CAGcast #280: Half CAGcast, Half Mass Effect 3 Spoilercast

Great show guys, only errors I noticed in regards to Mass Effect 3 was Shipwreck thinking that you get Ashley if you're male and Kaiden if you're female. It's entirely based on who you picked to survive in the first game. Bioware has always been cool about giving the option to be gay if you so happen to swing that way, so they made a point to give you either option. The other thing was Wombat saying how he would have appreciated a couple lines of dialogue to explain why Cerberus was now shooting at Shepard. During my game I talked to the Elusive man via hologram, not sure if it's game specific. Any-way's, keep it up!
 
The entire time I watched that beginning part, even during the demo, I was thinking the kid was a Shepard hallucination, some sort of extension of his "innocence" (that's not the word I'm looking for, but it will do) in the grand scheme of things. Once that ship the kid was on blew up, it troubled Shepard for the rest of the game. Obviously.

I will agree with most people on here, though, and on the spoilercast. The ending just didn't fit. I wasn't pissed to the point that I was ready to burn down BioWare and EA headquarters or anything, it just didn't make a hell of a lot of sense. The entire time I was watching that end sequence on the Citadel, I was like...wait, what? And when The Illusive Man was talking, something about that whole sequence just didn't fit.

While I agree that the Indoctrination Theory seems real enough, I've heard from someone claiming to be close to BioWare (take it with a grain of salt) that it is wrong, mainly because of that end "Stargazer" scene. How would the old man know what Shepard experienced while he was being Indoctrinated? He did kind of give me his theories about some of the end sequences, particularly
Joker flying away from the scene. It might be as simple as Joker and Shepard had determined that, should anything happen to him, Joker needs to get the whole squad away from Earth to try and come up with a plan b. Also, the exploding Relays, they didn't destroy the galaxies because they were releasing their energy that caused their explosion, or something like that.
I really feel that the Extended Cut will explain everything. Or maybe that is simply wishful thinking...
 
[quote name='basston3s']Shepard is the only one who seems to notice him. The soldiers wave some other civilians onto the ship, and the little boy comes stumbling after. If it were truly real, you would think the soldiers would run and physically pick the child up. Nope, he casually struggles to get on board with people around him doing nothing.

Check out the vid (Min 23 Sec 25): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrACow5jnfE#t=23m25s[/QUOTE]

I retract my statement. Totally remembered it wrong. I thought he was trying to get to the ship and one of the soldiers were kind of leading him onto the ship.
 
Okay, I find myself in a weird place because I wasn't crazy about the ending myself (I liked the concept but also think they didn't execute it clearly enough) yet I feel like I'm one of the few lone defenders online. This is weird because in real life everyone I know who played the game loved the ending and thought I was being overly negative so personally I've been shocked to see the hate online. I thought the ending perfectly matched the themes of the series.

Let me retort some of the comments on this show:

1) First of all, I don't know why people keep pushing this narrative about how "no sites or magazines talked about the ending". Off the top of my head, the reviews for PC Gamer, Gametrailers, 1UP and Gamespy all dedicate space to saying that some people may be dissatisfied with how it concludes.

2) Second, I find it baffling that the same people saying the ending "makes no sense" will then defend the plausibility of the "indoctrination theory" which has got to be right up there with Loose Change as far as making up crazy shit until it fits.

3) Both the first and second games make it clear that (a) Nobody fully understands how the mass relays work and (b) Making a new mass relay would be incredibly difficult to do because there just aren't enough raw materials to do it. Also, it was fully established that the only point of the Mass Relays were part of the honeytrap to get the Reapers to wipe out civilization easily. By removing the Reaper control, they had to go.

4) The "child" is obviously just part of a VI program, you can tell by the way it looks. It was a person Shepard was obsessed with at the time, so it's not a stretch to believe the VI chose that form to appear.

5) The only ships stranded around Earth when the relays are destroyed are battleships, so I don't see why you would think all civilizations are ruined.

6) The child makes it clear you will die if you choose the other two options. He does not make it clear that the "destroy" option will kill you. This is why it hints you might live if you choose it.

7) As someone else already stated, you are inside the Crucible for a significant period of time without any contact to anyone outside. To me, it doesn't seem that far-fetched that the Normandy might have picked up your crew members and is preparing for an escape during that period of time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I enjoyed all three of the games. But, I did come away with the feeling that the ending was lazy. Instead of having multiple, different endings based on dozens of choices throughout the game, it came to a single choice of A, B or C. I had thought of playing through all the games again to try Renegade v. Paragon, or saving a different character to see what happened at the end. But, if all my choices come down to Red, Green or Blue, AND the game sets you back to a point where you can get to that choice again? I just watched the different endings on YouTube. Not really motivated to play through again.

It also bothered me with the word choice "decimated" right near the end when Admiral Ackbar says that no one made it, the squad was "decimated". I know a common, modern definition has "decimated" to be "mostly wiped out", but historically, it's 1 out of 10 is killed. It's similar to when a writer or speaker uses the word "irregardless". Just plain dumb.

And, Ship, "Hammer" refers to the ground attack. Hammer and Spear: Ground and Aerial/Space attacks. So, when Hammer was getting wiped out, it meant that most of the ground troops were getting killed and the effectiveness of the ground attack was diminishing.

But, "Project Wombat" is worth it. I'm hooked! I just wish people would talk more, or I could play with CAGs. There are snobs playing with N7 rankings over 200 that would kick people out if they were less than 50.
 
Without discussing the rest of the ending,
the fleets being stuck at earth doesn't "invalidate" what you did during Mass Effect 3..

with the exception of (possibly) the Quarians, the fleets of each race only represent that race's military(and not even necessarily all of their military)
 
Just finishing up the podcast now, and not sure if someone else clarified this for Ship yet, but during the final operation they designated seperate forces for different functions.

Sword was the offensive fleet
Shield was the fleet defending the Crucible
Hammer was the ground force

It wasn't really something that needed to or would make sense to have been explained before the mission starts.
 
[quote name='smoger']Just finishing up the podcast now, and not sure if someone else clarified this for Ship yet, but during the final operation they designated seperate forces for different functions.

Sword was the offensive fleet
Shield was the fleet defending the Crucible
Hammer was the ground force

It wasn't really something that needed to or would make sense to have been explained before the mission starts.[/QUOTE]

Ok. I had it wrong. Sword. Spear. I forgot about Shield. But, what was Nick Fury doing in Mass Effect 3?
 
I don't think its fair for Cheapy to keep asking Wombat and Shipwreck to watch Driver when Cheapy wouldn't watch Paul MaCartney is Really Dead when Wombat watched it and asked Cheapy to watch it!!!!!
 
I have to agree about the whole Spectre thing. We do see a few of them throughout the series but they are supposed to be like super agents. You seem like the only one doing anything significant. You would think other Spectres would help with the Reapers and you would work in tandem at times.

As far as future Mass Effect, I am looking forward to a game set in the future where the Reapers are gone and we get to explore the universe. Let's get back to dealing with other people/aliens, more enemies we can go after in a tangible way, and let's really open up the universe.

Lastly, and many will probably disagree with me on this, I really enjoyed Alpha Protocol a couple of years back. In my opinion that game actually delivered on the "different choice lead to different outcomes" concept Mass Effect has tried to create. Mass Effect does change things but overall the changes are usually not as big as I had hoped. In AP, you could kill or not kill every boss which would change what happens later in the game.

