really bothered to look it up in the past - glad I did. But some evidence now seems have lost credibility because of one thing: Mass Effect Andromeda.
If the final moments with the Illusive Man, Anderson, God-child and Marauder Shields didn't occur and was Shepard suffering hallucinations, then the Reapers presumably won? Doesn't Andromeda's existence deny that? I know this video is 4 years old and I haven't played through in a while, but I'm still confused. I'm probably missing something though.
bioware has never supported the indoctrination theory so it has always been a non-canonical ending. if that wasn't enough to dissuade people i'm sure many will find a way to make it work with Andromeda.
Argorok87 Bioware confirmed that Andromeda doesn't have any relation to the trilogy. I think they're going with the arks leaving before the ending happened? I'm not too sure, only that they said the endings have no effect on Andromeda at all.
Sursion That's not the same as saying that the trilogy is unrelated, just that the ending choice won't impact the beginning of Andromeda.
Watching this it does make so much sense. But maybe they were planning a trilogy of Mass effect 3 instead of one game like Xenosaga and they ended up having to cram content together or had changes happen to content and got sloppy putting everything together.
You made me see the light. Conclusion: If Shepard chooses to control the reapers or to merge syntethics and organics, then he gives in, and he gets indoctrinated. If he destroys them, then he will awaken from his hallucinations and will find himself alive, conscious and in the middle of a wretched battlefield. Correct me if I'm wrong. There's still a problem, though. It's really cool that Shep is conscious, freed from Indoctrination and all that, but there's still a whole goddamn fleet of Reapers out there.
PoYo MaRiO Yeah, under that interpretation, Destroy does not actually destroy anything, and the actual ending is just not in the game then.
It makes more sense if you see Shep as awake again after the Catalyst says, "Wake up." Shep, at this point, just won the boss battle over his/her mind and is fully awake now, ready for taking any of the actions presented, and the rest is all real. Again, Shep is only hallucinating the part from first waking up on the Citadel to waking up the second time.
+PoYo MaRiO both of you guys have good points and make a lot of since.
"Oh, shit! The reapers! Wait, the crucible!"
Whats that?
We are fucked.
enter Mass Effect 4, you finish the fight against the respers, only to find the galaxy unsuitable for any and all life, forcing a mass exodus to another galaxy. (This is just my theory which seems to be plausible if the indoctrination theory is correct)
+Mirror's Edge
the poorest comment i have ever read in relation to the IT.
what he says is true and undeniable. so in a desperate attempt to save your silly theory you throw away most of "the evedince" used before to "proof" the IT.
even with your little emergency exit the "main problems" are still there. no armor, how did he get there etc. plus it means that destroy is not the only good option.
but maybe you bring up something new to make it work for you. something like parttime halluscinating. just keep on changing it gradually and you dont need to admit you are wrong.
Marauder Shields becomes Marauder Health before he dies.
Ever wonder, if the indoctrination theory is correct... and that Marauder was actually just some soldier who was also being controlled or tricked?
@@lostindustries4961
It's a hallucination according to the theory. Outside of the hallucination, they were indoctrinated turian soldiers
what about the prothean computer DIDN'T identify shepard as indoctrinated
That's just what the reapers would want you to believe.
LOL so am indoctrinated too
that is an excellent point that basically invalidates the whole indoctrinated idea
Tomi he identified kai leng as indoctrinated and dissappeared when the latter showed up
because when that happened, he wasn't indoctrinated, he was still going through the process/resistance
I have to say, the Indoctrination theory was one of the most intriguing plot theory I have come across my life
In my head, that's canon
@@unputocalvo Same. I don't care what Bioware thinks on the matter, haha
BioWare have never outright denied IT as being true or not. I fully believe in it, I wish they could have developed it further at the end
@@timblake1989 yes... yes they have
@@timblake1989 You're incorrect. Multiple articles were published in February of 2021 in relation to an interview with Chris Hepler. The theory has been officially debunked by BioWare.
The Indoctrination theory is wrong because:
1. Shepard fights the Reapers. If he was indoctrinated, the Reapers could simply just get to him, make him stop and the whole war effort would have collapsed.
2. In the Leviathan DLC, those creatures get in his head. They would have found signs of indoctrination.
3. On Thesia, Vengeance, the Prothean VI, can detect indoctrination. He only detects indoctrination after Kai Leng gets there, not on Sheppard.
ece alparslan Indoctrination is not absolute, as the fight with Saren has proven. Sheppard has a strong will, otherwise the beacon on Eden Prime would have killed him. Plus, he was able to resist with some success the indoctrination by the Leviathan.
ece alparslan Yeah... you are right about the Leviathan. And true, the theory has some solid evidences, but ultimately fails... at least in my opinion.
Alexandru Avram-Rusu "3. On Thesia, Vengeance, the Prothean VI, can detect indoctrination. He only detects indoctrination after Kai Leng gets there, not on Sheppard."
In the Leviathan DLC, it shows that after opening the ORB, the NOT indoctrinated person, BECAME CONTROLLED/INDOCTRINATED within SECONDS of opening the Reaper orb.
Therefore your points are false.
Because even THE RACHNI QUEEN was talking about OILY SHADOWS and whispers from the reapers. That´s all you get when you go to the citatadel.
ece alparslan
they never said either way whether IT is true or not. they wanted the gamers to have their own imagination and to believe whatever you want. I don't know where you are getting that source about them saying it wasn't true
streetdzine " they wanted the gamers to have their own imagination and to believe whatever you want." I like that. =p =D =) 8D
Indoctrination ending would have turned this games ending from WTF to "How FUCKING awesome is THAT!?!"
I felt it coming, 3 games, 100+ hours, giving into the Reapers and then the final showdown between Harbinger and Sheperd.
That DLC will be released soon right? RIGHT?
Dlc already was released. And it proved that the indoctrination theory was really just how people who were disappointed with the ending could deal with it. The game just had too many plot holes which had to be filled in by the dlc.
Turtle Master The Indoctrination DLC? Awesome. Can't believe I missed it, since it's the DLC that should have come first... RIGHT?
The extended cut dlc was the one they alluded to in all their tweets
Dude, I was being sarcastic.
There is No Indoctrination DLC. There won't be. So I was saying it will be here sometime soon, in a sarcastic way.
yea, should be soon
I chose Control (finished it for the first time last night) and I had the extended ending DLC installed. Am I too late to say I didn't care by the end, I just wanted to see Mordin live to do experiments on sea shells?
I thought there was more options..I got refusal, shittiest 3 minute ending ever
Morgan Swagman There where meant to be. They promised an ending that wasn't A, B or C ending :/
Rikimaru LDR rephrase that again please? This refusal ending was a dlc? i think so
Yeah it was, but the developers said that there where going to be "wildly different" endings. Not just "A, B or C" (I guess refusal was D)
Oh well. Looking forward to Andromeda
Someone might've gotten the seashell experiements wrong!
Its been 8 years...
I finished ME3 yesterday and I just want to see my Shepard and Tali live on Rannoch together :(
Me too
I want to see the whole crew on at a beach house in swimsuits and watching the sun set and taking in billions of credits from royalties from their books and movie deals.
To be honest, I think the indoctrination ending was the original ending Bioware came up with, but then they turned face because they were worried about backlash from having such a nihilistic ending, and because they lied in marketing about giving us multiple endings.
