Latest Update: 23rd July 2012 - See Updates
Welcome to Mass Effect Indoctrination, a blog dedicated to detailed analysis of the Mass Effect 3 endings. Since the release of Mass Effect 3 this blog has become one of the definitive sources for information and analysis of the Mass Effect 3 ending and especially the "Indoctrination Theory".
However since the release of the Extended Cut a lot of the information that was on here needs to be revised. I will be archiving all the old analysis and re-writing the entire site to reflect the Extended Cut.
The old Introduction and analysis can always be seen here.
I am doing this as appose to simply editing the old analysis because I feel it should be kept for reference. If nothing else, going back and looking at the original interpretations and evidence is useful to see how Bioware originally presented the endings and the speculation that led to.
So the Extended Cut did not confirm or deny the "Indoctrination Theory". However the changes it presented do make a big difference to the theory. For a start there are a few areas in which it disproves certain aspects of the theory by filling in plot holes. It also adds a few new pieces of evidence along the way.
There are those that now claim the Indoctrination Theory has been proven false. This seems to based on two reasons, the first being that it now seems unlikely that everything after Harbingers beam is an hallucination. The second being simply that the Extended Cut did not confirm the Indoctrination Theory, since a core belief of many was that it would be used for the reveal.
Both strong arguments in my opinion. However don't count out the Indoctrination Theory yet. First off allow me to go back to a few comments I made in the original introduction. I said at the time that the Indoctrination Theory "probably only partially explains Bioware's intent; but I am also convinced the literal interpretation could not possibly be 100% true either."
This is still my position. I always argued that the Indoctrination Theory should not be taken as a "complete theory that has to be taken as a whole. Because I simply do not believe that is the case. It is quite likely in my opinion that some parts of the so-called theory contain truth while others do not."
So the fact that some parts of it seem to be discredited by the Extended Cut should not lead to rejecting the whole theory. Especially when Bioware made no effort to disprove other stronger pieces of evidence, added some other clues and the fact that some plot elements are still better explained by the Indoctrination Theory.
Also it is a stated fact that Bioware always intended the ending to be open to interpretation. We know they wanted "lot's of speculation" and they certainly got it. It is because of this intent I believe they not only refuse to come out and tell us if the Indoctrination Theory is true or false, it is why Mike Gamble said Bioware "don't want to be prescriptive for how people interpret the ending".
To confirm this beyond any doubt, Tully Ackland Community Coordinator at Bioware said this on the Bioware Social Network in response to a discussion in which some users were saying IT was dead and to let it go -
There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them.
I strongly believe Bioware intend elements of Indoctrination to be evident in the ending, and for people to interpret it in a multitude of ways.
And it is because of this, and my love for Mass Effect that I maintain this blog.
All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet — it's your kid. It grows up and talks back to you.
Before I get into analyzing the the endings of Mass Effect 3 I wanted to take a moment to comment on the reactions to the endings and the Extended Cut.
Regardless of how the endings of Mass Effect 3 were meant to be interpreted it remains clear that Bioware really dropped the ball when it comes to ending this series. And because of that there has been a lot of anger towards them. Some of it justified, some of it less so.
It began before the game was even released, some of it was a continuation of what people saw as a betrayal from Bioware in regards to the quality of Dragon Age 2 (for the record I love that game). Some of it was because fans believed EA was corrupting the developer they loved.
Announcements of the inclusion of a multiplayer mode and day one DLC only fueled those fires. Bioware maintain that the multiplayer was handled by a different team and so did not effect the single player development. Since this appears to be true I am not quite sure why people were so upset by the addition of multiplayer. I personally like it, but I did not need it.
Also Bioware told us that playing multiplayer would not be required to obtain the best ending, so when that turned out not to be true, people were understandably upset.
And unfortunately this does not appear to be the only time Bioware mislead the fans. Many comments were made about the game and especially the endings that were simply not true. This is baffling to me, especially as some of these comments were made after the game went gold. Was Bioware's view of the ending so different to what it actually appears to be?