I hope a future Mass Effect title, which would have a story that is smaller in sheer scope can do a better job of implementing these changes on. With a scheme this grand I feel like it was too hard to give the variety of game changing story some of us were seeking since game one.
 
I might as well ask this here:

I may have misheard, but I think it was during a confrontation with a Reaper in ME3 where it talks with Shepherd. Did it mention a "creator" in the Reaper universe? As in, Reapers could make a return eventually?

I could have totally heard wrong...
 
[quote name='kuddles']Okay, I find myself in a weird place because I wasn't crazy about the ending myself (I liked the concept but also think they didn't execute it clearly enough) yet I feel like I'm one of the few lone defenders online. This is weird because in real life everyone I know who played the game loved the ending and thought I was being overly negative so personally I've been shocked to see the hate online. I thought the ending perfectly matched the themes of the series.

Let me retort some of the comments on this show:

1) First of all, I don't know why people keep pushing this narrative about how "no sites or magazines talked about the ending". Off the top of my head, the reviews for PC Gamer, Gametrailers, 1UP and Gamespy all dedicate space to saying that some people may be dissatisfied with how it concludes.

2) Second, I find it baffling that the same people saying the ending "makes no sense" will then defend the plausibility of the "indoctrination theory" which has got to be right up there with Loose Change as far as making up crazy shit until it fits.

3) Both the first and second games make it clear that (a) Nobody fully understands how the mass relays work and (b) Making a new mass relay would be incredibly difficult to do because there just aren't enough raw materials to do it. Also, it was fully established that the only point of the Mass Relays were part of the honeytrap to get the Reapers to wipe out civilization easily. By removing the Reaper control, they had to go.

4) The "child" is obviously just part of a VI program, you can tell by the way it looks. It was a person Shepard was obsessed with at the time, so it's not a stretch to believe the VI chose that form to appear.

5) The only ships stranded around Earth when the relays are destroyed are battleships, so I don't see why you would think all civilizations are ruined.

6) The child makes it clear you will die if you choose the other two options. He does not make it clear that the "destroy" option will kill you. This is why it hints you might live if you choose it.

7) As someone else already stated, you are inside the Crucible for a significant period of time without any contact to anyone outside. To me, it doesn't seem that far-fetched that the Normandy might have picked up your crew members and is preparing for an escape during that period of time.
[/QUOTE]


spot on dude. I always found the "indoctrine" theory at least twice a dumb as anything else.

Also Bioware themselves have said "the catalyst is appearing as something familiar to Shepard". Didn't anyone ever see Contact? Also these creatures were hinted at in ME1.


p.s Please, Please Please ---Cheapy. Do your Javik impression at least once a show!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='4thHorseman']I might as well ask this here:

I may have misheard, but I think it was during a confrontation with a Reaper in ME3 where it talks with Shepherd. Did it mention a "creator" in the Reaper universe? As in, Reapers could make a return eventually?

I could have totally heard wrong...[/QUOTE]

You seem to be referring to the Reaper Boss on the Quarian homeworld (Rannoch). After that Reaper is defeated it makes reference to Sheperd that someone or something is controlling them and by implication that you will be facing them. I don't believe he was saying that they would return but more to get Shepard to understand that they (the reapers) are not the ones in charge..
 
Always welcome an early podcast, even if it's one that I'm only half-interested in. I recently bought both Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 so I debated listening to the spoilers, deciding in the end to just listen to it but I was lost about two minutes in. By the time I get to Mass Effect 3 I'll probably not even remember who lives/dies.

In the case of the Vita I think having more than one option is what is ultimately working against the system, as Wombat stated. Your average consumer probably has no idea that the Vita even comes in two different models. You think a mom that's walking into Shipwreck's local Target looking to buy their child the new Vita is going to be able to decipher the difference between 3G and Wi-Fi model? I know we live in an age where 3G isn't a foreign term anymore but someone that already has a phone or a tablet is not going to add another monthly charge so that they can game online. Especially not when the PS3 offers it for free.
 
Just wanted to chime in and say that Cheapy's Javik impression makes me lol every time I hear it. Keep up the great work everyone.
 
I hate to say it guys, but I am finding the CAGCast to be increasingly insufferable to listen to lately. Cheapy’s raging hard-on for the outline is suffocating the show.

Honestly, listening to you guys run through the new release list and NPD numbers is as entertaining as a power point presentation.

What happened to just talking about the games you are playing or games you are looking forward to? I’m a CAG for Christ’s sake, talk more about games that are worth picking up for cheap rather than full priced, new releases that suck.

I used to enjoy listening to the CAGCast to hear your thoughts and opinions on games & gaming news as well as Cheapy’s shit stories - but the show now severely lacks those conversations. It’s just stick to the boring outline, and phone it in.

Your once witty banter has also devolved into a single person talking at a time, with the others just picking their asses until whomever is speaking is done. How about interjecting, asking some questions, keeping the conversation flowing. Instead you just get Cheapy saying “all right” and “moving on” after everything Wombat says. Call him out for being retarded or saying something stupid. Seriously man, where is the love!?!?!

You guys used to be masters of this, it was what drew me into the CAGCast years ago and made it my go-to podcast to cure my boring commute. Hell, my wife even started listening - What the hell has happened?

I suggest you guys get your heads and your asses wired together or I will take a giant shit on you.

Love,

Tenga
 
[quote name='metallicoholic']
In the case of the Vita I think having more than one option is what is ultimately working against the system, as Wombat stated. Your average consumer probably has no idea that the Vita even comes in two different models. You think a mom that's walking into Shipwreck's local Target looking to buy their child the new Vita is going to be able to decipher the difference between 3G and Wi-Fi model? I know we live in an age where 3G isn't a foreign term anymore but someone that already has a phone or a tablet is not going to add another monthly charge so that they can game online. Especially not when the PS3 offers it for free.[/QUOTE]

I always wonder about that argument: Mom goes to buy a Vita and sees there's two choices. She doesn't know the difference so she just says "fuck it, I'm not buying either." Really?

Not a perfect analogy, but the Kindle has a zillion different models and that doesn't seem to hurt its sales any. For the record, I have only the wifi Kindle and my wife has the wifi/3G model.

Anyway, the guys talk about how the 3G is useless since you can't download games on it. I assumed it was mainly for playing games online that you've already downloaded.
 
I'll listen this weekend.

This is likely a better question for the CagBag.

I haven't any of payed these yet (yea, blame the backlog). Would it be better to play them all on the 360 for character import. Or could I go me1 (360), then switch to playing on the PS3? I like the thought of the extra missions on the PS3 ME2 version, but if the rewards are better for character import.
 
So...Mass Effect isn't Serenity then?

While I do agree the non-ME3 part of the podcast is short, there just isn't any games coming out recently that they would talk about. It happens every year, just a long lull of no good releases. At least last year we had the gem of Portal 2.
 
Cheapy, stop telling them to watch Drive. It's not a good movie. It's one of these movies that tries so hard tto be artsy and moody and shit and just isn't. It's boring. You get Ryan Gosling staring at people/nothing most of the time. The movie moves along at a snail's pace.
I'd say it's an OK movie, it has some cool parts and Bryan Craston is in it so thumbs up there.

