57139 réponses à ce sujet

[waldstr18]

what? wasnt the red choice the destroy option, which stands for not being indoctrinated in the end? now you are saying you are indoctrinated no matter what?

maybe im not as smart as i thought, but i really cant follow you. and there is no need to rubb in my not reading everything, i already accepted that and said i was sorry.

yet, if its an indoctrination, why does the ems play into the choice you get, when you are indoctrinatd no matter what? oh.. im doing it again. sorry. i just dont buy it.

[Vahilor]

waldstr18 wrote...

what? wasnt the red choice the destroy option, which stands for not being indoctrinated in the end? now you are saying you are indoctrinated no matter what?

maybe im not as smart as i thought, but i really cant follow you. and there is no need to rubb in my not reading everything, i already accepted that and said i was sorry.

yet, if its an indoctrination, why does the ems play into the choice you get, when you are indoctrinatd no matter what? oh.. im doing it again. sorry. i just dont buy it.

Huh ? No the red ending is the way to defeat the total indoctrination atempt.

[Ziggeh]

greywardencommander wrote...
Everything you say is addressed

Mind pointing me in the general direction?

greywardencommander wrote...
People using bad writing 'against' the theory just seems to me like saying 'i'm not going to argue with you because I have nothing to say' (not you personally you make other points as well, some good ones)

Right, but the intent of the theory is to explain the bad writing as a function of the illusion rather than simply being bad. My question is why have it in the first place? Even explained those are still bad scenes. I'm not sure the theory truly addresses one of the key things it intends to.

greywardencommander wrote...
Even the real world terms I point out using basic psychology and Shepard as the vessel - it wouldn't work as a plot twist nearly as well if it happens in game and you can just restart and do it again you have to truly commit.

That's a bit meta, and while it would be kind of interesting, I'm not sure that's good storytelling. It might not work as well, but it would still work and without all of the negative aspects.

greywardencommander wrote...
They always say no such thing as bad publicity, Mass Effect 3 has been worldwide news on National networks everything if I.T. ended up true and they released the 'real endings' and the press then say blimey that was brilliant, excellent plot twist, amazing marketing ploy etc etc, that's in the end extremely positive.

They say that, but it's not true. Negative feedback and reviews hurt sales.

And if they were to release such an ending the reaction would certainly not be universal appraisal. People will call them underhanded. Deride them for releasing incomplete material. Maybe some will see the positive, but I think that's a massively optomistic view of the nature of the internet.

[greywardencommander]

Fat Head wrote...

I don't know if this has been brought up (and I'm not about to read through 876 pages to find out), but does anyone remember what a big deal Bioware made about Arrival DLC for ME2? They were talking up how amazing it was that it would factor into ME3 because it was a DLC. Did anyone see the impact of that in any of the dialogue of the storyline? I didn't.

I suspect they might have been referring to the fact you'd spend 2 days unconscious around a reaper artifact. 2 days seems like enough time to get at least a little bit of indoctrination going to me. It also seems like some solid evidence for IT.

you're grounded for the events of it on earth because you blew up the mass relay or you are more or less suspected of doing so. Plus the two days unconscious around the reaper artifact thus the slow process of indoctrination might have started there.

The fact that no matter what it's canon (i.e. the events happen whether you play it or not) suggest they want Arrival to be important, probably because of the two days unconscious and when I personally started thinking about the idea of being indoctrinated when I realised how long Shepard is there.

The above re. Arrival illustrates my point about the fact they might have the rest of the game on dlc to be dispatched (free because it's still the game and given the outcry at Day 1 DLC they wouldn't be stupid enough to do ending DLC) because to all extents and purposes Arrival is ME2 ending, the beginning of ME3 leads directly off of that and the events are directly referenced.

[clennon8]

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

[beank]

[quote]greywardencommander wrote...
....your point about the magical third option. This is basic psychology, present a 'compromise' to stop their intention and you both 'get what you want' though in this case both the.Reaper Control and Synthesis actually lead to the same thing but Shep's mind doesn't know that.....
[/quote]

My question is Why does synth have to be malevolent? 

The Kid says that two options have worked for every other cycle. Now that things like Geth/Quarian Peace and destruction of the Reapers is possible, the chance for a third option appears. In all three cases, the Relays are destroyed and the reapers are gone, but only in the Synth is a new stage in evolution achieved. I still believe that Saren was for subjugation rather than synth.