Not to mention the fact that the endings were confusing, full of plot holes and wrapped up with a rather huge and almost literal Deus Ex Machina.
While the Extended Cut served to fix some of these issues, giving the endings more variety based on your choices, filling in plot holes and explaining things much better. They also served to highlight how badly Bioware originally messed them up.
Some of the changes retconned entire events. Like during the save-the-galaxy-or-die-trying suicide run toward the conduit beam, where Harbinger is cutting through your troops like butter. It suddenly becomes a surreal moment when Shepard calls in an evacuation for your two squad mates because they get a little hurt! What a minute! Isn't this a do or die moment? But Shepard suddenly risks everyones lives including everyone on the Normandy by calling it away from the main battle in order to evacuate two squad members mere feet away from Harbinger himself who could supposedly destroy the Normandy with one blast?
So in order to explain the massive and illogical plot hole of squad members suddenly being alive on the Normandy at the end of the game we get a scene that is borderline absurd and illogical.
Other retcons include the Mass Relays not being destroyed anymore and the Normandy having less damage when it crash lands so they can repair it and fly away. All which serve to show how poorly those elements were handled originally.
So Bioware messed some things up. No argument from me.
But here is the thing. The only reason we care so much is because of how good these games are! And the only reason we care about the story making sense is because of how good the story is!
I have played a lot of games that I liked with crap endings. I did not feel the need to analyze them, post complaints on message boards or create a blog dedicated to them. Last year I played and loved the latest Deus Ex: Human Revolution, a game which has an ending easily as bad as the original Mass Effect 3 ending. But I did not care, I still bought the DLC a few months later and loved that too. Why? Because it was a great game and the story was not that amazing in the first place.
The thing with Mass Effect is that it is so well written that we expected an equally great ending, and what we got did not quite deliver.
Add this to the fact that some people were all set to hate on this game for other reasons before it was even released.
But I am constantly shocked to hear people claim they will never play a Bioware game again because of this. Or that Bioware betrayed them or destroyed the series.
It is only because the Mass Effect games are so good that you care at all. Why would you give up on playing any other game by this company simply because they could not maintain the quality you have come to expect from them?
I personally believe that not only does the Extended Cut now offer a good ending, albiet flawed (I'll come back to those flaws later), but that Mass Effect 3 is the best game I have ever played. While I have massive issues with Sythesis even being a choice, I loved my Destroy ending. It may still have some confusing plot elements that need to be resolved, but it really hit all the right emotional beats for me and gave me the exact outcome I had wanted (maybe minus kicking Harbingers ass myself).
Hell I will happily go as far as to say that Mass Effect is the most important game series of all time. And it is because of this that the games ending is capable of stirring up so many emotions in the fans and so much media attention.
I can't think of another game that led to such a massive amount of conversation. And I think Bioware should be congratulated for what they have achieved despite the shortcomings of the endings.
The Mass Effect trilogy is a remarkable achievement in gaming, never before has a game done so much for the medium of interactive storytelling. And I think we should celebrate that.
As I said in my previous post, I am currently replaying through all 3 games and have just started on Mass Effect 3 a few days ago. I want to wait until I reach the end to enjoy the Extended Cut's additions. This means this blog will not be updated with all the new information from the EC until that point. And since I have 2 children that may be about a week away.
However I was unable to resist finding out what the general feeling was towards the EC. It seems that so far the majority of people feel it is better than what we had, but not what they had hoped for.
And before it was even released Bioware community manager Jessica Merizan announced that the EC will neither confirm or deny the Indoctrination Theory. She also said the EC did not change how she felt about it and that she enjoys it as much as the literal interpretation. For whatever that is worth.
In my opinion the fact the EC does not go to any length to confirm IT is an admission that Bioware either never intended it, or always intended it to be a possible interpretation to be left open to speculation. In the some vein as "is Deckard a Replicant" in Blade Runner.