There's not even that much DRIVING in the movie!
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I think it was mentioned in the 'Final Hours of Mass Effect 3' how long it took to come up with ending
I heard it was written in less than 90 minutes.
But more importantly the ending, unlike the rest of the story WAS NOT peer reviewed.

And as far the whole debate about artistic integrity, happy v. sad endings, whether or not its' what people wanted isn't really the issue. It's the severe lack of quality that has people upset. The fact that the ending does go against the entire series up to that point brings peoples' blood to a boil.

And before I forget, this sort of thing did happen to Metroid a couple of years ago, and the similarities between Mass Effect 3's ending and that game, in regards to how it puts developers at odds with fans, what can the series do now, etc. is exactly what happened to Metroid two years ago. Nintendo hasn't exactly responded in the same way Bioware has (I.E. they haven't) but it still doesn't make the situation any less shitty for everyone.[/QUOTE]
Yea listen to this man.

One of the writers (I believe weekes) stated that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters were the only ones in control of the ending and figured it out shut away from the rest (not usual). He stated that Casey is a brilliant guy and they often have to reel him back down to reality when creating the Mass Effect universe. It's clear that Casey went balls out by himself for the ending...

And about the indoc. theory
people were hoping that the TRUE ending was not yet completed (due to deadlines ect.) and was going to be released as DLC once everyone figured out the indoc theory. Thus the player themselves were indoctrinated ect. and it would have been a ballsy blindside. Also, it would have extended the game a little longer which fans would have appreciated (instead of ending and forgetting about it). But all that never happened and we were left with what we got...

Indoc believers and disbelievers are now all upset. Way to go!
 
[quote name='Microshock']Cheapy, stop telling them to watch Drive. It's not a good movie. It's one of these movies that tries so hard tto be artsy and moody and shit and just isn't. It's boring. You get Ryan Gosling staring at people/nothing most of the time. The movie moves along at a snail's pace.
I'd say it's an OK movie, it has some cool parts and Bryan Craston is in it so thumbs up there.

There's not even that much DRIVING in the movie![/QUOTE]

One view.

I found it to be a very well paced movie. I even watched it a bit tired, but didn't feel at any moment that I should shut it off and finish another a day.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Really didn't understand all the confusion for ME3. Felt like most of it made sense, just a tad vague and stupid at times.

Regarding the indoctrination theory with the little boy: In the beginning of the game, other people do see the kid. When they are trying to escape on the ship, you see one of the soldiers rush the kid onto the shuttle. Of course your other teammates didn't see him, because they weren't there at the time.[/QUOTE]

What? That never happened.

And the ending is bad. It's fact at this point.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']Yea listen to this man.

One of the writers (I believe weekes) stated that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters were the only ones in control of the ending and figured it out shut away from the rest (not usual). He stated that Casey is a brilliant guy and they often have to reel him back down to reality when creating the Mass Effect universe. It's clear that Casey went balls out by himself for the ending...

And about the indoc. theory
people were hoping that the TRUE ending was not yet completed (due to deadlines ect.) and was going to be released as DLC once everyone figured out the indoc theory. Thus the player themselves were indoctrinated ect. and it would have been a ballsy blindside. Also, it would have extended the game a little longer which fans would have appreciated (instead of ending and forgetting about it). But all that never happened and we were left with what we got...

Indoc believers and disbelievers are now all upset. Way to go!
[/QUOTE]

It could still be true. Bioware's PR team is full of shit and everyone knows it. And given the
multitude of Indoctrination shit in the game, it's amazing to me that there was no conclusion to it at some point if the ending isn't Indoctrination.
You're right though, it'd still require a new ending that takes actual craft to make people happy.
 
[quote name='thorbahn3']Bioware said the ending is the ending. Indoctrination didn't happen. Bioware will be adding some cut scenes to make things clearer via DLC.

ME 3 spoiler mistake you made.
You meet a spectre. He's the guy on the Kasumi side mission. He also reappears in the Cerberus Citadial ambush mission if Thane died in ME 2.
[/QUOTE]

I have yet to see a quote specifically stating that the indoctrination theory is incorrect. If you could provide a link to that, it'd be appreciated.

Personally, I think the indoctrination theory is a little more believable than taking the ending at face value. Either is possible, but both have severe issues attached to them.
1. If what you see is really what happens, then there's more plotholes than can honestly be believed. The things occurring on-screen simply do not make sense, no matter which way you swing it.
2. If the indoctrination theory is correct, then the plotholes become irrelavent as it hadn't actually happened. However, this means that Bioware/EA deliberately left out a proper, conclusive ending to either create another sequel, or DLC to expand the ending, either through the cutscenes, or some small amount of gameplay. We can all try to look at what Bioware said about the upcoming extended ending DLC, but anything about their plans could change.

I could get into a pile of little details about how much really is broken about the ending, but all of that information is found in the AngryJoeShow video, and ACAVYOS' indoctrination theory video.


Now, onto direct responses to the spoiler-talk:

@42:25: Questioning the "new" ship in ME3:
When ME2 ended, provided Shepard survived the suicide mission to the Collector Base, the Alliance grounded him and began proceedings for a trail against Shepards' works with Cerberus (or the destruction of the Batarian-run system, more importantly, if the Arrival DLC was completed in ME2). While grounded on Earth, the Alliance military/government took the Normandy SR2 apart, examined it for information about Cerberus and their technology, then rebuilt it with minor upgrades and an Alliance-based branding. Any major upgrades that were made to the ship in ME2 were kept, but mildly improved in case it needed to be used again. If you explore the Normandy throughout ME3, talk to specific crew members, and use the Spectre Terminal in the offices on the Citadel to read through/approve specific events, you could upgrade certain parts of the Normandy further, though these were mostly for a lengthier interaction with the crew members.

As for Shepard keeping the ship, Cerberus acknowledged from the beginning that Shepard was in charge, and that it was his ship, but more incentive for him to work with Cerberus, as opposed to directly working against him. The Illusive Man knew that he needed to give Shepard reasons to help Cerberus, so he catered to Shepards' sense of connection to his team and ship in order to gain Shepards' skills.

@44:10: Gender-based decision on Ashley/Kaiden:
Someone else has already mentioned this, but depending on which choice you make on Virmire in ME1, either Ashley or Kaiden will survive. Say, for example, that Kaiden is helping Captain Kirrahe to repel the geth forces, while Ashley ends up needing to set up the bomb. If you choose to return to the bomb, Ashley will be saved, but if you choose to continue pressing forward towards Kirrahe and Kaidens' team, then Kaiden will live. Gender has nothing to do with the outcome.

@46:35: Shepards' fate at the final decision:
It's certainly not clear as to why Shepard needs to die while choosing to control, destroy, or synthesize the Reapers. However, it makes a bit of sense if you think about each scenario. Destroy, everything around Shepard is exploding, likely engulfing him (unless you get the breathing scene on Earth, which requires over 5000 Effective Military Strength). Control and Synthesize, the energy essentially disintegrates his body, using his energy to, respectively, control the Reapers or Synthesize all life to be equally organic and synthetic. A crazy explanation/observation one way or another, but it at least makes some kind of sense to me.

