Mass Effect 3: Denouncing the Indoctrination Theory
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- I MADE AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS VIDEO:
• Mass Effect 3: Dismant...
The extended cut DLC ending put and end to many of the coherent arguments that the Indoctrination Theory once had. There is no sense denying that the extended cut disproved a lot of the theory. In light of all the repetitive comments left here by individuals that prefer the Indoctrination Theory over the original ending, I will state here what I have stated to all commenters that disagree with me. Many seem to have gotten the wrong impression from my video, as all the comments try to state that I have done a terrible job at "debunking" the theory. My title says "Denouncing" in regards to my own feeling on the subject, not that this video is solid proof that the theory is false. My intention was never to debunk the theory. Since so many people seem to have ignored my small dialog at the very begin of the video, I will write it out word for word: "Personally, I cannot just jump on to the theory's ideals because I don't feel right with myself doing that. I prefer to feel that the ending I was given was the real ending. So please stick with me while I combat the theories main points and just give my own opinion on the matter. I'm not attacking the theory or any specific theory video, I'm just simply inputting my own thoughts.". My hopes were to get people to think a little outside the box with the ending, and maybe even understand where my thoughts were coming from. So with that being said, I hope everyone understands that this is an opinionated topic open to interpretation, and this is simply my point of view! I appreciate all the views and comments that are being accumulated, but I would prefer if commenters stated factual criticism against me rather than saying how my video is just bad. I wrap up all my thoughts and explain a few important statements in the conclusion section of the video, so please re-watch that section if you need extra clarification. I will continue to respond to all comments as I see fit, thank you all for your time.
SPOILER ALERT: This video contains footage from Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3, including the ending and consequences of Mass Effect 3. View at your own discretion! You have been warned.
I decided to compile my thoughts, as well as the thoughts of others, into one video against the Indoctrination Theory. I felt that there were far too many videos supporting it rather than denying it.
Reviews of the Extended Cut DLC that are against indoctrination:
• ME3: Extended Cut Anal...
• Mass Effect 3 Extended...
The Mass Effect 3 Happy Ending Mod:
www.nexusmods.c...
John Dreamer - Mass Effect 3 EPIC MUSIC "End of my Journey" (Mordin's Song):
• John Dreamer - Mass Ef...
Indoctrination Theory main points argued:
• Video
DISCLAIMER:
All content shown is owned by BioWare and EA Games respectively. I do not claim ownership over Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, or Mass Effect 3 and their respected soundtracks represented in this video.
Updated version:
th-cam.com/video/f0sxwmMpmUU/w-d-xo.html
I wanted to say that I watched your video in full, and while I respect your opinion, I have to question whether you fully understand the theory. The theory isn't that Shepard has been indoctrinated, it's that Harbinger is attempting to indoctrinate Shepard. I took some notes based off of your points and would like to offer counter points. I would also like to state that my intention is not to promote the indoctrination theory as 100% factual proof, rather, to instead point out that many of the arguments that you have stated disprove the theory do no such thing.
1.) Rana Thanoptis - Yes, everyone agrees that she has been indoctrinated; it's evident via the Alliance News article. The reason theorists have linked her case to Shepard's is that it was a three year time period between ME1 and ME3, the same time period of Shepard's story with theory reapers.
Shepard experiences many of the same symptoms that indoctrination applies to, including the oily shadows the rachni spoke of as well as prevalent during the scene with TIM and Anderson, as well as the whispers that can be heard during both that scene and in Shepard's nightmares.
Continuing with symptoms, Shepard had been exposed to reapers and reaper tech for a significant time. Shepard has fought reapers, been exposed unconciously to an artifact for two days, fought reaper forces, and is aboard a ship with a reaper IFF that outputs reaper signals. Those are just a few examples of what could lead to a weakened mental state over time.
As for squad members, it's hard to say because we experience the game through Shepard's point of view, not theirs. Despite that, an example that cones to mind is when James asks if you hear a humming noise, or if it's just him.
2.) As for your point about the ambient noise during the Citadel scene between The Illusive Man and Anderson, it's quite possible that some of the noise can be attributed to that. The whispers, however, are very clear when Shepard first approaches Anderson, just before TIM arrives.
