230 réponses à ce sujet

[Deltateam Elcor]

The first flaw is that you tried to debunk something that cannot logically and reasonably be debunked.

Its like disproving or proving god, until the people with the information speak up, we are left in a very dark cave stuck to a chain.

[Vigil_N7]

MetallicShepard wrote...

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

Have you even read the theory? The theory states that everything after Shepard gets hit by Harbinger's beam is a dream/hallucination, a visual metaphor of Shepard battling against Harbinger's attempt to indocrinate him/her.  Therefore, everything we saw, including the endings, aren't real, just a dream raging in Shepard's mind.  If you choose destroy, Shepard defeats Harbinger's attempt at indoctrination, wakes up in the rubble of London where he/she was shot (alluded to by the bonus "breathing' scene), and whatever happens after that will have to be what Bioware comes up with in the DLC, which absolutely has to be better than picking A, B or C. 

I have, and I still think its an asinine concept to have it as DLC. Shepard breaking indoctrination and finishing the story should've been part of the actual ending, as it stands, if the theory is true then we've been given an unfinished game, which is completely insulting. 

[Tylea002]

Most of it isn't ret-conning, just expanding. And if they pursue the route, it fixes all the tonal and logical inconsistencies with the ending and allows them to proceed in a direction that makes sense without removing anything there. It's not perfect, but it's by far the best way out of this mess.

[Jaze55]

vrumpt wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...

effortname wrote...
 So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Because accepting the Indoctrination Theory as canon, means that essentialy only 1 out of 16 possible endings is the "true ending" that allows you to progress the story via DLC, because that's the only one in which Shepard "wakes up".  It contradicts the current ending more than the plot holes and inconsistencies do.

You assume that the story would end when Shepard wakes up.  I certainly have never ever thought of that, and i'm certain other people who have come to accept that the indoctrination is true have never thought of that either.

The IT is simply a stepping stone.  By using the IT you extend the ending to allow for a proper ending to be established, with perhaps a boss fight when Shepard wakes up along with the 16 actually different endings we were all promised.

The thing wrong with the Indoc theory is the only possible outcomes for Shepard, according to in game lore and mechanis are:

Turning into a Husk
Becoming a braindead vegi
Going insane
Suicide
Death at the hands of friends


I think that is VERY wrong about the indoc theory being true. Is that what you want for Shepard?

[CrisisOne]

savionen wrote...

Honestly all I see from the OP is speculation/interpretation. There's not much to discuss.

The kid alone at the beginning just doesn't sit right with a lot of people. A kid in a building that explodes and lives, sits in a vent that is an electricution hazard and says to Shepard "You can't save me." He then disappears as a growl comes from the vent.

Growl?

[Ariq]

Tsantilas wrote...

There is no mention of dream sequences, or vivid full blown hallucinations.  In addition, Indoctrination isn't a process that can fail.  If the reapers use indoctrination on someone, their way of thinking is altered to follow reaper doctrine.  After a while, the subject becomes a full blown slave who isn't in control of his actions.  The subject never makes a choice to join the reapers, nor does he become tricked.  He simply joins them without knowing he has changed.

The Indoctrination entry in the Codex explicitly mentions hallucinations, also, we have seen evidence of both hallucinations and altered memories in viewing the events which took place on the dead Reaper in ME2. Arrival indicates that the Alliance agents experienced a shared delusion. Resistance to Indoctrination is certainly possible, Benezia is able to throw off indoctrination, albeit briefly. Arguably, Saren made an even greater show of resistance, as it required implants to complete his Indoctrination. Why you say trickery isn't involved is odd, as clearly the Illusive Man becomes Indoctrinated slowly, while believing the process was his own idea. Last, Shepard is unique. He has a 'strong will', as is mentioned several times throughout the game. He has been mentally altered by his contact with the Prothean Beacon and with the Cipher.

If the Starchild is infact an illusion created by Harbinger to fool shepard, then the options provided make no sense from an "evil villain" point of view.  There is no logical reason for Harbinger to give Shepard the option to break out of Indoctrination. 

 
The Destruction option is Shepard's mind refusal to bend to Harbinger's will.

There are no solid facts either way on this point. 

