57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Stegoceras]

DJBare wrote...

People do realize that despite indoctrination the three options presented can still be real, right?

Yes, but doesn't that invalidate destroy? If the starchild is lying he could avoid showing destroy (in which he'd be actually destroyed, which i don't think he would risk just for an indoctrination) or just plain lie about it and have it kill Shepard instead.

[Uncle Jo]

Ravel1992 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Stegoceras wrote...

Although I'm not sure what the lowest EMS ending is,  I think IT supporters explained it as an hallucination/dream/whatever in the first place. So whatever he chose it had no real effect on the reapers, only an effect on Shepard, I merely wondered if their results could be backwards.

Yeah true but if it only affects Shepard, then as EpyonX3 said, he should wake up, whatever happened to the Allied Forces...

@EpyonX3 I didn't save the collector base, but what you're saying about it is, in my opinion, a major counter-argument to the IT.

But if Crucible was designed to destroy Reapers why you cant do that? And how is possible synthesis thing? That is what bothering me.

All along the game we didn't know exactly what the Crucible could exactly do (remember what Hackett, Liara said about it) There were only wild guesses...

The Synthesis thing is c**p. It's a neutral ending. Just to have one more option if you played enough multiplayer...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 22 avril 2012 - 04:42 .

[Big Bad]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ravel1992 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Stegoceras wrote...

Although I'm not sure what the lowest EMS ending is,  I think IT supporters explained it as an hallucination/dream/whatever in the first place. So whatever he chose it had no real effect on the reapers, only an effect on Shepard, I merely wondered if their results could be backwards.

Yeah true but if it only affects Shepard, then as EpyonX3 said, he should wake up, whatever happened to the Allied Forces...

@EpyonX3 I didn't save the collector base, but what you're saying about it is, in my opinion, a major counter-argument to the IT.

But if Crucible was designed to destroy Reapers why you cant do that? And how is possible synthesis thing? That is what bothering me.

No one in this cycle knew what the crucible did really. Not even Javik knew. It's possible that Synthesis was developed way before us by a civilization much more advanced than we were.

It's possible that there were cycles that tried to coexist with the reapers. Or at least force them to.

What really bothers me about the ending, IT or not, is that the crucible is supposed to have these three options but the catalyst has full control over what options are available to you.

So what is the point of the crucible? A giant battery, a big thumb drive that rewrites the catalyst's thought processes, or both?

Yeah, the whole thing is just friggin dumb.  I've said this before, but I just want an ending that is slightly less dumb (massively less dumb would  be even better, but I'm trying to have realistic expectations!) and substantially more emotionally satisfying.  Whether or not IT is the vehicle to such an ending is something I have little concern about.

[DJBare]

EpyonX3 wrote...

That's the thing. The reapers are arrogant as hell. They already believe they've won since ME1.

They come in knowing that they'll win. They have the citadel and th only person that can stop them is laying on the ground either dead or bleeding out. The fleets were in trouble before Shepard even landed.

So knowing this, why would they even bother indoctrinating Shepard?

Since ME2 Harbinger has taken a particular interest in Shepard, he will still try to have Shepard killed if need be, but his priority turned to taking Shepard alive, on a couple of occasions we hear "Take Shepard alive if possible"; now as far as I can tell this relates to the genetic diversity of humans, Shepard especially, he is the one human that's defied the reapers throughout the series, part of this I believe is because Shepard is resisting indoctrination(not preventing, resisting), if an entire race can spawn over the next 50'000 years from Shepards genes they would be a considerable threat to the next cycle of extinction, imagine not one person resisting indoctrination but an entire race, if the reapers could incorporate Shepards genes into their own make up, that sets them up for the extinction of the next cycle.

Btw, in the synthesis ending, it's DNA they want, hey Shep, hold your bleeding arm over the beam, don't jump!

[DarksBlade]

Uncle Jo wrote...


But I always keep in mind that ME3 was made for a large audience... How many of us would have figured out the IT (if it's proven true) without Internet and forums ?
How many of us are just following the move, cause almost everything is better than the Starbrat and his circular logic ?
Why Bioware would have given us such an ambiguous ending ? Why torturing the mind of so many players ?

almost caught up .. but my response to this is this is. It is the age of the internet and it was stated they wanted speculation. so they "may" have  fully expected us to get there eventually

[Ravel1992]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ravel1992 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Stegoceras wrote...

