Mass Effect 4: Sequel?

[AD-Stu]

Actually he really hasn't. In ME1 the only time he is actually close enough for Reaper technology to begin indoctrinating him is at the very end of the game, when Sovereign explodes and pieces fall into where Shepard fights Saren. The second game Shepard is only inside the 'dead' Reaper for an hour or two at max, literally being 3 years since the first encounter in ME1. In ME3 Shepard again is never in full contact or partial contact with a Reaper for more than a few minutes or an hour.

Also, saying that TIM implanted Reaper tech in Shepard is 99% highly unlikely. He was never actually in the physical presence Shepard's body during the reconstruction, Miranda was the lead scientist working to revive Shepard (you'd think siding with Shepard after Illusive Man would cause her to tell him if there were any "extras"), there is so little Reaper tech actually laying around after ME1 that could be collected to input into people, TIM explicitly says that he wants Shepard to be 100% himself with no additions what so ever (and keep in my TIM is actually fairly in control of himself during the events of the second game, and his Reaper upgraded soldiers are supposed to be fairly new).

I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws mate.

I should start off by saying very clearly that I think the whole "indoctrination theory" thing is nonsense too, made up by people who are both grasping at straws and being very selective with the lore they choose to cite.

That said, a couple of things to consider:

- Shepard spends days in the presence of Reaper artifacts during the Arrival DLC at the end of ME2 (though I guess you can argue the events of Arrival are non-canon since it's DLC and not everybody played it / there are alternative plots for those who didn't).

- The Illusive Man was indoctrinated during the First Contact War, and Cerberus has been implanting people with / experimenting with Reaper tech for years before Shepard even came on the scene. They were conducting the Paul Grayson experiments at the same time as they were reviving Shepard, for example.

- Given the above, things the Illusive Man says in-game aren't necessarily reliable

 

[sc1arr1]

Personally I don't really care about the indoctrination theory. I just want to play a turian in the next ME game.

 

[Pr0]

I think it pretty much says everything you have to say about ME3 when people are still trying to rationalize the end of it nearly two years later. Thats literally an ending so bad that its equatable to psychological trauma.

Regardless of that, Indoctrination Theory was never more than a desperate attempt at trying to make a horrible conclusion somehow seem smarter and deeper than it was or ever will be.

Far as everything else goes...the best thing that ME4 can be is...a horrible failure, so EA stops humping this franchise. Their entire bet with ME4 is that we care enough about Mass Effect's setting that we don't much care about anything else...that if they slap Mass Effect on a box we'll buy it and...sorry but thats just not the case. It was the story of the first three games that drove it to the epic level it reached (and then fell off of, face first, in the most ridiculous of manners), it wasn't about the biotics or the gun play and action and you can't just take all those elements and throw them together into some other game, name it Mass Effect 4 and expect it to mean the same things.

Of course, EA has its cattle farm and the cattle just keep mooing. So I'll likely be wrong regardless, cause the simple facts are is there are people out there that will buy ANYTHING, even from EA. So even if ME4 is even bigger schlock than ME3 ended as...they'll still make a profit on it cause this brain dead market will buy it regardless of knowing the track record of the franchise and knowing EA/BioWare's track record with screwing up everything else in the name of the almighty dollar.

You can't keep hoping that the studio that made KoTOR is going to miraculously re-emerge and take control of their games development again. BioWare is dead and gone, all you're throwing money at right now is a zombie raised and sustained by the necromancer that is EA.

 

[ATRAYA]

Indeed, that would be the case if the IT was true. Sooooo what next? Shepard's out of the fight, no one gets to the Crucible, no one fires off it's space magic. The fleet above earth is utterly smashed by the Reapers (just as every character in the game said it would be, that its only true purpose was buying time to activate the Crucible).

Spoiler: Lets take a look at the cutscene when you approach Palavin in ME3

That's the entire Turian fleet up against what, 4 or 5 Reapers? And yet their entire military force is completely unable to liberate Palavin. Then there's the fact that it took three human fleets and the massive Citadel Defense Fleet to take down a single Reaper and it's pretty much established that no, you're not going to win a shoot-out against the full might of the Reaper fleet.

This means that pretty much every organized military force in the galaxy has been wiped out in one fell swoop. The Reapers then go on to complete the cycle and get ready for the next one. Just as the Protheans proved: you're not going to win a war of attrition against the Reapers. Guerrilla-style combat isn't going to work against them when they just zerg-rush entire planets or, barring that, just bombard the planet from orbit.

