[Megathread] Mass Effect 3

[May90]

I'm tired of answering kilometer long posts filled with insults.

There is no evidence that reapers can indoctrinate instantly, that is true, but then nobody has said someone flicked a switch and suddenly Shepard's gone. Shepard wasn't indoctrinated instantly, it was over a period of time and he went over entirely after his resistance was wiped out by nearly dying in a reaper beam attack, seeing his mentor apparently die in front of him and then bleeding out to the point of death himself. Indoctrination starts as soon as you come into contact with any Reaper tech, that's in the game files, that is a fact. Shepard has been fighting them for years, fighting inside them inside them in some cases, it can't be argued against without arguing what is actually in the game.

Shepard was not indoctrinated when he was on Thessia.

All the best.

Omg he busted himself again.

Elaborate.

And he does so alone.

Imagine that instead of 1 empowered Collector at a time you fought 100 controlled Collectors.

Why don't the other reapers interfere, too?

Apparently other Reapers didn't have the ability to control Collectors. Your point?

1. Harbinger being the first reaper.

2. The Catalyst being on the Citadel.

3. The Citadel directly influencing the Crucible beam.

1. No evidence.
2. The Catalyst is part of the Citadel ffs.
3. Wut?

@May90

You have the Crucible and the Citadel backwards. The clever stuff is handled by the Citadel, the Crucible simply provides the power.

I think the important thing about the Crucible isn't what it does but rather what it represents. The design shows an aspect of organic life that has evolved despite the Reaper cycle, the fact our cycle manages to bring it all together and engage it with the Citadel puts us beyond the parameters the Catalyst used when it decided the Reapers were the best solution, hence Shepard is needed to enact a new solution.

It always bugged me that ME had a lot of nods towards hard sci-fi concepts, but the Reapers were so ridiculously inefficient as extermination devices. The reason behind the cycle makes me speculate (woo-hoo!) that the Reapers were made purposefully inefficient as a sort of test. The Catalyst could have created any number of ways to destroy something as fragile as organic life, but instead it chose to use huge space ships firing energy beams. It makes me think that maybe it chose a method that used what it believed to be the minimum amount of force that organic life would find insurmountable, so if the cycle fails it means it's calculations were wrong, so the failure is no great loss.

If you want to go full tin-foil-hat the Catalyst may even have made the initial designs for the Crucible.

The Crucible provided the beam and the energy for basic run. The Citadel provided software/hardware and energy to actually launch it and enhance it. That's how I understand it. Perhaps I am wrong, but I fail to see what relevance it has towards IT since people here claim anyways that all this was just a "vision".

And you are totally right, Reapers are very inefficient. First of all, they certainly were wrong to leave just one capital ship (Sovereign) watching the organics and enabling the Citadel relay at the right time - once it was defeated, they didn't have real back up and had to waste, what, 3 or 4 years while organics could prepare to the invasion? Then, it is weird that they didn't attack Citadel right away as the main point of civilization - they could easily have taken it down with a few dozens Capital Ships (especially since Catalyst was on Citadel and could program its systems to assist the Reapers), and after that they would have to fight separated and confused chunks, just like they did with the Protheans.

However, inefficient as they were, they still followed some basic warfare strategies, they still gave priority to the industrial centers and capitals. To assume that they specifically planned all the races to unite against them to win a single battle against them would be ridiculous.

[Sunseeker]

Are we sure this isn't the 9/11 conspiracy thread? It certainly reads like one.

[May90]

Are we sure this isn't the 9/11 conspiracy thread? It certainly reads like one.

It almost certainly is.

[May90]

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Catalyst
"The Catalyst, also known as the Intelligence, is an ancient artificial intelligence that resides within the Citadel."

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Harbinger
"During its encounter with Shepard, Leviathan reveals that Harbinger was the first Reaper created, and that it was formed in the image of the Leviathans."

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Crucible
"he Catalyst describes the Crucible as little more than a crude but effective/adaptive power source."

Okay, I was wrong about #2 and #3, apparently.