We cannot rule out EA wanting DLC and more sequels... The indoctrination theory would have made both of these impossible.
I've heard that EA Games rushed the game and released it sooner than Bioware had originally intended. I definitely believe something was up, but that Bioware was pushed into a time shortage and made a quick ending with the little time they had left.
heiveldboy It is what happened. When ME3 got released, you saw the results of what happened when a game company wanted to take its time to work on their project. The current multiplayer you see now was to be greatly expanded as well but EA has a habit of ruining smaller companies they buy out.
I really hope EA doesn't mess with Bioware too much while they are working on ME4 (probably will happen and the issues from it will be blamed on Bioware). This is the same reason why Dice is starting to hate EA since they aren't able to work on their projects without some kind of deadline or withdrawal of support. Case in point, Star Wars Battlefront and Battlefield 4 upon releases.
I know. The sad truth remains that EAgames is going to keep pulling stunts like this so long as they keep selling their games. Although, they're making it difficult to even do that. I wanted to buy Dragon Age games off of Origin, but they won't let me do it without a credit card. The idiots pretend we have the option of using a Paypal account, but they keep trying to get a credit card out of me.
So I'm not going to buy their products anymore, unless I can do it my way. May not mean much. May hurt Bioware and it may even hurt Dragon Age IV when/if it releases. But I'm just tired of this anti-costumer businesses.
The Indoctrination theory is just a pathetic attempt of justifying bad writing.
King Derner Cousland I half agree with you. Some points are dumb, but some actually make sense, like the fact that nobody can see the kid, and how he randomly disappears from the vents
Great points, but I'm sticking with Occam's Razor here. Bioware had a deadline and the ending was rushed.
Though I think they kind of set themselves up for failure from the beginning. Don't get me wrong, the trilogy was great. But during the first game, Sovereign stated that humans can't possibly understand the Reaper's motives (which is fine - kind of makes the Reapers like a cyborg Cthulhu). But of course, plots abhor an unsolved mystery, so the writers felt required to explain the Reapers before the end of the trilogy and that explanation was surprisingly simplistic and empirically flawed.
Edit: Argh, I've had ELO's "Strange Magic" stuck in my head since watching this video. Except I keep hearing it as "Space Magic".
Agreed. Most of this stuff in the video just looks like coincidence and there is no way Bioware came up with a whole indoctrination story in the time they had
+Phlebas well , even a simple fan won't make up this shit as an end there must something that makes the fan eager to play the next game to understand the ending , however as he said in the video even if it was a VERY bad writing that's a second chance to have a legendary ending to the trilogy and an epic start to andromeda
A good counter to the counter that you only get the destroy option if your score is too low is that the reapers don't even need to try to stop you because you've already lost. Even if you get up and continue to fight you'd still loose because your force isn't large enough to win. In this low score scenario they aren't doing it out of desperation but because keeping Shepard out of the fight means that they can win it faster.
Everyone knows Destroy is best option.
+legoman7041 yup never try control
+legoman7041 true, the reapers die and shepard survive
Breizh man thats the good thing
+Breizh man Yeah, but EDI dies as well. And the geth.
***** rly i didnt know that i don't care about the geth but EDI is my favorite
Haha, at 2:21 Shepard aims at the kid and Anderson shouts "Shoot him!"
the Normandy was exploding because joker was trying to outrun the damn wave... the wave didnt do anything, joker blew the engines
That's kinda what I was thinking, but how did he land? The explosions (ignoring that space has no oxygen) would still wreck the hull.
Brennan Hall well im assuming they were still partially functional, maybe he managed it with just the maneuvering thrusters? the ship does have a massive eezo core so he could have used that to reduce the mass of the ship to nearly zero, which would make it easy for the tiny little thrusters to fly it around
Joker did it for the lols
+oldnotweak It seems you guys never talked at Engineer adams hu? , He specificly says , that if you push the Normandys core to its limits , it will practicly explode and flod the endiniering bay . but then he says :: we could avoid that by geting some ::bla bla bla cooling rods
If you do get theese upgrades for the Normandy in the extendet DLC endings , the normandy does not explode and it launces again and flys away in the distance .
Mario Georganas
we were talking about the crash landing and why it happened in the first place. not the take off. my ship was 100 percent upgraded by the end
what if he was a sith all this time and was fooling us?
this is not the ending you are looking for
you will dismiss that claim
"NO, THATS NOT POSSIBLE! NOOOOOOOOO!!!"
Don't fool me Obi-Wan I can see through the lies of the Jedi.
Now you know....YOU UNDERESTIMATE MY POWER.
There are too many unknowns to consider this theory canon. But it's a damn good one.
It's not, it's weak.
+Sapien ur have a weak willy
It's not weak, it has a good basis, it has a lot of traces/patterns/hints (dunno the best suited word in english) can be debated or hinted through numerous materials, however it can't be proven yet. It follows the same pattern as the theory of the big bang, which has a good basis, but it can't be proved, and with a lot of debatable arguments you can descontruct the big bang theory. Theory is something that can't be proven yet and can be descontructed, debate about it and etc, thus probably because of that you think it's "weak". If you want something strong, go search for a theorem
Obviously those who say the Indoctrination Theory is weak know something about single player content being cut out of the game. Bioware did this to give EA an excuse to abuse the hell out of that multiplayer. With the Extended Cut DLC I honestly hate EA with a passion, they absolutely want to milk this franchise to death and Bioware's not even taking this seriously because of them.
@@commandshep06 Horseshit.
I am stunned that in all the DLC BioWare released they didn't just claim it was real. The Indoctrination Theory is a shit ton more compelling than whatever they wanted their original ending to be.
Yeah but how did we actually win the war if the IT was true? Did I fight my ass off in all three games only to fight off a mind fuck and realize I can't get up to the citadel to use the Crucible? That sucks balls!
***** No it does not it is war... you dont always win.
***** Yeah but wouldn't be nice if you do win even if it's with a few side effects. That happens in canon. So I'd go with that over this overly complicated and totally out of place theory that says it was all for nothing.
as soon as the destroy option came i immediately spammed my controller
Bioware in 2012: "hang in there"
Fans in 2021: -_-
Still trash, all these years later.
9 years later and I still think about this ending :/
Too bad it's not real
The reality is just that EA ruined bioware, causing them to rush their magnum opus and the result was that ending sucks and is full of plot holes
2019 and still no confirmation. What are they hiding?
you think they were just trolling?
and hinting to that nightmare called andromeda?
Ha good one
Ok so I believe that they still have a new mass effect they won’t leave andromeda as there end
@@l3umstick in any case they should've just continued with the shepard story.
I made a trailer for a ME4 game since they wont do it
Whatever Bioware says, this is my canon.
Aw man, can't believe this video is 10 years old. God DAMN.
11 years later. It amazas me how much the indoctriantion theory explained everything about the ME3 ending, how it made perfect sense and yet was absolutely, 100% wrong.
I wouldn't say it's 100% wrong.
According to BW the theory is 100% fan created. They never thought about it. @@zairman
The Indoctrination theory is 100% true for 2 major reasons.
1. The reapers beams cut through military warships like butter, there is no way Shepard can take a blast from the most powerful Reaper and live, UNLESS Harbinger was intentionally trying not to kill him.