So yeah, if the IT is true, then Shepard can break free of indoctrination and wake up on the battlefield! Woo-hoo! Oh wait, he/she is in critical condition, barely hanging onto life after taking Harbingers Lazer-o-Doom straight to the face, and is laying broken and bloodied on a battlefield being completely swarmed by Reapers forces. The ground forces are wiped out. The fleet is wiped out. Quite simply: if the IT is true, every possible ending means that the Reapers win, complete the harvest of this cycle, and move on to the next one.

That, my friend, is why the IT is a load of bollocks, as Zhukov put it. It boils down to the fact that the IT doesn't extrapolate itself to what it would mean for the future of the ME universe. All the IT does is try and fill in all the blanks and plot holes left by the original writing.

Have you never seen an action hero before? Of course they rise back stronger than ever when they reach their lowest point! It's the classic underdog story told in EVERY GODDAMN HOLLYWOOD MOVIE EVER MADE.

OT: I've always thought the IT was brilliant, and I can totally believe it was intentional, since Drew Karpyshyn finally left BioWare before ME3's development and some real writers could take the f*ck over. I was skeptical of the theory at first, but when the Extended Cut arrived, it completely solidified it for me. For those who think for some unknown reason that the EC killed the IT, watch this and come back: /watch?v=oeJkR683Sas

Anyway, I enjoyed your speculation on the upcoming sequel, and honestly I don't think BioWare could do it in a much better way than what you described. Though with some of those features (differing storylines for so many species would be insane, especially in a Fallout-style galaxy you could explore), I worry about cost and production time; since ME has always been about humanity's steps into the galaxy, I would think they would keep to having a human protagonist. They're taking their sweet time on it and haven't really disclosed ANY information about it, other than Shepard won't be the protagonist, but I don't think they have THAT much time - this is EA we're talking about here. They also probably would've told us if changing your species would be an option (since that would immediately hype the game through the roof).

It's all inconsequential to me however - I've been boycotting EA since ME3.

Captcha: "don't waste time". How apt.

 

[Camaranth]

I'm interested to see what they come up with for ME4. I think it has to be sometime after the reaper invasion so it'll be interesting to see how they tie everything together. Most likely it'll be a hand wave " yeah shep took control fixed everything then flew the reapers to the edge of space until they were needed again" . OMG I think that's the main quest! Our new characters are trying to convince shep to come back and fix everything! And if you destroyed the reapers well there are more waiting and now they are willing to negotiate after we built the crucible!

sorry that kinda got away from me.

I like the idea of the indoctrination theory better than the theory itself. So long as ME4 doesn't open with us screaming at shep that "You were supposed to be the hero and save us all" before pulling the trigger/ releasing the biotic OR it's set so far after that everyone is saying "By The Sheppard" as a curse i think i can accept it. Kinda. Maybe.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Their entire bet with ME4 is that we care enough about Mass Effect's setting that we don't much care about anything else...that if they slap Mass Effect on a box we'll buy it and...sorry but thats just not the case. It was the story of the first three games that drove it to the epic level it reached (and then fell off of, face first, in the most ridiculous of manners), it wasn't about the biotics or the gun play and action and you can't just take all those elements and throw them together into some other game, name it Mass Effect 4 and expect it to mean the same things.

I've been thinking this one over for the past couple of years, but this one really nailed some of the thoughts I've been having.

I'll probably buy ME4.

Not because I'm a braindead zombie moron who has an inexplicable raging boner for EA, but because I just never cared about Mass Effect in the same way some people seem to have done.

Sure, the story had okay dialogue and some interesting moments, but it still never really rose above TV level, and I don't generally watch TV. That's why the ending never burned me, because I went into it expecting yet another bad game ending. I didn't expect the light of heaven to descend from on high, I was in for some enjoyable gameplay and pulpy fantasy/sci-fi drivel, and that's exactly what I got. It's all I've ever got from Bioware. KoToR, DA:O, even BG2, it's all nice and fun and entertaining, but at the end of the day it's just the same mush you'd find on the bottom shelf of the fantasy and sci fi section at the bookstore. It's not Planescape: Torment or even Bioshock: Infinite.