@47:40: The identity of the Catalyst:
This sort of ties in with Shipwrecks' mentions of the indoctrination theory. The Catalyst, as established before the final assault to reach the Citadel from Earth, was the Citadel itself. This was undisputed and made some amount of sense, though it was somewhat unexplained. However, upon reaching the final decision once the Illusive Man and Anderson had died, this odd ghostly apparition of the child Shepard saw die on Earth suddenly reveals itself to be the Catalyst.

I see two ways of thinking of this; either this odd character really is the Catalyst, and the Catalyst was misinterpreted to be the Citadel, or this "Catalyst" is actually a relatable figure that Shepard can recognize and sympathize with, created by the Reapers through the indoctrination process in order to force Shepard to choose what they desire. If this final sequence did take place in Shepards' mind and was just an internal battle between Shepard and the Reapers to fight off indoctrination, it would make sense that the Reapers use that child, who Shepard regrets not being able to save, in order to sway his decisions in their favor (either the Control or Synthesize option, relating to the Illusive Mans' or Saren's desires, both of which would ultimately lead to the Reapers gaining what they want, either through ruling all synthesized beings, or breaking free of Shepards' control).

@49:18: Wombat's number of endings:
As far as I know, there are 6 variations of endings. 1 for Synthesize, 2 for Control, and 3 for Destruction. Synthesize is always the same: everything becomes part-organic-part-synthetic, mass relays destroyed, Shepard died. Control has two outcomes: the Reapers leave OR the Reapers leave and some stuff is mildly destroyed, mass relays destroyed, Shepard dies. Destroy has the most variation, which still isn't saying much: 1, the "Vaporize" variation, where everything the red explosions touch is simply destroyed. Reapers/all other beings alike are subject to this fate, mass relays destroyed, Shepard dies. 2, the Reapers are destroyed, some damage done to Earth, mass relays destroyed, Shepard dies. 3 (this is obtained by having over 5000 Effective Military Strength), the Reapers are destroyed, "minimal" damage to Earth is sustained, mass relays destroyed, and Shepard lives.

This final of the 6 endings if the ONLY ending variation to show the breath scene, indicating something more to that particular branch of story. What this really means isn't quite clear, but it's been used to support the indoctrination theory: that the entire final sequence after being knocked out by Harbingers' attacks was in Shepards' mind, hence the "waking up" after defeating the indoctrination process. That would mean that the entire battle to save Earth is still on-going, and Shepard really does still need to complete the mission. If the indoctrination theory is incorrect, well, this leaves much to be explained, as it was very clear in ME2 that Shepard falling from space to a planet KILLED HIM. How he would have survived the fall from the Citadel and Crucible back to Earth without being burnt to a crisp upon re-entry simply wouldn't make sense.

As a personal aside, considering the extra breath scene can only be scene by choosing Destroy with over 5000 Effective Military Strength, it makes me believe that, ultimately, Bioware/Casey Hudson is attempting to create a canonical scenario for the universe, which makes many players' stories completely moot for the inevitable continuation (in some form) of the Mass Effect franchise. This honestly makes me more mad than anything else in regards to the ending. I'm fine with having a canonical scenario to a grand story, but when the franchise is built off of the specific decisions each player makes, it's hard to believe that any sort of canon outside of character, race, and history lore can remain consistent for long.

@54:46: "What the hell has been solved?":
if the indoctrination theory is being followed, then Shepard "waking up" on Earth after the final sequences indicates that Shepard has overcome the Reapers' indoctrination process. He would have successfully chosen, for himself, in his mind, not to succumb to the Reapers' will, by deciding to destroy them, rather than try to control or change them. Ultimately, in reality, it means that nothing has been solved, and that Shepard still needs to finish the battle against the Reapers.

Something to note, that ACAVYOS points out in his indoctrination theory video, is that when you choose either Control or Synthesize, there is a distinct blue glow to Shepards' eyes, something both the Illusive Man and Saren sported while under the influence of the Reapers. The only ending where this is not present is Destroy, and all 3 ending types make a point of very clearly giving the player time to notice Shepards' eyes. All variations focus on his eyes, or at least face, for a time, giving you a chance to notice the differences.

@56:25 - 56:40: The mass relays:
One of two things can be thought of with the destruction of the mass relays. One, everyone is now stranded where they are, and are forced to travel at much slower speeds, making space travel over long distances extremely inefficient. Or, two, the information from the ME2 Arrival DLC is noted, taking into account that destroying a mass relay DESTROYS THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IT RESIDES IN. This essentially makes every single ending lore-breaking, unless someone tries to say that the use of the Crucible somehow made it a "controlled" demolition of the relays, as opposed to Arrivals' smashing an asteroid into the relay. One way or another, there's a massive explosion of each relay, as seen during the destruction of the first one in the final cutscenes, and honestly, it doesn't look like a positive, controlled explosion. The way the relays were handled overall, regardless of opinion, was poor, and there's little way to explain what happened. The only way to avoid believing the relays' destruction isn't screwing everyone over is if the indoctrination theory is believed, and not everyone will believe that theory. This is going to create a HUGE problem for Bioware in trying to appease people with the upcoming "extension" DLC. The endings will be vastly different for everyone, yes, but as I've previously mentioned, the canon of the universe will constantly be in question.

@1:01:35: EDI's 'working parts':
EDI's body was Dr. Eva Core, who was designed and created in a manner similar to Project Lazarus, the project that was designed to revive Shepard as he was before his early ME2 death. Eva Core was meant to essentially replace Shepard as the Illusive Man's greatest asset, and is essentially the Mass Effect equivalent of a 'fembot', a fully functional woman-like robot that just so happens to not actually be a living being.

I should also note, for anyone that may have noticed, that this Eva Core is NOT the same Eva Core as seen in other Mass Effect mediums and stories. The Eva Core from the readable material is the Illusive Man's (real name, Jack Harper) friend and teammate from during the Battle of Shanxi in the First Contact War. The 'fembot' known as Eva Core in ME3 is named after Jack's/Illusive Man's friend, who died on Palaven while attempting to free Ben Hislop (another teammate who was controlled by a Reaper artifact) and achieve revenge on Desolas Arterius, Sarens' brother, whom they all fought against on Shanxi.

@1:01:45 - 1:02:05: Mordin:
While most people won't have found this (I certainly wouldn't have sacrificed so much to do it), it is possible to save Mordin from dying. In most cases, Mordin will attempt to cure the genophage by reaching the top of the Shroud, and ultimately sacrifice himself in the process, whether or not the cure is successfully dispersed. However, in very certain conditions, he can survive, but at a great loss/feeling like a total dick. Wrex must be dead (making Wreav the new leader of Clan Urdnot and rallying all of the krogan), Maelon's data on the genophage from Mordin's loyalty mission in ME2 must be destroyed (or the mission avoided altogether), and you must not tell the clan leader, Mordin, and Eve about the Dalatrass' blackmail and prior sabotage of the Shroud. Doing all of this leading up to the moment when Mordin tells Shepard he needs to reach the top of the Shroud will allow for a rare possibility. You must attempt to stop Mordin from going by choosing primarily Renegade options, ultimately leading to Mordin realizing that the Shroud is sabotaged. If Shepard can successfully convince Mordin not to cure the genophage, you will save Mordin from sacrificing himself and receive a larger war asset count from the Salarians, but at the cost of the krogan being doomed to suffer the genophage (and already having lost Wrex as a team member, war asset, and proper (mostly) level-headed leader for the krogan).