[quote]greywardencommander wrote...
As for the starchild .... Harbinger uses truth of the crucible and the starchild (in reality a VI) is there to meld with Shepard's memories that form the entire 10 mins.
[/quote]

But could it be equally true that this is an actual weapon created by a long dead race to provide a check and balance against the Reapers?

[quote]greywardencommander wrote...
The attention is brought to the wound because it's symbolic of the psyche, if you want to get into the 'shepard should be bleeding from harbinger beam' given it took out a destroyer etc he should be dead.
[/quote]

I still think that he should just be dead. But are we to believe that as strong an enemy as the Reapers are, that shepard would have no flesh wounds by this point? Especially if the blast denigrated (?) his armor.

[quote]greywardencommander wrote...
As for the colour switch and the good guy vs bad guy making it bad or good and it changing when we've been conditioned .... to think that way, that's why it should be odd and why it should make you think it's Harbinger.
[/quote]

But the Kid tells us that control is the optimal (not good) option and that destruction is the non-optimal (not bad) . We apply the good and bad because of the conditioning. That dosent means that is how they have to be.


[quote]greywardencommander wrote...
As for your does indoctrination mean it's permanent etc etc. There are stages I posted this ages ago, if someone can find it please do because I'm on my phone. In ME and in real life indoctrination is subliminal and suggestive until your ideology matches not outright control. Saren alludes to this as does the Matriarch. The permanence is in the mental damage of the process not the process itself. Unless they are strong enough to resist and not realise they're being indoctrinated they are useless as allies and become husks mindless creatures. If indoctrination is full control the Reapers would just indoctrinate the whole galaxy to just walk up to them and be harvested why fight at all.
[/quote]

I'll have to get back to you on this one.... i need to do some reading on Indoc....

[quote]greywardencommander wrote...
As for a point you allude to. Indoctrination is the 'impossible to resist" weapon you have to overcome. That's what makes a true action Hero. Nothing is impossible, it's said in the game in ME2

Overcoming indoctrination is the Ilos and Omega Relay of ME3 i.e it's the impossible feat.

To quote Thane regarding Ilos 'true, you've made a career out of the impossible'.

Just because noone else has been shown to overcome it .... doesn't mean it can't be done, as I said the Reapers are not able to fully control anyone .... so a strong enough mind as has been alluded to 'a lesser mind would have been destroyed'
[/quote]

I agree with this. Just blowing up the Reapers, while impressive, is not as grandiose as beating them while they think they have the upper hand (Indocing you).


[quote]greywardencommander wrote...
Lastly, the final hours App does not dismiss this theory contrary to others opinions. A scene was scrapped because of a gameplay mechanic of being controlled by the reapers and the player at the same time.[/quote]
[/quote]

Not scraping the idea does not necessarily mean that they used the idea. I agree that it dosent disprove, but it aslo does nothing more than add to speculation that they MIGHT have used the idea.

[Ziggeh]

NikolaiShade wrote...

1 - TIMmy could be confronted in the DLC or he could became the bad guy for the next games. He could even die in a really stupid way to be honest but I don't think so.

Right, but in any way it's handled it's repetition. Well, unless he gets hit by a bus or something, but as I say, problem as well.

NikolaiShade wrote...
2 - Same issue with the suicide mission in ME2. Consider the choice here as the upgrades for the Nomrandy. If you don't install them you undermine your chances of survival but the job can still be done.

Not sure what you mean. With the upgrades you were making yourself better prepared and you then see that preperation, those choices pay off. With IT, you would make the choice, then be told you didn't make the choice.

NikolaiShade wrote...
3 - IF the theory is right then it was an hint.

Aye, I get that, but why? There are much, much better ways to hint at this sort of thing that doesn't really on your audience going "well that sucked". They could have put a unicorn in it.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 25 mars 2012 - 04:44 .

[thePredator50]

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

[Dap Brannigan]

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

Wait, if Shepard never went, why is he locked down at the beginning of ME3?  For working with Cerberus?

[clennon8]

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

Well, not really.  I.T. doesn't hinge on that at all.  Shepard has encountered many vectors for indoctrination.  I think it's fairly likely that Reaper tech (salvaged from Sovereign's remains) was used to resurrect Shep.  His own implants may be indoctrinating him.