One thing is for sure, the EC will give us a lot of new things to ponder and speculate on. And if nothing else Bioware should be congratulated on giving us a series that is so good that we want to spend so much time speculating on the ending. Even if we feel the literal version of it is badly written if intended as such.
Another thing that is for sure, this blog is going to need some massive revisions! Once I have completed the EC I will move all previous evidence to a Pre-Extended Cut archive. And rewrite the whole thing with the EC in mind. I will then start adding all the new speculation and other relevant items for discussion.
Despite how I feel about the endings of Mass Effect 3 in a literal interpretation, it remains my favorite game in the series and the Mass Effect series remains my favorite video game series as a whole.
The fact that fans of the series are so dedicated to expressing how they feel about the endings and to spending so much time analyzing them speaks to how passionate a fan base Mass Effect inspires.
It is for this among other reasons that I strongly consider Mass Effect to be the most important game series of all time. And I will continue to enjoy it immensely, regardless of how the EC turns out.
Well the moment of truth is almost upon us. In just a few short days we will finally have some solid answers. Will the Indoctrination Theory prove to hold some truth and reveal Bioware's brilliant twist ending? Or will the Extended Cut merely be an attempt to make the literal ending make some sense?
Either way I just hope that it's good. As brilliant as I think it is, and as convinced as I am that it seems to be the only logical ending in it's current form, I am not married to the Indoctrination Theory. I just want Mass Effect to end in a logical and satisfying way. The current endings do neither, if the Extended Cut does then I will be a very happy Mass Effect fan. If it doesn't? Well maybe I'll take my Normandy model down, retire my Mass Effect hoodies and cancel my Liara stature pre-order. Or maybe I'll just get over and learn to love the series even with a poorly conceived and nonsensical ending. We shall see.
However come Tuesday do not expect this site to be updated with thoughts on the Extended Cut and what it means to IT. I am determined to replay through all three games in order to enjoy the Extended Cut, and I only just finished Mass Effect 2.
I highly doubt I will be able to get to the end of Mass Effect 3 by Tuesday, so I will be on a ME blackout as best as I can until I do reach the end. I have no doubt I will have it spoiled for me as far as if IT is true or not (I will not be able to avoid gaming websites for a week). But do not expect detailed analysis until at least the 2nd of July.
So by all means feel free to celebrate/gloat/discuss the EC in the comments. But know that I will not be reading them for a while.
Anyway Extended Cut here we come! By golly I hope you are bloody brilliant!
Welcome to what I hope to be one of the definitive sources for information and analysis of the Mass Effect 3 ending and especially the "Indoctrination Theory".
Be sure to check the updates page for what has been added recently. Especially if this is not your first visit!
And if you think this guide is missing any information or you see any incorrect information, please do not hesitate to let me know.
When I first played the ending of Mass Effect 3 I was convinced Bioware had pulled some amazing sneaky subtle trick on me, but I just wasn't sure what it was.
I knew as soon as I saw the Catalyst manifest as the child from Shepard's dreams that something was wrong, and after being told my choices I paused the game for 20 minutes to consider what that might be. Ultimately I decided that the Catalyst was lying to me and that his manifestation as someone only Shepard knew about must have something to do with Indoctrination.
Based on this I chose Destroy.
When my final moment showed Sheppard alive and taking a breath I was convinced I had made the right choice. However make no mistake I was still utterly confused by the ending. I did not think it was all a dream from the beam onwards and I did believe the choice I made actually happened.
The next day I spent hours on the internet reading people's fantastic interpretations of the ending, and other very legitimate criticisms of those interpretations. I also read how many people were angry and unhappy with the ending when taking it literally.
When I found the so-called "Indoctrination Theory" I was utterly convinced it was Bioware's intent. The only other option seemed to be that after 100's of hours of brilliant writing and a history of great storytelling Bioware managed to screw up the ending so bad that it made very little sense.
