Talk:Mass Effect 3/Archive1

Protection
I would like to protect this page until ME2 comes out. It's too early to be reporting details as fact, and any details that are reported may be subject to change. Besides, we may end up juggling two sequel pages and keeping them in order at once, and that's going to be a big headache. --Tullis 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we at least mention the probable year of release. I learned from searching on IGN (and some other source that I can't remember) that it may come in 2011 or early 2012. Even Wikipedia says says the former date.--Unic of the borg 00:17, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's not exactly the most reliable source. And while IGN is usually decent, I wouldn't trust any release info this early unless it comes from BioWare themselves. No one knows how far into production they are except for them. And even then, things can change as they encounter problems. For my part, I think "early 2012" is a very optimistic outlook... Christmas 2012 is more likely IMHO. In any case, I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a release date (not even year) up just yet. JakeARoonie 00:31, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. We link to it from time to time, but it isn't a valid source for speculation. SpartHawg948 00:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

GT TV's Geoff Keighley got an interview with Bioware. The dude in Bioware said that they would like to add spaceship dogfights in the game. This could be a feature in ME3.


 * It could be, but unfortunately, a second-hand account of what "The dude in Bioware (sic)" said is not considered an acceptable source. If "the dude" were to be named and video of the interview supplied, then it could be considered. Again though, as is stated above, this page isn't really going to get started till after ME2 has released. SpartHawg948 08:25, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Some ME3 info confirmed through the 'Shepard's Fate' section of the ME2 page. Maybe add as follows?

Shepard's Fate
BioWare Executive Producer Casey Hudson has confirmed that if Shepard is killed in Mass Effect 2, the character will not return for the third game. "Mass Effect is a trilogy about Commander Shepard’s journey - if your Shepard dies in the end of Mass Effect 2, that’s the end of him/her. In that case, you can play Mass Effect 3 as “a” Shepard – just not “your” Shepard. As in real life, not being able to keep living is really the main down-side of death. So if you care about playing the next game with your character, make sure you survive this one."  JakeARoonie 19:56, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, what of it? As is stated above, it is way to early to take anything said about ME3 as fact, and this article by it's very nature can't start being fleshed out/filled in till ME2 comes out. SpartHawg948 08:25, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet if it comes from bioware developers them self you can not dispute it and it does have a place on this wikia, what is important is that it is correctly sourced, if it changes then users on this wikia will change it. On other topics, "Few details have yet been announced," is really bad english (dramatically), "Details are yet to be announced would make more sence", but im just suggest you remove the "yet"

As the other user has said we know what he is talking about is true and will be in ME3, if anything changes then we change it as it goes along. Subtract the last two lines. We cant just write what you fell we should write, it is correctly soured and as we know the detail about Sheppard dieing then it should be included in the article.

░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 20:50, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not gonna lie Alex, that post was a little confusing. What was meant by "Subtract the last two lines"? And I'm assuming you fell is supposed to be you feel, the you in this case apparently being me (even though it was never my idea to keep the info out in the first place) and correctly soured is, I'm guessing properly sourced. Please bear in mind here that all I was doing is backing a proposal by another admin to keep the page pretty much blank till ME2 releases and we get more substantive info (which you can clearly see at the top of the page). If you disagree with this policy, by all means let us know, but please make it a little clearer this time what you are trying to say. SpartHawg948 21:02, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, just wanted to point out (the English language stickler in me speaking here) that there is, of course nothing "bad" about the sentence "Few details have yet been announced". It's a well worded and grammatically correct sentance, as opposed to "Details are yet to be announced would make more sence" as was suggested above, which is kinda borderline grammatically and in which sense is misspelled. SpartHawg948 21:07, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Hah... "dead is dead" Casey says... maybe he should replay the first 10 minutes or so of his own game :P. Prismvg 20:54, March 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Plus, the whole killing Shepard at the begining was probably the stupidest Idea ever. Although it did allow me to use my Masochistic Insanity Sentinel save from ME1 and start with an easier class. Prvt.Church 02:50, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stupidest idea ever? It was brilliant! Unless you can think of a better way to seamlessly incorporate a method to remake your character? Or to allow him/her to cut ties with the Alliance and take in with Cerberus, and do so in a fairly surreptitious manner. Or to cut ties so cleanly with all the characters from the first game, especially a romance character, and allow for emotional meetings in the second game. Or to explain the two-year gap between the games, bearing in mind the fact that BioWare has been very careful not to establish "canon" info for Shepard outside the games themselves. Or, and this one ties back into two previous points, to allow character developments that were important for ME2, and will likely be important for ME3 (Wrex taking over Clan Urdnot and most of Tuchanka, Garrus getting his own squad, Liara getting set up as a major information broker). Or to allow for the fleshing-out of the story concerning the Collectors, Harbinger, the Shadow Broker, etc, which revolves around the reclamation of Shepard's corpse? Or... well, I could go on, but you get the point. The Shepard dying bit was brilliant for any number of reasons, both from a gameplay and a storyline standpoint. SpartHawg948 03:22, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are varying accounts of how people in Mass Effect 2 put it. Some said that Shepard is dead. If he was dead, he'd have suffered massive brain damage after being brought back to life. Even after that, his memories would be lost. Also, it's kind of impossible to bring someone back to life without making their brain a machine powering that body. However, there is evidence that Shepard's brain is still intact, according to numerous things said in ME2.