[greywardencommander]

Ziggeh wrote...

greywardencommander wrote...
Everything you say is addressed

Mind pointing me in the general direction?

greywardencommander wrote...
People using bad writing 'against' the theory just seems to me like saying 'i'm not going to argue with you because I have nothing to say' (not you personally you make other points as well, some good ones)

Right, but the intent of the theory is to explain the bad writing as a function of the illusion rather than simply being bad. My question is why have it in the first place? Even explained those are still bad scenes. I'm not sure the theory truly addresses one of the key things it intends to.

greywardencommander wrote...
Even the real world terms I point out using basic psychology and Shepard as the vessel - it wouldn't work as a plot twist nearly as well if it happens in game and you can just restart and do it again you have to truly commit.

That's a bit meta, and while it would be kind of interesting, I'm not sure that's good storytelling. It might not work as well, but it would still work and without all of the negative aspects.

greywardencommander wrote...
They always say no such thing as bad publicity, Mass Effect 3 has been worldwide news on National networks everything if I.T. ended up true and they released the 'real endings' and the press then say blimey that was brilliant, excellent plot twist, amazing marketing ploy etc etc, that's in the end extremely positive.

They say that, but it's not true. Negative feedback and reviews hurt sales.

And if they were to release such an ending the reaction would certainly not be universal appraisal. People will call them underhanded. Deride them for releasing incomplete material. Maybe some will see the positive, but I think that's a massively optomistic view of the nature of the internet.

if you read my thread I address the fact that if in the media and among the gaming community (taking aside the moral stuff about it being dlc at the end of the day it might be free so they're not charging for the ending) it in say one years time would probably be referenced as the greatest plot twist and marketing ploy in entertainment (particularly gaming) and media history? In the long run the media frenzy around it has made it worldwide news thus when the real endings hit the 'amazing plot twist' will be reveered by all the media as brilliant, fantastic, thought to be impossbile because it's never been done. Sure there will be negative aspects but these won't be picked up on by average Joe who's only just heard about this amazing space opera plot that is so immersive and makes every choice you make really count right to the end might go hey I might check this ME stuff out, wow this first game is really good etc. A lot of people (by no means) who love ME ignore that aspect and continue to invest in future DLC, ME3 MP etc because they get the ending they really want. Lots of diversity in endings (based on how they play the game thus the replay them)

THAT'S EXACTLY how it would be perceived by the collective media and gamers maybe not straight away but pretty soon it becomes the group norm amongst everybody and people eventually conform to that belief. Not everybody, no, some people will still hate the fact it's dlc thus not on the disk (even if free) and morally wrong. Tell me I'm wrong that in 10 years a lot of the negativity surrounding a game has died down and it's the best bits that remain (e.g. WoW pretty shoddy launch if I recall correctly, not according to a lot of people who rubbish everything mmo ever since) thus he impact in the long term = very beneficial. it's perfectly plausible they expected it to be obvious and people be happy that a 'real ending' is being released later, the ultimate cliffhanger (I don't deny this is true with endings as they are I never say this theory is true I say could and should be to fix the endings)

I study social psychology and everything in my thread is based on the last 10 mins alone being off and the psychology of it in the real world as well (including real life indoctrination and in ME and monetary and integrity terms re. EA) deliberately being off and why it COULD (I never say this theory is true) be true.

I'm not speculating (I do in this thread but that's because I believe in the theory) in terms of things before the final (e.g. stuff in ME1, ME2 and rest of ME3) 10 mins based on the fact everything prior to that can be interpreted both ways.

If you read my thread you'll see that's my point and why I think it's deliberate and you don't see it is because Shepard doesn't, you don't really think about the fact he's indoctrinated because he doesn't believe it. The minute you think about this (such as right at the end) the indoctrination attempt fails, you see everything this way, your mind has been freed from the attempted control.

Anyway I hope you realise that I'm not saying this theory is definitely true (I will believe I have faith in ME and Bioware) I'm saying if it's not IT should be as it fixes the endings without having to change anything, remove the ending or retcon the ending.

