Why Mass Effect 3's Ending Could Be Genius

 WARNING: Mass Effect 3 spoilers ahead

Going into Mass Effect 3, I'd already heard of the controversies surrounding the ending, so I wasn't too surprised of the lack of closure and how little my choices mattered. However, what I wasn't expecting was how nonsensical and confusing the ending was to me. "How did Garrus, who accompanied me on my race to the Conduit and supposedly died, get on the jungle planet?" I said to myself, as the credits rolled by to The Faunt's catchy new tune. "W-who exactly is the Catalyst and why is it in the form of the child Shepard saw on Earth?" I further pondered. Some sort of symbolism perhaps? I really didn't have a strong opinion of the ending because I assumed it went over my head and I just missed something. As it turns out, that could potentially be the case.

The Indoctrination Theory, if you've yet to hear, suggests that everything after Shepard gets knocked out on his/her race to the Conduit is a hallucination, a trick by Harbinger to Indoctrinate the Commander (this video is a great synopsis). While the theory isn't perfect and requires an unhealthy level of optimism, let's assume it's true for the sake of this article. Let's pretend it's real and consider just how beneficial it is for video game narratives.

Whether or not the Indoctrination Theory is true, the concept surrounding it is pretty clever. What makes this cliff-hanger ending so genius is it takes a core theme throughout the trilogy, Reaper indoctrination, and applies it to you, the player. It's up to you and your understanding of the universe to determine that Commander Shepard -and by extension, you- are being indoctrinated. No other characters are there to seed doubt in your mind, nor do past decisions help in any way, it's up to you and your knowledge to connect the dots. What's so interesting is that if the player chooses incorrectly, by picking either the control or synthesis option, he/she literally becomes indoctrinated by the game. Not only does Shepard submit to the Reapers, but the player does as well.

The Indoctrination Theory also perfectly complements the one of the core pillars of Mass Effect: player choice. Trusting the Reaper is the ultimate and arguably hardest choice the player has to make in the trilogy. "Do I trust the Catalyst at the risk of indoctrination, or not and risk saving the galaxy?" Mass Effect has always been about choice and the subsequent consequences; wouldn't this be a fitting final boss to an end of a choice-driven, lore-heavy trilogy?

More broadly, these types of decisions could make players pay more attention to the narrative, further increasing immersion. For players to make the correct choices, they have to closely pay attention to what they see and hear. In the context of Indoctrination Theory, failing to notice the strange dream sequences, obvious plot inconsistencies, and the Catalyst's contradictions will result in the incorrect choice and therefore, indoctrination. Putting effort into understanding the principles of the game's universe could enhance engagement as a whole when faced with these complex, "not what they seem," choices. 

The Indoctrination Theory also makes more sense than traditional morality systems when protagonists are "ciphers": characters that are "blank slates" for players to feel like the protagonist. If cipher characters, like Commander Shepard, are an extension of the player, decisions made should impact not just the protagonist but, to an extent, the player as well. The indoctrination concept does exactly that. Discovering Harbinger's trickery could potentially make the player feel manipulated and exploited because although they had direct control, they didn't necessarily choose the best ending. This notion of feeling personally affected by a video game is a pretty powerful concept that hasn't existed in a game aside from emotional attachment. Unlike the traditional good/bad/neutral endings where past actions determine how the protagonist acts during the finale, the indoctrination theory directly involves and affects the player at the game's conclusion.

Though the Indoctrination Theory may prove to be false when the extended cut is released this summer, and although its clues were too vague for anyone to casually notice, its idea is a fascinating one. It's a technique not seen before and, if well executed, could provide smart and unique experiences. This idea compliments games with a heavy emphasis on player choice by providing cerebral, taxing, and potentially rewarding decisions. Indirectly testing the player with key narrative components may also be an incentive to absorb the universe to greater extents, which may enhance immersion. It also has the potential to impact players on a more personal level than other, more common morality systems. I don't know if I believe in the Indoctrination Theory or not, but perhaps a developer will someday take the idea behind it, and turn it into a reality...intentionally.