Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did Shephard have bits of soveriegn implanted during the Lazarus project?

What? No, what gave you that idea? I mean, there was no mentioning or allusions to such an act, so I don't see how its possible.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:What? No, what gave you that idea? I mean, there was no mentioning or allusions to such an act, so I don't see how its possible.

Its been a while since I played the game. Its just it seemed pretty miraculous that Cerberus could bring him back without reaper tech. They did implant Greyson in the book series, and during ME3 Anderson mentions you both in the same breath. They also used bits of Sovereign with the Luna VI to make EDI. I just wasn't specifically sure if that was the case or if there was some mention of it.

Not that ridiculous to bring someone back...
The circumstances of his death were rather extreme and humans are after all bits of meat wandering about...
It'd b impossible today but with the kind of stuff they have in ME i wouldn't say it's outside of possibility... they do highlight how damn expensive you were...

I doubt it personally, maybe they used Reaper tech during the Lazarus project, but as to implanting it in Shepard I don't think so. Shepard's mission in both ME2 and ME3 is, essentially, to kill Reapers, and if they implanted Reaper tech in Shepard the corrupting influence of it would indoctrinate him right?

@ Tibbsy
There's a growing number of people who believe that Shepard was actually indoctrinated (or partially indoctrinated) during the course of events in Mass Effect 2 and the Arrival DLC.

@ Totalwar
That's an interesting theory, I certainly wouldn't rule it out. The fact that the pieces of Sovereign were just sort of...lost...seems too convenient. MASS EFFECT 3 SPOILER:

I suppose that's an interesting theory, but personally it's not one I hold to

When you say he may be able to control Shepard, I don't think TIM particularly wanted to do that - he's explicitly stated several times in the series that he "Wanted Shepard back exactly as he/she was." - From this I assume it's because he wanted Shepard able and willing to make choices. I don't think he would have wanted to take the risk of Reaper influence corrupting Shepard, because this would alter Shepard's actions and lead him down different paths. The Lazarus project took over 2 years, which gave TIM and the Lazarus team plenty of time to study his past actions and psychological profile, to allow them a reasonable prediction of the paths Shepard would take. Reaper influence would likely have changed this and I don't think TIM wanted that.

I'm pretty sure its known that the cybernetics in Shepard use Reaper tech, unless I'm misremembering ME2. Bits of Sovereign, idk. I remember it as kind of being mentioned off handedly and then never being brought up again.

SkaerKrow wrote:@ Tibbsy
There's a growing number of people who believe that Shepard was actually indoctrinated (or partially indoctrinated) during the course of events in Mass Effect 2 and the Arrival DLC.

@ Totalwar
That's an interesting theory, I certainly wouldn't rule it out. The fact that the pieces of Sovereign were just sort of...lost...seems too convenient. MASS EFFECT 3 SPOILER:

Spoiler:

That could be why TIM didn't feel the need to put a control chip into Shepard. If he used a portion of Sovereign to bring Shepard back, then by mastering the ability to control the Reapers, he may be able to control Shepard as well.

It would also explain other points of ME3 with regards Incidently what parts of ME2 and Arrival imply he was indoctrinated? I saw that thing TRY to do it by saying you couldn't suceed and what not; hitting you with the blasts until you collapsed. But then you randomly woke up suggesting you suceeded. Unless Harbinger prefered you as a sleeper agent and was so determined to keep you alive that he was willing to risk failing the arrival so you could escape the asteroid collision.

Also, don't know if somebodies already said so. But my mate claims that both IGN and Fox news are saying ME3 is going to do a DLC ending.

Shepard was indoctrinated during ME3 - the kid is the Reapers trying to get you to give up and lose hope.

"You can't save me"..remember? What kid in his right mind actually says that in that situation?

Kid in Shepards dreams - Reapers trying to break him and planting seeds of indoctrination.

God Child - The same kid

Pistol never has to reload during the final stretch.

Anderson...teleports in front of you? What the feth was that?