In my opinion, the biggest threat to Bioware is not EA. It's the fans. It's the fans who seem to feel such a great personal connection to everything Bioware produces that they feel like more than just consumers, more than just people who paid stupid EA prices for a fairly decent but not mind-blowing game. If anything, Bioware seems to have a habit of listening to its fans way too much and taking every note of controversy in the reception of something as a smack on the nose. That, not EA, is what seems genuinely likely to destroy any individual identity the studio once had.

So yeah, I'll probably buy ME4. I won't buy it on release and I won't buy it until someone I trust (i.e. not a fan) tells me it's not terrible, but it probably won't be terrible. It'll probably be the exact kind of mediocre paste which fans have been demanding, only this time with less ambition, less risk and less originality.

And that's enough. It's not good, but it's okay.. for now.

 

[bug_of_war]

- Shepard spends days in the presence of Reaper artifacts during the Arrival DLC at the end of ME2 (though I guess you can argue the events of Arrival are non-canon since it's DLC and not everybody played it / there are alternative plots for those who didn't).

True, but it has been explained that it takes at least a week in full contact with a Reaper to be indoctrinated, more so with their artifacts.

- The Illusive Man was indoctrinated during the First Contact War, and Cerberus has been implanting people with / experimenting with Reaper tech for years before Shepard even came on the scene. They were conducting the Paul Grayson experiments at the same time as they were reviving Shepard, for example.

Yes, but as we see in both ME2 and 3, Miranda is fully against doing exactly that, and seeing as how she saw over Shepard's full recovery (and also attempted to add a device to control Shep's actions before being told explicitly not to by TIM) it's extremely unlikely that any Reaper tech is inside him.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

The Indoctrination Theory was total bollocks. Always was.

It was a frantic excuse born of desperation.

That's your opinion, and I disagree. Indoctrination Theory is actually an intelligent (and comprehensive) hypothesis that ties together many loose ends.

Watch the video I linked and decide for yourself. Or at least provide conflicting evidence.

The only reason it had any evidence at all was because there was originally going to be a sequence in which Shepard did get indoctrinated. However, they couldn't make the gameplay work as they wanted, so the scrapped it.

No, they scrapped the idea of physical control over the protagonist. They felt that physically restricting the player's movements wasn't working out.

However, elements of the foreshadowing remained. Most of which were later cited by the IT proponents.

If anything, that strengthens the argument for IT. With such a mechanic already firmly established, why remove it entirely?

Here's why you're wrong:
They DID say that Shepard wasn't indoctrinated, and that the Indoctrination Theory was wrong. You are remembering one piece of that announcement (the part about it being interesting) in a desperate attempt to cling to hope that Mass Effect didn't shit the bed.
They removed a section of the game because it didnt work properly. They left in the foreshadowing because that would involve a major amount of work and cost time, effort, and (more importantly) money.

I do agree with you: Indoctrination is a much better option than what we got. But it's pure fanfic, and has been openly discredited by the game makers.
The problem is, Mass Effect was doomed since the developers compromised their worldbuilding all the way back in ME2. There is ONE Mass Effect game that makes any god damned sense, either at a narrative or metanarrative level. ME3 was NEVER going to be good, Indoctrination or no.

There is no good way to do a sequel, and the series doesn't deserve one anyway.

 

[RJ 17]

OT: I've always thought the IT was brilliant, and I can totally believe it was intentional, since Drew Karpyshyn finally left BioWare before ME3's development and some real writers could take the f*ck over. I was skeptical of the theory at first, but when the Extended Cut arrived, it completely solidified it for me. For those who think for some unknown reason that the EC killed the IT, watch this and come back: /watch?v=oeJkR683Sas

Go watch the "I reject your choices" ending from the EC and tell me how it fits into the IT. Here, I'll even save you the trouble of having to look it up. Here's part of the last bit of my most recent comment with Spoonius in this discussion, so I'll ask you the same question I asked him in the quote below:

Spoiler: I give you the Reject ending in which Shepard tells Star Child to take his options and shove'em.

So in accordance to the IT, what does rejecting the choices signify? If picking blue or green equates to full indoctrination while red equates to breaking free...what happens if you reject those choices? The IT doesn't cover this possibility because the IT was made before the EC, and this is why many people were still unsatisfied even after the EC because they felt the Reject ending was Bioware slipping in a little "fuck you haters". Are you saying that if Shepard rejects the choices, he then has a dream about his cycle failing completely? I thought the entire point of the dream theory in the IT was that the dream sequences were made to placate Shepard, to make him/her think he/she made the right choice. Why then would they give Shepard a dream about failing? Wouldn't they give him/her a dream about heroically going on to save the day without the Crucible?