 
This is true, that's why we're speculating. Also, the Indoctrination Theory doesn't imply we will ever get a 'real end'. Shepard is Indoctrinated or dies. The end. Game over, you failed. This is a bleak, but possible, interpretation of the end of the game. As to Bioware's intentions, well, we know Indoctrination was in the cards at one point. While they took out the actual loss of control, at minimum it appears some remnant of their intentions remain in-game. It is possible this is residuals from older writes/conceptions of how the ending would play out.

Many supporters of the Indoctrination Theory claim that the child isn't real since Shepard is the only person who has interracted with him.

I believe the child was real in the opening scenes. Clearly, the child was not 'real' in the intervening dream sequences, a delusion or projection of Shepard's subconscious angst over the loss of earth and the burden of the Reaper fight. Why do you believe the child was 'real' at the end? 

A Person simply becomes indoctrinated, and once that happens, he does not simply break indoctrination and return to normal through sheer will.  It is a permanent condition.  Even if the whole ending sequence was some kind of test for Shepard, successfully breaking out of Indoctrination would leave Shepard a broken shadow of his former self. 

The first assertion is simply not true. Saren resisted, to the point where Sovereign implants Reaper tech into his brain to assert full dominance. Second, Shepard is a special case, as I mentioned above. Finally, I agree that the result would likely leave Shepard a broken person. Nothing in the Indoc theory indicates otherwise. We know this is meant to end Shepard's story, one way or another. 

Would they risk an entire franchise on some marketting ploy?

Is that better or worse than risking the entire franchise on the faux profundities spouted by Starchild and an ending that runs counter to promises made prior to game release? It is possible for Indoc Theory to be correct, and this is the actual end of the line, it's just a very bleak end with a broken, defeated Shepard. Given the character's weary response to Hackett in the Citadel, I'm not sure how that differs from the 'given' ending.

The pistol has infinite ammo for gameplay purposes.  It would serve no purpose to having you fail during the important closing sequence because you ran out of ammo.  People are reading too far into this mechanic.

Maybe, but it is odd. Remember, Shepard's armor changes as well, and he has no access to tech or biotic powers. Why is that? I found it very disconcerting (and assumed it was another dream.) I'm sure some arcane explanation can be constructed, but the more constructs such a narrative device requires the less tenable it becomes. Aspects of the last sequences strongly resemble the previously shown dream sequences.

Modifié par Ariq, 19 mars 2012 - 08:36 .

[RavenEyry]

MassEffected555 wrote...

The thing wrong with the Indoc theory is the only possible outcomes for Shepard, according to in game lore and mechanis are:

Turning into a Husk
Becoming a braindead vegi
Going insane
Suicide
Death at the hands of friends


I think that is VERY wrong about the indoc theory being true. Is that what you want for Shepard?

I heard you the first two times. Even answered once.

[Schief724]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

I have, and I still think its an asinine concept to have it as DLC. Shepard breaking indoctrination and finishing the story should've been part of the actual ending, as it stands, if the theory is true then we've been given an unfinished game, which is completely insulting. 

And the way the game ended as it is (FULL of plot holes) isn't insulting? 

The "speculation for everyone" thing isn't insulting and provides a finished game?

[Hashbeth]

Sigh. I disagree with many points and can bring up counter arguments OP, but really, that will do very little good. Please realize that  the majority of voices supporting the Indoctrination Theory are not trying to convince YOU of anything. We're stating our beliefs about the ending, many of us doing so because it seems like the most probable, and low-cost way for BioWare to deal with the ending and add DLC.

But seriously guys, no one is trying to force anyone to believe anything. Hence the original indoc theory post's name:
'Was the ending a hallucination?"
Vs. the nature of this discussion;
"The definitive anti-indoctrination theory post"

Modifié par Hashbeth, 19 mars 2012 - 08:37 .

[-Zorph-]

No offense but the points made in this thread reinforce the Indoc Theory, personally.

[Midnight Eternal]

Schief724 wrote...

Midnight Eternal wrote...

Its the same principle =/, having ammo for that sequence would eject you from the narrative. You want a same in game comparison how about when you are shooting at the husks on the wall first thing in the game, you don't have to worry about the amount of shots you fire off then either do you?

That's actually false. I hear pepole say this all the time, but you DO have to have to wrry about the amout of shots you fire off to an extent because you DO have to eject your clips if you fire enough shots. The ammo is unlimited, but the gun still functions the same as it would if it wasn't unlimited.