Shepard's body convulsing to signify he is alive and broke the indoctrination at the end of the "red" ending? Do you guys really think they put that there for nothing?

When the God Child is explaining your choices, Shepard even says "So TIM was right after all..". They try to make the correct ending sound as bad as possible.

The current ending is too incompetent and loophole filled to be the actual intended ending. I still maintain Bioware is playing us all for chumps and just waiting to release the actual ending. They will have effectively indoctrinated everyone who didn't pick the "red" ending.

Karon wrote:The current ending is too incompetent and loophole filled to be the actual intended ending. I still maintain Bioware is playing us all for chumps and just waiting to release the actual ending. They will have effectively indoctrinated everyone who didn't pick the "red" ending.

http://kotaku.com/5895215/bioware-is-working-on-a-modified-mass-effect-3-ending?utm_source=Kotaku+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a738b0b46e-UA-142218-8&utm_medium=email

Bioware is either really really into this whole trying to trick everyone thing, or the ending in the game is supposed to be the actual ending. Given the recently released info (assuming accuracy) it is and the indoctrination theory is moot (EDIT: at least in terms of being planned, Bioware could still grab onto it).

EDIT EDIT: Although, if we want to put on our tin foil hats about it, we could theorize that they purposely made a bad ending so they could gauge fan reaction and then craft an ending to satisfy fan expectations. But that's crazy talk

LordofHats wrote:

Karon wrote:The current ending is too incompetent and loophole filled to be the actual intended ending. I still maintain Bioware is playing us all for chumps and just waiting to release the actual ending. They will have effectively indoctrinated everyone who didn't pick the "red" ending.

http://kotaku.com/5895215/bioware-is-working-on-a-modified-mass-effect-3-ending?utm_source=Kotaku+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a738b0b46e-UA-142218-8&utm_medium=email

Bioware is either really really into this whole trying to trick everyone thing, or the ending in the game is supposed to be the actual ending. Given the recently released info (assuming accuracy) it is and the indoctrination theory is moot.

If you were going to release DLC then you wouldn't want to spoil anything in advance.

God and I thought I was a pessimist!

Oh, and according to IGN they've actually said they're doing it.

There's keeping things under wraps and then there's what we're currently seeing which includes mass apologies and damage control.

I doubt Bioware would engage in such activity were they really planning this from the start (they could be trying to trick us, but that seems like a lot more work than is really necessary).

Also, I'd propose that IF the DLC ending had been planned from the get go, it would be ready a lot sooner. Right now the earliest we can expect is probably mid-April and that's just when they say they'll talk about it, not release it. Given how rage inducing the current ending is, I wouldn't think they'd want to hang it out there like that. A month is a long time to wait for the real ending everyone presumably bought the game to see.

I'd also like the point out the important line in the Bioware Press Release:

You’ll hear more on this in April. We’re working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we’ve received.

Why would they be talking about maintaining artistic integrity if they were planning this from the beginning? If so their integrity has never been compromised.

It just seems like a lot of work to go through to keep the blind fold over everyone's eyes.

LordofHats wrote:There's keeping things under wraps and then there's what we're currently seeing which includes mass apologies and damage control.

I doubt Bioware would engage in such activity were they really planning this from the start (they could be trying to trick us, but that seems like a lot more work than is really necessary).

Also, I'd propose that IF the DLC ending had been planned from the get go, it would be ready a lot sooner. Right now the earliest we can expect is probably mid-April and that's just when they say they'll talk about it, not release it. Given how rage inducing the current ending is, I wouldn't think they'd want to hang it out there like that. A month is a long time to wait for the real ending everyone presumably bought the game to see.

I'd also like the point out the important line in the Bioware Press Release:

You’ll hear more on this in April. We’re working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we’ve received.

Why would they be talking about maintaining artistic integrity if they were planning this from the beginning? If so their integrity has never been compromised.

It just seems like a lot of work to go through to keep the blind fold over everyone's eyes.

April is VERY soon. How long have we been waiting for Skyrim DLC? Most games wait a much longer time than one month for DLC past the first day.