On a personal note... Mordin's death was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. I didn't get the seashell line or the song (I now love 'Salarian Scientist'. XD), but it was supremely sad regardless.

@1:07:50: Any other Spectres?:
There are very few other Spectres that have been seen or mentioned, but there are, certainly, others.

In ME1, Shepard, Saren, and Nihlus are the only known Spectres, and both Nihlus and Saren are dead by the end of the game.

In ME2, Tela Vasir, the Shadow Broker assassion in the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC, is a Spectre using her resources to assist the Shadow Broker in taking out Liara. Tela also, ultimately, dies, before assaulting the Shadow Broker's base. Another is mentioned in a Cerberus news report, Lonar Maerun, but is never shown; the news report was dated December 23rd, 2010, taking place well before humans even discovered the Prothean ruins on Mars.

In ME3, either Ashley or Kaiden will become a Spectre (part of Udina's plot against the Citadel with Cerberus), and you also run into Jondum Bau, the salarian Spectre working to track down a reportedly indoctrinated hanar diplomat (this is the mission where you meet Kasumi again).

I've also heard that, if Shepard refuses the offer of Spectre reinstatement, that eventually Captain Bailey will mention that only two individuals in the past 1000 years ever refused the offer to be a Spectre, both of which were asari matriarchs. Makes me wonder if Samara and Benezia were offered the position at some point, or if one of the other mentioned Matriarchs (Aethyta, Dilinaga, etc.) were offered the part.

@1:15:25 - 1:15:38: Galactic Readiness and Hammer:
Galactic readiness does affect very little, but having 5000+ Effective Military Strength is the only way to have a chance at seeing the breath scene during the ending. This essentially makes it crucial to play either the multiplayer portion of the game or the iPhone game Mass Effect: Infiltrator, or the information center Mass Effect Datapad.

Now, the deal with Hammer was that they were part of the three-tiered team to deal with the fight to take back Earth and defeat the Reapers. It was mentioned prior to the attack, mostly referring to the plans for the Crucible. The Sword team were the attacking squads, acting as a distraction for the Reapers while Hammer, the ground forces, would land on the planet and make their way towards the beam that lead to the Citadel. Shield was the defense, the team protecting the Crucible on its' way to the the Citadel.


This was a great show, and I was happy to hear more ME talk after listening to the Rooster Teeth spoiler-cast prior. I really liked the new game ideas you all came up with to extend the universe, espectially the Spectre-recruiting idea Wombat pitched. What would you all think about a prequel game where you played as the Protheans prior to the end of their cycle, or a game taking place during the First Contact War? Would these stories be better suited for other media? (The First Contact War has already been somewhat touched on in the comics, revealing a sort of origin story on the Illusive Man, but I don't know how much of the war was expanded on.)
 
Ravenhood: Great "direct responses." It helped me to understand what little things I missed, even though my Readiness was at 98% and my Military Strength was over 6700. There were just a couple of missions I missed while on the Citadel.

Like Cheapy's ass-shot of Miranda, there is a good view of EDI's camel toe showing her working parts.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']What? That never happened.

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, very specifically in the popular indoctrination video they show that nobody helps the kid onto the shuttle.

This weeks cagcast was difficult to listen to because they got the lore incorrect quite a lot. Shipwreck was the most disappointing because usually he is the most knowledgeable and levelheaded but his insistence that Ashley had to live if you had a male Shepard was annoying. That said, Cheapy, I still love the Jamaican accent and I still love the show but not this episode so much.
 
[quote name='leylines']Yeah, very specifically in the popular indoctrination video they show that nobody helps the kid onto the shuttle.

This weeks cagcast was difficult to listen to because they got the lore incorrect quite a lot. Shipwreck was the most disappointing because usually he is the most knowledgeable and levelheaded but his insistence that Ashley had to live if you had a male Shepard was annoying. That said, Cheapy, I still love the Jamaican accent and I still love the show but not this episode so much.[/QUOTE]

It's easy to get confused when you played the first game but didn't finish it. Then add the fact that the same sex character is dead in Mass Effect 2 if you didn't import a save and it's easy to get things messed up in a game that's 100 hours long with branching paths and cursory plots that is added through iPhone games, graphic novels, and novels.
 
[quote name='shajek']Ravenhood: Great "direct responses." It helped me to understand what little things I missed, even though my Readiness was at 98% and my Military Strength was over 6700. There were just a couple of missions I missed while on the Citadel.

Like Cheapy's ass-shot of Miranda, there is a good view of EDI's camel toe showing her working parts.[/QUOTE]

Thanks; most of the Citadel missions were fairly unimportant, but there were a few here and there that definitely shouldn't be missed. I've played each game making sure I never missed anything, though, so I tend to spend far too much time there. >_<

[quote name='leylines']Yeah, very specifically in the popular indoctrination video they show that nobody helps the kid onto the shuttle.

This weeks cagcast was difficult to listen to because they got the lore incorrect quite a lot. Shipwreck was the most disappointing because usually he is the most knowledgeable and levelheaded but his insistence that Ashley had to live if you had a male Shepard was annoying. That said, Cheapy, I still love the Jamaican accent and I still love the show but not this episode so much.[/QUOTE]

Shipwreck's mentioned it a few times, but he never got around to finishing the first game, and it came out a few years back now anyways, so it's understandable if someone forgets a detail. Besides, I don't think I've ever seen anyone who plays the game save the same-sex teammate, so it's a very forgivable mistake.

Bioware is partially to blame as well, with so many extra stories and expansions of the universe in non-game format that many people may not ever know about. Most of the games detail things very well, but there are some instances that simply don't work. Like Eva Core's involvement and why she was important outside of being EDI's new body; or, why Udina was the councilor when, in some players' cases, they chose Anderson and the only explanation we got was "oh, he quit". >_< And let's not forget Paul Grayson or Kai Leng, where anyone who's only played the games and hasn't read other material will have NO IDEA who they are.

[quote name='thorbahn3']http://terrangaming.com/news/mass-effect-3-ending-dlc-confirmed/395

http://angryjoeshow.com/2012/04/mass-effect-3-extended-cut-dlc-discussion/[/QUOTE]

I'm honestly glad you posted those links. I've read those before, and was hoping you had something else, because as I previously said, Bioware has made no direct statement on the indoctrination theory. All they've said is that the ending DLC will expand on what's happened, but as we all know, there is a discrepancy with the fan-base as to what exactly happened. Which means that, until this DLC is released and we all see what Bioware intended, the indoctrination theory is still a viable option. Bioware/Casey Hudson saying that they aren't changing the ending doesn't mean that the indoctrination theory isn't correct; it just means that they'll give players more clarity as to what, exactly, happened.

I don't want to get into a discussion about the theories and how full of plotholes the ending is, but if the indoctrination theory isn't correct, then Bioware has a lot to explain away, considering how broken things will be if the relays really are destroyed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The beginning and the end of the game were also the last parts of the story that were done. And they're both noticeably worse in quality compared to the rest of the game.
 
[quote name='Ravenhood'] but if the indoctrination theory isn't correct, then Bioware has a lot to explain away, considering how broken things will be if the relays really are destroyed.[/QUOTE]


The problem is that Bioware could say that and people still wouldn't listen. They've been saying things people ignore for this indoctrination theory. Or you could read this..