That said there has been significant moments where arguments against IT have seemed very persuasive to me. And I certainly believe it is possible that the Indoctrination Theory is wrong, and at the very least probably only partially explains Bioware's intent; but I am also convinced the literal interpretation could not possibly be 100% true either.
Many fans have done an incredible job of putting forward arguments and evidence on both sides of the debate. And others have asked for someone to compile as much of it as possible into a single location.
Having spent many many hours over the weeks since completing the game reading these argument, I have taken it upon myself to be that person. And while I still strongly lean towards the Indoctrination Theory I very much intend to show both sides as objectively as possible.
The evidence should speak for itself and I will try not to let my beliefs effect how I present the evidence.
After all like any theory, the only way to "prove" it is to fail to disprove it. Any good scientist works very hard to try and disprove a theory they believe to be true.
I will also not be presenting the so-called "Indoctrination Theory" as some complete theory that has to be taken as a whole. Because I simply do not believe that is the case. It is quite likely in my opinion that some parts of the so-called theory contain truth while others do not. So it should not be argued as a complete theory wherein if any part is proven false the rest should be discarded. Just as we should not discard the literal interpretation simply because we can prove that any element of it is inaccurate.
For anyone reading this that has yet to be exposed to any form of the "Indoctrination Theory", I think we should establish some important elements first. First of all I strongly recommend this video.
It's not the definitive interpretation but it is an excellent summation of the basic idea and one of the most import early sources for convincing people there is something to the theory.
Also if you are interested in seeing an extensive analysis like this guide but in video format. Allow me to recommend this - The Indoctrination Theory - A Documentary
What is Indoctrination?
Let's consult the Codex -
Indoctrination
Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.
Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.
Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.
Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years.
I would like to begin with the strongest evidence to support the idea that Shepard is being influenced by Indoctrination and move on to lesser convincing evidence that is still worthy of consideration.
If anyone believes there is any important information or ideas/theories I have missed please let me know and I will be sure to add them.
The Strongest In-game Evidence for Indoctrination
The Boy as the Catalyst
Bioware put a lot of effort into making the presence of this boy in the game important. Shepard watching him through a window is one the opening scenes of the game. Then after his death during the Reaper invasion Shepard has very strange recurring dreams of this child (see Section 2).
These dreams include "ghostly presences" made of "oily shadows" and voices can be heard whispering that at times sound rather alien. The codex mentions hallucinations of ghostly presences and alien voices as an effect of Indoctrination, the Rachni Queen mentions "oily shadows" as an effect.
All rather tenuous of course, however when reaching the Catalyst Shepard meets a ghostly VI-like being that claims to be the Catalyst and manifests as the boy from these dreams. A boy that only Shepard has seen and should have no significance other than Shepard's guilt at not being able to save everyone.
I would argue that we can conclude one of a few possibilities from this:
The Catalyst has access to Shepard's mind and chooses something familiar to Shepard to manifest as. In which case why does it choose to manifest as the boy Shepard feels guilt over? Is it to manipulate Shepard's choice? And is there any precedent for Reapers being able to read minds?
That the meeting of the Catalyst is actually taking place in Shepards mind just like the dreams.
Or the Catalyst is one of those hallucinations of ghostly presences the Codex mentions in regards to Indoctrination.
It would seem that any of these conclusions at least give weight to the idea that Indoctrination is playing a role in this final event.
The Best Counter-Argument
We do not know the extent of the Catalysts abilities after all he does claim he controls the Reapers. He may simply be able to read minds and chooses to manifest as an image of someone the person feels sympathetic to. The fact this is not explained could just be poor writing.
The Dream Like Quality's of the Decision Chamber
While there are a great many things that are strange between Shepard being hit by Harbingers laser and arrival at the Catalyst, it is the "decision chamber" itself that stands out as the most unusual to me.
As soon as Shepard passes out trying to reach the control panel when Admiral Hackett calls to say nothing is happening (even though the arms are not fully extended yet), Shepard is bathed in a white light and a platform floats up to the decision chamber. Which just so happens to be in the place where Shepard collapsed.