2. There is no way a billion year old catalyst would have the appearance of a human child that didn't exist when he was made. That "child" died on Earth which is nowhere near the Citadel and is only in Shepard's dreams. Synthetics cannot read minds and he never touched Shepard or hooked him up to anything, the meeting with Shepard is an Indoctrination dream.
No matter what anyone says the facts are that Shepard survived a blast from the most powerful reaper and the catalyst has the form of a species that came a billion years after he was made.
Well 1) yes harbinger could've been trying to avoid killing him, but there could be another reason for this. It was the reapers plan all along that an organic race assemble the crucible and make the choice because they wanted synthesis but did not wish to do so with an unwilling species that wasn't worthy. This makes sense because think about it, the crucible just happened to need the citadel (something designed by reapers) to work? Likely the crucible was designed by the reapers in the first place 2) How the hell do you know they can't read minds? Reading brainwaves would frankly not be impossible for a race as advanced as the reapers, the human brain is just a computer after all. They may not need to hook him up to anything for all you know. 3) finally why would they bother indoctrinating him at the end? By that point Shepard was no longer a threat and as the reapers had basically won by that stage there was no real need to indoctrinate him. All they wanted at this stage was more corpses to build more reapers and they didn't need to hypnotise shepard for that
Lewis Wilkinson the extended ending disproved this theory.
It disproved nothing. Neither did the leviathan dlc.
I hope that everything is resolved in ME4. I hope that instead of bullshitting their fans with an entirely different protagonist, Bioware starts ME4 with Shepard waking up, regrouping, and finally getting rid of those damn Reapers. I hope.....
Keep dreaming or keep doing that kind of comments to get thumbs up, also why he should get rid of the reapers if he destroyed them?
Because if he's indoctrinated as this video says, it's all an illusion for the most part.
If I recall correctly the IC was proved wrong, the video itself is supposed to be old, they are going to do a ME4 but not with Shepard.
But Bioware is filled with a bunch of assholes who like to trick people. They could have just said that as a sort of M. Night Shyamalan twist. Regardless of whether they disproved it or not, I'd rather believe that Shepard isn't dead and Bioware hadn't righteously fucked the ENTIRE trilogy in the ass.
I hope that Mass Effect 4 is really a true Mass Effect 2.
Actually I think that Mass Effect 1 was such a self contained story that it was not capable of existing alongside a direct sequel.
I will forever support this theory, and that destroying the Reapers is the only counter.
I have a way to reconcile this theory with the new Mass effect game. It goes like this, indoctrination theory is true, Shepard never leaves Earth and beams to the citadel and all this happens in his head (that's why you see him wake up) but in real life the reapers are still destroyed. I think this happens because in the game Admiral Hackett says that *SOMEONE* made it to the citadel. I believe this, but I believe that it *WASN'T SHEPARD*. Instead it was someone else (doesn't matter who) who then actually made it to the citadel and destroyed the reapers. This would explain why humanity is still around in the new game but are not the cyborgs like you see in the synthesis ending and it explains why you don't see any more reapers casually flying around. If someone big on youtube already thought of this then I apologize.
The Reapers only invade this galaxy. The next game takes place in a different galaxy. There's no reason to have to explain what happened to the Reapers.
It would take generations to travel to Andromeda. What could happen, is a crew is genetically frozen, or they just live and die traveling though dark space (although I don't know how they would fuel the ship). Or, a primary mass relay is found that goes into dark space, and connects with several more primary relays until it reaches one in the Andromeda galaxy.
Deez nuts.
Ciggy Bones The crew is clearly human, and they don't have cybernetic implants, which means synthesis can't be right. They could explain it away by saying that everyone rejected it after they got it. But this sounds unlikely as the slideshow suggested people were having a great time. They really do need to explain what happened to the reapers, if not they could simply say that the humans making the trip are from before the reaper war started and therefore the war's outcome can be ignored. But the trailer suggests the humans in Andromeda were sent after the war, just by the looks of the ships. This begs the question of what happened after. The humans in the ship that went to Andromeda aren't removed from the effects of the reaper war. Sure, you could just leave it to people's imagination about how they can reconcile the new game with the ending they chose in ME3 (perhaps that would cause the least potential controversy) but still it would be nice if gaps were filled, for clarity's sake.
Vincent Hitchin I've been under the impression they were sent before the reaper threat. But if it is after then an explanation of what exactly happened would be nice.
Ciggy Bones Yes exactly.
The thing is, the colony ships in Mass Effect: Andromeda were sent out before the Reapers invaded. So they were not affected by any of the choices in the endings, as they were in a different galaxy by then.(Because the effects of any of your decisions only happen in our galaxy)
Even after the DLC update...ending still sucks lol.
It made it... manageable. Somewhat. It makes a little of the sickness go away. Not all. Not even half. Or half of a half. (What?) Still, this was not the ending Mass Effect deserved. A brilliant series of games, even the last one, up until the very end. And that makes it so much worse, in my eyes. That we were NEARLY there. Entering into the final, grand escapade of the Shepard! Finishing the good fight, at long last. I imagine THAT would have been so satisfying. A final, epic, clash. With no bullshit like picking your favorite color. Also, it's also fucked up with how they only show a FEW companion slides. Depending on what ending you chose. You know, those brief little flashes, as Shepard fades away? That. Is. Unacceptable. I loved every single part of the Shepard crew, and they all deserved to have their spotlight in shepard's thoughts, at the end. *Sigh* enough ranting. 'S been a long time since I've thought about Mass effect. Sorry for the massive paragraph.
The DLC made the endings better defined, but it did nothing to combat the fact that they made no sense whatsoever. ME3 had good atmosphere and good gameplay (minus the space ninjas), but it's plot is an undercooked mess. It looks okay up to the ending the first time, but you look at it again, and you find there is much that got shoehorned in at the last minute.
I think Bioware should try again from the beginning, and put some effort into the plot this time. Like adding characters with personalities! And not having SPACE NINJAS! But it will never happen. Still, after all the bullshit gamers put up with in this lousy excuse for a conclusion, Bioware owes them an apology, and an official admittance that they fucked up, and pissed of the Mass Effect fanbase.
Leviathan DLC doesn't count.
Rhaegar Blackiron That was well said man, well said.
His name was marauder shields...
The thought of marauder shield got me here. I still remember he tryied to save us. I probably wont buy any new mass effect games. I easly had over 500 hours between all 3 games and the last 10 minutes just left a bad taste in my mouth. One bad enough I just cant bring myself to get back into the universe that i loved soo much.
Im gonna wait for the reviews for me andromeda if it turns out to be good ill buy it
Idk why everybody hates it. I did the Destroy ending where shepherd lives and I thought the ending was a great wrap up to the series, it was everything I could ask for. Plus, it's not "Maurauder shields" it's just "Marauder"
Skomos Parham
Everyone knows that we just joke around by saying "He lived as Marauder Shields...and died as Marauder Health...Never forget"
+BasilNight oh haha
+BasilNight so did joe know that? or is he just mistaken
oh, besides bioware saying that the indoc theory is wrong and he was never indoct. the VI senses kais indoctrination, wouldn't it sense sheps as well, on both occassions
I like the Indoctrination Theory's points, but for now it's just that, a theory. A game theory!
***** matt?
Gravity is also just a theory. So hilarious how most people have no idea what the word "theory" actually means. Simple fucks
ahhhaahha
Also, I like this fan ending much more than the cannon ones, but lets be real, it's a fan ending.
