User blog comment:Kaloneous/Mass Effect 3 Ending DLC Denied and PAX/@comment-4945364-20120405200733/@comment-4950455-20120405231831

The problem is that even when looked at solely from the "in-universe" POV, the indoctrination theory still has plot holes of its own. Most glaringly, there's the fact that with sufficiently low EMS, the game forces you pick to the Destroy ending. How does that make even the slightest bit of sense in light of the theory? I mean, what you get is something like this:

Catalyst: Well, Shepard, me and my boys were gonna indoctrinate you, but seeing as you didn't bring enough guys to fight us, we're just gonna make you snap out of it instead.

Honestly, if Bioware does change the ending (as opposed to just adding more detail), then going with the theory would be a smart bet, for the simple reason that it makes their terrible bit of writing look so much deeper then it really is. But while I certainly don't object to people analyzing any work, IT proponents do need to realize that it's got holes of its own, and not just from a purely external perspective.

I'm not sure I understand the view that "the only way I can even keep playing my newly started ME trilogy playthrough is to believe in the IT", either. If we assume the theory's right, then at best you're going to end on a cliffhanger - one that's almost certain not to be resolved given that the theory is now pretty much confirmed as "externally" false.