Speaking of which... According to IT, everything that happened on the Citadel after the beam run was hallucination. Talk with Leviathan also occurred during the process of hallucinations. So how come IT followers take the word of Leviathan and Catalyst? I don't understand. You gotta decide whether it was real or not. If not, you should not use those statements to confirm your points. If yes, then your IT is wrong. What did I miss?

[May90]

It’s not just about #2 & #3, I just can’t be arced to go around looking for information sources every time one of you guys pull something out of your own asses to prove that the IT is right or not. It is a possibility, like it or not, it’s all in Bioware hands.

If they want it, they will add it along with a plausible explanation ~

IT is wrong because it contradicts the official storyline. As simple as that. Arguing over minor points happening here right now is just an attribute of Mass Effect and Dragon Age megathreads on these forums.

I'm surprised Gravath hadn't any say so far on this.

[Mormolyce]

I can't believe how many people WANT the indoctrination theory to be true. Indoctrination theory is the only thing in the world that would make a worse ending than the canon one.

I know we all wish the end of ME3 hadn't happened, but that is not the way.

[pateuvasiliu]

Speaking of which... According to IT, everything that happened on the Citadel after the beam run was hallucination. Talk with Leviathan also occurred during the process of hallucinations. So how come IT followers take the word of Leviathan and Catalyst? I don't understand. You gotta decide whether it was real or not. If not, you should not use those statements to confirm your points. If yes, then your IT is wrong. What did I miss?

Leviathan has no reason to lie. They say they will help Shepard and they do, by killing the Reaper Capital Ship on their planet and aiding to the EMS.

The Catalyst has every reason in the world to lie to Shepard ( if he even exists ). And that is, survival.

Indoctrination theory is the only thing in the world that would make a worse ending than the canon one.

Opinion.

IT is wrong because it contradicts the official storyline.

There is no official storyline. Even if the IT is wrong, there are 4 endings. Until Bioware says a canon ending exists or a game is made in which an ending is chosen, there's no OFFICIAL storyline.

[Mormolyce]

@May90

You have the Crucible and the Citadel backwards. The clever stuff is handled by the Citadel, the Crucible simply provides the power.

I think the important thing about the Crucible isn't what it does but rather what it represents. The design shows an aspect of organic life that has evolved despite the Reaper cycle, the fact our cycle manages to bring it all together and engage it with the Citadel puts us beyond the parameters the Catalyst used when it decided the Reapers were the best solution, hence Shepard is needed to enact a new solution.

It always bugged me that ME had a lot of nods towards hard sci-fi concepts, but the Reapers were so ridiculously inefficient as extermination devices. The reason behind the cycle makes me speculate (woo-hoo!) that the Reapers were made purposefully inefficient as a sort of test. The Catalyst could have created any number of ways to destroy something as fragile as organic life, but instead it chose to use huge space ships firing energy beams. It makes me think that maybe it chose a method that used what it believed to be the minimum amount of force that organic life would find insurmountable, so if the cycle fails it means it's calculations were wrong, so the failure is no great loss.

If you want to go full tin-foil-hat the Catalyst may even have made the initial designs for the Crucible.

The way I read it, the Leviathans programmed the AI to stop the machine/synthetic conflict, and it determined that fusing the two together and wiping out the pure organic and synthetic races was the best way to accomplish that. So they're not simply a tool for extermination, they're also the lifeform meant to replace them - ie an early attempt at Synthesis.

- - - Updated - - -

Opinion.

Uh, is anything in this thread not opinion?

[Nazrark]

I genuinely enjoy conversations with May and Gravath. Opposite ends of a spectrum, but still can put up a great argument. As for the IT, it is essentially piecing together information to make an ending feel better for yourself. The only way I am not content with the ending is the lack of what happened to everyone else after we 'win'. Basically leaving the galaxy in economic shambles as well as completely devastated infrastructure wise.

[Mormolyce]

I'm sorry but the end of ME3 is simply ruined and no amount of fanwank or retcon will fix it.

Do the various non-capital Reapers even require genetic goo to make? We really have no information about their assembly and production, so for all we know the "lesser" reapers are just machines, even if highly advanced.

Perhaps they're made out of non-sentient life? But yeah, they're never explained.

