Mass Effect 3 SPOILER THREAD! - Page 8

thats the problem, there are so many plot holes (you just listed a couple of many) that if the "extended" ending makes sense it will be amazing, just from the sheer fact that made all the plot holes come together, at this point the only way i can see it making sense is the worst of all endings... it was all a dream (the whole ME3 game)...

I'm allowing for the potential that possibly things aren't exactly as they seem and that just maybe this well written story does have an epic ending, but I will concede that the more likely story is that EA said get this out now and took it out of the writers hands before they were happy with the final product.

I also have to say I'm truly touched by your altruistic concern for your fellow gamers. The way you're watching out for them so that 'the man' isn't taking advantage of them. It almost bring a tear to my Kool-Aid colored eyes.

(and if you keep that combative attitude up your going to end up with a friends request from me.)

Human has the Project Lazarus spec gathered from the Cerberus database. Knowing Shepard is unlikely to survive the final attack in the Citadel, the Earth base activated Project Lazarus to start growing a new Shepard body. (A Renegade Shepard would go for rebuilding another body since Shepard already experienced being brought back to life before.) The current cutscenes don't include this info.

Shepard "2" built by the Cerberus got destroyed on board the Citadel. But on the ground, a 3rd copy of Shepard is being rebuilt but unclear if Shepard in the rubble taking a breath is the new Shepard "3" waking up. If Shepard isn't 100% fully grown, put on enough face paints and it's still Shepard with some scars. (Bioware could continue on the current ME story and change Shepard's name and official face. When the time is right, the new Shepard "3" with new name and face will be revealed in ME4.)

Actually I think that supports the indoctrination theory...this gives everyone the hint that they were indoctrinated and then if your galactic readiness isn't high enough you die. Dead..deader that a doornail.

They don't kill him because they don't think he can break the indoctrination. Then he become a weapon for their side....bring the cannon fodder to them in easy to handle chunks.

None of that makes any sense.

Either you're indoctrinated and it's all a hallucination in the citadel, or sheps there and can actually die. Can't slice it both ways.

Shep has proven more resistant than anyone to indoctrination, he's the only real threat that exists to them, but these all knowing super beings to which time is meaningless decide to take that chance on him for the sake of convenience?

Or what if low EMS means you didn't take the time to start giving a damn about everything else, and therefore only care about one thing - destroying the reapers as soon as possible?

As to why Earth was first attacked - because humans wrote it? So they could use "Take back Earth" as their marketing slogan?

Let's not forget the Batarians got nailed first.

Are you trying to say that he survived the exploding citadel, fell from orbit down to earth, without a space suit, and woke up in cement rubble? Is that what you are trying to say? Really? If there are a thousand different theories, could you please share what you think is the best? Because I'm at a loss.


The way I look at it, when you see him wake up it's because he has overcome indoctrination and is ready to continue the fight. When you succumb to indoctrination (i.e. pick control or synthesis) the reapers have won, game over, you lose, no point in showing that the fight continues.

Basically, the only way to beat that part of the game is to make the one "correct" choice or you lose.

Here is a better question. If the reapers are there to Kill all the organics so the synthetics won't kill all the organics, why are the reapers not programed instead, to wait until synthetics (geth) are created and then show up and kill all the synthetics, give a galactic tutorial about why everyone should avoid creating synthetics and then disappear back into dark space?

ME was a phenomenal journey, no doubt. You'll get absolutely no argument there.

However, I look at it this way:

Let's suppose that I, my wife, and our son went out to dinner. We were served up a delicious appetizer that we all enjoyed. We all commented on how wonderful it was, and were all anxious to get to the next savory delight.

We were then brought a main course, wherein we all ordered slightly different versions of the same thing. Each version was mouth-watering, despite our variance in choices. We discuss our choices, and can hardly wait to see what's next.

The dessert tray comes up, and we all get the same item, since no other options are available. Still, it's fantastic...right up until the last bite. Instead of the same chocolately goodness that would have left us completely fullfilled and satisfied, the owners, thinking they were "genius," had the cooks insert a dog turd. "This will leave them wanting more!" they exclaim.

We leave the restaurant in disgust, vowing to never, ever come back. I file a complaint with the BBB, along with thousands of others that had the same experience. Hearing of this, the proprietors send out a single coupon where only I can get a free "real" dessert. Great. Though I might walk away feeling less violated, the best that my wife and son can do is imagine what it's like not having the taste of s#!t in their mouth.

This isn't the way to do business. BW or EA, doesn't matter...it's plain wrong.

The reapers motives are far more complicated than that.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Reapers

Shep took a reaper laser to the face and survived. If you can accept that, falling to earth is no biggie. Maybe he fell in a protective mass effect field bubble conveniently provided by star child. Maybe he's not on earth. Maybe it's a flashback. Maybe the writers are just toying with people. Maybe they're lazy.

My theory is that it's a work of fiction written to be intentionally ambiguous. (Which is backed up by the comments of the writers) There is no "correct" theory.