As for the oily shadow effect, you stated that it is only present when TIM is either in close proximity to Shepard or showcasing his power. This is also false, as the effect happens once as TIM is walking away from Shepard, and again when TIM is on the other side of the room while thinking out loud and conflicting with himself. There is also the point of the unexplained growl that is present throughout that scene, as well as during the scenes on Earth when Shepard interacts with the boy in the duct and in the nightmares.
3.) I agree with you that regroup does not mean retreat. What I do not agree with is your idea of Coats thinking or worrying about possibly getting into trouble, you saying that there may be no reason to continue. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is so far out of left field that it's hard to even form into words.
The only plausible indoctrination theory counter that I can possibly think of is that Harbinger surveyed the battlefield, witness Hammer being wiped out, and left to chase down Coats' group before they could regroup for a push to the beam. That makes much more sense than a Military leader being afraid of getting in trouble.
4.) Normandy evacuation/Harbinger beam hit - I like the outside the box thinking, what you are suggesting is speculation at best. I feel that those supporting IT have a much stronger argument as attacking the Normandy would kill Shepard due to his proximity to the explosion and/or debris. Even in the low EMS scene where the squad is vaporized, Harbinger is specific and methodical enough to slowly drag the beam from behind into them, making sure that it does not come into contact sith Shepard.
This leads into the beam and the blast that eventually comes into contacts with Shepard. A simple gameplay mechanic is not enough to write this off. That blast valorized every single troop charging down that hill, and tore warships apart with a single blast. There is no physical way for Shepard to have survived that, unless Harbinger purposely hit the area in front of him snd stopped, or if he has the ability to tone down the strength of the blast. In either of those two events, Harbinger is making it a point to ensure that Shepard is not killed. Why? Logically and scientifically, there is no way to argue against this.
5.) Citadel scenes (Jolt, steam, and Anderson ended up on an different area) - Now this is where I think you are onto something. The other points in your video do next to nothing to dispute their counterpart IT claims, however, with this is a point that you nailed on the head.
There isn't much to say about the awakening jolt or the smoke. Is it strange that his radio remained intact of he had been hit with Harbinger's beam? Sure, but that's not nearly enough to prove IT. Your point about Anderson's voice snapping Shepard out of it and smoke being a result of Shepard coming through a beam without and vehicle protecting him is perfectly reasonable as there is nothing established previously that can 100% dispute it.
The main thing I think you hit on is Anderson's location, specifically pointing out his mentioning of the walls moving and the doors to the left and right of the room where the bridge is. It's a point that has not been brought up enough and does make and strong case for confirming what Anderson is saying. However, that alone also isn't enough to dispute the indoctrination theory as a whole because it doesn't address a lot oft the other major plot issues.
If you've read everything up to this point, I would like to thank you for your time in doing so. Again, I'm bot trying to prove the theory, I'm only pointing out that most of your points that you claim debunk the theory don't actually do so.
Jay Capaldi I read your entire comment and I thank you dearly for watching my video. This is EXACTLY what I wanted to come out of this: a reasonable discussion from both sides. So thank you very much for giving your opinion and facts on the matter. I had made many jot notes on the theory before creating my video, but I definitely could have looked deeper. Many of my points have been created from a biased standpoint, because as I stated, I want to keep the ending that was given to us. I fully respect the theory and I agree with you that my video really isn't a "debunk", more so as a speculated opinion. The theory has been WELL constructed over the last few years and as I also stated, I can believe it but I am choosing not to because I have found peace with the ending given (even if it's shrouded in mystery). Once again, thank you for your view and comment! Very good criticism on your part.
Jay Capaldi My point about Coats was created after watching a video that claimed coats had no reason to retreat. I just wanted to clarify that my argument against this was that all the ground forces are assumed to be dead, so there really isn't an attack for the beam going on anymore. So Coats possibly didn't care about ordering a regroup.
Jay Capaldi I also agree with you on the evacuation point that the IT has much better arguments. But just as you stated, I wanted to think outside the box with it. The majority of my thought process was to think of things that made sense from a real word gaming experience (like the actual fact that it's just a game), rather than viewing it as a situation in a virtual word. It's obvious that the game wouldn't or shouldn't have ending in the destruction of the Normandy with Shepard. I believe that scene was added with the extended cut too, I may be mistaken though.