[pateuvasiliu]

I recall reading that the apex races of the cycle are turned into capital ships and the smaller races into destroyers.

It's why the Collectors were harvesting humans, because Humans were seen as the apex race of this cycle.

Hence, the invasion hitting Earth the hardest and the Human Reaper.

[Very Tired]

[Durandro]

IT is wrong because it contradicts the official storyline. As simple as that.

Actually, it doesn't. At all.

The only time anti-IT'ers had an argument that held water was "Arrival DLC isn't canon for all Shepards" - being that if you didn't do it, then Shepard never did the mission and thus was never exposed to Object Rho.

This argument was demolished by Bioware themselves when it was confirmed it was canon that all Shepards who survived ME2 did the events in Arrival regardless of if the player completed it or not.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't believe how many people WANT the indoctrination theory to be true. Indoctrination theory is the only thing in the world that would make a worse ending than the canon one.

How is it worse? Other then saying "the story isn't over" - which isn't a bad thing at all in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

In my honest opinion, I don’t see the IT happening, but I would sure like it to.

Generally my view on the matter. I like the ending being open to interpretation and civilised debate. The only two reasons I'd want it 'confirmed' is:

1/ If there's a direct sequel in the future.

2/ To shut people up who call anyone who disagrees with them any of the following: Cultists, Conspiracy Nuts, Psychopaths, Retards...

Otherwise it being open ended is perfectly okay by me.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of which... According to IT, everything that happened on the Citadel after the beam run was hallucination. Talk with Leviathan also occurred during the process of hallucinations. So how come IT followers take the word of Leviathan and Catalyst? I don't understand.

Depends who you ask. There are various sub-theories on this, varying from "everything after Eden Prime in ME1 was a hallucination" (which is ridiculed by most of us, I might add - not because of the idea, but because of how pig headed the people who put it forward were when the idea was cross-examined) to "all the events happened, but are altered slightly in Shepard's perceptions", with most of us being somewhere in between.

Regardless, I'm not really sure what your point is here. That if they are both hallucinations, why do we believe what they say? Most of us disbelieve elements of both, coloured by the bias of both Leviathan and the Reapers in their superiority complexes and both want to manipulate Shepard to do what they want.

Also, its widely held among IT'ers that Leviathan is dishonest on at least one point - that they don't have any specific knowledge of the Crucible/Catalyst. Namely that the vision that says this is taking the guise of the fake doctor (who's name escaped me) rather then the real one, that he pauses mid-sentence and glances to the side. Which is typical symbolism of a lie. Quite why they'd lie about it is another matter entirely.

[May90]

Leviathan has no reason to lie. They say they will help Shepard and they do, by killing the Reaper Capital Ship on their planet and aiding to the EMS.

No dude. Leviathan even specifically said that it was not fighting for smaller races, but rather to enslave Reapers. Reasonable conclusion is that they want to enslave all other species afterwards as well, returning their status of dominating race in the galaxy. So they have no reason to tell truth to Shepard, they barely think typical organics better than insects. Why would Leviathan tell Shepard a single bit of truth, how does it benefit Leviathan? Will you explain what you are going to do to a spider?

The Catalyst has every reason in the world to lie to Shepard ( if he even exists ). And that is, survival.

I don't understand, You say that the Catalyst is in Shepard's hallucination due to indoctrination. Since when do you believe words of hallucinated entity?

There is no official storyline. Even if the IT is wrong, there are 4 endings. Until Bioware says a canon ending exists or a game is made in which an ending is chosen, there's no OFFICIAL storyline.

Official storyline is not linear, there are certain deviations. And none of them is IT. IT is a fantasy of a bored forums guy.

No offense mate, but you already shown me that you are not even aware of some basics facts given during the gameplay, it makes me wonder even how familiar are you with the IT ._.

That said, I believe that you are in no position to claim what’s right or wrong.

In my honest opinion, I don’t see the IT happening, but I would sure like it to. There may be a couple of things that are somewhat kind of farfetched, but Bioware can make it work as long is what they want, kind of the same way Blizzard did with the class combos.