At the end of the game you DO NOT have to eject ANY clips no matter how many shots you fire off. This goes against every rule established in any Mass Effect game. The gun at some point is supposed to either overheat (ME1) or eject spent clips (ME2 & ME3). You can keep firing forever if you wish with the gun at the end of the game and never have any of those two things occur.

This doesn't prove or disprove the indoc. theory however.

You are absolutely correct, however I think it is strictly for narrative purposes. As OP said, people seem to be reading too much into it, because had the ending be "pleasing" shall we say. I doubt half as many people would have given it any thought. They would have a grand sense of accomplishment and the last thing to come to their minds would be "Hey, my pistol had infinite ammo" and would probably dismiss it as "....... It doesn't matter the end was effin awesome!" Instead of proclaiming there was some greater meaning behind it all.

[vrumpt]

MassEffected555 wrote...

vrumpt wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...

effortname wrote...
 So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Because accepting the Indoctrination Theory as canon, means that essentialy only 1 out of 16 possible endings is the "true ending" that allows you to progress the story via DLC, because that's the only one in which Shepard "wakes up".  It contradicts the current ending more than the plot holes and inconsistencies do.

You assume that the story would end when Shepard wakes up.  I certainly have never ever thought of that, and i'm certain other people who have come to accept that the indoctrination is true have never thought of that either.

The IT is simply a stepping stone.  By using the IT you extend the ending to allow for a proper ending to be established, with perhaps a boss fight when Shepard wakes up along with the 16 actually different endings we were all promised.

The thing wrong with the Indoc theory is the only possible outcomes for Shepard, according to in game lore and mechanis are:

Turning into a Husk
Becoming a braindead vegi
Going insane
Suicide
Death at the hands of friends


I think that is VERY wrong about the indoc theory being true. Is that what you want for Shepard?

Except your entirely wrong here and proves you know nothing about the theory itself or its most basic principles.  Shepard waking up is him fighting off indoctrination to finish the fight.  I shouldn't have to explain that to you, you're just making stuff up now because you don't like the hive mind mentality of the IT being true.

[InfiniteDemise]

The only argument necessary to disprove the cultist theory is the real-world financial one, which is blindly ignored.

There are some pretty scary similarities between real cultists and the people here that are so desperately trying to make sense of the load of crap dumped at the end of this game. People are inventing new realities to deal with the total disconnect between their emotional investment in Shepard and the ME universe and the bizarre space magic garbage that was actually foisted on us.

It's not healthy to be this obsessed people, let it go.

[effortname]

I have, and I still think its an asinine concept to have it as DLC. Shepard breaking indoctrination and finishing the story should've been part of the actual ending, as it stands, if the theory is true then we've been given an unfinished game, which is completely insulting.

Would you rather a story end on a fakeout or a complete tangent that has nothing to do with anything that was previously in said story? It's a least of two evils choice, and the fans' literary analysis has given us the lesser of the two.

Modifié par effortname, 19 mars 2012 - 08:39 .

[Jaze55]

effortname wrote...

I have, and I still think its an asinine concept to have it as DLC. Shepard breaking indoctrination and finishing the story should've been part of the actual ending, as it stands, if the theory is true then we've been given an unfinished game, which is completely insulting.

Would you rather a story end on a fakeout or a complete tangent that has nothing to do with anything that was previously in said story? It's least of two evils choice, and the fans' literary analysis has given us the lesser of the two.

You are breaking the lore and mechanics of the game worse with your theory though that's what I find so hilarious about this. The space magic is just as valid as your indoc theory. 

[Primula Nightfall]

Tsantilas wrote...

2.  The other 2 possible endings control, and synthesis, are traps layed by the reapers and if chosen complete the indoctrination, leading to "bad endings".  The control ending reflect's The Illusive Man's views, and the Synthesis Ending Reflects Saren's views.

I'll ignore that this isn't how indoctrination works for argument's sake, but here we go:

This argument makes a huge assumtion that the Catalyst is lying to Shepard about his intentions.  I will agree that the control and Synthesis endings seem suspicious, but objectively speaking, they are in fact solutions to the reaper threat.  All 3 ending choices result in stopping the cycle one way or another.