Although I'm not sure what the lowest EMS ending is,  I think IT supporters explained it as an hallucination/dream/whatever in the first place. So whatever he chose it had no real effect on the reapers, only an effect on Shepard, I merely wondered if their results could be backwards.

Yeah true but if it only affects Shepard, then as EpyonX3 said, he should wake up, whatever happened to the Allied Forces...

@EpyonX3 I didn't save the collector base, but what you're saying about it is, in my opinion, a major counter-argument to the IT.

But if Crucible was designed to destroy Reapers why you cant do that? And how is possible synthesis thing? That is what bothering me.

No one in this cycle knew what the crucible did really. Not even Javik knew. It's possible that Synthesis was developed way before us by a civilization much more advanced than we were.

It's possible that there were cycles that tried to coexist with the reapers. Or at least force them to.

What really bothers me about the ending, IT or not, is that the crucible is supposed to have these three options but the catalyst has full control over what options are available to you.

So what is the point of the crucible? A giant battery, a big thumb drive that rewrites the catalyst's thought processes, or both?

I can understand control. We know that before were people who thought that control  Reapers is the best way, so they could do something to Crucible. But synthesis is still space magic for me.

[DarksBlade]

estebanus wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Delmor wrote...

@Skillz1986
It's strange... She should come out with Joker. Very interesting..

When I picked the destroy ending, I saw EDI,Liara and Joker come out, so I don't get why it's said she dies in the destroy ending.

Space magic, perhaps? :wizard::wizard:

Wait you got EDI in Destroy? Can you replicate it and record it? What was your EMS?

My EMS was about 7200, and I saw EDI get out of the Normandy.

I think that it's determined who gets out of the Normandy based on your interaction level with certain characters, and I know I'm not the only one who saw EDI get out of the Normandy in destroy.

while I will have to test it my self (as i always take garrus and javik { you can't tell me javik doesn't deserve it and if your gonna take one other person with you to watch your back how can you not pick garrus) if liara is your LI and you take edi and her to the beam you should get this supposable your LI (if it's a SM) and one of the squad you brought with you are always shown leaving the Normandy

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Stegoceras wrote...

Although I'm not sure what the lowest EMS ending is,  I think IT supporters explained it as an hallucination/dream/whatever in the first place. So whatever he chose it had no real effect on the reapers, only an effect on Shepard, I merely wondered if their results could be backwards.

Yeah true but if it only affects Shepard, then as EpyonX3 said, he should wake up, whatever happened to the Allied Forces...

@EpyonX3 I didn't save the collector base, but what you're saying about it is, in my opinion, a major counter-argument to the IT.

Correct. The dream doesn't seem necessary if you have low EMS.

It would still signify Shepards dying hopes for his friends.

[MaximizedAction]

Ravel1992 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ravel1992 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Stegoceras wrote...

Although I'm not sure what the lowest EMS ending is,  I think IT supporters explained it as an hallucination/dream/whatever in the first place. So whatever he chose it had no real effect on the reapers, only an effect on Shepard, I merely wondered if their results could be backwards.

Yeah true but if it only affects Shepard, then as EpyonX3 said, he should wake up, whatever happened to the Allied Forces...

@EpyonX3 I didn't save the collector base, but what you're saying about it is, in my opinion, a major counter-argument to the IT.

But if Crucible was designed to destroy Reapers why you cant do that? And how is possible synthesis thing? That is what bothering me.

No one in this cycle knew what the crucible did really. Not even Javik knew. It's possible that Synthesis was developed way before us by a civilization much more advanced than we were.

It's possible that there were cycles that tried to coexist with the reapers. Or at least force them to.

What really bothers me about the ending, IT or not, is that the crucible is supposed to have these three options but the catalyst has full control over what options are available to you.

So what is the point of the crucible? A giant battery, a big thumb drive that rewrites the catalyst's thought processes, or both?

I can understand control. We know that before were people who thought that control  Reapers is the best way, so they could do something to Crucible. But synthesis is still space magic for me.

It is space magic, but Synthesis is also what Saren argued as being his goal, if I remember correctly. You even get a comparison of Shep with Saren from a Salarian scientist on Sur'kesh:
Both of you wanted to cure the Genophage as a means of winning over the Krogan for their resp. goals.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 22 avril 2012 - 04:56 .