I personally take it at face value, and dont mind the inconsistencies cause it's a work of fantasy where literally anything can happen. I suspend disbelief.

How so? Are you talking about "helping organics ascend"?

Not really. It was shot in front of him. It had already been established earlier in the game that the lasers don't have a huge area of impact, like when you are fighting the reaper on the quarian homeworld.


Which he had just destroyed? And after the star child TOLD him he would die if he destroyed it?


What other planet with an oxygen atmosphere in our solar system did he teleport to after the mass relays blew up?


Now you're just saying things.


Maybe, but when they did that in the ME2 previews (about Shep being KIA) they explained it eventually.


I hope not. But this explanation is most likely out of all the others you provided. Then again it's not really an explanation...

That's part of it.

The writers said that the citadel was not completely destroyed so he could be in a pile of rubble in space.

After the events of ME1 and ME2, the reapers would prefer to indoctrinate Shepard and use him as a tool rather than kill him. He'd be much more valuable than someone like a Saren. They aren't foolish.

If you chose destroy with a low readiness, the earth gets destroyed, and Shepard doesn't get shown waking back up - in other words, you didn't overcome the indoctrination.


If you don't like how this is going to play out with indoctrination, don't get the DLC (along with the other 40% who apparently don't have an internet connection) - continue to enjoy the ending that is already in place....and stay indoctrinated.

You seriously think the DLC is going to validate the indoctrination theory? Seriously?

Seriously.

I very much doubt that BioWare was going for the Indoctrination ending. But if they were, they did a terrible job with it. If they do come out with the claim that this is what they were going for, the cries over bad writing will only increase.

IMO, indoctrination is the only way for this to be "good" writing. There's just too many plot holes and contradictions for any other logical ending.

Indoctrination theory, or any "it was all a dream" cop-out, can surely be used to explain plot holes. That does not make it good writing. If they meant the plot to include Shepard being indoctrinated by the Reapers, their telling of that plot was inexcusably poor.

I respectfully disagree. One of the things about indoctrination is the person doesn't know they were indoctrinated - if >50% think that was the real ending and don't get that they were indoctrinated, then Bioware has relayed that aspect of it succesfully. Another is that the indoctrinated help the reapers - only the destruction option with a high enough EMS allows you to break through it, the other scenarios have you helping the reapers. But that said, all the signs of indoctrination are clearly there, they set it up throughout the game with hints and knods as detailed in some of the videos linked to.

I openly ask, if they wanted you to be indoctrinated, how would you recommend they did it in a better manner without being completely obvious that you were indoctrinated or that you were actually helping the reapers? If it was completely obvious, it wouldn't be a true indoctrination. When you really think about it, what they have pulled off is genius.

I will openly answer. The ending cut scenes were not from Shepard's point of view. Good writing would have Shepard indoctrinated, but not the player after Shepard's death. Further, given those final cut scenes, what evidence is there that the hardest to achieve ending is a breaking of indoctrination? If the Reapers can trick you, the player, into thinking there really were green or blue explosions, why can't they trick you into thinking that Shepard really gasps after red explosions?

Good writing would convey to you, the player, what had actually happened, in a clear way. The idea that BioWare is genius because they tricked most people into misunderstanding the most important plot point does not work, IMO.

I really wish the indoctrination theory were true. Everything we see at the end of the game fits.

If IT was what Bioware intended, instead of showing the Stargazer and the grandchild after the credits, they should have shown a close up of Shepard's closed eyes. Then Shepard's eyes pop open and you see the tell tale glowing blue eyes. Then fade to black. How incredible would that have been?

If the final battle was Shep fighting indoctrination, then maybe all of the end from Harbinger's blast on was a fight in Shep's mind. If that's true, then the colors are also just in his mind, as are Joker and the Normandy, the destruction of the mass relays, and so on...

All this talk reminds me of the end of inception, when the top kept spinning. Is it still a dream? Was it a dream all along? A dream in a dream in a dream?

Its a clever trick to get people talking, for sure.

I'm halfway through the ME3 saga now and really enjoying it. Because I always thought ME2 was told from a "dreamy" perspective. From the end of ME1's encounter with Saren & Sovereign...the Shepard story took a Dream like or nightmarish twist in ME2 that reinforces the Indoctrination Theory IMO.

1. Shepard appeared to awake from death (?)...or into a dream in a Cerberus lab under the control of a mysterious "other", never alluded to or fathomed in ME1 (The Illusive Man)

2. The Illusive Man was the controlling intelligence in all of ME 2 until Shepard's choice at the very end

3. Shepard was assisted by the "perfect" Genetically Engineered girl of his dreams (Miranda) from the beginning of ME2. Supplied by The Illusive Man of course. Liara was Paradise Lost in ME2. Their separation started the dream like state in my game. Liara became paradise found near the end of ME2 (LOTSB)...which started a key part of Shepard breaking the indoctrination.