If it was the real ending, it would have been the one in the game, and wouldn't require a "titanic was inside job" level of conspiracy theory linking events.
And after all this time the bastards never even give us closure.
Man rewatching this just makes me think this would have been the best course of action
Instead of andromeda
This whole theory Joe is explaining is a whole mindfuck...
Watch the whole Theory vid, it's pretty convincing, the guy even did one for the extended cut and some of the DLC, if anything it further enforces his theory, at least in his mind. I agree with this theory, but Bio is quick to slap anything like that down.
Or the main plot of ME4?
Yeah no...that would take creativity, and with EA at the helm, thats not happening.
Galamere Probably because since they didn't come up with the theory, they didn't want to give credit to the community for fixing their mess
That's always been my bet, though the original idea of the Dark Energy, lame that they ditched that. Made the whole part in ME 2 with Tali's mission a waste
The V.I. says he doesn't detect indoctrination when he talks to Shepard. Boom.
+ANTIU That's before Shepard gets to Earth, before he's exposed to hundreds, or thousands of Reapers.
ME 4 is coming out. I doubt that Shepard did bad things if there is still is a human race.
+ANTIU JAVIK, the prothean explains INDOCTRINATED Protheans were the main reason for their fall. Those VI's failed to detect indoctrination then. Besides, Kai Leng (ninja guy) was extensively using Cerberus reaper tech; alerting the Thessia V.I. + Shep is in the early stages of Indoc. There was no change in his views or behavior during game indicating he is fighting it.
+Zed Zamorin To better sum up your point, Shepard only gets indoctrinated when you chose to control or combine with the reapers. All that he experienced up to the point of the V.I. were the side affects of attempts at indoctrination by being in close proximity of reaper technology for years.
+ANTIU My god. Thank you.
Hard to say if this is what Bioware intended, (or maybe there were conflicting voices within bioware?) but it makes the most sense. On my first playthrough I picked the control ending and it felt a little too convenient; dreamlike. The destroy ending felt real, and and was more satisfying after getting all that EMS.
lmao, i just realize right now that the final boss of the series is actually a marauder. 8:01 after all this year joe, you're right HAHAHAHA
I need ten minutes to think this through. Mind blown
The enemy is "Marauder" not "Marauder Shields" that's apart of the hud. Notice how it changes to "health"
This theory is pathetic.
His name, was Marauder Shields.
PipoBV He died a hero!
He needed a name so people don't remember him as just "marauder"
I feel as if you choose the synthesis or control ending the reapers win because that's what the people who were indoctrinated wanted and if this theory correct I feel that destroying the reapers is Shepards way of fighting indoctrination
Yes I agree when mass effect 4 comes out it should follow the destroy ending as canon.
I thought joker was running because he didn't want edi to die in destroy, but that falls apart if he never got with her or if you picked other endings like control/synth
Guess it’s because he has no idea what it is and what it will do.
My reasoning in choosing Destroy: It is the only option the Reaper can DIE. My only regret is that crucible didn't blow them to pieces but simply "unplugs" them, which looks much less satisfying.
Oh shit. So if the indoctrination theory has something to do with this, and it all took place in Shepards mind then does that open a new possibility that the reapers are not fully destroyed yet and maybe you just bought some time and that's where the sequel comes in where you actually finish the fight this time..? o.e
omg me4 will be that... Fighting against them still! :O
Rhys Davies Ye
Rhys Davies
Halo Effect 4: Finish The Fight. =P
WitheringintheDark LOOL!
So if Shepherd never left Earth, then his choice doesn't actually effect the battle with the reapers. If he manages to break free, the reapers won't be destroyed by the crucible and everyone is still going get harvested by the reapers unless they see him break free and decide to give up.
If he breaks the indoctrination he could enter the stream beam to the Citadel and interact with the crucible in reality
@@godmode8687 or he just dies from wounds or dies by nearby enemies that are watching him in case he wakes up
Here's something I found against the Indoctrination Theory (I've only just now played through the game for the first time). When you're on Thessia and you're talking to the Beacon, it says "indoctrinated detected" when Kai Leng shows up, but not before when it's just your squad. This is also after Shepard was having those bizzaro dream-sequences.
+The Avenger at Ilipa ...Sheppard was never indoctrinated. end of story. this argument was poorly supported even before the extended cut came out and when it did it pretty much eliminated any remaining support. half of the points this guy makes contradict themselves or are invalid on their own.
***** Then I honestly have no idea why the motif of the child was in there at all.
put a little thought into it... the story of ME can be analyzed like any other story. (ie: symbolism, etc.)
I know this is an older video, but for those who still believe in the theory:
1.) The Child was Bioware's attempt at creating a PTSD-esque survivor's guilt paradigm. It had no other purpose than grounding the player and recalling the loss of others in the war.
2.) Normandy exploding was just bad writing. Supposedly the overwhelming amount of energy is supposed to destroy Mass Relays and likely overheat certain technologies. But that was implemented crudely with so many changing variables it was just a plot hole.
3.) The planet scene was supposed to be some sort of adam & eve, new beginnings type of closure representative of a galaxy without reapers. The LI showing up was also bad writing later fixed in the Extended Cut. (Although it still makes no sense that they would extract Shepard's teammates and not anyone else who's injured?? Baaad writinggg)
4.) There are other people still alive on the ground besides Shepard, yet Coats and the lady seem unaware and call a retreat so they can regroup. It's perfectly plausible that Anderson and the others were still alive but presumed dead because of a human mistake. Shepard killed all the nearby enemies- of which there were few for gamer convenience- and Anderson likely stumbled after them, the way clear of baddies thanks to Shepard.
Then they get sucked into different places, easily explained seeing that the reapers were using the citadel to carry human bodies and they couldn't all be held in that one hallway Shepard popped up in. The beam likely randomizes where the bodies are sent, and with the shifting corridors, Anderson probably got a faster path to the control panel.
As for The Illusive Man, he was there before the reapers moved the Citadel to the Sol system. He probably found a safe spot on the citadel and hid out while informing the reapers of the Crucible plan. Either that or Reaper forces left him alone because he was already indoctrinated. He might have even been a line of defense- the reapers informing him of Shepard and Anderson's presence and guiding him to the control panel so he could. guard it. Perhaps the reason he's not interested in the console (if that reason isn't simply bad writing) is that the reapers allow him to believe he's achieving his own agenda, but really they've given him their own purpose which doesn't involve using the Crucible. So he's like a slave that doesn't realize he's a slave.
5.) The Illusive Man can control Anderson and Shepard because of the scientific breakthroughs on Sanctuary. In the video logs at the Cerberus base he's seen getting the special cybernetic implants required to indoctrinate others. Shepard then makes a comment about how it make be easy to indoctrinate humans like themselves but not to indoctrinate a reaper, which TIM admits is too difficult, even after all the work he went through.
The Illusive Man is a show-off. He's very much about making sure people know he's right. He doesn't want to kill Shepard right away because he wants to "explain his evil plan" and try to convince Shepard (who he admires and respects) that he is right. And later, he does kill Shepard if they don't pass the paragon/renegade check so...
6.) Hackett knows Shepard is in the Crucible because the arms were open from somebody on the inside and everyone would assume it's Shepard because the #1 rule of Mass Effect is that Shepard is the best. If a miracle happens, Shepard is behind it. Eh.