Surely I don't have a 100% memory and I can be mistaken in some things - if you know anyone who is different (including yourself), point him/her to me. I, however, know a dozen of facts that show that Shepard couldn't have been indoctrinated at any point of the game without totally breaking logic and consequence of the events shown in Mass Effect. IT is a theory that ending is Shepard's visions due to indoctrination - I don't need to know anything more about a conspiracy theory offered by some forums guy.

I know it is a very popular way to have discussion among conspiracy theorists. They say, "How can you criticize our theory if you are not familiar with 100% of it?". What they don't want to hear is that one single core statement from their theory proven wrong renders the whole theory wrong, and I don't need to learn anything more about your IT theory if even very basics of it are inconsistent with the game.

Shepard is not indoctrinated on Thessia - that is a fact from the game.
After the game the Shepard's crew puts his name on Normandy's memorial table, and, in my case, EDI tells on the background that it is Shepard they are to thank for that they are alive. That is a fact too.

We are talking about side bullshit like what Crucible is and such, while all we need to have stated is just these two facts each of which ruins your "IT" completely.

Regardless, I'm not really sure what your point is here. That if they are both hallucinations, why do we believe what they say? Most of us disbelieve elements of both, coloured by the bias of both Leviathan and the Reapers in their superiority complexes and both want to manipulate Shepard to do what they want.

The point is, if they are hallucinations, you should ignore everything that has happened in them. While you take from them only points that are convenient for your theory while dismissing other points because "it is just hallucination".

That's the kind of double standards all conspiracy theorists have. Without double standards not a single conspiracy theory can survive because, if you are entirely honest, you can say at best that conspiracy theory cannot be proven right or wrong by its very nature. The fact that you are insisting on it by randomly selecting only the facts that fit into it shows that you aren't interested in the truth, you aren't even interested in building a plausible theory - all you are interested in is "winning the argument" against those who laugh at your theory.

Bioware's plot doesn't need to be defended, it already has been defended by 3 solid games winning countless awards. Your plot can be busted in seconds by a few facts from the game, and all "proof" you have is a few hundred lazy people posting their class B fan-fic on forums.

"I am not impressed".

[May90]

“my” theory? What? You seem confused mate. Still, no, sorry to say, but those things that you are calling “facts” don’t break shit at all =/ But as long as you are happy beliving it! Oh well ~

Your = IT believer's, didn't mean you. And yes, they break theory, since Shepard is not indoctrinated on Thessia - proves that ITers claims that he has been slowly indoctrinated over the storyline is false (and yes, Prothean VI probably knows more about indoctrination than these forum guys, so I am inclined to believe it) - and Shepard is clearly shown in the ending to have saved the galaxy from the Reaper harvests - impossible if he had been indoctrinated.

Second, not only seems that you don’t know what the IT is about, but according to you, you also don’t care about it…
With makes me ask… what the hell are you trying to accomplish around here?

I don't like when people that suck at writing criticize experienced writers for their job, is all. The world is full of people who know over all the experts how everything should be. People know politics better than their president, they know economy better than economists, they know warfare better than seasoned generals, they know health better than doctors... I understand the desire to believe that you know something better than everyone else in the world, but, if you are going to preach it, don't insult those who actually know the stuff. Bioware writers are not perfect, but they are certainly better at this than IT "theorists", as evidence suggests.

I principally do not see the difference between IT followers and, say, people who believe in Moon conspiracy. Both believe that they know everything better than "ignorant masses" and seasoned experts, and both provide zero evidence confirming their theory over the main theory.

[Teroseth]

Your = IT believer's, didn't mean you. And yes, they break theory, since Shepard is not indoctrinated on Thessia - proves that ITers claims that he has been slowly indoctrinated over the storyline is false (and yes, Prothean VI probably knows more about indoctrination than these forum guys, so I am inclined to believe it) - and Shepard is clearly shown in the ending to have saved the galaxy from the Reaper harvests - impossible if he had been indoctrinated.