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Mass Effect: Krogan Rebellion. Fight either for the Krogan or against the Krogan.
Mass Effect: STG. Squad based stealth tactical game focusing on Salarian STG team doing stuff.

Basically these two
Not that I've really got much faith in Bioware after DA2, ME3 and about half of ME2, but I could totally buy into a character driven narrative surrounding the Salarian STG's efforts in it, and culminating in the Genophage.
-> Automatic points from fans because Mordin
-> Chance to have more memorable Krogan characters
-> Player doesn't always get to upper left blue out of every situation. Some people are already confirmed dead as a result of this conflict, and the Genophage is already canon.
-> Because it's a team of non-humans, there's much more room to explore the other cultures of the universe, even if one of those cultures is basically blue/purple personified fanservice anyway
-> Maybe they could bring back some stuff from ME1 so it isn't about spamming one or two abilities when you aren't doing standard TPS stuff

Also you could totally make the Rachni Wars, the Krogan Rebellion, the First Contact War, and any others you feel like into scenarios/campaigns in a strategy game.

 

[Rodolphe Kourkenko]

Ok in first it's EA so human will be a playable race: no prequel beside the first contact war, a two weeks squirmish ! Period.
In second, i don't really care about any theory regarding the game, the first was really cool, the second good, the third meh at best and the ending is bad, anticlimatic and illogical. I don't feel the need to fill the holes with a brainwashing thing, if i buy a game, i want it to be what the developer said it was. It wasn't in ME3 case.

IMO, they burned their IP and, if you look at some interview (like this one http://www.sidhtech.com/news/mass-effect-4-bioware-shepard-name/10028902/), you can see that NO ANY EVENTS of the past three games will be featured in the game.
So it's not a sequel, it's not a prequel.

My only advice: don't hype yourself, look where it lead you for ME3 and DA2.

 

[thewatergamer]

*sigh* Never got into Mass Effect, was interested until I heard about ME3's ending, but eh at that point I was like "ok I might pick it up later"

But now that ME4 has been announced I have a feeling that ME has subcummed to what I call "Ass-assins creed syndrome"

I want to buy a game series that actually ends rather than be some yearly exploitation, mind you this is coming from someone who has never played any of the ME games, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, I am kind of an outsider looking in and not liking what he sees

 

[AD-Stu]

I want to buy a game series that actually ends rather than be some yearly exploitation, mind you this is coming from someone who has never played any of the ME games, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, I am kind of an outsider looking in and not liking what he sees

To be fair, they're not churning out a sequel every year - there were three years between ME1 and ME2, another two between 2 and 3, and it'll be more than two years between 3 and the next release.

 

[white_wolf]

BW keeping the same writers for the sequel or trilogy of ME4 would be a start to consistency. They'd also have to plan out when they're planning ME4 what ME4 2.0 and 3.0 would look like before progressing to the final script this they did not do with ME they made ME then went, "Now what?" For 2 and 3 it definitely showed their lack of direction in ME2 as the mako plunged into the ditch at his point of the series.

Not rewriting nearly 80% of your script after its been finalized, animated, and voiced would've helped them avoid the issues ME3 had in consistency, lore, and themes and of course them not just making crap up a month before game release for endings would've helped them not nuke their own established world, laws, and themes at the end of the game.

Right now BW should focus on ME4 which we all hope will be a sequel and prove to us that they can make a cohesive story before we even go into should sequels be made fan wise. BW wise they should know and pre-plan for a sequel or trilogy if they want to take it to three games again and be sure to keep it all inline. I think BW proved with MEtrilogy that they just can't do trilogies or at least the head of their department can't do trilogies they should start small and either make one or two for the ME4 universe and see if they can stay on theme, lore, and story before making anymore trilogies.

Now more on to OP suggestions:

In the original script shep was going to be turned into (A) a Manchurian reaper thrall or (B) a willing reaper thrall. Why?

Because early artwork and BWs own admittance was to have a obviously cyborg shep with robot legs, arms, and very little flesh and reason shep decided he couldn't defeat the reapers unless he became one in this plot VS was suppose to be the new hero of the sereis. So shep became a willing thrall to the reaper and probably where they decided to give us the crappy control ending from.