4. The Illusive Man was very thinly disguised "perfect deception" in ME2 unless you chose Renegade option.

5. Shepard assembled "the perfect crew" ...or dream crew if you will...in ME 2. All with extreme expressions of their organic & synthetic qualities/strengths/potential. To justify synthesis? Miranda represented false hope for Shepard. Remember ME2 began with Shepard and Liara (if you chose that outcome) contemplating going away and having "Blue Babies". While the dossier in LOTSB HQ revealed that Miranda was incapable of having children. End of line perhaps? Miranda's dossier also revealed that the Illusive Man had been assassinated.

6. The entire dream crew were all brought like Lemmings to the Collector Base for assessment and testing under different combat conditions. That was a blast!

7. The battle at the Collector Base always seemed to be Shepard fighting his way out of a nightmare to me. all scenarios including his death was in play.

8. I always thought the young Reaper Shepard destroyed at the end was somehow connected to Shep himself. I like to think that it is where Shep started his journey back from the Sovereign Nightmare into his world of reality.

9. ME3 is about that journey back to my eyes and my game.

10. Shepard's and the Illusive Man's eyes looked Reaper weird at the end of ME2. And the Illusive man's surrounding was "cold blue"...like the young Reaper's eyes, at the end of ME2... After being red throughout the game. I noticed this as a possibility right away and commented about it at the time on the XBox Live forum.

11. The Shepard awakening at the end of ME3 just may be revealed as his awakening in the environs at the end of ME1 after all is said and done. I won't know that until I finish the game and the new DLC come out.

So I was awaiting ME3 under the assumption that Shepard may have become a Reaper at the end of ME2. The "Indoctrination Theory" is extremely credible IMO. It is the way I played the game all the way through as a Paragon (obviously without calling it that). I won't be disappointed if the extended DLC invalidates it. I just marvel at the way Bioware allowed us to play this saga and quarrel about the outcome of our decisions.

"A One Of A Kind MASTERPIECE"!

Sure, but I'm addressing the idea that good writing of an indoctrination story would include fooling the player up to and past the end of the game. When you accept the premise that at some point the plot that the player sees is a hallucination happening inside the mind of a fictional character, all evidence has to be dismissed.

You can't point to events earlier in the story as evidence when the game is believed to invent story and present it to the player as fact (within in the game universe). The gasp can't be seen as a breaking of indoctrination when the entire story can just be the Reapers presenting Shepard with one fictional victory after another.

A well written indoctrination story needs rules, communicated to the player, that allow the player to understand which events are true and which are false (again, within the game universe). I'm not saying that the writers did or did not intend the ending to include Shepard being indoctrinated. I'm saying that if they did, their writing was as terrible as if they did not.

For example, there is no context for the player to know that destruction of the Reapers is the path to mental freedom. The player is just given three ill-defined choices, each a victory over the Reapers that comes with a cost. Good writing writing does not make a player choose randomly, and then measure that choice against an arbitrary Effective Military Strength value to determine the outcome.

Sure there is, from the first Prothean beacon until the end of ME3, Shepard knows that destruction of all life in the universe is the only goal of the reapers. He attempts to learn more about the reapers when talking with Sovereign - perhaps even negotiate - only to reach the conclusion that they must be destroyed. In ME3, it is said several times that the only option is to destroy the reapers at any cost.

The star child presents three choices, and any player who paid attention from 1-3 would realize the first option was the Illusive Man's goal (he was indoctrinated) and the second option was Saren's goal (he was indoctrinated). Shepard has been wanting to destroy the reapers from day 1, so when given the option, why would he all of a sudden change course? Yes, the twist about all synthetics getting killed may make you pause, especially with the relationship with Legion and EDI, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a relatively small price to pay for the safety of the galaxy. Statements from Bioware regarding this already have them back peddling and saying only synthetics with reaper tech would die, and that EDI doesn't have reaper tech (even though she does). THAT particular aspect I do attribute to poor writing, but that's small.

Since the Reapers never have destroyed all life in the universe, and from what we can tell have neer tried to, this implies that what Shepard "knew" from the first Prothean beacon is suspect.

Someone else mentioned "confirmation bias". Certainly it is said during the games that the Reapers must be destroyed. Characters are often wrong in the game. Confirmation bias leads one who likes IT to accept certain character statements as necessarily correct.

But other characters say that the Reapers can and should be controlled. Why are those statements not the guide to the true and proper path?

And there is the third path. In the series Shepard is constantly changing her plans when she is giving new information, which is constantly shown to be the correct thing to do. Surely this established behavior points to the Green ending.

You say that the death of good synthetic life is a small price to pay, and because you see it that way, Shepard should understand that such destruction is the path to mental freedom.

I see it differently. Shepard has experience that proves the Destruction logic wrong. She knows that both synthetic and organic life is capable of conflict and cooperation. She would never agree to genocide based on an obviously untrue claim from the Star Child. She would not agree to become the organic Reaper of synthetics. To find the correct path to breaking indoctrination, she would have to ignore everything she had learned throughout the series and fundamentally change her character and values.

It is bad writing.