[DJBare]

Stegoceras wrote...

DJBare wrote...

People do realize that despite indoctrination the three options presented can still be real, right?

Yes, but doesn't that invalidate destroy? If the starchild is lying he could avoid showing destroy (in which he'd be actually destroyed, which i don't think he would risk just for an indoctrination) or just plain lie about it and have it kill Shepard instead.

Speculation because that's all I can offer, the destroy is created by the crucible, the control by TIM and synthesis presented by the catalyst, so he plays a bluff giving negatives

Destroy, all synthetics will be destroyed, Shepard is also part synthetic
Control, you will die, you will lose everything you have.
Now here's the interesting bit...
He never provides a negative for synthesis.

The Reapers ultimate goal has always been ascension, the merging of organic and machine.

[DarksBlade]

estebanus wrote...

DarksBlade wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Sorry to interrupt any ongoing discussion here, but I may have found some more evidence that starchild is lying.

The planet Aphras in the Xe-Cha system of the shryke abyssal says something very interesting:

"A unique discovery, Aphras is a "heavenly twin" - a planet in a star system that has not one but two worlds of sufficient size to retain a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere within the habitable life zone of its parent star. Fossil evidence shows abundant vertebrates and evidence of a sapient terrestrial avian species in its Bronze Age. However, the only trace of contemporary life on the planet is that of single-celled organisms in its seas. All else has suffered from an extinction event - a series of massive impacts that vaporized vast quantities of water and lofted dust into its atmosphere. Early theories that this event was a collision with a fragmenting asteroid have now been discounted - the impact craters were aimed directly at habitation centers."

This would in fact mean, that the reapers desrtoyed a species in its bronze age, meaning it hadn't even achieved to leave their own planet.
However, it is said by starchild that the reapers "only harvest the advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone"
But why would they then have destroyed this species?

Any thoughts?

one possibility. maybe they didn't want to join the protheans?
... according to Javik you had the choice of nt join the empire. But then they would simply destroy you(the destroy you is a paraphrase he implies it tho)


Also sorry if it was responded to already I am currently catching up on the back log from yesterday

Why would the protheans, an advanved spacefaring species, wnat to offer a species still stuck in the bronze age a place in their empire?

Javik says that each species had to be at the point where they discovered interplanetary travel before they would be offered a place in the empire.

Yay finally caught up to my first reply =P

anyways ok maybe not join the empire but ....rebeled against them as it were. (remember human taurian assari and salarian were not space faring but had contact)

[Uncle Jo]

DarksBlade wrote...


almost caught up .. but my response to this is this is. It is the age of the internet and it was stated they wanted speculation. so they "may" have  fully expected us to get there eventually

Then they got served... Seriously, even if it's what they wanted, they're stretching it too far...

When I see the following facts:

1. The simplifications of the dialogues.
2. The convenient appearance of the Giant-super-gun which devices are found on Mars (out of all the planets in the galaxy) and right after the Reapers Invasion.
3. The necessity to play the MULTIPLAYER to get enough EMS for the "best ending".
4. The Space-Bruce Lee
5. The story with Rachni-Queen who is replaced by another one, if you didn't save her.
6. No ME2 squadmate is playable. Instead we have:
8. James Vega.
9. Diana Allers.
10. The Starbrat and the cliff hanger as ending

I can only think that ME3 was made as stand-alone and for a (very wide and eventually young) audience. Such an elaborate and well-done Theory like the IT don't tie up very well to this...

That's just my opinion though...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 22 avril 2012 - 05:07 .

[Uncle Jo]

Dbl post. sorry

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 22 avril 2012 - 05:07 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Big Bad wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ravel1992 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Stegoceras wrote...

Although I'm not sure what the lowest EMS ending is,  I think IT supporters explained it as an hallucination/dream/whatever in the first place. So whatever he chose it had no real effect on the reapers, only an effect on Shepard, I merely wondered if their results could be backwards.

Yeah true but if it only affects Shepard, then as EpyonX3 said, he should wake up, whatever happened to the Allied Forces...

@EpyonX3 I didn't save the collector base, but what you're saying about it is, in my opinion, a major counter-argument to the IT.

But if Crucible was designed to destroy Reapers why you cant do that? And how is possible synthesis thing? That is what bothering me.

No one in this cycle knew what the crucible did really. Not even Javik knew. It's possible that Synthesis was developed way before us by a civilization much more advanced than we were.