If you have a high EMS the Catalyst's first words to you are "Wake up", even though Shepard does not actually appear to be unconscious at that moment, just crouched on all fours in pain. If your EMS is low he says "Why are you here?".
Everything the Catalyst says is echoed at the same time with the voice of both female Shepard and Male Shepard, coming from the left and right speaker respectively. A clue that the Catalysts voice is in Shepard's mind?
Even Shepard's words are echoed with whispers of Shepard's own voice. It all sounds very strange and unreal and gives the entire event a feeling of unreality.
And for some reason Shepard for the first time ever does not question any of the information imparted. Shepard has no questions or doubts about anything the Catalyst says?
Add this all to the fact that the Catalyst appears as the child in Shepard's dreams and you are hard pressed not to conclude something is simply not right here. Effects of Indoctrination certainly seem plausible.
The Best Counter-Argument
At this point Shepard is severely injured. This could easily contribute to experiencing things in a weird way, Shepard is barely even concsious at this point.
The Tree Reflections in the Decision Chamber
Then there is the unusual case of trees being visible in the reflections of the decision chamber. Some people were claiming to see these and some resourceful fan ripped the cube map (image used to create the reflections) to check. Sure enough there they are -
And this is what they look like when seen in game -
So what does this mean? Well it can only mean one of two things as far as I can tell.
At some point Bioware intended there to be trees in this section but removed them. However they forgot to remove them from the reflections.
Bioware intentionally left the reflection of trees in this section to both reference Shepard's dreams and as a clue that this is a dream-like-state.
Interestingly this area is refereed to as the "Guardians garden" in the leaked script. Could it be these were originally going to be in this scene? Whether these trees were ever meant to be part of the scene or only a reflection, it does seem to be a pretty big intentional clue that this scene is directly related to Shepard's dreams.
When you have trees from Shepard's dreams and the boy from them, you have to think there is an intentional link.
The Best Counter-Argument
Bioware made a mistake, the trees are there by accident. Maybe originally the "Guardians garden" was more garden like, and the connection to the dream is merely a coincidence.
The Choices
This to me seems to be one of the more obvious clues to the likelihood of Indoctrination. The Catalyst offers Shepard 3 choices to "end the cycle". It surely cannot be a coincidence that of the three choices two of them were previously proposed by people who were Indoctrinated.
Control - The Illusive Man's choice. A decision we know he was led to during his Indoctrination. We also know that a group of Prothean's also believed the Reapers could be controlled and they turned out to be indoctrinated too. Of course the Catalyst assures us that Shepard could actually control the Reapers for real this time.
Synthesis - Sounds very close to Saren's choice. At the end of Mass Effect 1 Saren talks about how we can avoid being destroyed by the reapers by joining with them. To quote "organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strength of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny". Almost exactly how the Catalyst tries to sell Synthesis to Shepard.
Destroy. Shepard's choice. At least up until this point.
So we have two choices that keep the Reapers alive and are also known as arguments the Reapers have used to slowly and subtly Indoctrinate beings in the past. While the final choice destroys the Reapers.
The argument that this is an attempt at Indoctrination and that Shepard's only resistance to the Indoctrination is to choose Destroy seems pretty strong.
Also the Catalyst does his best to paint the Destroy option in the worst light, not only will the cycle continue and we will be doomed to repeat our mistakes and be destroyed by Synthetic life in the long run. But it will kill all Synthetic life existing now, essentially committing genocide against the Geth and killing EDI too.
And not only that, he up's the ante even more by saying even Shepard is partially Synthetic. Strongly Implying that Shepard will die along with anyone else that has Synthetic implants they rely upon to live.
However we know for a fact that the Catalyst is lying here. Not only can Shepard survive with enough EMS but it has been claimed by many (but not confirmed yet) that EDI can emerge from the Normandy.