The Manchurian thrall is were I think the series was actually going in ME2 we conveniently wake up after dying and planet reentry which isn't possible IRL so what woke up on that table was clone shep 5000 with tim as a reaper agent they just simply made their perfect spy. Recall the lore back in ME as to them using heros and great leaders to lead entire groups to their doom willingly no one suspected the thrall till the end same idea here. Clone shep form the DLC was to be found in Sanctuary where they had hundreds if not more clone sheps in various fourms some more reaperfied then others some looking closer to our shep 5000. Shep is revealed to be an advanced AI or thanks to Liara our shep got old shep's memories via mental transfer. Shep still needs to have the whole mind over matter thing going on in ME because TIM knows without it a thrall can't overcome the reaper tech see TIM, Virmir scientist girl, and Shiala three thralls that are living proof you can overcome the mind influence. Keeping this very short clone shep 5000 gains friends but is tricking them unknowingly, gets programed by the Arival beacon thrall Hacket sent him to, and gets all the parties together in ME3 and leads them all to die via Earth retake mission its revealed the dues ex thrall Hacket and Shep pushed is a failure and oops everyone can die if shep 5000 can't overcome the strong influences generated by being inside the citadel near space brat so shep overcomes it to get us a destroy or combined ending and done.

However now all that I said when they rewrote ME3's script they also WROTE OUT his thrall role so no there is no IT its an indoctrination wish at this point.

Do I think they should carry this IW over to ME4? No because they proved they can't handles such complex subtly in their games with their technology or their format.

The only thing that I think should carry over is in regards to the ending choice like I picked destroy so now in my game only the geth and EDI aren't in it because they live forever and its now 50K into the future. If you picked combine 50K is so far in time that any green glow is gone and both AI and organics are like PBJ, if you picked control your reapers took a vacation or got destroyed by the new boss of the game, and if you picked FU ending all species BW chooses to have been left over from the last cycle will be in your game.

Relying on fan posed questions during BW convention meeting is dubious they proved last time during ME3 those "fans" were actors it helps BW control what is asked and what they'll have to answer. So don't bother to hold that up as true BW bone tossing.

As far as BW being tight lipped of course they are! Remember the lawsuits that CA filed because two peeps were outrageously unhappy with the endings? They used their own hype marketing against them which is valid to use cuz they did lie (like BW says you'll have 15 endings turns out we actually get 1 pre EC, post EC we got 2) in the hype over the game and should not just say crap to make it sound greater then it is however the lawsuit was way over the top to tell BW don't do that crap again! BW should shut up make the game and see how people react to it so they don't have to go through more lawsuits because they don't know how to keep their facts straight or honest. It saves them it saves fans.

 

[ATRAYA]

OT: I've always thought the IT was brilliant, and I can totally believe it was intentional, since Drew Karpyshyn finally left BioWare before ME3's development and some real writers could take the f*ck over. I was skeptical of the theory at first, but when the Extended Cut arrived, it completely solidified it for me. For those who think for some unknown reason that the EC killed the IT, watch this and come back: /watch?v=oeJkR683Sas

Go watch the "I reject your choices" ending from the EC and tell me how it fits into the IT. Here, I'll even save you the trouble of having to look it up. Here's part of the last bit of my most recent comment with Spoonius in this discussion, so I'll ask you the same question I asked him in the quote below:

Spoiler: I give you the Reject ending in which Shepard tells Star Child to take his options and shove'em.

So in accordance to the IT, what does rejecting the choices signify? If picking blue or green equates to full indoctrination while red equates to breaking free...what happens if you reject those choices? The IT doesn't cover this possibility because the IT was made before the EC, and this is why many people were still unsatisfied even after the EC because they felt the Reject ending was Bioware slipping in a little "fuck you haters". Are you saying that if Shepard rejects the choices, he then has a dream about his cycle failing completely? I thought the entire point of the dream theory in the IT was that the dream sequences were made to placate Shepard, to make him/her think he/she made the right choice. Why then would they give Shepard a dream about failing? Wouldn't they give him/her a dream about heroically going on to save the day without the Crucible?

It's entirely plausible the Reapers would manipulate Shepard's mind (which is what they're doing during the dream sequence, remember) to cause him to "fail" if he decided not to choose. The decision to succumb to the Reapers or deny them (the entire dream is not about saving the universe, but about saving Shepard's mind, remember) is a choice Shepard MUST face. By saying, "No, I don't wanna!", you're essentially giving up, and therefore forfeit to the Reaper's anyway. QQ; game over; Reaper's destroy everything. You lost your mind because you chose not to fight for it.

