(Again, massive spoilers for MASS EFFECT trilogy, particularly MASS EFFECT 3)
That Indoctrination theory that's been doing the rounds and being largely dismissed as wishful thinking? It actually makes quite a bit of sense. Enough to fill out the twenty freaking minutes of this remarkably well-edited YouTube video. It certainly uncovers hints that cannot be accidental, such as the bullet wound that Anderson and Shepard share even though only Anderson was shot; the completely nonsensical rooms in the Citadel that seem to belong to other ships in previous games; that fucking Star Child saying he's the Catalyst, but at several points implying he's a Reaper, and saying it with three simultaneous voices, two of which are the male Shepard and the female Shepard; the reversal of colors in the three choices, with The Illusive Man being portrayed as a Paragon and Anderson as a Renegade; and finally, there's the extra ending that can only be obtained by players with a high Effective Military Strength rating who choose to destroy the Reapers (the "Renegade" choice) -- an ending that shows Commander Shepard waking up in the ruins of a warzone that is very likely Earth, suggesting that he never actually went up to the Citadel. It's like Bioware wanted to reward the more hardcore players with an extra hint that there's more coming.
All of a sudden, the ending makes sense and is remarkably clever to a point that cannot be coincidence. Hell, the theory not only explains the ending, it also explains ME3's weak beginning. Now there is a narrative reason for that ridiculous child to show up inside a vent and inexplicably refuse help. If it turns out this child is Harbinger trying to manipulate Shepard's emotions all along? I will kiss the writing team in the mouth. Considering the high standards I've come to expect from them throughout the MASS EFFECT series, the Indoctrination theory is to me more plausible than Bioware actually coming up with the ending as it currently stands, and saying, "Yeah, that'll work." It's too much of a narrative and thematic clusterfuck if taken at face value.
Since ME3 was released two weeks ago, people have been trying to figure out what exactly is going on in the ending, and together they came up with the Indoctrination theory that establishes the "Renegade" choice as the only one that breaks the Indoctrination's hold and thus allows the story to continue. Many think that this is bullshit, that this is denial, and that Bioware just fucked up and that's it, get over it.
Do you see how the doors are open for an absolutely brilliant and unprecedented metalinguistic prank?
If it turns out this was indeed all planned, then the game successfully "indoctrinated" a legion of gamers. Who will, of course, be very unhappy if the "real ending" DLC comes at a price and takes too long. If Bioware releases it soon -- thus revealing that its was already done or at least near completion when ME3 was released -- and doesn't charge for it? I think they'll be applauded for their cleverness and their sheer brass balls even if the actual ending also sucks.
And they've been interestingly vague when questioned about this. They were implying the ending was intended to be final. But now, they're thinking of changing it. I'm hoping their next step is to reveal it. Because as much sense as the Indoctrination theory makes, it can only be proven if they actually finish the story. If the ending was intended as final and the hints were just dropped to make it open for interpretation, Bioware disastrously failed to pull it off. But that doesn't sound like them.
Seems too good to be true, yes, but also too good an opportunity to miss.
We shall see.
Further info:
- Incredibly detailed analysis of MASS EFFECT 3's ending from a logical standpoint.
- Interesting blogpost on Destructoid.
- Another excellent Gamefront article analyzing the Indoctrination theory.
- Jimquisition episode in which Jim Sterling, quite correctly, says it's awesome for videogames that people care this much about MASS EFFECT even though the ending sucks. And this is why it would be so, so genius if it turns out there is an actual ending DLC planned.
---
It is an interesting theory, but I fear this might be comparable to the scale and amount of detail in which people could over-interpret 'Lost'. Enough players had such high expectations for this closing of the trilogy that I'd expect creative denials of the possibility that this project might actually have suffered from similar kinds of pressures as many other games, where putting vast efforts into determining how the story ends, to put it mildly, does not seem a priority.
ReplyDeleteThe element of the three seemingly arbitrary machines connected to different endings, who seem to exist for no logical, internal reason and make it apparent that this is a video game is what feels like the weakest link of this theory to me. The 'Deus Ex' sequel made by Eidos Montreal is very similar in that respect: The showdown takes place on a large station, the "final" room of which just so happens to feature several terminals with a decisive button that just scream "It's all a game!" and plausibly, story-wise should and would not be there. It seems the easiest conceivable way for game developers to have a player influence how the game ends is by making him press one of a few switches, each of them triggering some kind of ending cutscene.
A misdirect on how these machines were colour-coded would be a neat trick to get players to think about which option they (don't) want to choose. The implication that the in-story builders of the Citadel (or the creators of a hallucination of the whole thing) were somehow aware of the game's colour-coding of dialogue and action choices would sound like a pretty absurd explanation to me.
That said, I think there are elements of indoctrination theory that at least seem perfectly intention on the developers' part. It's hard not to see that the scene showing Anderson, Shepard and the Illusive Man openly asks the question of to which extent any (or all) of these characters may be indoctrinated. But they might just struggle to make the kind of decision they would naturally make; there's a long way from that to "proving" one of them, or Shepard in particular, is hallucinating the entire sequence.
It's also not hard to see that the recurring character of the boy is most likely an apparition or hallucination rather than intended as an actual, physically present person. It may be possible, though, that that's "just" an image Shepard's subconscious is projecting, some symbolisation of the kind of innocence of life across the galaxy he would believe she/he must fight to protect. Whatever entity claims to be the catalys in the end might just have assumed that form because it could somehow determine the interactions with that figure had a significant emotional impact on Shepard. And the figure seemingly would prefer Shepard favour two of the choices over the third, so an emotional appeal might be opportune to sway her/him that way.
I agree though, if more of this theory than I expect would be confirmed by Bioware and/or explored with that DLC that may or may not materialise at some future time, it would have been an interesting, bold creative decision to go this way.
I'll make a new post about this (possibly after the DLC has come out and I've played it, so as not to keep repeating this subject), but it's clear now that Bioware indeed dropped the ball down a bottomless chasm. Which is an absolute shame.
Delete