Jay Capaldi I'm not really trying to debunk IT as a whole, I'm simply denouncing it with my own opinions and point of view. I did not intend to attack the IT or try to prove that's it's completely false. I stated this also at the beginning of the video. Again, at the end of the video I said that I even believe it myself, I just dislike it.
TheGamer681 I got the gist of what you were trying to say, and I get it. Again, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything along those lines, I was just pointing out that many of the things mentioned in your video that you claimed can debunk IT do no such thing, and I gave counterpoints as to why. As for your conclusion, I pretty much agree with you.
At the end of the day, only Bioware knows what the truth is. If you want my opinion, I don't believe IT was something planned from the start. I believe the suits at EA were breathing down their necks and rushing them to meet a deadline, so we got that horrendous original ending that was slapped together st the 11th hour that maybe agree total of 10 people out there in the world actually enjoyed. And yes, ending as in singular, not endings as in plural - something that's 98% the same minus a color variation does not make it distinctly different.
Because of this, diehard fans lost it and started trying to figure out a reason or a meaning. Thus, as you stated, birthed IT. As for the extended cut, I think Bioware realized people were onto something. They saw just how many people believed in this, and they were impressed by how well everything fits both the narrative and the overarching theme of both Mass Effect the trilogy and Shepard the character. Yes, the games had some great action gameplay, especially in parts 2 and 3, but the overall core of the series always came down to choice, and how your choices had ripple effects on everything. I can't think of a more fitting final boss battle than something that involves choice, and being able able to peel back the layers to not cave in and succumb to reaper indoctrination.
With that being said, and Bioware realizing this, I think they purposely walked a thin line to both strengthen that argument with added scenes to the extended cut, as well as keeping the original endings a part of the game so that they don't alienate the portion of the fan base that liked the endings apt face value.
It's actually kind of genius on their part. Not confirming or denying it while keeping the original storyline intact keeps people enaged, and allows them to interpret it as they see fit. The fact that people are still passionate about this series, and you and I are having a discussion about it five years after proves that.
Do I think IT makes for a much better ending that taking it at face value? Absolutely. Do I think it was planned. Definitely not. But again, I think Bioware saw how creative people were and and realized that the fans came up with something better, so they rolled with it in a way that totes a middle line without confirming or denying anything to allow the player to choose for themselves.
Hey BioWare saying *NO lmao* was enough for me, but didn't need BioWare to know how impossible it was and it just didn't make sense, not just for the Prothean VI not detecting Shepard as indoctrinated and Indoctrination taking much longer than 5 minutes on Earth facing Harbinger and 10 Minutes on the CItadel with the Blurry Man - The fact that some people still want to live in the delusion that this is real despite the devs telling them that it's ridiculous and just not true, it becomes ridiculous at this point - It just doesn't add up and doesn't make sense
Those who believe in the Indoctrination Theory are exaclty like those who believe the Earth is flat
Couldn’t agree more. I struggle to understand why some people truly believe it. Choosing to believe it even though you know it’s not true is one thing, but legitimately believing it’s true after all this time is just delusional.
Great video!
I don’t call myself a huge fan of the indoctrination theory, but I find it very tempting and interesting to follow. In my oppinion, a lot of „debunking“ attempts did a poor job and over-concentrated on some small details.
I have a few observations to make concerning your video:
2.) In this scene, the IM controls your body and makes you shoot your friend. How is this an argument AGAINST the indoctrination theory?
You can hear some growling in the background…
The IM being close to shepard is irrelevant, if this whole thing happens in you head I’d say.
And shepard has a lot of tech from cerberus in his body, possibly reaper tech…
3.) Retreating is suicide… everyone agrees that the reapers would just bleed everyone out if they are not stopped ASAP. But I don’t see the radio call as an argument for or against the indoctrination theory.
I’d say that it would just be a bad ending of a video game, after 100 hours of gameplay, to be insta-killed by a giant laser. Again, not an argument for or against any theory form e.
4.) Harbinger not shooting at the normandy is simple… it’s just no threat to him.
And I’d say that being hit by harbingers beam and being alive after it is a very strong point for the theory.
5.) How would Anderson get to the beam, get past and ahead of you, in a matter of maybe 20 seconds? Does that make any sense?