'Origional story' doesn't mean 'the ending'. Theres no way that they could preserve the ending as is since they all involve Shep dying. The man is refering to not doing a tacky DLC when the rest of the game recieved such positive remarks. In other words we will ensure that a new ending is in keeping with the quality of the rest of the game and not a 'jump' on fan demands. Also, this is a big publicity stunt, they are getting a LOT of attention for it. Maintaining suspense is good. Keeping the blindfold over people is what comapnies do these days. Notice how GW doesn't tell us about releases until a week before they hit the shelves. Same thing. They aren't going to tell us what they are doing to keep us all talking and make us a capitve audience that will spend money. They certainly aren't going to admit planning to this many people off when they can rather appear as magnanomous artists bowing to legitimate concerns. They probably hoped that people would be less vocal and angry over the ending but would spark off curiosuity. They probably then planned to reveal a month later to everyones amazement that the real ending had yet to be revealed. Instead, things became too heated for them and instead they have decided to play it safe. Appearing to be concerned for the welfare of their fans. It'll all pan out. Have some faith.

It has to have been planned because, for the millionth time. Why does Shephard wake up in London? Why put that scene in if not to be suggestive. That is the story equivalent of a strip-tease. Its like how the after credits Halo 3 hinted at Halo 4 opening so explicitly. You don't do that without purpose. I refuse point blank to believe that Bioware could make the rest of the game so awesome then do something that inexpicable. Something so far off-field and random. Something so utterly and delberately non-sensical that it strikes your common sense like a thunderbolt and leaves it dead. No, Bioware would not do that. Call denial if you want but thats how I see it.

Totalwar1402 wrote: In other words we will ensure that a new ending is in keeping with the quality of the rest of the game and not a 'jump' on fan demands.

I don't know what releases your reading... The entire statement from Muzyka is basically a massive apology, promises that the ending will be fixed, and praising the Bioware development team and asking for the nerd rage to get toned down.

Also, this is a big publicity stunt, they are getting a LOT of attention for it.

They're getting so much attention because the issue of the ending has gotten so much attention (and as far as I know no game developer has actually apologized for a bad ending before so it might be a first in the industry).

It has to have been planned because, for the millionth time. Why does Shephard wake up in London?

Because the ending just might be really really bad? I've never outright discounted the indoctrination theory (plainly because it made so much damn sense compared to the alternative) but really. Why do you have such a hard time admitting the possibility exists that the current ending was the intended ending?

Look at this bit here:

On one hand, some of our loyal fans are passionately expressing their displeasure about how their game concluded; we care about this feedback, and we’re planning to directly address it.

I still propose that if Bioware really planned all this out, they'd just keep their mouths shut. They certainly wouldn't be apologizing and saying their going to fix the ending. That's admitting that they made a mistake when they really didn't (assuming its a trick). I mean, I'm impressed with the release overall. Muzyka is putting himself in what I feel is a very strong position to deal with the criticism of the ending. Thats a lot of work for tricking people, and horribly unnecessary. I think if they had this planned from the start they'd just stay quiet or approach this in a different manner than this release suggests. EDIT: This whole statement just screams damage control.

EDIT EDIT: Look. Its been two weeks. If there was a "real" ending, and they wanted fan rage to stop until its ready, they'd just say "We're working on the real ending." They wouldn't say "Sorry the ending was bad and you guys didn't like it, lets talk and try and make something that'll better fit your expectations."

EDIT EDIT EDIT: And none of us are remembering the immediate aftermath of the ME3 Ending Leak where Bioware released statements saying they were willing to tweak the ending based on fan response, which doesn't really seem in line with the idea that this is planned on its face.

LordofHats wrote:[
Because the ending just might be really really bad? I've never outright discounted the indoctrination theory (plainly because it made so much damn sense compared to the alternative) but really. Why do you have such a hard time admitting the possibility exists that the current ending was the intended ending?

e.