[Kyzee]

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

How would it be a wrench in the theory? Shepard's exposure to Object Rho is not the lone instance of his/her exposure to Reaper tech. Nor does s/he not taking part in the Arrival DLC dismiss the Reapers' and particularly Harbinger's obsession to take possession of Shepard. Nor would it dismiss all of the numerous other hints throughout the game of indoctrination being a possibility, nor explain the inconsistencies in the ending.

I'm not attacking here. I'm just saying that the Arrival DLC is not the be all/end all of IT. Far from it, in fact.

[greywardencommander]

Dap Brannigan wrote...

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

Wait, if Shepard never went, why is he locked down at the beginning of ME3?  For working with Cerberus?

the fact it happens is referenced, they want it to be canon regardless, i.e. the relays are destroyed. the fact that people who played it know he was knocked out for two days (why Bioware said it matters) and thus exposed obviously and directly to indoctrination (which he is throughout the series) doesn't disprove the theory at all.

Regardless of having played it the fact that it has direct references and if you played it then it was Shepard who is directly and obviously vulnerable to indoctrination at that point just means Arrival neither proves nor disproves.

As i've said again and again, fact it's directly referenced, and consequence in the game is you on Earth etc (Bioware said really needs to be played after ME2 is beaten, you get Harbinger that way rather than Collector boss that was as well I think, or something similar not sure) no matter what means to all extents and purposes

ME2: Arrival is a DLC ending of ME2, one that extends no doubt but is still an 'ending' thus Bioware and EA have done it before in regards to DLC anyway.

[beank]

greywardencommander wrote...
it's perfectly plausible they expected it to be obvious and people be happy that a 'real ending' is being released later, the ultimate cliffhanger (I don't deny this is true with endings as they are I never say this theory is true I say could and should be to fix the endings)

But dosent that also tell the consumers that they intentionally left off the ending of the game? Free or not, that is not something a lot of gamers take as clever writing.

If the industry wasnt plagued by Day1 DLC and Day1 game patches, then i think the audience would be a little more forgiving.

[greywardencommander]

For anyone wondering my thread should be pretty obviously a reference to my signature thus anytime I say 'I talk about everything in terms of basic psychology that the endings are being hinted at not being real' I mean guys read the explanation in my signature and the click on the thread.

I also say time and time again that if not true I.T. (because I willingly accept that possbility) should be made true thus everyone who only doesn't like it based on stuff like DLC because it can incorporate people's want of a 'fix' and their choices (such as your final one re. colour) to matter etc without retconning or changing the current endings

I made the thread deliberately so people could see what I was saying without looking through all the threads. My original point of the thread was so no matter what how could I.T work as DLC regardless of choice because Bioware shouldn't punish those who choose the other.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 25 mars 2012 - 05:04 .

[NikolaiShade]

@Ziggeh

Sorry, I didn't make myself as clear as I wanted.

IF the Indoctrination Theory is right and you choose Control or Synthesys it does not mean you can't continue to play (as I said before, theese are just my speculations)

Example: after the Catlyst scene you keep fighting but in a critical point you have to chose if you want to surrender to full indoctrination or fight against it. First case, renegade interrupt, Shepard takes down his squadmates or they kill him; second case, Shepard kills himself, via a paragon interrupt maybe, but he will be remembered as a hero nonetheless.

Again, chances are 50/50 for the Indoctrination Theory, either way we'll have to wait to know what happens next.

[thePredator50]

Kyzee wrote...

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

How would it be a wrench in the theory? Shepard's exposure to Object Rho is not the lone instance of his/her exposure to Reaper tech. Nor does s/he not taking part in the Arrival DLC dismiss the Reapers' and particularly Harbinger's obsession to take possession of Shepard. Nor would it dismiss all of the numerous other hints throughout the game of indoctrination being a possibility, nor explain the inconsistencies in the ending.

I'm not attacking here. I'm just saying that the Arrival DLC is not the be all/end all of IT. Far from it, in fact.

It kinda kills the entire "beam starts at Viper Nebula" thing.

[Jaze55]

Hey guys. Just wanted to point you to this thread in case you haven't seen it. It explains a lot.

It's cut dialog from the ending. Sorry if you have seen this already but it should fill in a few blanks.

http://social.biowar...ndex/10595227/1

Honestly this makes BW look worse for cutting some of this stuff .... speculation for everyone ... they weren't kidding.

