User blog comment:Kaloneous/Mass Effect 3 Ending DLC Denied and PAX/@comment-4945364-20120405200733/@comment-4933332-20120405230003

There are two ways you can analyse work, literary method which is to treats the game as a mere "depiction", or "dramatic re-enactment" of a world which exists only in the author's mind. Therefore whatever Bioware intends is important because it is there world etc.

However there is the suspension of disbelief that treats the game as a visual representation of what commander shepard sees. Whatever the writers intended or not is irrelevant. We see Shepard meet up with the main villain of the game who controlled the reapers and was responsible for all the problems throughout the series. We see Shepard be compliant to the main villain, refuse to criticised or show any outrage etc, refuse to demand more information and proof to any assertion given by the catalyst and then accept everything the catalyst and then actively work with the catalyst to further the goal

How do we explain it, literary method - bad writing, the writers wanted a specific ending and shoehorn the character to get the ending they want, suspension of disbelief, Shepard was fighting  indoctrination and that's why Shepard was compliant to the starchild at the end.

the writers didn't intend it but it's the best explanation in explaining what we see on the screen. The literary method shows what the writers are intending but the suspension of disbelief shows what the consequences their intention has on the audience.

So yss, I don't believe Bioware intended the indoctrination theory but seriously the idea that people are wasting their time with the theory is untrue. Analysing works of fiction is quite a fun thing to do and is expected if you treat the work of fiction as art especially an art that was meant to be "speculation for everyone"