It's possible that there were cycles that tried to coexist with the reapers. Or at least force them to.

What really bothers me about the ending, IT or not, is that the crucible is supposed to have these three options but the catalyst has full control over what options are available to you.

So what is the point of the crucible? A giant battery, a big thumb drive that rewrites the catalyst's thought processes, or both?

Yeah, the whole thing is just friggin dumb.  I've said this before, but I just want an ending that is slightly less dumb (massively less dumb would  be even better, but I'm trying to have realistic expectations!) and substantially more emotionally satisfying.  Whether or not IT is the vehicle to such an ending is something I have little concern about.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. I want a satisfying ending, IT or not..

[DarksBlade]

Uncle Jo wrote...

DarksBlade wrote...


almost caught up .. but my response to this is this is. It is the age of the internet and it was stated they wanted speculation. so they "may" have  fully expected us to get there eventually

Then they got served... Seriously, even if it's what they wanted, they're stretching it too far...

When I see the following facts:

1. The simplifications of the dialogues.
2. The convenient appearance of the Giant-super-gun which devices are found on Mars (out of all the planets in the galaxy) and right after the Reapers Invasion.
3. The necessity to play the MULTIPLAYER to get enough EMS for the "best ending".
4. The Space-Bruce Lee
5. The story with Rachni-Queen who is replaced by another one, if you didn't save her.
6. No ME2 squadmate is playable. Instead we have:
8. James Vega.
9. Diana Allers.
10. The Starbrat and the cliff hanger as ending

I can only think that ME3 was made as stand-alone and for a (very wide and eventually young) audience. Such an elaborate and well-done Theory like the IT don't tie up very well to this...

That's just my opinion though...

I'm not arguing was just saying that your without the internetcomment didn't work

kinda like an old statement i used to ask people before the first x-men movie came out
who would you pick to play prof. X if patrick stewart didn't exist? ...... can't think of one? because you know he does exist =P


anyways

1. The simplifications of the dialogues. [good gawd do i agree and hate this]
2. The convenient appearance
of the Giant-super-gun which devices are found on Mars (out of all the
planets in the galaxy) and right after the Reapers Invasion. [also agree especially after they stated there would be no magic maguffins/lieteral deus ex ]
3. The necessity to play the MULTIPLAYER to get enough EMS for the "best ending". [personally i think that was a coding error since you were supposed to be able to get it with out mp ( which i hear might be possible but you need to playthru the whole trilogy with the ems score in mind) ]
4. The Space-Bruce Lee [please explain maybe i missed something but i don't know what this is]
5. The story with Rachni-Queen who is replaced by another one, if you didn't save her.[purely gameplay so they did not have to change grunts mission and to explain all the ravagers]
6. No ME2 squadmate is playable. Instead we have:[ grrr tell me about it .. i was fully expecting at least jack after they redesigned...tho i wanted more]
8. James Vega.[ you know i think i probly would not dislike james if we would have had at least wrex or grunt on the team as it stands now all i can see him for is the replacment krogan]
9. Diana Allers.[no.... just no]
10. The Starbrat and the cliff hanger as ending [speaking of deus ex... i really wish the team never played that series of games]

I
can only think that ME3 was made as stand-alone and for a (very wide
and eventually young) audience. Such an elaborate and well-done Theory
like the IT don't tie up very well to this... [ i agree  but i think if IT is real it is for the long standing fans not the new mass audiance EA wants]

[monrapias]

funnnny

[FreedMason]

Uncle Jo wrote...

]Then they got served... Seriously, even if it's what they wanted, they're stretching it too far...

When I see the following facts:

1. The simplifications of the dialogues.
2. The convenient appearance of the Giant-super-gun which devices are found on Mars (out of all the planets in the galaxy) and right after the Reapers Invasion.
3. The necessity to play the MULTIPLAYER to get enough EMS for the "best ending".
4. The Space-Bruce Lee
5. The story with Rachni-Queen who is replaced by another one, if you didn't save her.
6. No ME2 squadmate is playable. Instead we have:
8. James Vega.
9. Diana Allers.
10. The Starbrat and the cliff hanger as ending

I can only think that ME3 was made as stand-alone and for a (very wide and eventually young) audience. Such an elaborate and well-done Theory like the IT don't tie up very well to this...