Also if this is not strong evidence that two of these choices represent some form of Indoctrination attempt, then why is it that only with the Destroy option (the one we are told is the worst) can Shepard live?
The Best Counter-Argument
If Destroy is the "Best Ending" and the other two options are giving in to Indoctrination, why is it that Destroy is the only option you get with very low EMS? Even though Shepard cannot live with such low EMS (and Earth is destroyed) why is it you can not only still resist Indoctrination, but resisting is your ONLY choice?
Wouldn't it make more sense that Shepard would be unable to resist Indoctrination if that is what was going on?
Or is it that with such low EMS even Destroy is giving in to Indoctrination simply because Shepard dies and Earth is destroyed (at least in Shepard's mind, giving way to despair?).
Counter-Counter-Arguments
Could it be that the reason you have such low EMS is because you did not do most of the side missions, meaning you rushed through the game. Meaning the Reapers had less chance to Indoctrinate you?
Or maybe with such low EMS you are going to lose the battle against the Reapers anyway, so they don't really care if you are successfully Indoctrinated. They have already won.
And finally it turns out that having real low EMS does not always mean you can only choose destroy. If you chose to save the Collectors base at the end of Mass Effect 2 and imported that save then Control is your only option -
The Breath
With a high enough EMS when choosing Destroy we are treated with a final cut-scene before the credits that shows Shepard "wake up" and take a deep breath. Revealing that Shepard is alive and has survived.
I have already mentioned the fact that this takes place only after choosing Destroy is a good argument for some element of Indoctrination. But there is another reason this scene adds considerable weight to the Indoctrination argument.
Concrete Rubble in London where
Shepard is hit by Harbinger's beam
Why is it that Shepard appears to be lying among concrete rubble? If Shepard is waking up on the Citadel then why were sections of a space station constructed by such advanced civilizations made with such a primitive material? Surely a space station would be made of light materials. It certainly all appears to be metal at every other point in the game.
One version of The Indoctrination Theory argues that Shepard is actually waking up in London after surviving Harbingers laser and having dreamt/hallucinated everything else as part of a a heightened Indoctrination brought on by Harbingers presence.
This makes sense insofar as London is a place where concrete is not only common but concrete rubble and rebar looking almost exactly the same as that seen in their scene can been seen all over those final parts of the game.
Concrete Rubble with rebar in London
More Concrete Rubble with rebar in London
Shepard surrounded by Concrete in the "breath" scene
If Shepard wakes up in London then it seems logical that Shepard was never on the Citadel and all that was a dream/hallucination. And we SEE the Citadel explode! If it's supposed to be the Citadel then how the hell are we supposed to believe Shepard survived that?
It certainly could be that some parts of the Citadel ARE made of concrete and what appears to be rebar is actually the cables from the Citadel.
The cables in the Citadel and Decision Chamber look very much like what is being claimed to be "rebar".
Cables in London? Or rebar?
And the rebar/cable looks a lot like the cables from the Reaper tech Legion was plugged into. So it could just as likely be cables as rebar.
Also someone used a hack on the PC version to activate a flycam in the Decision Chamber that was able to identify not only similar cables but something that has grooves on it that bares a strong resemblance to the grooves on the concrete in that final scene.
Similar groove seen in concrete in the "breath" scene
Just because it seems unlikely that a space stain has no concrete on it, doesn't mean it doesn't. Also just because it looks like concrete doesn't mean it is.
What is this?
Also what is this thing? Not the concrete rock at the front but the shiny fabricated object behind it. It looks like something that would be found on the Citadel but I have been unable to find an exact match. Or maybe it's part of one of the Alliance vehicles that charged the beam? If we can identify it we may be able to put this mystery to rest at least.
I myself have noticed it bares some similarity to the "Beam Structure" but have been unable to find an exact match. Someone over at BSN made this comparison image which also includes a good comparison of the other strange object to an overturned Macko.
Conclusive? Not at all, but the most compelling identification so far.