If the Starchild is infact an illusion created by Harbinger to fool shepard, then the options provided make no sense from an "evil villain" point of view.  There is no logical reason for Harbinger to give Shepard the option to break out of Indoctrination.  A true villain would simply lie about the destroy ending and make the other 2 options seem much more attractive options, or disregard the destroy option all together in order to trick the hero.

People also argue that the destroy ending is shown as being "bad" because the Starchild tells Shepard that he will destroy all synthetic life, including the geth, and that "even you are partly synthetic".  He never says that Shepard will die, only that his implants will stop working (which may or may not result in his death).  The other 2 endings result in Shepard's certain death, and yet they are supposedly more attractive?  That makes no sense.

May I comment on this point?

Honestly, I believe that not giving a "destroy" option to Shepard would have been way TOO suspicious.

After all, Shepard is there to KILL the reapers. At that point he's still himself. He's fighting against himself, but he's still Shepard and he still wants to kill the Reapers. If he went up there and saw only choices that WOULDN'T allow him to do what he came to do, he would probably go "No way I'm doing this. I need to kill the reapers, this Crucible stuff is meant to kill the reapers, why cannot I do that?". 

Negating Shepard a choice, and not just a random choice but the very choice he went all the way there to make, would probably have the opposite effect: Shepard would want to do it even more.

This way instead Shepard IS given a choice, but this choice is highly discouraged. The true victory for the Reapers would be that Shepard CHOSE to ignore the "Destroy" solution. Chosing it by his own will means that he finally lost his will to fight. Denying him this choice wouldn't mean anything.

Modifié par Primula Nightfall, 19 mars 2012 - 08:46 .

[Schief724]

Midnight Eternal wrote...

Schief724 wrote...

Midnight Eternal wrote...

Its the same principle =/, having ammo for that sequence would eject you from the narrative. You want a same in game comparison how about when you are shooting at the husks on the wall first thing in the game, you don't have to worry about the amount of shots you fire off then either do you?

That's actually false. I hear pepole say this all the time, but you DO have to have to wrry about the amout of shots you fire off to an extent because you DO have to eject your clips if you fire enough shots. The ammo is unlimited, but the gun still functions the same as it would if it wasn't unlimited.

At the end of the game you DO NOT have to eject ANY clips no matter how many shots you fire off. This goes against every rule established in any Mass Effect game. The gun at some point is supposed to either overheat (ME1) or eject spent clips (ME2 & ME3). You can keep firing forever if you wish with the gun at the end of the game and never have any of those two things occur.

This doesn't prove or disprove the indoc. theory however.

You are absolutely correct, however I think it is strictly for narrative purposes. As OP said, people seem to be reading too much into it, because had the ending be "pleasing" shall we say. I doubt half as many people would have given it any thought. They would have a grand sense of accomplishment and the last thing to come to their minds would be "Hey, my pistol had infinite ammo" and would probably dismiss it as "....... It doesn't matter the end was effin awesome!" Instead of proclaiming there was some greater meaning behind it all.

That may be true, but it at least gives creedence to the indoc. theory, and to be fair that's all it is at this point. A theory can't be proven because then it would stop being a theory. All you can do is give facts that support your arguement, with the infinite ammo/never overheating gun being a part of that.

[dointime85]

just a few points...

Tsantilas wrote...

"The mental damage from indoctrination is severe and permanent. As Shepard saw, the captured salarians on Virmire had been turned into shambling husks, who either attacked on sight or just stood awaiting orders. Only people with immense mental strength are able to resist indoctrination, and even then, only for a short time."

[...]

"During the trilogy, characters who have been indoctrinated are only able
to break the grasp for a short moment, usually only long enough to
apologizze and commit suicide or be killed.  Saren, Benezia, TIM.  It is
established canon that there is no indoctrination "attempt" or
"trial".  A Person simply becomes indoctrinated, and once that happens,
he does not simply break indoctrination and return to normal through
sheer will.  It is a permanent condition.  Even if the whole ending
sequence was some kind of test for Shepard, successfully breaking out of
Indoctrination would leave Shepard a broken shadow of his former self. 
Essentially a brain dead husk.  This leaves no room for continuation of
Shepard's story."