That's just my opinion though...

I agree with those points, and I still have some reservation for indoctrination because it makes sense. However, your points highlight that Bioware took many short-cuts just to shove the game out and make money, rather than make a product based on consumer loyalty. I did not like that practically all major decisions in previous episodes were ret-conned somehow, like the Collector Base, and the Citadel Council. I hope they fix that ridiculous multiplayer catch, but again, I am not holding my breath.

[Rifneno]

DJBare wrote...

People do realize that despite indoctrination the three options presented can still be real, right?

No.  Because synthesis literally couldn't be more retardedly impossible if they tried.

[Critchley2010]

This whole thing is utter codswallop. Serioiusly, I've never heard such nonsense.

If Shepherd was indoctrinated then the Prothean VI(s!) would have gone nuts and would have scarpered at the sight of him. End of. AND if he/she was indoctrinated why would the Reapers let him anywhere near the possibility of blowing them up.

I enjoyed the ending, there were things I thought it lacked, but on the whole it was good. Just think the entire 3rd game is the ending. Most of what i wanted got resolved and I was happy about it. I'm not spoiling the series by thinking about this rubbish.

[estebanus]

DarksBlade wrote...

estebanus wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Delmor wrote...

@Skillz1986
It's strange... She should come out with Joker. Very interesting..

When I picked the destroy ending, I saw EDI,Liara and Joker come out, so I don't get why it's said she dies in the destroy ending.

Space magic, perhaps? :wizard::wizard:

Wait you got EDI in Destroy? Can you replicate it and record it? What was your EMS?

My EMS was about 7200, and I saw EDI get out of the Normandy.

I think that it's determined who gets out of the Normandy based on your interaction level with certain characters, and I know I'm not the only one who saw EDI get out of the Normandy in destroy.

while I will have to test it my self (as i always take garrus and javik { you can't tell me javik doesn't deserve it and if your gonna take one other person with you to watch your back how can you not pick garrus) if liara is your LI and you take edi and her to the beam you should get this supposable your LI (if it's a SM) and one of the squad you brought with you are always shown leaving the Normandy

That's not the universal truth. With my full-on renegade Shepard I had romanced Liara (again), and had brought her and Ashley with to the beam.
But after the Normandy crashed, it was Liara and Garrus that came out of The Normandy's wreckage together with Joker!

[estebanus]

Critchley2010 wrote...

This whole thing is utter codswallop. Serioiusly, I've never heard such nonsense.

If Shepherd was indoctrinated then the Prothean VI(s!) would have gone nuts and would have scarpered at the sight of him. End of. AND if he/she was indoctrinated why would the Reapers let him anywhere near the possibility of blowing them up.

I enjoyed the ending, there were things I thought it lacked, but on the whole it was good. Just think the entire 3rd game is the ending. Most of what i wanted got resolved and I was happy about it. I'm not spoiling the series by thinking about this rubbish.

Cool story, bro

[CMagnum8]

 Just a thought I know bioware had said that mass effect 3 was the end of Shepard's story, meaning there won't be a mass effect 4 with Shepard. But at the end in the scene with the old guy and the kid the kid asks for "one more story about the Shepard" and the old guy says "ok one more story". The implication is either that there will be a future game with Shepard (my friend suggested a prequel) or there was always intended to be significant additional content following the ending. A prequel seems like bs to me since it inevitably it would not make sense with mass effect 1, 2 and 3 or you would have no choices and we would be given a correct Shepard which would destroy a central concept of the series. If you assume that indoctrination theory is wrong and all the catalysts options are true, most people have a dead shepard so couldn't continue the story. The reapers are gone/not a threat so the next story would just be Shepard dealing with a devastated earth filled with the entire armada you created fighting each other over resources. This hardly seems like a good direction to go in so I think an alternate theory like indoctrination theory would be require to continue the game passed the ending as they imply. I think the last scene is bioware making fun of us if they are the old man and the kid is us as a collective. "Did all that really happen"?, "Yes, but many of the details are missing", "can I hear another story about the Shepard", "Ok one more story". We've all seen these questions on forums and biowares response has been to give us an extended ending (another story) to make up for the lack of detail in the original ending. This is just conjecture of course I could be entirely wrong and just trying to explain away a part which almost everybody doesn't like.

[malakim2099]

RussianZombeh wrote...

estebanus wrote...

malakim2099 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Delmor wrote...