It WAS basically a big "fuck you", I'll give you that, but on multiple levels. They know something we don't, and so when we whined, they came up with that.

 

[Spoonius]

He's been exposed to all manner of Reaper forces and items over the years, it's very possible he even has Reaper tech implanted inside him by TIM (who did the same thing to himself and all his troops during ME3).

Actually he really hasn't.

That's not true. Several actual Reapers (alive and dormant), Object Rho, various artifacts, countless Reaperfied or indoctrinated enemy troops... hell, potentially even the Reaper IFF aboard the Normandy (James mentions a humming sound, remember?).

Also, saying that TIM implanted Reaper tech in Shepard is 99% highly unlikely.

Doesn't really matter anyway, that was just a single vector. There are plenty of other ways the Reapers could have got to Shepard (see above).

I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws mate.

I understand that people think I'm being naive, but I still believe it has merit. I still haven't heard anything conclusive that invalidates IT, yet the amount of support (I won't say 'evidence', because it's not) is almost irrefutable.

There is far more evidence suggesting that Shepard is experiencing PTSD than there is for the Indoctrination Theory. You of course are allowed to want the Indoctrination Theory to be true, but don't ignore the holes in the theory.

What holes? Please list some.

PTSD and IT don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, part of the theory is that the increased psychological pressure Shepard is subjected to throughout ME3 actually increase his vulnerability to indoctrination.[/quote]

 

[Silly Hats]

The Catalyst is just a rogue AI that developed it's own twisted set of morals and ethics.


I simply cannot understand why this is hard for people to grasp - this was stated clearly in the original ending. Also considering that rogue synthetics has been one of the major themes of the storyline, it is completely canon. There is no god child, there is no indoctrination, Harbinger isn't messing around with Shepard. It isn't that complicated, there isn't a hidden meaning behind it. It simply is.

Hell, Rogue Synthetics is running theme of so many other Sci-Fi plot lines that Mass Effect is well known for being inspired by.

Leviathan created the Catalyst to prevent conflict between Organics and Synthetics, though the Catalyst couldn't comprehend the value of Organics, the Catalyst then turned on it's creators, "They didn't approve". Simply because it was doing it's assigned task with the cold, calculating, unemotional logic of a computer. Organics like Saren have been tainted with Indoctrination, this is the only reason why an Organic would logically agree that being preserved in the form of a Reaper is an ideal 'solution'.

Each repeating Cycle only reaffirms The Catalyst's twisted logic as there hasn't been any resistance against it's solution. It clearly mentions that no other Organic had ever been able to confront the Catalyst - let alone have the ability to end it's existence. It is an Intelligence, it doesn't feel emotions, it only follows logic.

This interpretation still 100% functions regardless if you don't have the EC or Leviathan DLC.

This is the intended message, I just wish that less people thought about it logically rather than deconstructing what was shown, simply writing it off as Blue/Red/Green. The implications have much more subtext.

I always saw the ending this way and I actually like it quite a bit.

 

[Spoonius]

It's called the Extended Cut. You're quite literally the only person I've encountered since the release of the EC that believes the IT still holds water.

Not true, the third video in the OP was actually created specifically for the EC.

The extra sequences at the end showing how the galaxy moves on...there's nothing to suggest those are hallucinations or dreams. As I mentioned previously: if they were indeed hallucinations or dreams...then why does Shepard still have one if you pick Red? Doesn't that mean you officially break free of Indoctrination? Wouldn't Red just end with Shepard waking up broken and bloodied on the battlefield?

I've already answered this. Please stop repeating the same questions over and over again.

• 1. Shepard is still incapacitated following the indoctrination attempt, regardless of whether he 'passed' or 'failed'. He wakes up in London afterwards if you choose Destroy and have a high enough EMS, remember? Everything before that is a figment of his imagination.
  
  2. It'd be a dead giveaway.
  A good analogy? Telling a homeless guy you have no cash, then buying a coffee ten metres away from him.

And this is why I made a comment to Bloated Guppy about your absolute refusal to believe anything that Bioware says.

Nope, you said that because you can't come up with much credible evidence in lieu of insults.

For one: you insist that the EC actually expands on the IT when it completely debunks it

It doesn't, stop repeating that as if it's a fact.