I don't like when people that suck at writing criticize experienced writers for their job, is all. The world is full of people who know over all the experts how everything should be. People know politics better than their president, they know economy better than economists, they know warfare better than seasoned generals, they know health better than doctors... I understand the desire to believe that you know something better than everyone else in the world, but, if you are going to preach it, don't insult those who actually know the stuff. Bioware writers are not perfect, but they are certainly better at this than IT "theorists", as evidence suggests.

I principally do not see the difference between IT followers and, say, people who believe in Moon conspiracy. Both believe that they know everything better than "ignorant masses" and seasoned experts, and both provide zero evidence confirming their theory over the main theory.

Firstly, Jesus Christ...just...wow...passing subjective opinion off as fact whilst attacking others for having their own opinions. The only fact about that prothean VI on Thessia is that it states Shepard is not indoctrinated. That does not mean Shepard is not indoctrinated, or indoctrinated, it means solely that the VI, using only the tools and knowledged available to it, does not think s/he is indoctrinated. You say that you believe the VI over what players may think, and that's fine, but that does not make the VI's statement any more of a fact.

Secondly, you talk about how people shouldn't insult those who actually know the stuff, but have continually done that yourself, insulting people who call you out on aspects of the game that have nothing to do with interpretation, or subjectivity, but simply are, that you knew either nothing about or got mixed up. This is in addition to outright ignoring some of the things that you've been proven wrong on/showed little to no knowledge of.

Thirdly, you liken IT believers to those who believe the moon landings were false, because false equivalency is such a great way to go about things! One group of people believes something contradictory, another group believes something contradictory, ergo they are both as full of shit as each other right?

Fourthly, experience doesn't count for shit in fictional writing. You could have wrote 100 great, fantastic books, it doesn't mean book 101 is going to be golden. I get that you don't like IT because it's not explicitly stated as what happened in the game, there was no 10 foot purple letters dancing on a harpsichord saying "hey guys! Shepard's indoctrinated." But here's the thing, it makes sense. It makes more sense than there being plans for a super weapon conveniently being found on mars just after the reapers had been that way, it makes more sense than Shepard joining the reapers arm in arm in the joys of synthesis, it makes more sense in terms of the series overall theme, it even fits in perfectly with the destroy ending, which coincidentally, was the ending where we see Shepard (or at the least what can easily be assumed to be Shepard) taking a breath in what looks to be an Earth like environment.

Fifthly, does any of this mean that IT is definite, confirmed, absolutely true. No. It means that if you take all the separate, disparate plot elements, over the series, and consider them as a whole (not, as you suggest and then do so yourself, cherry picking moments that support and disregarding the rest), then IT is a completely credible explanation for the events of the game and in particular the ending.

Lastly, the thing about not providing evidence....there's a saying about there being none so blind as those that won't see. Evidence has been provided, time and again. Earlier on, you yourself even provided evidence of IT (though it was meant to disprove it, backfired a bit, it was kind of funny). This has not been info plucked from the aether, it's not been mere speculation based on Shepard's birth month or what we think might have happened if only he'd taken a left turn at Albuquerque, it's been information straight from the source, the game itself, the lore files themselves. Just like you looking at the game and coming up with...whatever conclusion it is you drew from it, I don't think you've actually said yet, we looked at it and came up with IT. Brilliant thing this speculative ending thing isn't it, it's almost like they (Bioware) wanted people to draw their own conclusions about the game

[May90]

Where are the moderators? I think it is clear by now that no one is interested in any discussion here, only in boosting their egos and insulting opponents. Or we need Gravath, he always stops this kind of thing with one short phrase.

[Kaelwryn]

Where are the moderators? I think it is clear by now that no one is interested in any discussion here, only in boosting their egos and insulting opponents. Or we need Gravath, he always stops this kind of thing with one short phrase.

You can always cease replying to them

[zealo]

Where are the moderators? I think it is clear by now that no one is interested in any discussion here, only in boosting their egos and insulting opponents. Or we need Gravath, he always stops this kind of thing with one short phrase.

Just stop replying to them and it will end, even if IT is a load of crap.

[Dezerte]

Just accept that people have different interpretations of the ending, even BioWare themselves said that it ultimately is up the player to decide & interpret the ending.

(This is also the 11th time or so this discussion has surfaced in this thread)