@Skillz1986
It's strange... She should come out with Joker. Very interesting..

When I picked the destroy ending, I saw EDI,Liara and Joker come out, so I don't get why it's said she dies in the destroy ending.

Space magic, perhaps? :wizard::wizard:

Wait you got EDI in Destroy? Can you replicate it and record it? What was your EMS?

My EMS was about 7200, and I saw EDI get out of the Normandy.

I think that it's determined who gets out of the Normandy based on your interaction level with certain characters, and I know I'm not the only one who saw EDI get out of the Normandy in destroy.

Also, doesn't the Starchild consider Shepard herself to be a synthetic, technically? (Sure that this has been touched on in the past 1600+ pages, but bear with me.)

If that's the case, how come the Destroy All Synthetics option is the only one where Shepard survives?

Yup, I don't get it either.

In destroy, Shepard is right in the middle of an explosion with the power of AT LEAST 2-10 Tsar bombs detonated at once, and in addition to that, his/her synthetic parts are supposedly deactivated, either outright killing him/her, or at the very least reduce his/her vitality significantly, and we're expected to actually believe s/he surived that?!

Sorry, just no.

Again, Shepard survived because he never actually picked the Destroy option. He picked it in his MIND. The Destroy option symbolises defeating the Indoctrination.

Psst. That was my point. :innocent:

I don't necessarily like the IT... but I think it's the best theory out there that explains the game as it currently stands.

[estebanus]

DarksBlade wrote...

estebanus wrote...

DarksBlade wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Sorry to interrupt any ongoing discussion here, but I may have found some more evidence that starchild is lying.

The planet Aphras in the Xe-Cha system of the shryke abyssal says something very interesting:

"A unique discovery, Aphras is a "heavenly twin" - a planet in a star system that has not one but two worlds of sufficient size to retain a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere within the habitable life zone of its parent star. Fossil evidence shows abundant vertebrates and evidence of a sapient terrestrial avian species in its Bronze Age. However, the only trace of contemporary life on the planet is that of single-celled organisms in its seas. All else has suffered from an extinction event - a series of massive impacts that vaporized vast quantities of water and lofted dust into its atmosphere. Early theories that this event was a collision with a fragmenting asteroid have now been discounted - the impact craters were aimed directly at habitation centers."

This would in fact mean, that the reapers desrtoyed a species in its bronze age, meaning it hadn't even achieved to leave their own planet.
However, it is said by starchild that the reapers "only harvest the advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone"
But why would they then have destroyed this species?

Any thoughts?

one possibility. maybe they didn't want to join the protheans?
... according to Javik you had the choice of nt join the empire. But then they would simply destroy you(the destroy you is a paraphrase he implies it tho)


Also sorry if it was responded to already I am currently catching up on the back log from yesterday

Why would the protheans, an advanved spacefaring species, wnat to offer a species still stuck in the bronze age a place in their empire?

Javik says that each species had to be at the point where they discovered interplanetary travel before they would be offered a place in the empire.

Yay finally caught up to my first reply =P

anyways ok maybe not join the empire but ....rebeled against them as it were. (remember human taurian assari and salarian were not space faring but had contact)

Neither humanity or the turians had direct contact with the protheans. You even find out in the mars archives, that the protheans were studying humanitys intellectual curve, probably to determine when they should be inducted into the empire.
The only ones with real "contact" were the asari, and that contact was ambiguous at best. Remember that the Asari though that Athame actually was an Asari, eventhough she was a prothean.

My point stands however, that the protheans would not interfere with a species stuck in its bronze age. The only real reason why the protheans were so interested in the asari was due to their potential, nothing else.

[Drift Avalii]

estebanus wrote...

Critchley2010 wrote...

This whole thing is utter codswallop. Serioiusly, I've never heard such nonsense.

If Shepherd was indoctrinated then the Prothean VI(s!) would have gone nuts and would have scarpered at the sight of him. End of. AND if he/she was indoctrinated why would the Reapers let him anywhere near the possibility of blowing them up.

I enjoyed the ending, there were things I thought it lacked, but on the whole it was good. Just think the entire 3rd game is the ending. Most of what i wanted got resolved and I was happy about it. I'm not spoiling the series by thinking about this rubbish.

Cool story, bro

You're welcome to your opinion, as we are to ours.<_<