But also because of the fact that - by the very quote you posted earlier - Bioware has said that they are done with Shepard. Yes, they want it to be a Mass Effect game, and not a spin-off, but they also want to write a new story that has little or nothing to do with Shepard and his/her crew.

This is just about the only argument of yours that actually has any weight behind it. It contradicts my fan theory to a degree (which was just for fun), but not IT.

I'd also like to remind you that their next game may very well not be about Shepard. That doesn't mean they won't come back to Shepard in some way, shape or form. And knowing Bioware, that doesn't mean their next game won't include Shepard either.

As for the "Reaper Growls" while you're speaking with the Illusive Man...you do realize that HE is trying to Indoctrinate Shepard, right? Every time you hear a growl during that sequence and see the black tendrils along the outside of the screen, it's when TIM is flexing his power and using it to try and control you.

So TIM can make Reaper sounds now? And create ambient whispers? And spontaneously transfer Anderson's wound to Shepard? And teleport?

There's an old saying: the simplest explanation is often times the correct one. It's way easier to think that that's just the sound in Shepard's mind every time TIM is trying to Indoctrinate him/her, not that it's an actual Reaper growling at Shepard through the haze of the dream. Notice that you only hear those growls when you're speaking with TIM? And only when he's using his power on you?

Not true. Once again, this is something I've already stated beforehand. The growls occur throughout ME3, not just during the end confrontation with TIM. During dream sequences, when seeing the boy in the air vent, etc.

They also occurred in one of the ME background novels.

"Why aren't your squadmates with you at the end?" The Normandy came and picked them up.

True with EC.

"Why does the Citadel look like the Collector Base?" Both were made with Reaper architecture. Beyond that, think of the Collector Base: long, dark hallways filled with bodies. Where are you when that comparison is made? A long dark hallway filled with bodies. Why is it filled with bodies in both cases? Because they're trying to make a Reaper in both cases.

The geometry is far more significant than the aesthetics. For example, the character movements as described in-game are impossible.

"Backwards writing! Just like in a dream!"

Nobody said this was evidence. In fact, the videos specifically denounce it...

"Moving panels, just like in the Shadow Broker's ship!"

Also not important evidence. The point is more that most of his surroundings have likely been based upon Shepard's memories (Starchild certainly is, you can't deny that). And that the control panel is not the actual Citadel control panel seen in ME1. Still a secondary consideration.

"Well what about all the lightning!"

Which lighting argument are you referring to? The skewed shadows?

"Well what about the fact that Anderson gets to the control panel before you, says he arrived after you, yet there's only one-way in and one-way out!" Crappy design choices are crappy, or crappy writing is crappy. Anderson says he doesn't think he came up in the same place that you did. So it's possible that he was actually the first one up the beam and was farther ahead of you along the path. That, or the world designers couldn't be arsed to make the control panel platform accessible from multiple angles.

OK:

• 1. Shepard wakes up to hear Major Coats calling off the attack, stating clearly that "no one made it to the beam". Anderson didn't pass Shepard on the way forward though, did he? So if you're going to take that scene at face value (which I don't), then you're going to have to admit you're wrong.
  
  2. Even if Anderson did magically arrive first (in which case he'd know that Shepard hadn't reached the beam before him), he should have been visible from where Shepard was standing. Shepard was directly behind him.

"Well why is it that the only ending that shows Shepard waking up is the Red one!" Because that's the only ending where Shepard actually still has a body.

Yeah, because it's TOTALLY BELIEVABLE that Shepard survives:

• 1. A direct hit from Harbinger's energy beam (which can bisect starships and vapourises every other human it touches). Bear in mind that if real like you're stating, and not imaginary, the impact was powerful enough to melt off his goddamn armour... and yet Shepard remains unscathed? No burns, no dismemberment, nothing?
  
  2. A powerful explosion that engulfs him/her when the Destroy capsule is shot.
  
  3. An explosion of almost nuclear proportions when the Citadel detonates.
  
  4. Prolonged exposure to vacuum (without even a helmet). This has even killed Shepard before (ME2 Normandy destruction).
  
  5. Re-entry through Earth's atmosphere (Shepard was unrecognisable when recovered by Cerberus).
  
  6. Impact with Earth (concrete actually) at terminal velocity. SPLAT.

"Well why is Anderson's choice Renegade Red and TIM's is Paragon Blue?" Because as much as you may hate and disagree with TIM, they want you to understand that he did have the right idea, just the wrong motivations. Anderson deals in absolutes: DESTROY THEM ALL AND DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES!