7.) The Catalyst's reasons are a credit to Mass Effects bad writing. The writers were trying too hard to make their ending twisty and "not cliche". Whatever. As for the lying, the Catalyst has been wrong about other things and even admits to underestimating organics.
8.) The Illusive Man's eyes have always looked like that because he has cybernetics implanted. People like Rana and Saren didn't have eyes like that. It's just TIM's aesthetic. Shepard's eyes are likely a texture/lighting issue that reflects poorly on the dissolving lights. The destroy ending just uses generic explosions so this isn't an issue, as those are standard effects.
9.) Because in the destroy ending, Shepard isn't dissolved, the likelihood of them surviving isn't as slim. Because of the massive surge of energy from the Crucible, Shepard was probably beamed back down to Earth. The energy from the Crucible expanded the beam's radius and reached Shepard topside. Either that or Bioware didn't take that into account at all and just came up with some dark, concrete model for effect. Take your pick.
10.) Bioware's refusal to comment on the Theory that may seem like it's canon in their writing is actually just a tactic to keep up discussions in the fanbase and make sure the hype train never stops chugging.
Bad writing is not an excuse. It's a legit problem. As someone who writes, the indoctrination makes no sense from a writing viewpoint. If this indoctrination theory were real, Bioware would play off of it and make sure the player KNOWS it's real and that they came up with it. It makes no sense to have something that is canon be so vague and obscure that fans have to really use their imagination to understand it.
I love to see all the various idea sbaout the actual ending but like..tonthe people that do say the ending is rushed, yes it rushed, however. It isn't rushed because of EA nor Bioware.
Kotaku leaked the entire script for ME3 before the game was released, forcing Bioware to COMPLETELY rewrite the entire game. Hence the ending not being up to par with the other games or making it become really nonsensical.
Kotaku even announced this themselves a while back and it has resurfaced again on social media.
+QT Eila Seriously WOW do you have a link to that i need to read that and why in the world would you do that anyway???!!
+QT Eila Do you have a link?
The leaked ending was nearly identical to what we got...
Blog explaining it:
rabidgames.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/mass-effect-3-the-leaked-story-and-the-final-plot/
Full thing:
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=docs.google.com/document/d/17vTg6rwmHIywnC54Whkmj01fv840GgrJEf92z1ce_qg/mobilebasic&ved=0ahUKEwi8h8-rl6fLAhULKyYKHZq2DzcQFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNHgqRGHtR62_Aa6Wt1NUa1OrdvNXQ&sig2=DHOhxxG5SdWNz65X2fYQyg
Jay R damn....
+QT Eila So blame Kotaku.
Been following you ever since this video :D
I think the true story is that the guys in Bioware was working on an indoctrination-ending, but EA came over and sold the unfinished game, with a rendered-in-thirty-minutes closure.
This seems to be the most logical explanation. The game was simply rushed out months before it was finished. Perhaps they actually did toy with that indoctrination idea considering how non-nonsensical final ending is. But EA as always, destroyed everything.
Really to me the most terrible thing about the Indoctrination theory is that a large group of people are basically saying: "And then he woke up and found it was all a dream" would be an improvement on the ending they got.
If I were Bioware, even if this theory wasn't correct, I would say it is. It'd get a lot of fan satisfaction (more that the current, that is), and it could make Bioware seem deeper and smarter than they are.
It'd be like Portal's side stories if it were true (and dear God I hope it is).
Actually, if I was bioware, I would wait for people to lower their expectations wayyy lower so if this was conformed to be correct through DLC, it would have a larger impact.
Actually that last scene where Shepard wakes up isn’t on earth either it’s on a completely different planet this is proven by the mass effect 4 trailer where liara finds a piece of his armor on a snow covered planet
Maybe he was teleported or something. However, where Liara is could be a place on Earth like Antarctica or something.
Great vid. You gave credit where credit is due to others. My conjecture is that the ending was a rushed tacked on ending, and that the clear indoctrination plot going on was too hard for Bioware to pull off given the time and budget they had been allotted. Thus, much like how KOTOR2 left out the robot factory, they left out a whole plot line, and assembled things together as best they could. I'm probably dead wrong but that is why it is a mere conjecture.
I was unsure, right up to reason #9, the one about the exploding Citadel and waking up in the rubble, that was what convinced me.
I've just finished my very first playthrough, and I chose synthesis. I thought ensuring peace forever was worth the violation of everyone else's free will.
Now, I have to start a new playthrough to get an ending where i'm not a puppet dancing on the Reaper's orders.
So both thanks for enlightening me, and screw you for deciding how my down time gets spent for the next week.
Honestly, I don't know what choice I would choose. Every choice has its perks and negatives. The only one that has the most negatives in my opinion is control. I wouldn't like the idea of someone or something having the power to either help all life or destroy all life. It wouldn't even be a God thing. It would almost feel like at any second, this being could change it's mind and begin the cycle all over again. And synthesis is tempting because the idea of peace is great. But the fact that we would not have free will is a big factor in being an oraganic life form itself.
This theory cant be right remember thessia the prothean vi said indoctrinated presence detected when kai leng entered the temple and it went into lockdown yet this didnt happen when Shepard started talking to it
TheSolitudePiano
Indoctrination is a slow methodical process as it so states in the game Codex
Shepard is not fully indoctrinated for it to detecte it
but Kai Leng is indoctrinated or becoming very close...
for the most part I haven't seen any strong reasons WHY Indoctrination Theory is wrong... but it is a "Theory"
but if it's true... I think be a awesome endding :D
and be cool to see mass effect 4 start off with you as one new ... because the wwar is still going on :3
Ludwig Cornely Synthesis is the best choice unless the catalyst is lying and is using that option as a way of controlling everyone/thing. I switched to renegade/destroy long before I viewed any of the indoc theory information because I just don't trust that lil guy.
***** I still would pick Control....Cuz I have strong believe in Shepard. Maybe in a Alternate universe shepard becomes corrupt. But in MY universe, synthesis is meant for Reaper indoctrination, and Control seems the best to me. Use the Reapers to rebuild the galaxy and the Hero Shepard lives on as a paragon Al that will protect the galaxy. Destroy is cool but damn hella technology gets destroyed and I feel like it will take a long time to rebuild all that technology.
But we'll see what happens in Mass Effect 4....shepard trilogy is done but the story moves on. Then that's when we'll see the true ending hopefully. But I bet it's going to be destroy.
Definitely grasping at straws. Bioware did release extended endings and I highly doubt they put all that work in just to ruse the players.
Bad writing is bad. Often times the most simple explanation is the accurate one.
The hints are too coherant, and were even before the extended endings. If it is bad writing, it is incredible that nearly everything fall into place under the indoctrinement theory.
Extended Cut was made WAY after this video. This video if you notice is on March 20th. Extended Cut came out on June 26th.
Marmalade Phantoms I'm sorry, I don't understand why you are saying this. How is it important to know that this video was made before the release of the extended cut to build your opinion on the Indoctrination Theory?
I think AngryJoe said later that the endings contradicted the IT, although he never said how, which is why at this point he still is "hopeful".
Bro. Based on the new teaser from the new Mass Effect, can you all imagine if the actual Refusal ending its canon, and the Indoctrination theory was actually right all along? Just imagine the SHITSTORM that would be. 😅
RIP marauder shields, you will never be forgotten
I'm just fine with the Destroy ending. Reapers die, Shepard lives and wakes up wherever he is and continue to seduce space people for the rest of his life. The end.