Actually, I disagree, Shepard choice would be one of those short moments like Benezia's or Saren's, neither of whom were braindead yet, although they were indoctrinated. The difference is: Shepard eliminates the source of the indoctrination by picking the destroy option, therefore his/her freedom could be sustained afterwards and the indoctrination has failed which wouldn't be possible if the reapers continued to exist.

There is no mention of dream sequences, or vivid full blown hallucinations.

I believe in the ME3-codex, there is. The problem is that after ME1, they pretty much made the indoctrination process whatever it needed to be in a particular situation in the novels, the comics, and now in ME3.

A true villain would simply lie about the destroy ending and make the other 2 options seem much more attractive options, or disregard the destroy option all together in order to trick the hero.

People also argue that the destroy ending is shown as being "bad" because the Starchild tells Shepard that he will destroy all synthetic life, including the geth, and that "even you are partly synthetic".  He never says that Shepard will die, only that his implants will stop working (which may or may not result in his death).  The other 2 endings result in Shepard's certain death, and yet they are supposedly more attractive?  That makes no sense.

Well, Shepard is not he kind of guy who is afraid to sacrifice his life, is he? And yes, starchild makes the destroy option seem pretty bad (genocidal and unsustainable).

Many supporters of the Indoctrination Theory claim that the child isn't real since Shepard is the only person who has interracted with him.  I disagree.  In the opening sequence, it is pretty clear that the shuttle waits for the child to get in before taking off and being blown up by the reaper.  In fact the soldier standing guard is actively looking for enemies at the perimiter until the child gets on, before signalling the pilot to take off with a punch to the door.
The dreams are explained in the game as being a result of Shepard's deteriorating emotional and psychological state.  When creating a new Shepard, the player is able to select a psych history background, but no matter which one the player chooses, it is made clear that the losses and sacrifices are starting to take their toll on Shepard.  In game this manifests itself as nightmares.  Shepard has nightmares at key points during the game whenever an important character dies.  The first one is after the child dies in the beginning, followed by more nightmares after Mordin, and Thane's deaths (in my playthrough at least).  In the dreams Shepard chases after the child but is never able to save him from the flames.  It's clear imagery.  We also see ghosts of the many faceless civilians and soldiers that have died along the way.

You're right but it's also reasonable to assume that using the symbol of Shepard's guilt would make him more susceptible to indoctrination.

You're basically saying that it's all a test, and that the Destroy ending is the "good" ending that causes him to wake up in London (but only if you have 4000+ EMS).

I would argue that it would otherwise make no sense that Shepard would wake up in the Destroy ending only, but all of those connections between EMS and possible outcomes make no sense at all.


My interpretation: The indoctrination theory is one of those things that Bioware toyed around with (that they considered is actually evinced by the final hours), along with a fully allegoric and mythological interpretation of the ending (which I don't get), and taking the ending at face value, without commiting to either one of these options, thereby blessing us with "lots of speculation for everyone". I do not believe that they have a masterplan in their desk-drawer for some great post-ending DLC.

[weltraumhamster89]

The indoc theory would be a great opportunity for Bioware to finish off ME3 properly, though. How would you go from what we have now, if not via the indoctrination route?

Modifié par weltraumhamster89, 19 mars 2012 - 08:41 .

[Schief724]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

The only argument necessary to disprove the cultist theory is the real-world financial one, which is blindly ignored.

There are some pretty scary similarities between real cultists and the people here that are so desperately trying to make sense of the load of crap dumped at the end of this game. People are inventing new realities to deal with the total disconnect between their emotional investment in Shepard and the ME universe and the bizarre space magic garbage that was actually foisted on us.

It's not healthy to be this obsessed people, let it go.

Yes, if you believe a theory propsed to explain the ending to a video game full of plot holes, it must be the same thing as being in a cult.

[Noatz]

Indoctrination theory makes more sense than actually taking the events in the Citadel sequence at face value.

[Sibbwolf]

Tsantilas wrote...... [OP]

Read the books, then talk about the theory.

Basically, if the will is strong enough, they can resist and even break free. Also note, at no point is it established that Shepard has been successfully indoctrinated, so the logic you are using does not hold - it assumes Shepard is indoctrinated to 'disprove' the theory.

Think of it this way - the reapers and TIM are trying very hard, and Shepard is fighting back, very hard. TIM's early experiments were modified to sap the willpower of the subject in order to achieve indoctrination - something that clearly hasn't happened with Shepard.