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-analyzing-the-indoctrination-theory/4/

"Hudson did say the indoctrination idea was once considered, but then it was scrapped. “And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard’s movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices.)”

Granted you could parse this out and claim that it was just a gameplay thing but then you'd only be proving my point. IMO, it is open to interpretation.


The biggest and most logical argument against it is, if it were true, there is NO ending for ME3.



As for the relays. There are many dormant relays.
 
(TLDR; I think the Giantbomb quote summarizes everything quite well.)

Nice to see the podcast getting to the end of the Mass Effect storyline.

Regarding the ending I think the following dialog on the Giantbomb podcast (their first discussion on ME3 IIRC, only Jeff had finished it by then):

Vinny “OK, what if we just had Shepard shit in his hand and throw it in the camera?”
Jeff "OK..."
Vinny “Would that make it a better ending?”
Jeff "It would be more honest”

(And to put it into some context they had just discussed poop-flinging monkeys or Pokemons which is why it came up.)

Personally I don't buy into the indoctrination theory ending for a couple of reasons. (Eg the Prothean VI with information about the location of the Catalyst say it detects no presence of indoctrinated people when you are interacting with it.) In the art book the child is described as being a representation of the dying human race that Shepard pictures. Basically at least I do not believe that the dream child and the star child are supposed to be the same character.

Which brings us to the big problem of the ending in my mind. The way I see it they just didn't quite know how to end it. So they threw in a bunch of stuff and hoped something would stick. That's why we have the strange "indoctrination tendrils" during the dialog with Anderson and TIM. And the complete bonkers things with the Star Child. As well as the Normandy leaving, that was "supposed" to give resolution for the players what happened with the crew. That it makes no sense at all is irrelevant I guess. There were some deleted scenes which does explain it more (Shepard tells the squad mates to "get out of here" before they are hit by Harbingers beam.)

Although I don't think that the destruction of the Mass Relays is as galaxy ending as first thought. When I saw that ending I figured it would result in a war on Earth for any remaining resources (the Quarians and Turians can't eat human food, so they would just die). But they do have faster than light travel that doesn't use the mass relays.

From what I've seen there is only one line in the games (and it's in ME1 in a conversation with Williams) that talk about this. Apparently it takes about 24 hours to travel 12 light years with this method (meaning you can cross the galaxy in about 40 years). It does require element zero as fuel and it requires stops at gravity wells (planets) to bleed off excess energy. But it does mean that the stranded fleets can go home and a galaxy can be rebuilt. (BTW the Protheans built a mass relay on Illios which is used at the end of the first game.)

Personally I think that the end state of the galaxy is quite acceptable. At first I figured that everything was ruined but there are ways to rebuild.

However I strongly feel like this is SHIT THEY SHOULD PUT IN THE ENDING! They could scrap the stupid Normandy crash and the Buzz Aldrin cameo and talk about how the galaxy handles this new problem. (Perfect opportunity to show differences in a paragon and renegade playthrough as well, paragon players have sown cooperation between the races which means they rebuild faster or something.)

In summary: The ending was very poorly made, and ever worse was the execution of it. They seemed focused on adding "mystery" instead of adding resolution and answers.

For me personally it means that I'm unlikely to get the next ME game (if there is one) at full price. And I've bought the previous ones in collectors editions. I still haven't bought DA2 because I found the first one lack-luster, but I figure it can be worth a 75% Steam discount or something. (And the same would go for ME4.) And that's assuming that the reviews are good of course.
 
You know for guys who seem to love the game, you all don't seem to remember much of it. As a whole, the game for me was chore to get through. The repetition of going back and forth to the Citadel, the shorting communication between you and companions as well as NPCs, the lack of exploration and the vague side quest that have you scouring the map only to find out you don't have complete it without doing a priority mission which you don't want to do or else you risk locking out another side quest. The game just seemed more steam lined and a bit lazy. Sorry I don't agree with everyone here, but that's how I feel. Keep up the good work guys.
 
[quote name='Hast']
Which brings us to the big problem of the ending in my mind. The way I see it they just didn't quite know how to end it. So they threw in a bunch of stuff and hoped something would stick. .[/QUOTE]

Sorry but after probably spending 8 -9 years on the game I doubt there are just trying random stuff. Kind of belittles the process a bit. I will say I think perhaps they were (like Lost) trying to be too clever and too vague (Let the player's own mind decide what happened).
 
[quote name='usickenme']Sorry but after probably spending 8 -9 years on the game I doubt there are just trying random stuff. Kind of belittles the process a bit. I will say I think perhaps they were (like Lost) trying to be too clever and too vague (Let the player's own mind decide what happened).[/QUOTE]

They didn't spend 8-9 years on the game. At the very least, ME1's lead writer didn't even touch ME3. It was confirmed that if there was some master plan for the trilogy (dark energy), it was thrown out. ME3 was made on it's own, and it's likely to have been very, very rushed. That's just how EA works.

If you want to spend an hour watching really well voiced criticism (And not Angry Joe... being Angry Joe), some dude made a few redlettermedia (The huge star wars deconstruction guy) style videos.

The Ending:
http://youtu.be/7MlatxLP-xs

Indoctrination Theery:
http://youtu.be/tJ5qPIcuMZA

Bioware's Responce:
http://youtu.be/jT_x64921ls
 
[quote name='usickenme']Sorry but after probably spending 8 -9 years on the game I doubt there are just trying random stuff. Kind of belittles the process a bit.[/QUOTE]
I think that's precisely why it's so upsetting - after all tips time and effort, the ending is just a mishmash of jumbled concepts. I think they belittled the process, not us.
 
Weren't you guys demanding the 3DS and Vita to have 3G sometime last year?

Wombat would've seen a ton of Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City ads during the March Madness tournament along with a lot of Assassin's Creed III. So make assumptions about who they were aiming for if you want.
 
[quote name='Ravenhood']I have yet to see a quote specifically stating that the indoctrination theory is incorrect. If you could provide a link to that, it'd be appreciated.

Personally, I think the indoctrination theory is a little more believable than taking the ending at face value. Either is possible, but both have severe issues attached to them.
1. If what you see is really what happens, then there's more plotholes than can honestly be believed. The things occurring on-screen simply do not make sense, no matter which way you swing it.
2. If the indoctrination theory is correct, then the plotholes become irrelavent as it hadn't actually happened. However, this means that Bioware/EA deliberately left out a proper, conclusive ending to either create another sequel, or DLC to expand the ending, either through the cutscenes, or some small amount of gameplay. We can all try to look at what Bioware said about the upcoming extended ending DLC, but anything about their plans could change.

I could get into a pile of little details about how much really is broken about the ending, but all of that information is found in the AngryJoeShow video, and ACAVYOS' indoctrination theory video.


Now, onto direct responses to the spoiler-talk:

@42:25: Questioning the "new" ship in ME3:
When ME2 ended, provided Shepard survived the suicide mission to the Collector Base, the Alliance grounded him and began proceedings for a trail against Shepards' works with Cerberus (or the destruction of the Batarian-run system, more importantly, if the Arrival DLC was completed in ME2). While grounded on Earth, the Alliance military/government took the Normandy SR2 apart, examined it for information about Cerberus and their technology, then rebuilt it with minor upgrades and an Alliance-based branding. Any major upgrades that were made to the ship in ME2 were kept, but mildly improved in case it needed to be used again. If you explore the Normandy throughout ME3, talk to specific crew members, and use the Spectre Terminal in the offices on the Citadel to read through/approve specific events, you could upgrade certain parts of the Normandy further, though these were mostly for a lengthier interaction with the crew members.