That's my favourite ending as well. Its just a bit difficult for me to believe that Shepard survived the Citadel explosion and the descent back into earth and the crash landing and still lived. If that is what "really" happened, then man did bioware royally screw up that one. Its just not scientifically possible.
dyingfoetus
Shepard has been brought back to life before and was given upgrades in ME2 so that could help? Also, when Shepard is around, he/she is so bad ass that the laws of science OBEY HIM.
First reason seems a bit off to be honest but if I can be nitpicky... even though I'm usually not. Cereberus was a privately funded group that basically drained the bank to bring back Shepard and after the war with the ravaged economy and with the need to make repairs and reboot life would have taken precedence. The second reason however is 100% valid.
dyingfoetus
Yeah but I'm saying that the upgrades from the ME2 could keep him from dying, or from being injured too heavily. Plus, healing Shepard would cost much less than the lazurus project.
The upgrades from ME2 dont make him/her a terminator. (S)He will still die if shot a couple of times(depending on difficulty). In this case (s)he had to have survived the blowing up of the destroy tube, the blowing up of the citadel itself, re-entry into the earths atmosphere(half the temperature of the sun's surface) and finally crashing back into the surface at bullet speed velocity. Shepard is a hardy son of a bitch but (s)he isn't super(wo)man.
One reason why the IT doesn't make any sense to me, is if you remember in ME3 on the Thessia mission, the Prothean VI shuts it's self off when it "detects" the indoctrinated Kei Leng. Why then would the VI of NOT shut it's self off when it was interacting with Shepard IF he was indoctrinated the entire time? By that point in the series, he would have been WELL indoctrinated if we're going by the IT. Any additional thoughts or perspectives, i'm interested in hearing them?
Caroline Sålder Ok point taken. Thanks for the input.
Well, Kei Leng was already fully indoctrinated at that point in Thessia. And as Joe said, Shephard's indoctrination was gradual, I believe it wasn't the Reaper's plan for Shepherd to be gradually indoctrinated, but it was Shepherd's strong will that kept him from being indoctrinated way back in the beginning, in the fight against Sovereign's conscious in Saren's dead body.
Basically saying, Shepherd's indoctrination process was so slow that even the VI couldn't detect it. Shepherd wasn't fully indoctrinated until the very end, when Harbinger had to speed up the process because Shepherd was too close to the end and was over-coming the process.
xXSiiKqpShotzXx The IT was debunked when they released the extended ending. It was an interesting theory before, but It just was not what they were looking for. They honestly never said whether it was true or not, but it was just one of those conspiracy theories.
legendaryfasteddy the EC didn't fix a damn thing. watch smudboy's ME3 bookends of destruction and his analysis of the CE.
"Unlimited ammo in the handgun? Indoctrination! Low resolution textures on bodies? Indoctrination! Shepard's wound didn't perfectly line up with the bullet trajectory? Indoctrination!"
Is a perfect summary of the IT.
it's been nearly 5 years and calling that dude marauder shields still pisses me off LOL.
I believe that was the initial plan, but time constraints and budgeteering killed it. Would have been amazing, but instead we got shit. Bummer.
I wholeheartedly agree.
So true.
I see this is pre-Extended. The minor continuity bugs are fixed in that version. Howeaver Joker fleeing is not. I would howeaver submit that Joker dose NOT know what the wave actually is, and it just came from a superweapon, as far as he knows it's a death field. The ship might just explode under any conditions as it is exposed to what must be an impossibly large amount of energy, regardless of the type, that much energy will effect something on the ship as it has to go a few AU's to reach the first mass relay, that's a lot of energy. It might be disrupting the Eezo in the engines causing an overload. But that is small potatos, what I know is, if I saw a big energy wave come from what I know is a super weapon, I'd high tail it.
The Normandy uses Anti Proton Engines not Eezo The Drive core is Eezo I Doubt that blast could pierce thru metal Plus They were in FTL In the Codex if the Ship Doesn't Discharge the Static Buildup in an atmosphere It WILL Kill the Entire Crew Joker Knows that the wave is coming but he Does not Leave Because he thinks Shepard's Still Alive Somewhere the The Exploding Engines are Probably The Normandy Getting Disrupted by the field not the Engines but the FTL
djhoanna navarro The blast can't pierce through metal but can take out a reaper? =P
Seth Krist
An EMP wont damage most things but will stop electronics. VX gas wont harm anything but organic life. You need to remember, Reapers are half technological, you can screw up a computer very easily without causing external damage. A big magnet for example.
That would have disrupted everything else made work conditions impossible and made travel without detection or mass destruction impossible
Been convinced of this for years now. *If* the indoctrination theory is true, it makes the ending one of the best I know.
Bioware say it's not true only because they can't back track twice (and it would be a spoiler...). I was indoctrinated (picked green 1st time) and was BLOWN AWAY after I found this theory! The ending was AMAZING indoctrinating the actual real life player along with shepard but people are too salty and can't deal with that idea.
@@Grim67894 Right? I mean if they were to say "hey, IT is real, you were right" imagine how many players would be pissed off after understanding they got indoctrinated in like 5 minutes of conversation with the Star Child. You spent the first game trying to stop Saren from going Synthesis (although it was not going to happen, Sovereign's plan was the old cycle one, opening the relay to Dark Space), the second and third (mostly third) trying to stop Cerberus (Illusive man) from attempting Control. But there they are, 5 min until the end of the game and they chose... Saren or Cerberus and to hell with that Anderson idiot... Wow, that should hurt.
@@Grim67894 if the creators of mass effect 3 denied the theory then it's not true.
@@mrdovahkiindragonborn1446 Well they expanded the original endings because of the massive outcry by people who "didn't get it" and were mad when they picked the green or blue endings that didn't make sense.
@@Grim67894 are you saying that the fans didn't get the original ending or the indoctrination theory.
I consider the Indoctrination Theory cannon because it's a much better ending than anything provided and i also pretend Andromeda didn't happen lol
@Mister Comment yeah... its depressing but i think the focus should be on the spirit of life; the sense of defianance and never giving up! Even when its impossible to win
But if the indoctrination theory is truth then shepard never defeated the reapers
The Indoctrination Theory had some good ideas, but some things are answered if you actually payed attention to the game. For instance, The Illusive Man didn't actually try to control the reapers because he was indoctrinated. Also, the reason they don't just destroy synthetics is because organics will just create more synthetics. Also, Anderson got their first because he was teleported to somewhere different than Shepard. Another thing is at that point the Geth weren't just synthetics anymore, they had advanced Reaper intelligence. Another thing is that the Reapers were probably just choosing something to display the catalyst as, and chose something from Shepard mind, the child, just like the Geth did. Another thing is that the reason that Shepard is still alive in destroy is because that is the only ending where his physical form is not destroyed. Also the radio is probably in the omni-tool, hence why it is not broken. Finally, you can't just treat the Catalyst like a person, because unlike the Reapers, it is just an AI, it doesn't have reason in it's head because it is just lines of code, it might have had a bug preventing a better solution from being found. There, I have more, but I don't feel like typing anymore.
Finally I find someone with the same point of view that me
Yeah, still the ending did have some faults. Most of which were fixed by The Extended Cut, Leviathan, and Citadel. Good to see that they listened to their fans when they said the endings were bad and made stuff like this.
