Mass Effect 4: Sequel?

[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.

 

[Spoonius]

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.

Well it succeeds. Even if it's never officially confirmed or denied.

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.

Seems a bit pessimistic. That said, I won't be pre-ordering a Bioware game again...

They DID say that Shepard wasn't indoctrinated, and that the Indoctrination Theory was wrong.

Link?

From everything I've seen, they specifically declined to either confirm or deny IT ("speculation for everyone", remember?).

 

[Spoonius]

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.

The link doesn't work.

If anyone here doesn't want to take a shotgun to ending-bashers' faces, then they should fuck off and die.

Bioware employee of the month right here.

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.

It seemed like they were doing fine... right up to the last fifteen minutes. That's really the only part of ME3 where they totally failed.

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.

But if he was already a sleeper agent thanks to TIM and Cerberus, then why would he need to be indoctrinated?

 

[bug_of_war]

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?).

By several Reapers do you mean the minute he spent in close proximity to Sovereign, the hour he spent on the dead Reaper corpse and the 10 minutes he speant next to the Reaper on the Quarian homeworld? You'd have to list the various artifacts for me to have any footing to say yay or nay. "Reaperfied" troops do not cause indoctrination, they are just husks used to shock and demoralize the organics, at no point are they meant to be able to cause indoctrination. The humming sound James mentions could be any number of things such as the ship engines, the metal of the ship vibrating due to inside and outside forces, and there's also the possibility that his brain is making up the humming noise to counteract the quiet.

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).

If the Reapers wanted to get to Shepard then why would they send the Collectors to obliterate the original Normandy in the first place? Why would they then not follow the ship debris immediately after it began to fall into the surrounding planets orbit? How is it that not only could Cerberus recover Shepard's body, but Legion was able to recover a piece of Shepard's armour before the Collectors (servants of the Reapers) even got a chance? Why would Miranda not tell Shepard at any point of all the things they put into him and how some of them was technology she had not seen before and was not fully aware of it's intent?

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.

What holes? Please list some.

Alright. Shepard has spent six months on Earth under heavy supervision when ME3 starts, when he finally leaves Earth as it's getting attacked, his convictions are still the same, find a way to defeat them. Remember how Saren was "slowly" indoctrinated? He didn't give up hope for survival, but he tried to prove that some organics were useful and worth saving, and the Reapers confirmed his beliefs cause they knew he would be more open to indoctrinating that way. When Shepard finally speaks to the Reaper on the Quarian home world, it again tells him his fight is doomed, and he again keeps to his conviction of uniting the galaxy.

Shepard's first dream sequence can be summed up as a nightmare as he has literally seen his species home world being devastated and witnessed just how ruthless the Reaper invasion really is. He is basically having a recurring nightmare in which the cold dark machines from the oblivion of space seem to keep winning and it's terrifying him.

It's stated that those whom are becoming indoctrinated see objects and shadows moving whilst they're awake, at no point do we ever see any of this type of shit happening.

We saw with the Hanar that got indoctrinated that indoctrinated creatures can go about relatively easily without being noticed as being indoctrinated and that only when on their own do they begin to do things that show they are indoctrinated (such as what the Hanar did). Shepard is on his own many times during the third game, and at no point does he act suspicious. At no point does he change, at no point does he do anything that could give the Reapers or their troops the edge.

IF the Reaper IFF was causing indoctrination, then why is it that Garrus and Tali, two squad mates that have been on the ship almost just as long as Shepard, do not give off any hints of indoctrination?

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.

I agree, but I think that the amount of holes/stretches that are in/taken with the IT (and Bioware devs confirming that the EC is cannon and thus Shepard was not in some Reaper indoctrinated trance) make it far mor likely that the IT is bullshit and that most of Shepard's actions, reactions and psychological state are a part of a man with PTSD.

 

[RJ 17]

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.

Let me go ahead and stop you right there. No, it's not plausible that they'd make him dream about failing, about everyone dying, about the next cycle being the one that wins. For one: that's not what the IT claims the dreams are about. The IT claims that the ending sequences are dreams meant to make Shepard believe that he/she made the right choice. That what he/she decides is the decision that will win the war. And that's why the IT falls apart. Like I said, the IT was created before the EC, as such the IT has no way of compensating for the fact that the "I Reject These Choices" choice exists. It is the Reject ending that thoroughly proves that the literal interpretation is the one that's correct. It shows what happens if the Crucible is never fired off. You lose the war. They even change the Star Gazer scene to be two lifeforms from the next cycle talking about the Legend of Shepard that they learned from The Archives.

To still believe in the IT after seeing the Reject ending is living in denial. Denial over the fact that yes...Bioware DID fuck up the ending that badly. Believe me, friend, I'm a HUGE Mass Effect fan. It's easily the best game series I've ever played. Even after the extreme letdown of the ending, I still love the game and series. As I said to Spoonius: I'd love to believe that Bioware was capable of pulling off something as amazingly brilliant as the IT, but the evidence isn't there.