As for Shepard keeping the ship, Cerberus acknowledged from the beginning that Shepard was in charge, and that it was his ship, but more incentive for him to work with Cerberus, as opposed to directly working against him. The Illusive Man knew that he needed to give Shepard reasons to help Cerberus, so he catered to Shepards' sense of connection to his team and ship in order to gain Shepards' skills.

@44:10: Gender-based decision on Ashley/Kaiden:
Someone else has already mentioned this, but depending on which choice you make on Virmire in ME1, either Ashley or Kaiden will survive. Say, for example, that Kaiden is helping Captain Kirrahe to repel the geth forces, while Ashley ends up needing to set up the bomb. If you choose to return to the bomb, Ashley will be saved, but if you choose to continue pressing forward towards Kirrahe and Kaidens' team, then Kaiden will live. Gender has nothing to do with the outcome.

@46:35: Shepards' fate at the final decision:
It's certainly not clear as to why Shepard needs to die while choosing to control, destroy, or synthesize the Reapers. However, it makes a bit of sense if you think about each scenario. Destroy, everything around Shepard is exploding, likely engulfing him (unless you get the breathing scene on Earth, which requires over 5000 Effective Military Strength). Control and Synthesize, the energy essentially disintegrates his body, using his energy to, respectively, control the Reapers or Synthesize all life to be equally organic and synthetic. A crazy explanation/observation one way or another, but it at least makes some kind of sense to me.

@47:40: The identity of the Catalyst:
This sort of ties in with Shipwrecks' mentions of the indoctrination theory. The Catalyst, as established before the final assault to reach the Citadel from Earth, was the Citadel itself. This was undisputed and made some amount of sense, though it was somewhat unexplained. However, upon reaching the final decision once the Illusive Man and Anderson had died, this odd ghostly apparition of the child Shepard saw die on Earth suddenly reveals itself to be the Catalyst.

I see two ways of thinking of this; either this odd character really is the Catalyst, and the Catalyst was misinterpreted to be the Citadel, or this "Catalyst" is actually a relatable figure that Shepard can recognize and sympathize with, created by the Reapers through the indoctrination process in order to force Shepard to choose what they desire. If this final sequence did take place in Shepards' mind and was just an internal battle between Shepard and the Reapers to fight off indoctrination, it would make sense that the Reapers use that child, who Shepard regrets not being able to save, in order to sway his decisions in their favor (either the Control or Synthesize option, relating to the Illusive Mans' or Saren's desires, both of which would ultimately lead to the Reapers gaining what they want, either through ruling all synthesized beings, or breaking free of Shepards' control).

@49:18: Wombat's number of endings:
As far as I know, there are 6 variations of endings. 1 for Synthesize, 2 for Control, and 3 for Destruction. Synthesize is always the same: everything becomes part-organic-part-synthetic, mass relays destroyed, Shepard died. Control has two outcomes: the Reapers leave OR the Reapers leave and some stuff is mildly destroyed, mass relays destroyed, Shepard dies. Destroy has the most variation, which still isn't saying much: 1, the "Vaporize" variation, where everything the red explosions touch is simply destroyed. Reapers/all other beings alike are subject to this fate, mass relays destroyed, Shepard dies. 2, the Reapers are destroyed, some damage done to Earth, mass relays destroyed, Shepard dies. 3 (this is obtained by having over 5000 Effective Military Strength), the Reapers are destroyed, "minimal" damage to Earth is sustained, mass relays destroyed, and Shepard lives.

This final of the 6 endings if the ONLY ending variation to show the breath scene, indicating something more to that particular branch of story. What this really means isn't quite clear, but it's been used to support the indoctrination theory: that the entire final sequence after being knocked out by Harbingers' attacks was in Shepards' mind, hence the "waking up" after defeating the indoctrination process. That would mean that the entire battle to save Earth is still on-going, and Shepard really does still need to complete the mission. If the indoctrination theory is incorrect, well, this leaves much to be explained, as it was very clear in ME2 that Shepard falling from space to a planet KILLED HIM. How he would have survived the fall from the Citadel and Crucible back to Earth without being burnt to a crisp upon re-entry simply wouldn't make sense.

As a personal aside, considering the extra breath scene can only be scene by choosing Destroy with over 5000 Effective Military Strength, it makes me believe that, ultimately, Bioware/Casey Hudson is attempting to create a canonical scenario for the universe, which makes many players' stories completely moot for the inevitable continuation (in some form) of the Mass Effect franchise. This honestly makes me more mad than anything else in regards to the ending. I'm fine with having a canonical scenario to a grand story, but when the franchise is built off of the specific decisions each player makes, it's hard to believe that any sort of canon outside of character, race, and history lore can remain consistent for long.

@54:46: "What the hell has been solved?":
if the indoctrination theory is being followed, then Shepard "waking up" on Earth after the final sequences indicates that Shepard has overcome the Reapers' indoctrination process. He would have successfully chosen, for himself, in his mind, not to succumb to the Reapers' will, by deciding to destroy them, rather than try to control or change them. Ultimately, in reality, it means that nothing has been solved, and that Shepard still needs to finish the battle against the Reapers.

Something to note, that ACAVYOS points out in his indoctrination theory video, is that when you choose either Control or Synthesize, there is a distinct blue glow to Shepards' eyes, something both the Illusive Man and Saren sported while under the influence of the Reapers. The only ending where this is not present is Destroy, and all 3 ending types make a point of very clearly giving the player time to notice Shepards' eyes. All variations focus on his eyes, or at least face, for a time, giving you a chance to notice the differences.

@56:25 - 56:40: The mass relays:
One of two things can be thought of with the destruction of the mass relays. One, everyone is now stranded where they are, and are forced to travel at much slower speeds, making space travel over long distances extremely inefficient. Or, two, the information from the ME2 Arrival DLC is noted, taking into account that destroying a mass relay DESTROYS THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IT RESIDES IN. This essentially makes every single ending lore-breaking, unless someone tries to say that the use of the Crucible somehow made it a "controlled" demolition of the relays, as opposed to Arrivals' smashing an asteroid into the relay. One way or another, there's a massive explosion of each relay, as seen during the destruction of the first one in the final cutscenes, and honestly, it doesn't look like a positive, controlled explosion. The way the relays were handled overall, regardless of opinion, was poor, and there's little way to explain what happened. The only way to avoid believing the relays' destruction isn't screwing everyone over is if the indoctrination theory is believed, and not everyone will believe that theory. This is going to create a HUGE problem for Bioware in trying to appease people with the upcoming "extension" DLC. The endings will be vastly different for everyone, yes, but as I've previously mentioned, the canon of the universe will constantly be in question.

@1:01:35: EDI's 'working parts':
EDI's body was Dr. Eva Core, who was designed and created in a manner similar to Project Lazarus, the project that was designed to revive Shepard as he was before his early ME2 death. Eva Core was meant to essentially replace Shepard as the Illusive Man's greatest asset, and is essentially the Mass Effect equivalent of a 'fembot', a fully functional woman-like robot that just so happens to not actually be a living being.