I have to admit, The Indoctrination Theory was a really cool idea. Also, luckily I actually started Mass Effect 3 with all the main (not weapon pack) dlcs, I can understand being annoyed for not having it for a really long time, even if I did always have it.
You realize all that crap you just said to prove him wrong wasn't originally there? All that explanation and all the extended ending was a couple months or so after the game actually came out. You're beating a 2-year old dead horse.
"Also, luckily I actually started Mass Effect 3 with all the main dlcs"
Further proving you got the game too late. Use a little bit of intelligence before you post next time, or don't bother posting at all.
I checked to make sure, stuff like the omni-tool, Anderson being teleported somewhere different, TIM being indocrtinated, and the Geth part of the story were in the base game. Plus I saw the original endings first, just didn't play them.
18:32 Fuck back when we thought the DLC was going to be set after ME3, hoping that Shepard survived and can offer an explanation just what happened after that dumpster fire ending.
Many players have been introduced to Mass Effect through the new legendary edition, and they will never know the pain and frustration of what we were given before the extended cut was released
1. The locked door opened. The locked sign probably is just a bug. I mean seriously, the reapers are able to halucinate shepard into seeing a open door and a child, but the locked sign is to much for them?
2. The radio problem. We are talking about a future where different alien races just talk and you can understand them becuase of universal translators in (presumably) the ear. A little device in the ear beeing undestroyed and allowing for transmission? Voila, he can communicate with anderson.
3. Maybe anderson ordered the retreat because he wanted the reapers to focus on a different point. But this point is highly questionable.
4. Harbinger leaving? Yes, because there was a huge space battle. And he is the most powerful reaper. And we saw reapers beeing destroyed/heavily damaged by the fleets. So he wants to minimise reaper casualties by participating. Remember, he has to ensure the reapers are next cycle still as strong as they are currently. But every cycle only has a limited amount of organical material harvestable.
5.The illusive man was completely indoctrinated. So why shouldnt he be near the console? He is no threat to the reapers. He is helping them.
6. Dream sequences/others not seeing the kid? Yes very good points. Wound at the wrong place. Good point.
7. Illusive mans unexplained powers? HE was indoctrinated. The reapers had those powers. He just acts as if he has the powers, the reapers do it in reality
8. Geth and biologycs are currently allied. But what in the future? One hacker and they are enemies again.
3. What makes me think the most that the radio broadcast is a hallucination is in the mission briefing Anderson explicitly says that there "can be no retreat, no stepping back;" retreat is the same as mission failure.
6:46 decimate actually means "to kill 1/10"... it doesn't mean everyone is dead. it means many are dead.
lol I was thinking this to, except they did say 'entire' so I would assume the word is being in a context that does mean every last man and woman killed, rather than the historical sense of roughly 1 in every 10 men died in battle. You use this definition in retrospect of large battles, that jerk on the radio is just not very grammatically correct haha ;)
*three years later, nothing happens*
Remember when Angry Joe put actual effort and passion into his videos through editing and scripts and it wasn't a bunch of lazy first-take movie reviews, half-assed gaming reviews, and a oversaturation of "Other Joe" jokes? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
This is AngryJoe??
Wtf. I didn’t look at then channel and on clicked for the title.
Blew my mind. I’ve never heard him not doing the angry act.
@@josemiravite3289
Yeah man, been watching him for years. He always did the angry thing but it used to always be justified. He stood up to greedy corporations and toxic gaming culture, but nowadays he seems to embody those same things.
@@josemiravite3289
Yeah man, been watching him for years. He always did the angry thing but it used to always be justified. He stood up to greedy corporations and toxic gaming culture, but nowadays he seems to embody those same things.
@@cultureofignorance4410 gay
This is one of my favorite videos.
Bioware is many things. Bad at writing is certainly not one of them.
PonzooonTheGreat yea becuse fucking up the ending like that is not like them.
PonzooonTheGreat What are you talking about? How about the end of Mass Effect 3? The inconsistency when it comes to Dragon Age characters in the first two games?
***This isn't all directed towards you, but I wanted to air my grievances when it comes to Bioware's writing lately.***
Also: Apologies for bringing up a 4 week old post. I know how annoying that is.
When it comes to Dragon Age, Bioware is more than willing to retcon and alter characters' fates for their "vision" which usually ends up being lackluster. Leliana's death, for example. Anders' sexuality for another example. The fate of Flemeth is hand-waved and a half.
In Leliana's case, she can be killed in DA:O. But she's always present in DA:II, regardless of the Warden's actions in DA:O. Anders is an entirely different character from DA:A to DA: II. In Awakening he was an overly confident womanizing Alistair-lite--he would even openly flirt with a female warden. In DA:II he's a pathetic mage that is all-of-a-sudden gay (if you're playing as a male) and won't shut up about being oppressed. And I feel there is too much handwaving when it comes to "Oh, he's sharing space with Justice/Vengeance, so therefore that explains X, Y, and Z!" No. He's an entirely different character with an entirely different orientation because Bioware decided to be more progressive. Even if I'm wrong, at the very least he could have been written better because he's certainly not a popular character.
And the rest, such as Fenris, Isabella, etc. are caricatures of themselves. Fenris looks, acts, and sounds like a FF character because he's a FF character. Isabella looks, talks, acts, and behaves like a prostitute because she is a prostitute even though her design and writing was fine in DA:O. Marrill looks, acts, and behaves like a deer in headlights because she is constantly a deer in headlights, even though her design and writing was fine in DA:O. The only redeemable characters are Varrick and Aveline, which arguably have the weakest character arcs.
David Gaider was writing the characters based on art direction--The characters' stories were partially told by their art design. He said so in his blog and I find that lazy. (In an attempt to find DG's position, I found that he has password-protected his tumblr and his other blog is invite only. So believe me or don't.)
When it comes to Mass Effect: Kaiden was also inconsistent. Despite being a female-only romance in the first game he turned herosexual during the third game, while also seemingly ignoring his reaction of Shepard's involvement of Cerebus in the second game. It's almost completely out of character. At least Ashley was mostly consistent, given that she's a soldier and all.
I have no problem with bisexual or gay characters (hell, Leliana, Zevran, and Liara were great and had the most interesting backstories IMO.) But Bioware really shouldn't change a character's sexual orientation halfway through a series like Kaiden and Anders. It reeks of pandering and is completely inconsistent when it comes to character development--it feels lazy. I mean, It's not like people of a particular persuasion wake up one day and decide "I like a different sex now!" but that's how it comes across.
And where sexuality is not disclosed, such as in the case of Marrill, stop turning a guardian/ward of the woods into some warped version of Radagast. All I want is consistency :I
Coltonh65 C'mon we all know Dragon Age II was bad ........ in the case ...... games that import saves in a trilogy and if somehow even one game in that trilogy is really horrible then the whole trilogy is affected ...... especially THE STORYLINE
Oh, of course. I agree. DA: II was horrible--kind of implied that when it came to the writing and characterization of the, well, characters.
Also enemies dropping from the sky was beyond dumb. It threw any inkling of strategy out of the window. DA:O was predictable in a good way. You load a map and the enemies will be in the same spot every time. So if you failed it was your fault--not because of some random-chance templar dropping down from the sky.
