Mass Effect '5' speculation (Official Thread)

ME2 was a "side mission" in the context of the trilogy, but was a full game in its own right.  Besides, are those little missions worse than, say, tracking down some rando guy's brother somewhere?  Scanning 21 keepers?  Tracking a signal that leads to an AI?  THOSE were side missions.

No they are not worse. Thats why I think it could work. Though I personally liked most the real sideside missions in ME2, because they were more like ME1 missions with some mystery. I'm talking about the scientific station where VI murdered everyone, the bloodpack(?) bases, tracking the VI infection .. I liked those more than most of main missions to fetch some character.

Shepard: The Reapers built the relays. It's all part of the same trap.

I'm pretty I've never heard Shepard say that particular line. Do you have a video of the conversation?

This is circular.

*shrugs* What's a board for if we can't discuss which interpretations are viable and which are silly?

As for whether it's got anything to do with a sequel, I've never seen how there were enough of you guys to make a difference.



Wow... this is a mutation I haven't seen before. So you're saying that there's no victory possible in ME3 at all? OR are you from the faction which believes that Refuse = victory?

You should really stop using quote marks when what you're posting is an inaccurate paraphrase.

If they really wanted to fool you, why wouldn't they simply give you the illusion that you choose destroy, while you're ultimately choosing something else that benefits them instead?
If the Crucible is a trap, why would they attack it?
If the Crucible is a trap, why would they implement a choice that would allow you to beat them in the first place?

Yeah... Not buying it. Too many holes.

Volus stripbar!

I would love to have a Player character is out of left field.

Those questions are not really related to the canon games, but rather your view of what happened at the end of ME3, more commonly known as part of the indoctrination theory. Considering we're speculating about the next Mass Effect game, the ending of both ME3 and Andromeda are relevant. Any doubts expressed regarding the ending is perfectly fine in here, imho.

To me, the indoctrination theory (or anything directly related to it) is still a coping mechanism by the ones that can't face and accept the ending that we got. But BioWare isn't willing to say this because they don't want to piss off their fans even more, even though there are multiple things in the game that contradict the theory. It's the exact reason why BioWare is unlikely to release a real sequel to ME3. They are afraid to confront their own players. 

You really think that the writers that couldn't solve the dark energy plot from ME2 for example, and even introduced more holes with the extended cut, are capable of conjuring a whole setup, to deliberately prove that players are indoctrinated, unless they choose destroy? Not a chance.

The ones that choose destroy are simply the ones that are the least adaptable. They are the ones not able to change their mind in light of new evidence and information. They are the ones that are too emotional and attached to face the truth of the matter;
The Reapers are more a mistake rather than pure evil.

But it's always easier to maintain the hatred towards your enemy, rather than be understanding, especially when your own feelings are being hurt in the process... The ending in ME3 is actually quite the personal challenge, and the choice says a lot about the player itself. But people don't like challenging themselves, let alone let others challenge their perspectives. They prefer to live in their fantasy bubble. That bubble is going to burst someday, and you better be prepared.

Whatever the next Mass Effect game becomes, I hope they are able to implement consequences for your actions where it actually triggers cognitive dissonance in the player, and flat out smears it in the player's face, where they can't progress unless they are willing to mentally adapt to new information. Or at least have the consequences be extremely harsh. It must become about accepting uncomfortable truths, rather than the good old hero setup. The hero ploy has been outplayed and it is getting predictable anyway. It is ok to lose sometimes.

BioWare deliberately went out of their way to reward Paragon and Renegade in different ways. That's how they themselves stated it. They should start rewarding and punishing both sides accordingly. Otherwise the games have no weight. There are games that are confronting players that leave a lasting impact, like Spec Ops: The line. The difference is that it doesn't give you any choice in the matter. Mass Effect should start implementing these things based on your own choices. Players should feel the weight. 

A mission in Mass Effect did this btw... Want to know which one? The most famous one, Mordin and the Genophage in ME3. There's a reason it is considered one of the best missions of all the games. 

I would've found it interesting to see a version of ME1 from Sarens perspective, from when he found Sovereign to the Battle of the Citadel.

Maybe, but we'd really be seeing his descent into madness as the indoctrination continued to take root. It might make a good DLC to explain why Saren thought he could make use of Sovereign in any way - were his initial reasons to save organic life or instead to gain more power? Considering what we know about him, power-seeking doesn't seem all that unreasonable.