Even if he ended in another zone we just don’t see (shifting walls?), this would save him a few seconds at best. I just don’t see how he would have arrived at the beam that fast, when everyone was regrouping and dying there.
I agree with you that not seeing Anderson from 100 m away against the bright light is not a valid argument.
You left out a few big arguments… like the (disappearing) child that plays in a park that’s not there, and appears in your dreams, with people made of oily blackness. How much more direct can a subtle hint get?
Bioware not openly accepting a theory doesn’t really make it invalid… I don’t remember that they ever commented on something.
How would the shepard scene at the end make the theory invalid? Just because the crucible scene (maybe) happens in your head doesn’t mean that the whole universe is suddenly not real any more. Shepard beat the reapers influence, activates the crucible, and the game goes on in the real world from there.
I really enjoyed your video, thanks!
IDK but maybe that sound when Shepard wakes up is some implanted bf4 defibs. just hoping hate hasn't kill mass effect off like splinter cell and other great titles
Could be, I'm not entirely sure where that idea was created but I have seen a few people talking about that in the past. I'm still sticking to what I said in my video. I hope you're right about the hate thing though. I was actually preparing to edit a much more prepared video that formally attacks the theory with much stronger points. I never got around to it and at this point it just seems pointless. People can think what they want, Bioware never specified. I was just sharing how I interpreted it.
Yeah my friend and I do have the opinion that this is the hardest time for games now cause people expect too much because of some utuber theory before a games are released. Just how people complain about paid dlc all the time, now that spawn micro transaction 10x worse
yaaaa u need a better understanding of indoctrination. the theory is spot on. and it makes the ending make sense. the original ending
This is just an idea I had, could not be true but I would put my money on it that bioware knew that people wanted to know how Anderson got onto the citadel and in front of Shepard. I 100% guarantee that they would have added a cutscene in extended cut that showed Anderson waking up and watching shepard jump through, and he would get up and jump in right after him and possibly appear in a different location. They would have added this, but I bet they refused and said nah, because they've said themselves they don't want to disprove the indoctrination theory and that most certainly would. So yeah if you choose not to believe the indoctrination, you can just imagine Anderson jumping through and it's just as canon
Exactly, Bioware doesn't want to specify. If they came out and said that indoctrination theory was false, that would be telling people, "our original ending really WAS that bad". Without debunking the theory, Bioware is using fan creations to support their own broken ending.
Youre right... Saying something as just for story is a terrible arguement
I would like to ask this. if shep is being Indoctrinated after he/she gets hit by the beam, where is the concrete wall he/she is leaning against on the destroy option? there are no buildings or walls that I can see when you rush down the hill. Also, if He/she is being Indoctrinated. Then the end means nothing. Because you are guaranteed dead, if not from your injurys then from being Indoctrinated. They control you, So what's the point of walking to the control panel, meeting the child. Having a color choice?? None of it really would happen and the cycle continues.
It was stupid of Bioware not to use the theory the fans gave them an opportunity to fix their game and make a sequel that works and makes the mass effect series what it was supposed to be instead of getting mass effect andromeda. Bioware get your shit together.
It's even worse than the actual ending
lol I wanna know what power u think the illusive man is useing to make Shepherd shoot Anderson. and don't say biotics. ppl already have that. what did the reapers give the illusive man? nothing. he's an illusion
So since theory fans like to assume things to make themselves feel better, I'm going to do the same and assume that TIM has been "improved" by the reapers. He has been a pawn of the reapers for so long, who's to say he hasn't manifested abilities from them? He has been an asset to them for a long time, just as Saren was an asset in the first Mass Effect game. Saren received "improvements" from the reapers via reaper hardware (implants) and mechanical parts. This is seen during the final confrontation with Saren on the Citadel. Similar to this, we meet TIM for the last time on the Citadel and he has been enhanced by the reapers. This is obvious when we look at the mechanical parts of TIM's neck and his new ability to control Shepard during the last moments with him. It's very possible that he received some form of implants from the reapers. It has unique similarities with the type of mechanical parts we see on Saren's face and the new abilities Saren has gained. I don't think it's a long shot to suggest that TIM has been upgraded just as Saren was.