The only saving grace of DA:II was act 2. The Arishok was well voice acted and well scripted. Even if the mechanics of the fight were a nightmare, he was still the most interesting character in that game.
**SPOILERS FOR MASS EFFECT 1~3**
Mass Effect 3, aside from the acquisition of side missions, was great if you don't count the last 10 minutes. The conversation with Anderson was great IMO. Especially if you chose him to be the representative of humanity for the council. At this point he's done it all; he was a soldier who has earned so many metals that he could melt them down to make a statue of himself (according to Pressly--obviously an exaggeration, but still), a representative, then forced out of "retirement" to become a soldier again, just to protect Earth. He's tired. He just wants to "sit down."
The game should have ended there. Shepard defeated the Reapers, it ended on a beautifully touching moment. Just tell us what happened to the crew and the results of our choices throughout the trilogy. The end.
Coltonh65 Would've been better seeing Shepard with his love one and friends at the beach retiring or anywhere really but they're all together well ................. WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER WAS TO SEE THE SIDE EFFECTS AFTER THE WAR..........
EA just has to ruin lives don't they?
Those bitches only care about money ...... rushes games so they can get their greedy hands on that sweet sweet cash
I hope Joe realizes that Harbinger actually whispers to you " Come join us Shepard " When he flies off. Not to mention the Illusive man mentions he was helping the reapers they could have brought him ONTO the Citadel.Their actual radios are in their chest plate Beneath all the plating their a piece in the ear you must click. He didn't immediately make Shepard commit suicide to prove his POINT before anything. Not to mention the conduit, and crucible were supposively "built" by the reapers they must have known that eventually things would go a bit far.
(Yes I know I don't answer every part just my summary and input tho.)
And in the bit before the laser, it sounds like he says "Serve us." The exact same sound byte can be found in the last dream sequence
Mass effect andromeda all but confirms the destroy ending. You can listen to Alec Ryder's logs discussing how the Milky way has gone silent. If the system was really protected by a fleet of reapers or merged with machines im sure a message or two could of gotten out if Alec could talk to Garris' dad and the Illusive man. Like "Hey dude fuck that new galaxy we got big ass space squids doing all the heavily lifting now. You guy must me sucking out there lol gg milky way for the win"
"for all these to not be true the writing would have to be inept"
years later after anthem "oh..."
That's all well and good, but how do you explain the artifact on Thessia. It knew Kai Leng was indoctrinated which looked like he still had all his faculties, so then why didn't the artifact know that Shepard was indoctrinated who would be at the same level of indoctrination or higher than him. Also the Leviathan would know if he was at any stage of indoctrination and kill him, but I don't think that was out when this video was out.
Really Bioware, and the fans are just letting it all go to a deeper meaning to avoid making a better ending for Bioware, and feeling cheated as a fan.
Because it's an ancient, highly damaged AI, and Kai Leng's indoctrination was much stronger than Shepards at the point they meet.
He was never indoctrinated the whole concept was he was being influenced and in the process of being indoctrinated. The final portion of the game is him fighting it and it is probably happening because of the proximity to the Reapers.
+Sursion Stating that the Prothean AI was "highly damaged" is just pure speculation. There was no actual damage done to it until after Cerberus tampered with its safe locks.
The AI was able to promptly identity indoctrinated personnel the moment Shepard reactivated it, and Leviathan would've also noticed if Shepard had been indoctrinated too. So he's right, these are both pieces of evidence that prove Shepard wasn't indoctrinated during the game (at least not until the finale).
+Sursion Stating that the Prothean AI was "highly damaged" is just pure speculation. There was no actual damage done to it until after Cerberus tampered with its safe locks.
The AI was able to promptly identity indoctrinated personnel the moment Shepard reactivated it, and Leviathan would've also noticed if Shepard had been indoctrinated too. So he's right, these are both pieces of evidence that prove Shepard wasn't indoctrinated during the game (at least not until the finale).
Put it this way Angry Joe, I wish I could accept the Indoctrination Theory was a real thing, I really do, but I just don't have that kind of faith in Bioware nor EA.
by the way, in my extended cut of me3, in the final push toward the beam, i head javik and garrus, and those two got wounded when shep called the normandy to pick them up, that is why those characters can be seen later stranded on the planet. i am refering to the part 6:14 So, it's not a dream :)
Also, there is a cutscene where Hackett says that someone managed to get in the beam, refering to the part somewhere around 08:00
There was a reason they gave shephard Reaper Eyes. Nobody could have made that happen unintentionally. It happened to Benezia, Saren, and many others. Shepherd eventally joined the club.
Indoctrination theory does have some compelling evidence, but it just doesn't make good business sense. Why, if it was the real ending, would Bioware hide it and make it look like an inept piece of shit? That's a little pointless, and the character of the previous games, or the rest of ME3 for that matter just don't set up the "it was all in your head" conclusion. It would be really out of character for the franchise. Either way, Bioware should not be commended. It's still a bullshit ending, and if there were any justice, they should have to do the whole game over again.
The rest of ME3's plot aside from the ending doesn't hold up all that well either. It's a string of cliches and tearjerkers with a bit of an illogical setup. How do the reapers get here? Don't they need a mass relay to do that? Didn't the arrival DLC blow up the one they were going to use? Explain Mass Effect, explain!
Also, the militaries act like complete idiots, making Hitler's decision to invade Russia look like solid tactical judgement.
"Oh no, the reapers showed up, what should we do?"
"Let's close our eyes and hope they go away!"
I know they've been reluctant to believe Shepard in the past, but there's just no fucking way they would ignore an invasion! Especially when they have a chance to quarantine the Reapers in Batarian space, before the Reapers expand to another mass relay, and spread through the galaxy. No military would ever have such levels of inept decision making.
Joseph Glatz They did explain via the Arrival DLC, that the mass effect relay that you blew up was the Reaper's quickest way to the system but not the only one. They explained multiple times via multiple characters and multiple games that the Reaper's would come eventually, you could only hope to delay them. How you missed a multitude of opportunities for understanding of a simple concept is on you.
Then why did they just come out of Batarian space? Why did the military act like morons, why was there none of the clever story writing and edgy feel of ME2? (Well the story writer left) and why would they have a hidden not ending which looked like a terribly written real ending? ME3 had good gameplay, and good atmosphere, but a fairly mediocre plot up to the ending where it took a nose dive.
Fine I missed that bit in the Arrival DLC, but I was not saying that the reapers should not be able to return, I just wanted more clarification as to how.
you cant just find things that they forgot about when writing the game and say the only explanation is "hallucinations"
This is the way i understand it. I believe that the illusive man, Shepard and Anderson are sharing a dream state or vision induce by the reapers or the AI but for Shepard and Anderson this is not an attempt to indoctrinate them.
The illusive man is already indoctrinated by this point in Mass Effect 3.
This dream state or vision that the illusive man, Shepard and Anderson are sharing is an attempt to communicate with with Shepard.
The other two illusive man may be there to confuse or make Shepard doubt his or her reasons for being there and Anderson being there may represent Shepard's strength of will or it maybe a chance to say goodbye.
Shepard is able to freely make any choice he or she wants but the illusive man has to fight to make a choice and Anderson's choice is clear he wants the reapers dead.
I hope this helps.
This is still one of the most epic theory ever.
Random top 10 playthrough 24/62 27/01/2020
Great job AJ nice one bud