Snip.

Well, I tried, but apparently you're not as open to being wrong as you claim to be. Don't you find it at least a little bit strange that so many people in this topic are arguing against you? Shouldn't that be a hint that maybe you're mistaken on this matter?

Soooo yeah, keep living the dream, I guess. Pretty much the last thing I can tell you is that if you honestly believe that ME4 is going to be a direct sequel to ME3 in which Shepard gets to finish the fight against the Reapers, Indoctrinated or no...well, you're doomed for disappointment my friend. Apparently in your mind, Shepard never will get to finish the fight with the Reapers. I've offered up all the evidence that I can, evidence which is clearly seen and experienced in the game while the IT's evidence is based off of conjecture and shaky interpretations of what is seen and experienced in the game. As I've said before: it was created because the fans desperately wanted something to cling to in order to make the ending of the series they loved so much not equate to a huge disappointment. There's no need to come up with a bunch of hypothetical and circumstantial evidence when everything during the ending sequence is much easier to describe as "Crappy Writing and Design Choices".

No hard feelings, I hope, as there certainly aren't any on my end. I always enjoy anything that gives me an excuse to write at length about Mass Effect. But I give up on trying to convince you that the IT is wrong.

Just a recap over the main points of my argument for you to think over and hopefully see the error in your logic.

1: If the IT is true, this cycle is doomed. The crucible never fires off, and the Reject ending shows exactly what happens when/if the Crucible is never fired off.
2: The existence of the Reject ending, itself, isn't covered by the IT. Arguing that it's just another Full Indoctrination choice doesn't work, seeing as how it'd go against the grain and be the only choice that shows a dream Shepard making the wrong choice to save his/her cycle.
3: It assumes that everything we see in the EC color endings is a lie, despite the fact that there's absolutely nothing to suggest that.

Other fun tidbits:
1: The Prothean VI never calls Shepard out on being Indoctrinated.
2: Check out the track title from the official sound track:

Spoiler: The stunningly beautiful music during the ending cinematics.

"An End, Once And For All". Even the frickin' soundtrack says that it's the end of the war.

 

[white_wolf]

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.

The link doesn't work.

If anyone here doesn't want to take a shotgun to ending-bashers' faces, then they should fuck off and die.

Bioware employee of the month right here.

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.

It seemed like they were doing fine... right up to the last fifteen minutes. That's really the only part of ME3 where they totally failed.

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.

But if he was already a sleeper agent thanks to TIM and Cerberus, then why would he need to be indoctrinated?

Well that was where my keeping it short cut out. Basically again not to be super long, the reason why they decided that Hacket needed to send shep5000 to Arrival to get programed was because the memories Liara imprinted on him + the mind over matter "I'm the real shep," mantra TIM established throughout ME2 fakeshep really was the real shep he was resistant to the regular signals like the real one showed in ME and he couldn't be pinned down long enough to actually get any real effect from the signals you need constant exposure to them over a few days minimum so knocking him out allowed for the programing to take place in full the mind can't refuse suggestions when its asleep and the reaper code was finally accessed shep blows up the relay thinking he just stopped the reapers but he actually closed off a backdoor into their own base if shep didn't blow it up Kensen was going to being told one thing by the reapers but actually doing the opposite.

Shep from now on is Harbi's thrall like he told him he would be but like Saren he's allowed to do things he believes are of his own will but actually aren't from then on he is unknowingly working for the reapers by getting the largest military force in one location so they can all die without the bulk of their armies no planet anywhere will be putting up a fight for long not even if you cure the genophage will it stand against the reapers. Really I'm shortening it all up and maybe I should really get on the bsn and type out the near novel this loss potential plot could've or had evidence in game to show it was going this way but its far longer and far more detailed that goes over all 3 games.

 

[electric method]

Oh for fucks sakes! Let the IT go! It's been totally debunked by Bioware and many fans with an understanding of the Mass Effect Universe. As it's been said here in this thread, and many others, the IT was created to try to cope with the craptastic writing and awful ending of Mass Effect 3. Since then BioWare has come out and directly said "The IT is NOT what happens. The actual endings and EC are what actually happen. Get over it. IT was a dead on arrival theory anyways as it had just as many holes in it as the actual writing for Mass Effect 3.

Then there is the not so small fact that Galaxy Destroying Reapers wiping out all life is about as high the threat scale you can go. A direct sequel to Mass Effect 3 would have to undo the rather definitive ending of ME3 and reintroduce the not so dead Reapers. Yeah, right. Bioware has taken their lumps from the ME3 ending debacle. Does anyone really think they are so stupid as to do a direct sequel to ME3 and open themselves for giant plot holes, lore problems and how to continue on from the 3 cupcake colors of doom endings from ME3? Mass Effect with Shep and company vs. The Reapers is over. Let's all move on and see where this goes and let Bioware prove they have learned their lessons from the DA2/ME3 debacles.