+TheGamer681 but saren transformed.....the illusive man dident. all reapers eventually turn there indoctrinated into monster things.....but not the illusive man
Jordan S That’s simply not true. In Mass Effect (1), Matriarch Benezia was VERY indoctrinated. She was forced to fight against Shepard and Liara as she lost control of her mind. She was an advisor to Saren and followed his orders. After fighting her, she simply died. She did not transform, she did not come back as some more powerful being. TIM didn’t transform either. Not every person that is indoctrinated just transforms into a husk after death. It could have to do with the severity of the indoctrination, or how strong the persons mind is. But that’s just speculation.
+TheGamer681 good point. I forgot about that.......they must be illusions as well. we are detectives:D
What I really want to know is how the stargazer and the child that's with hem. Because there's no way they'd be there right? I really think about the indoctrination Theory overthink things way too much. Perhaps you haven't introduced to the saying "fucking logic in video games." But this is my biggest question why were the Reapers in indoctrinate him slowly and not just out right do it right there that makes no sense whatsoever
First, sorry for the very long post. From what I have seen from other videos about this as well as from mass effect 3 game play videos. This is my take on it. Leviathan explains that harbringer was the first reaper, Indoctrination is basted of the leviathan ability to take over a persons mind. But the reapers perfected it to the weapon it is today. Harbringer is the solution to the
organic/synthetic war that always happens. Originally Leviathan don't want to join the fight, he said that this cycle has come far but will also fail. Shep tells them that the reapers now know where the leviathan is and will come looking. Shep asks Leviathan to help in the fight, Leviathan then looks in to sheps mind and says that it can see why the reapers fear him/her. My thoughts, Shep can't be indoctrinated. Not fully anyway.
The arrival DLC started the Indoctrination when shep got knocked out. I know some say that the Indoctrination already started in Mass effect 1, But Shep died in the beggining of Mass effect 2. Does Indoctrination continue when you come back from the dead?
"Six months after the destruction of the Alpha Relay, the Reapers invade the galaxy through batarian space and attack Earth."
Meaning that shep would have been Indoctrinated for 6 months and not 3 years as some say. So, the child in the beginning is real. He is playing outside, after the invasion the child runs in to the building that then explodes. He is now dead. When you enter the building and open the doors for Anderson, the reaper gets in to your mind because of the Indoctrination that started from the arrival DLC. You see the child because he was the one you saw run in to the building before the explotion. You want to help him but he refuses and says everyone is dying etc. It is the reapers way of saying to give up. Anderson interrups the conversation. I believe that is when you hear the growl from the reaper because it lost Shep,
and that is why you don't hear the child anymore. This is why you see the oily figures in your dreams as well as the child. I won't explain everything in the game but I would like to mention one thing. There is a conversation with Hackett where he explains that they know what the Crucible does, just not in what fashion. Reference to the choices I believe.
The hill rush, Harbringer is killing everyone and in the end the beam hits shep. People say that harbringer is saying join us, never heard it my self but sure. Lets go with it. What happens after you are hit by the beam? How do we know that there is no one else rushing down the hill after we are hit? Also, how long time are we knocked out? Maybe there is an explotion that sends shep flying forward and that's why we wake up where we do. He is burnt, beaten and bruised. Ears ringing, vision
isn't 20/20 anymore. The circle around the screen looks like blood to indicate that he is badly hurt. He wont just run now. Harbringer leaving because he believes that the ground forces are now stopped. The 3 stooges are there to collect the bodies and send them up the beam to be harvested. The last gunman is there in case someone is breating, or maybe so there is a last dramatic battle before we go in to the beam.
Anderson exiting to a different part of the citadel, How do we know there isn't multiple exits for the beam? If you have played all the DLC you should have seen the vault, it changed paths as well. One path opens as others close. After you are thrown from the bean and there is that weird sound. Some say defibrillator, why not? cerberus rebuilt shep, why wouldn't they put in a failsafe in case sheps heart would stop? They put in cybernetic implants in him. Moving past the engine room and to the console where anderson is. He is moving in a weird way because the Illusive man is there. And a reaper is Indoctrinating Anderson through TIM, every time TIM moved close to Shep, we see the lines because at this point Shep is so hurt and mentally tired that he/she can't fight the Indoctrination as well anymore. When TIM moves away the mind control ends. I believe there is a growl at that point, because the reaper loses control of shep. We see TIM use his mind control to have shep shoot Anderson to prevent him from destroying the reapers. I believe the biotic power is just a visual for us to see TIM use his mind control power. Shep is then able to explain to TIM that TIM is already Indoctrinated and not in control of his actions or thoughts. TIM kills him self, Anderson and Shep have a conversation before Anderson dies and shep somehow gets to the platform to get up to the Crucible. Once TIM dies, there is no way to control Anderson and Shep.