[clennon8]

thePredator50 wrote...

Kyzee wrote...

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

How would it be a wrench in the theory? Shepard's exposure to Object Rho is not the lone instance of his/her exposure to Reaper tech. Nor does s/he not taking part in the Arrival DLC dismiss the Reapers' and particularly Harbinger's obsession to take possession of Shepard. Nor would it dismiss all of the numerous other hints throughout the game of indoctrination being a possibility, nor explain the inconsistencies in the ending.

I'm not attacking here. I'm just saying that the Arrival DLC is not the be all/end all of IT. Far from it, in fact.

It kinda kills the entire "beam starts at Viper Nebula" thing.

Big whoop.

[Rifneno]

thePredator50 wrote...

It kinda kills the entire "beam starts at Viper Nebula" thing.

Arrival isn't canon in the sense that the characters won't acknowledge it if Shepard didn't do it.  But the story is pretty dependant on it either way.  Why was Shepard, a spectre above the law, in jail at the start of the game?  I believe the official response from BW is "uhh.. hey look, an elephant! *runs away*"

[IronSabbath88]

Well they DID mention that Arrival was a direct lead in to Mass Effect 3... perhaps they meant that in more than just the obvious.

[greywardencommander]

clennon8 wrote...

thePredator50 wrote...

Kyzee wrote...

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

How would it be a wrench in the theory? Shepard's exposure to Object Rho is not the lone instance of his/her exposure to Reaper tech. Nor does s/he not taking part in the Arrival DLC dismiss the Reapers' and particularly Harbinger's obsession to take possession of Shepard. Nor would it dismiss all of the numerous other hints throughout the game of indoctrination being a possibility, nor explain the inconsistencies in the ending.

I'm not attacking here. I'm just saying that the Arrival DLC is not the be all/end all of IT. Far from it, in fact.

It kinda kills the entire "beam starts at Viper Nebula" thing.

Big whoop.

still does regardless so to those who played it's a big deal if that's the only thing you can come up with then I say the theory for the most part in story terms is pretty solid even if it turns out not to be true.

[greywardencommander]

Ziggeh wrote...

greywardencommander wrote...
Everything you say is addressed

Mind pointing me in the general direction?

It's in my signature with a link to my thread it's a place I put everything I post into one big long place so people can read it all in one go. It originally started as a 'if I.T ended up happening regardless here's how I would make all decisions matter'

Modifié par greywardencommander, 25 mars 2012 - 05:14 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

waldstr18 wrote...

about a few things i read about:
the crucible changed the catalyst, he said so itself, thats why the choices are there and thats the reason why he lets us choose. we see him as a boy, because he is with us the whole game. also the dream sequences are a design choice as well, cause as you might have notices when joker and shepard scream at each other, the third mass effect goes a little more into an emotional direction. of course there was concrete on the citadel. just look around next time you are on it. the reason why shepard is bleeding, well, he was hit by a laser that which some times injures people. the blood is mainly on his left arm, cause he holds his gun with his right. well blood flows downward.. the laser is also the reason why he isnt wearing his armor anymore. anyways, i guess im again not the first one to bring that up. but here is something i think not many others have noticed:

we were led to the final three choices throughout all 3 games.
in the first game, more or less under andersons command, we learned synthetics are evil, which leads us to the red explosion.
the second game, guided by the illusive man, counters that by showing us, synthetics arent necessarily evil and can even be our friends. so this leads us to the blue option; just remove the reapers and we can all be friends.
now the 3rd option, which is supposed to be the best one, is introduced to us in the third game, with the geth being real individuals now and of course edi trying to be a better being, and finally joker falling in love with her. so lets make it possible for joker to have little new dna children with his robot wife, and choose the biotics/synthetic mixer.

the choice is also presented to us by the prothean, who pretty much tells us the same thing about chaos and order. he represents the red explosion, obviously. then the reaper on ranoch, even being a weak argument against the indoctrination theory, does a waterdragon and tells us the same thing the child tells us, just more cryptic. which also worries me. if they take out the choices, this will just be pointless gibberish, as will all the ai discussions on the ship. at the moment they lead us to that final conclusion, without the 3 choices in the end. oh, and even though i dont think it really belongs here, but i also dont think there should be a good good ending. throughout the game we have to support people arguing about stuff, but i dont recall there ever being a real true or false option. another thing that leads us to the not so good choices in the end.

now if your indoctrination theory is made true, well, all that is pointless. and thats why im arguing here. and of course the "in your face" reason.