Mate, that's pure conjecture. In fact the very opposite has been hammered into our heads since ME1.

I'll even go so far as to deny that Destroy was even a bad option, taken at face value. It didn't kill the Geth, or any other organic-made synthetics for that matter. It didn't even destroy the Mass Relays. So regardless of whether IT is true or false, it's irrefutable that Starchild either lied, or was wrong!

So let me get this straight...you believe that the next ME game is going to be a 100% direct sequel that could start off right where ME3 leaves off with Shepard laying in a pile of rubble on the battlefield of Earth which is being overrun by the bulk of the Reaper army? That the game will start with him/her getting up and going to fire off the Crucible for realsies?

Possibly. But if you'd actually read the entire OP, you'd know that isn't what I think.

Why do they need an endless army of Reaper ground forces? For the Harvest, of course. They can destroy entire cities from space - as Diana Allers points out towards the end of the game when she mentions that they didn't even bother landing on her home colony, they just blew it up from space - but they still need to send down ground troops to clean up all the technology and hunt down any survivors.

They need ground forces to completely eradicate a population, just like Krogan infantry were required to ultimately defeat the Rachni. And they do want to harvest humans. But since it's plausible that they can attack from space, I'll give you this one.

So in accordance to the IT, what does rejecting the choices signify?

Not sure. It actually seems pretty ambiguous. On the one hand, he denies the Reapers their indoctrination attempt. On the other, he refuses to commit to destroying the Reapers.

 

[Spoonius]

It would rob ME3 of any kind of plot coherency or narrative payoff by making its ending essentially "all in the main character's head" (which is one of the most exhausted tropes of all time)

Not if it's followed up though. And I think the trope would fit in tactfully.

It would make ME4 inevitably have to re-tread most of ME3's plot as they pad out the reaper invasion, come up with some other way to overcome them, and have you work towards an identical conclusion (i.e. defeating the reapers... except this time for realsies!)

...

It would pretty much quash any fresh ideas, because everything will (yet again) become secondary to the reaper invasion plot and relegated to rushed side-quests that seem at odds with the main story rather than ancillary to it.

No more so than ME3 was a retreading of ME1 or ME2. Even the example I gave in the OP would play out drastically different.

It would invalidate the experience of everyone who actually enjoys the original ending to ME3 (especially since the extended cut was released)

The outrage to ME3's ending (including the EC) was unprecedented. This would be a lesser concern for ME4 than for any other game that has ever existed.

Speaking of which, it would make the extended cut completely pointless and a waste of everyone's time

Not necessarily. Like I said in the OP, it's entirely plausible that the EC was intended to be an intermediate stopgap measure to placate the community.

IT is bad storytelling.

It's amazing storytelling. If it's true. :/

 

[Spoonius]

The one fatal flaw that the IT has is that it only explains what is going on during the ending of ME3 up until Shepard being indoctrinated or not but it doesn't explain what happens after. The Reapers are launching the final strike on Earth and even if Shepard does manage to wake up he wouldn't be able to do anything in his condition.

It's true that we don't have closure within ME3... but like you said it's possible that said closure will be provided by the upcoming game. Or maybe even a later game in the franchise. Although you're right to be sceptical I guess.

PS: We don't know exactly what Shepard's condition actually is. If IT is true, then everything we see of him/her after the energy beam impact is imaginary. Although his immense willpower during that scene suggests he probably isn't too badly off....

Nothing is said about what happens next, but one thing is certain and that is that the galaxy is somehow saved and humanity survives. Why? Because of the Stargazer sequence: an old man and a kid in a very peaceful looking scene talking about the Sheppard. It's almost pointless and doesn't add anything to the story but it clearly says "There will be something next" and as far as I recall the IT never explains this sequence. And I'd bet anything to say that the Stargazer sequence will be directly related to how Mass Effect 4 will begin.

I always thought that was part of the dream. Shepard imagining his legacy?

I seriously hope Bioware doesn't do what Volition did with Saints Row IV and go all "We had multiple endings on the previous game but we decided to go with one and ignore the other ending. Hopefully you picked the right ending last game".

If it's not directly based on Shepard though, Bioware would be able to adapt ME4 to the choices of the previous games without having to make everything subjective. And if the end of ME3 really was Shepard's indoctrination, then nothing much has actually changed.