On the other hand, people said he was just comatose, saying that he wasn't dead, but he was pretty close to it. I like that idea better.

1000Monkeys 20:11, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hobwer BioWare stated that if Shepard died, then Shepard is dead, no respawns this time. If you killed Shepard at the end of ME2, then the game would not import into ME3. Lancer1289 20:21, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this may be the stupidest thing that I have ever said in my life, but what if Shepard had a brother or sister? It is already stated that he has living family (Hannah Shepard). However, making a Momma Shepard or a sibling would require a new voice actor.

BioWare, please don't do that, though. I will be the most hated person on this community. However, it would be cool to see Hannah Shepard in a mission or two. --1000Monkeys 00:29, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Possible ideas regarding ME3
Before I write in this section, a disclaimer: Anything written on here by me or any other user is PURELY speculation, unless there is a source for it, for which it must be added in.

I liked the idea of Shepard dying, and then being able to remake your character as well as changing the class, etc. But if a similar thing would be done in ME3 (and I hope there is something), that another "death" should not be the cause. I don't know about you, but what if at the beginning of ME3 there was some sort of battle ( a ground battle, not like ME2) and some blast or anomaly strikes Shepard, causing an overload of the previous class and causing a switch in powers ( at the player's choosing, or choosing to remain the same)and then during that beginning part, the powers are fully maxed out. Only at the end of that part would Shepard temporarily lose consciousness and the power levels would diminish to their primary levels. Another scenario could be that Shepard is assigned to infiltrate an extremist group, but as they know what Shepard looks like and his/her powers, that Shepard undergo a procedure to modify facial features and/or class (i.e. soldier to vanguard) in order to complete the mission of the game.

Another cool idea could be that depending on what class Shepard is (as well as gender), the cutscenes could be vastly different from one another. I.e. let's say there's a scene where Shepard has to cross a bridge and the mechanism to operate the bridge is on the other side (assume the bridge needs to be activated). A soldier Shepard could be seen using a sniper rifle to shoot the switch to operate the mechanism, while a Vanguard Shepard would use the Charge ability to fly across the chasm and manually flip the switch to allow his/her party members to cross.

These two ideas I think would greatly add variety to the game, and each event would be put to its fullest extent in the game. Once again, purely speculation. --H-Man Havoc 19:45, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is content that is more appropriate for a blog or forum than it is for a talk page. It may be interesting, but not really the kind of stuff encouraged on talk pages, which should be limited to comments/queries/whatever about the article itself. Thanks, SpartHawg948 19:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Updates
Should we update the page with the gameplay improvements the game developers said Mass Effect 3 would feature?Banezi101 19:05, May 2, 2010 (UTC)Banezi101


 * It depends. Could you provide a link to your source so we can see what you mean? As far as I know, BioWare hasn't said anything official about what ME3 would be like. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:14, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.This is what I found. http://play.tm/news/29548/new-tricks-in-mass-effect-3/
 * This could be relevant as well http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=233484
 * Those articles give no real information. They don't have any details except about a few changes to the shooting aspect, and it doesn't go into detail. Also they are very short becasue even they don't have that much info. Overall the info shouldn't be included becuase there is no real information there. Lancer1289 19:48, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok.Banezi101 20:14, May 2, 2010 (UTC)Banezi101
 * However keep on the look out and if you find anything post a link here so we can all take a look. Lancer1289 20:17, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

ME3 Collector's Edition
I'd like to reference the small stub in reference to CoD:MW2. It was not "Hardened Edition" that had the NVG but the "Prestige Edition". Please fix this. --MajinZelkin 11:42, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

It's too early to tell, but it would be impressive if this edition is as big and as expansive as the Halo Reach Legendary Edition. Say: Special edition case (with discs easier to remove than the special edition of ME2, which I hated having to do), with 1 DISC, additional bonus disc, Hardcover Guide Book, several add-on DLCs (but w/Microsoft codes, NOT EA codes!!! they ruined my DLCs!), as well as several poseable figurines with a scale model of the Normandy (whichever version is featured in the game). Probably would cost in the range of $85-$100 CAD, eh? H-Man Havoc 03:29, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

