User blog comment:Rusty650/About the Idea of "Mass Effect 4"/@comment-24174486-20130620165842/@comment-4121017-20130621190225

''And that's simply because Angry Joe didn't tell everything about the ending?

Except the Indoctrination Theory revolves about having absolutely no clue as to how indoctrination works and how the events in the third game occur. It's why every argument for IT assumes that Shepard is indoctrinated so they can prove IT.

What's wrong with introducing new characters and bring an end to the stories of the previous characters?

We know about a very small part of Javik's life in the Prothean cycle. What else could we learn? What the Prothean empire was truly like, the races of the galaxy in the time of the Protheans, the worlds of the various races. And of course, more of Javik's adventures.

1. The same way you can introduce any protagonist of any story.

2. How?

No, it shows that Shepard is alive after the fight is over. Unless you're an Indoctrination Theorist, in which case you assume it means something else based on absolutely no actual evidence.

Because obviously you're going to get an accurate sample of what all of the people who've played the game thought of it by watching a video made by Retakers.

Because the majority of complaints about the ending consisted of people who ignored everything that happened before the last 1% of the game, therefore BioWare needed to show them how their choices had impacts, despite having shown players the consequences of their choices throughout the game.''

Removed at least most of the insults from your post. Childish. If you ask me, you should be banned.