I should also note, for anyone that may have noticed, that this Eva Core is NOT the same Eva Core as seen in other Mass Effect mediums and stories. The Eva Core from the readable material is the Illusive Man's (real name, Jack Harper) friend and teammate from during the Battle of Shanxi in the First Contact War. The 'fembot' known as Eva Core in ME3 is named after Jack's/Illusive Man's friend, who died on Palaven while attempting to free Ben Hislop (another teammate who was controlled by a Reaper artifact) and achieve revenge on Desolas Arterius, Sarens' brother, whom they all fought against on Shanxi.

@1:01:45 - 1:02:05: Mordin:
While most people won't have found this (I certainly wouldn't have sacrificed so much to do it), it is possible to save Mordin from dying. In most cases, Mordin will attempt to cure the genophage by reaching the top of the Shroud, and ultimately sacrifice himself in the process, whether or not the cure is successfully dispersed. However, in very certain conditions, he can survive, but at a great loss/feeling like a total dick. Wrex must be dead (making Wreav the new leader of Clan Urdnot and rallying all of the krogan), Maelon's data on the genophage from Mordin's loyalty mission in ME2 must be destroyed (or the mission avoided altogether), and you must not tell the clan leader, Mordin, and Eve about the Dalatrass' blackmail and prior sabotage of the Shroud. Doing all of this leading up to the moment when Mordin tells Shepard he needs to reach the top of the Shroud will allow for a rare possibility. You must attempt to stop Mordin from going by choosing primarily Renegade options, ultimately leading to Mordin realizing that the Shroud is sabotaged. If Shepard can successfully convince Mordin not to cure the genophage, you will save Mordin from sacrificing himself and receive a larger war asset count from the Salarians, but at the cost of the krogan being doomed to suffer the genophage (and already having lost Wrex as a team member, war asset, and proper (mostly) level-headed leader for the krogan).

On a personal note... Mordin's death was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. I didn't get the seashell line or the song (I now love 'Salarian Scientist'. XD), but it was supremely sad regardless.

@1:07:50: Any other Spectres?:
There are very few other Spectres that have been seen or mentioned, but there are, certainly, others.

In ME1, Shepard, Saren, and Nihlus are the only known Spectres, and both Nihlus and Saren are dead by the end of the game.

In ME2, Tela Vasir, the Shadow Broker assassion in the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC, is a Spectre using her resources to assist the Shadow Broker in taking out Liara. Tela also, ultimately, dies, before assaulting the Shadow Broker's base. Another is mentioned in a Cerberus news report, Lonar Maerun, but is never shown; the news report was dated December 23rd, 2010, taking place well before humans even discovered the Prothean ruins on Mars.

In ME3, either Ashley or Kaiden will become a Spectre (part of Udina's plot against the Citadel with Cerberus), and you also run into Jondum Bau, the salarian Spectre working to track down a reportedly indoctrinated hanar diplomat (this is the mission where you meet Kasumi again).

I've also heard that, if Shepard refuses the offer of Spectre reinstatement, that eventually Captain Bailey will mention that only two individuals in the past 1000 years ever refused the offer to be a Spectre, both of which were asari matriarchs. Makes me wonder if Samara and Benezia were offered the position at some point, or if one of the other mentioned Matriarchs (Aethyta, Dilinaga, etc.) were offered the part.

@1:15:25 - 1:15:38: Galactic Readiness and Hammer:
Galactic readiness does affect very little, but having 5000+ Effective Military Strength is the only way to have a chance at seeing the breath scene during the ending. This essentially makes it crucial to play either the multiplayer portion of the game or the iPhone game Mass Effect: Infiltrator, or the information center Mass Effect Datapad.

Now, the deal with Hammer was that they were part of the three-tiered team to deal with the fight to take back Earth and defeat the Reapers. It was mentioned prior to the attack, mostly referring to the plans for the Crucible. The Sword team were the attacking squads, acting as a distraction for the Reapers while Hammer, the ground forces, would land on the planet and make their way towards the beam that lead to the Citadel. Shield was the defense, the team protecting the Crucible on its' way to the the Citadel.


This was a great show, and I was happy to hear more ME talk after listening to the Rooster Teeth spoiler-cast prior. I really liked the new game ideas you all came up with to extend the universe, espectially the Spectre-recruiting idea Wombat pitched. What would you all think about a prequel game where you played as the Protheans prior to the end of their cycle, or a game taking place during the First Contact War? Would these stories be better suited for other media? (The First Contact War has already been somewhat touched on in the comics, revealing a sort of origin story on the Illusive Man, but I don't know how much of the war was expanded on.)[/QUOTE]

Excellent post. :applause:

I didn't get to listen to this until yesterday, so I figured most of my criticisms would get discussed already. But just to put my two cents in:

- I don't believe in the indoctrination theory.

- I like the ending in concept, but believe it was botched beyond belief.

- The number one thing I'm looking for in the update is an understanding about why
my team left me behind.

- I look forward to ME4 or whatever they will call it. I would prefer it not be a prequel.
 
[quote name='bickle']I think that's precisely why it's so upsetting - after all tips time and effort, the ending is just a mishmash of jumbled concepts. I think they belittled the process, not us.[/QUOTE]

It was pretty clear to me. But oh well.
 
I gotta say listening to the podcast ME3 talk was quite maddening.

Several of the things they said were wrong or were explained in the character conversations. Luckily Ravenhood here made several posts to set most of those things straight.

I guess it's not too surprising that most of the confusion was from Cheapy and Wombat. They have kids and (understandably) have to "sneak" video game time such that their investment in the story or listening to all the conversations may take a backseat to the actual gameplay.
 
Thanks for splitting up Mass Effect spoilers. I listen to a lot of podcasts and have to be on my guard to skip past them these days, because everyone won't shut the fuck up about Mass Effect 3's ending.

But you're actually considerate enough to mark spoilers for those of us who won't be playing the game for a while. Thanks CAGCast!
 
[quote name='ZombieJeebus']Excellent post. :applause:

I didn't get to listen to this until yesterday, so I figured most of my criticisms would get discussed already. But just to put my two cents in:

- I don't believe in the indoctrination theory.

- I like the ending in concept, but believe it was botched beyond belief.

- The number one thing I'm looking for in the update is an understanding about why
my team left me behind.

- I look forward to ME4 or whatever they will call it. I would prefer it not be a prequel.[/QUOTE]

Hear, hear!
 
[quote name='ZombieJeebus']- The number one thing I'm looking for in the update is an understanding about why
my team left me behind.
[/QUOTE]

I got the impression that this might have signified that the sense of time we have during the last few minutes is not real.

I don't know WHY it would be , but maybe those final few minutes actually played out over days, weeks, or even longer.
 
LOL @ Cheapy's "Nigerian" accent.

And I completely understand what you went through, Cheapy, with your recent physical. Wombat and Shipwreck should both go get the barium go-for-a-carnival-ride-on-the-metal-table check-up. They're missing out on some fun! And while they're at it, they should schedule a colonoscopy, too. That's some killer fun, right there.

Also, Ship and Wombat - please do everyone a favor and watch "Drive" as soon as possible so that Cheapy can quit nagging you (bitches) about it. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top