So you're just going to ignore those trivial facts? You think they just put that in there for the lols? There is no possibility that the current one was the intended ending. None. Absolutely zero. You think that my team teleporting to the Normandy and fleeing randomly is just Bioware trying to force an Eden reference? You think that any genocidal super AI would behave that way? Especially one like the reapers who are evil and we have had that fact driven home for three games here. No, Bioware deserve more credit than that. I personally want to know why you are ignoring plain common sense that you put something like that in a game as a major hint.

If it was the intended ending. Then what exactly was Bioware aiming to achieve? What could have been an intended appeal of such an occult sci fi ending to a game whose main appeal was characters and the verse? Why would Bioware cut out an epilogue? Dramatic effect? Leaving it to your wee imagination to wonder what happened to the galaxy? Why would making the Reapers benign have had any sense of impact other than dismay? The ansawr is simple. None. This was indoctrination.

They are apologising because of emotions being expressed. Even if they announce that they just planned this they would already give away a lot about the content of that DLC ending. They want there to be suspense. Also, they would annoy a lot of people by saying we sold a game without the true ending. In fact you could even argue that its illegal on the basis of not selling a complete product. This way, they can sidestep any legal issues or objections on charging DLC by making the fans beg for another ending and then 'magnaomously' sell them what they want. Hence, the language.

I personally want to know why you are ignoring plain common sense that you put something like that in a game as a major hint.

Because in most situations the obvious explanation is the most likely explanation.

Part of the difference here for you and me is gonna be perception going in. I look at Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 and see a downward spiral in Bioware's writing, making it easier for me to accept they could produce a really bad ending (and DA2 had a really bad ending).

Also, they would annoy a lot of people by saying we sold a game without the true ending

More annoying than saying "Psych you didn't get the real ending!" That's gonna annoy people too, it'll just annoy them less. In part this is one of my problems with the indoctrination theory. It has nothing to do with creating a good ending, just explaining away the bad one. Frankly the current one could be fixed, not by explaining it away as a dream but adding in like, another 5 or 8 minutes maybe where Shepard realizes what is happening, fights it off right at the end with a Catalyst (maybe?) and then just throw in a proper epilogue. Problem solved. Shepard can still die, the relays can still blow up, and its still a fairly acceptable ending just because the context fixes the ambiguity and wtf moments.

Of course, then the problem with rejecting the indoctrination theory is that then all the evidence becomes coincidence, and that's a lot of coincidence (though several of the things can be explained through alternate means). But then that means that the current ending was intentionally sucky, which if Bioware is this crafty, I would have thought they'd have crafted their trick ending better. One of those situations where it just seems like its too damn obvious which makes me do a double take.

I honestly just don't see how you can read all that into the release from Mazyka though. The release is plainly straight forward, talking about a fix, not an addition or reveal of a true ending. It actually doesn't even indicate much about what form the changes might take. Off handedly I'd suggest that they're talking about adding more context to the current ending, not changing it in anyway. Either way it goes, April is gonna be an interesting month.

In fact you could even argue that its illegal on the basis of not selling a complete product.

I wouldn't. The product is complete. There is an ending. Its just that a lot of people aren't happy with it. Being unhappy with a product doesn't mean the developer/publisher committed a crime. I felt pretty ripped off by the second and third Transformers movies, but I wouldn't accuse Michael Bay of criminal conduct. Maybe some ethical issues in there, but not legal (hence why I went "lolwut?" when I heard people were actually reporting this to the FTC).

This way, they can sidestep any legal issues or objections on charging DLC by making the fans beg for another ending and then 'magnaomously' sell them what they want.

I've been called a downer but this is way more devious than anything I'd actually suggest This is what I'm talking about though. Your adherence to the indoctrination theory has nothing to do with what you actually want the ending to be, just your desire to have any ending other than the one that was given. Cause that's a lot of logical leap jumping to reach that conclusion.

Though your willingness to buy the ending that should have been there for the initial purchase baffles me still. When someone delivers a shoddy product you don't pay them to fix it you demand they fix it at no cost and say thank you afterwards.

This discussion would fit in one of the other existing threads just fine.