While I don't agree with the theory as it stands, both sides need to be very careful before claiming victory and the 'anti-indoc' crowd are too quick to jump on the "but Shep's not been.." and claim they've won.

[greywardencommander]

 

I'll ignore that this isn't how indoctrination works for argument's sake, but here we go:

This argument makes a huge assumtion that the Catalyst is lying to Shepard about his intentions.  I will agree that the control and Synthesis endings seem suspicious, but objectively speaking, they are in fact solutions to the reaper threat.  All 3 ending choices result in stopping the cycle one way or another.

If the Starchild is infact an illusion created by Harbinger to fool shepard, then the options provided make no sense from an "evil villain" point of view.  There is no logical reason for Harbinger to give Shepard the option to break out of Indoctrination.  A true villain would simply lie about the destroy ending and make the other 2 options seem much more attractive options, or disregard the destroy option all together in order to trick the hero.

People also argue that the destroy ending is shown as being "bad" because the Starchild tells Shepard that he will destroy all synthetic life, including the geth, and that "even you are partly synthetic".  He never says that Shepard will die, only that his implants will stop working (which may or may not result in his death).  The other 2 endings result in Shepard's certain death, and yet they are supposedly more attractive?  That makes no sense.






That's not accurate, in order to indoctrinate someone to do their will they had to allow some aspect of 'perceived free will' like Saren and the Matriarch so they think they're making their own decision, otherwise they just become mindless Husks. Thus it makes perfect sense for them to still have the destroy ending and they do exactly what you say they don't. They make the other two seem more attractive by throwing in the geth and AI into the destroy to disuade Shepard from choosing it. Control - what makes the fact Shephard controls the reapers any different to the Starchild controlling them, it doesn't break the cycle. Synthesis - it goes against everything Shepard and the series has proved, diversity is important so making them all the same goes against that. Also killing Shephard - not enough, he would still be a symbol of hope, now attempting to indoctrinate him that breaks the entire will of the galaxy, their hero and symbol against all the reapers were and stood for wiped out.

Also at no point has it ever been stated that indoctrination is perfect or definitive, the fact it can be thrown off by Saren and the Matriarch mean that in theory at least a strong enough will and self-determination can resist the attempts.

Also people point to the Protean VI. The Prothean VI could be wrong to think Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it is pointed out that they failed to realise those Protheans advocating control were in fact already indoctrinated, something the VI never spotted. It also said that it takes a long time for indoctrination to set in (Saren) and that the VI only spots late indoctrination, thus it is still possible the dreams etc are his slow indoctrination. He has a stronger mind than Saren, maybe it took even longer to affect him.

Also the names of the two, the names of the two do hint at it:
Crucible - A place or occasion of severe test or trial: "the crucible of combat". - this is the trial, select destroy - he passes
Catalyst - 
A person or thing that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences.  - admittedly this could obviously be the 'precipitation' of what actually happens but when taken with crucible and 'without being involved in' you could argue that this was indoctrination, a precipitating trial before the final conclusion - yet to be relseased.

Also why on earth can Shephard breathe when it's been made clear several times, and shown in ME1, that you can't breathe because there's no atmosphere on the outside of the Citadel.

Until told otherwise I will believe that due to the 'leaked endings' they realised that what we have as a marketing ploy and will release free dlc. Why do they keep saying 'we're waiting till more finish the game' so as not to ruin the ending, and the fact that their is a 'twist' for those yet to play. I just cannot see any other reason for all the obvious plot holes in an otherwise consistent series unless they were deliberate to make you SEE that something was not right.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 19 mars 2012 - 08:46 .

[effortname]

You are breaking the lore and mechanics of the game worse with your theory though that's what I find so hilarious about this. The space magic is just as valid as your indoc theory.

The whole lure of the indoctrination theory is that it's in line with the game mechanics, lore, and previous foreshadowing. It's entirely internally consistent.

Space magic has nothing to do with the rest of the game and they might as well have just copy/pasted the Human Revolutions endings into the end of this game.

[Schief724]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

The indoc theory would be a great opportunity for Bioware to finish off ME3 properly, though. How would you go from what we have now, if not via the indoctrination route?

Other than a complete rewrite, there isn't a way. Unless all they do is tack on some CG scenes to fill in all of the holes.