Dident have time to adress this fully before leaving only my quick remak about the Geth, but I am back now.

Okay first, where is that concrete on the Citadel, really where is it? I have played all three games multiple times, I pride myself on a near photographic memory when it comes to games and yet i dont recall even once having seen anything resembling concrete on the Citadel, nothing at all. The closests I can get is the statues in the Presidium, but it is stretching it to think that Shepard lande in one of those when he is on the outside of the Citadel when it blows up, infact there is no Concrete anywhere near him when it all blows up in his face no less. This is not even mentioning that concrete is not exactly the material you would look to for your space construction needs. A pctcure of this concrete on the Citadel please.

Also if the wound is from Harbinger then why is Sheaprd not cluthing his side until after shooting Anderson? Serisuly if he had such a wound in his side, a wound which apprently makes him collapse in front of the console (pretty serius stuff) would he not be putting pressure on it during his entire walk through the Citadel?

About your analysis of the games, I wont quite disagree on Mass Effect 1.

But about second game, yesw it involves alot about control but those are shown by Illusive man and Harbinger not exactly a show of how Control brings peace. But beyond that everything tells us AI aka Synthetics cant be controlled. Cerberus cant control EDI, Quarian cant control the Geth and with those to uncontrolable then what hopes is there of controlling the Reapers?

And the last part while Synthetics are shown to live with Humans such things serve more to go against the Destruction as explained by the Starchild. It says Synthetics and Organics cant live together and yet we are shown differently refuting its statement. Why is Synthesis necesary? Its not, not even mentioning that it is a bunch of Space magic. Where the rest of Mass Effect is grounded in theories we know of and can be supported sciencetifically, nothing supports Synthesis, nothing. Synthetics and Organics cannot be mixed into one DNA, it is just not possible and Mass Effect is Science Fiction not Science Fantasy.

As for the Prothean VI. I always found that statement odd as it is limited how far back the Protheans could ahve actually studied the cycle (even Prothean information is scrace in this cycle, anything older is night impossible to find nothing suggest it was different for the Protheans) also there has always been a cycle and repeating patents, the patens brought on by the Reapers and how the Mass Relays guided evolution, but nothing supported that Reapers themselves were simple pawns of the cycle and the Prothean VI offers no evidence beyond theory.

[Kyzee]

thePredator50 wrote...

Kyzee wrote...

thePredator50 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Is Arrival actually canon? I had thought it was, but then someone told me that if you do a non-import game, you find out that the Alliance sent two squadrons to do the Arrival mission, and Shepard never went. I haven't tested it myself, but this wasn't a person who would lie to me.

Yup, 'tis be true, and it be a wrench in the theory.

How would it be a wrench in the theory? Shepard's exposure to Object Rho is not the lone instance of his/her exposure to Reaper tech. Nor does s/he not taking part in the Arrival DLC dismiss the Reapers' and particularly Harbinger's obsession to take possession of Shepard. Nor would it dismiss all of the numerous other hints throughout the game of indoctrination being a possibility, nor explain the inconsistencies in the ending.

I'm not attacking here. I'm just saying that the Arrival DLC is not the be all/end all of IT. Far from it, in fact.

It kinda kills the entire "beam starts at Viper Nebula" thing.

Ah, yes--that. I don't really put much stock in that, myself. Logically, the first relay the beam would have to go through is the Sol relay because of the Citadel's location, i.e. Earth. The cutscene showing the first relay firing and exploding gives no visual clues as to its location (nor would it be possible, I think), but again, logical deduction says Sol. The fact that in the galatic cutscene, the first relay trigger you see happens in the Viper Nebula I think is (1) coincidental or (2) more likely just fan speculation--there's no conclusive evidence that it is, in fact, the Viper Nebula; it could just be roughly in the same location. In either event, it has no bearing on the integrity of IT in of itself.

If, however, the galatic cutscene does in fact start in the Viper Nebula (after going through the Sol relay--sorry, physics is physics, folks), then that would simply be another neat touch/hint by the developers, I think. It'd simply lend credence to IT, that's all.