The wiki says that: "It is unknown who initially began the development of the Crucible. Countless different species obtained and made contributions to the design over the course of millions of years, but none successfully deployed it before being wiped out by the Reapers. The Reapers were led to believe all traces of the design were eradicated but throughout the countless cycles, the Crucible design was continuously preserved.The latest species to try, the Protheans, were able to construct the Crucible, but before they could deploy it, infighting broke out between those who wanted to use it to destroy the Reapers and a faction that believed they could use it to control the Reapers; these separatists were later discovered to be indoctrinated."
Starchild is the citadel. He is the creator of the reapers and the one controlling them. He is the child because it is familiar to shep. The child explains that "The Crucible is a power source, combined with the Citadel and relays. It is capable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy." The fact that shep, the first organic ever is standing on the crucible shows that there is hope for a change. And also that the old solution won't work anymore. So they look for a new solution. The color choices, It is logical when you think about it. The red choice, renegade choice is to kill all. The blue choice, paragon
choice is to save all through control. And the green is the solution to the original problem.
The red ending kills the reapers, and destroys the citadel, crucible and relays. The child is trying to convince you not to destroy everything. Logical if you think about having a gun to your head. You would also do everything to try to prevent death. Reapers are dead and we see shep take a last breath after the explotion on the Crucible, citadel and the relays are destroyed. He is in space, maybe even pinned down by the rubble. So, eventually dead. Some say this is the only good option. So, think about this. You destroy the only things preventing Synthetics from becoming overlords. How is that good?
Synthesis, green option. Organics seek perfection through technology. Synthetics seek perfection through understanding. This is the solution to the original problem and would bring peace between the two. Maybe someone's thinking, but we already brought peace between the geth and quarians. We don't need the green option. Yes, correct. But that is only peace between two groups in this cycle. We could see someone build new synthetics in the future and a new war eventually starts. Leviathan even
explains that there was a civilization that created synthetics and they were whiped out because of it. Leviathan created the citadel to fix this problem and the childs solution was the harvest. Kill intelligent life to prevent synthetics from taking over. That meaning the leviathans as well. If all is one, the harvest isn't needed.
Last, blue, control. Shep can control the reapers. His thoughts and memories will continue while the body dies. again, some might say that its a lie. Others tried and failed. Yes, again correct. The Protheans tried and failed. TIM would have failed as we saw because they were already indoctrinated. The reapers already controlled them. They are not controlling shep. When we see Anderson and TIM, those are images that the child is showing us. Their thoughts. But because shep isn't controlled by the reapers he can choose to control them. Taking over for the child and controlling the reapers.
This is my opinion, my thoughts. This is how I interpret the ending. If someone thinks I am totally wrong, that is fine.
seb81 I like it, did you watch my entire video?
yes I did. was there something specific you were thinking about??
seb81 No, just checking in. The average watch time is about 5 minutes. Which is pretty terrible for a half hour video. A few of your points were slightly touched on, I appreciate you watching the entire thing. I'm thinking about doing a re-vamped version that is more aggressive towards the theory rather than generalized towards it.
I don't think everything can be explained with "logic." Why would harbringer do this and not that. I have seen many videos about the indoctrination theory, the more I watch them the more I feel like every little detail has to have a meaning. As if nothing can happen just to look good or move the story along.
seb81 It's pretty out of hand, especially now that's it's been 5 years and people have had all this time to analyze and pick apart the game. Not to mention that bioware will never be conversing about it in the future. People don't like to think rationally anymore. Nothing is apparently shown for effect, it all needs to have some unseen meaning like you said. I hate it. Overthinking causes problems that didn't exist in the first place. The theory was created, maintained and moderated by fans. It honestly has no place in the canon universe of ME3.