That customization thing...
Provided that fan lengend dictates that "A sequel offers customization", it should be easy to assume that you will customize your Shep in ME3. My theory would tone the options down alot, but if your Shep survived ME 2, you could then afterwards customize only his/her hairstyle and sich, get what I mean? Now I don't know if BioWare loves torturing its fans with little to no info by 2011, but if thet do: fires will be started, guns will be shot, and Shepard will say Grunt instead of Wrex.( Omit that last part from everything and take it as a little joke).

Well considering that the first real information for ME2 didn't come until last January with the "Legion" trailer, I wouldn't be surprised if any new ME3 info only came out next year. All we know is that since the game engine is essentially the same and they already started working on ME3 before ME2 came out, optimistically there could be some info at E3 or at the later Game Developers' Conference. H-Man Havoc 05:13, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Multiplayer?
http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s24890/_12750925682860.jpg

Though I doubt it's for Mass Effect 3, more likely for a game that takes place after ME3/during FCW. Supakillaii 08:40, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Known Facts List
Just an idea worth considering. Perhaps we should have a list of known facts on this page. There are very few at the moment, but more are sure to come, but it might be worth collating what little info we have into a neat list, and add to that as more info comes out. Once info becomes more substantial, then the page could be reorganised into sections/paragraphs etc.

What I was considering including is little things such as romances carrying over/cheating having a consequence and the recent comment on 1000 decisions being imported. Obviously not groundbreaking stuff, but it would be nice to have a page with a collection of all the confirmed facts, and it seems to me like the ME3 page is the perfect candidate.

Also something that could be put in the list is things we don't know, such as release etc. so we don't get bogus release dates etc. being posted. This probably isn't necessary though and may not fit well with the kind of wiki being run here. JakePT 07:37, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * All in all I like the way this page is shaping up (good work, JakePT, and good to see you back), but are we married to that big purple quote box? I've always hated the way those look. I understand we want to cite who said it, and headquotes and blockquotes can't really do that, but are there any alternatives? If not, I'll just grin and bear it, but I really hate that big purple box. SpartHawg948 07:21, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also not a fan of the design of the box, too big IMO, but I just used that template because it's the one used on the Mass Effect 2 page's Plot section. I would however like to keep the quote at the top of the plot section in some form, as I do feel it is a good introduction and nicely sums up where ME3 is expected to go. I can experiment with the layout/size/colour (or lack of) if that's OK, just so it's not so 'in your face'.


 * As for a Known Facts List, I'm already over that, and I feel what I've got going now is plenty, at least for now.


 * PS: It's good to be back.
 * JakePT 07:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. I agree, the quote is great, the box is just a bit much. So yeah, if you can make it more visually appealing, by all means. And indeed, the article does look pretty good. SpartHawg948 07:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article looks much better. Arbington 07:34, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Changed the quote style. Thoughts? JakePT 08:08, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good. A lot less "in your face" then the last one. Arbington 08:17, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Would be Epic if...
It is stated in the article that the love interest thing will have impact on ME3. It is obvious that you will have to choose. But it matters how. SO: It would be epic if: (1) you would not just have to choose the one who you will be in love. but it would be a "who will die on virmire: Ash VS. Kaidan" like decision. OR another epic moment idea: someone would be captured and indocrinated, and under bad circumstances, You would have to kill him/her. (if any Bioware employee reads this: DON'T even think about Garrus or Tali to die!!!)
 * Well, given that it was possible for Garrus and Tali to die in the second game, assuming they're back, I don't think they'd be 'safe', nor would I want them to be. After all, it's not a hard choice if your two favorites are deliberately excluded, is it? I want this game to be truly epic, not pretty good, but could have been better if there weren't constraints like 'not Tali or Garrus!'. SpartHawg948 20:29, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... You are right. The thing what made mass effect Epic is that any charachter can die, so you could worry about them.

Which career counts?
In my first playthrough I had 4 teammates die, which though will exclude them from ME3. But I pondered, what if everyone survives on my second playthrough? Does that include them in ME3, or did my first career count and leave me with 4 less characters?

Regards, Carter

CarterOz 10:02, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's anything like ME2, you'll get to choose which one. Though, honestly, I think you should go through with your first play through. Don't you think it will be more interesting living with your choices that you made more instinctually, instead of the kind of manipulated version?JakePT 10:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

How it should end...
I think the game could be more exciting if there were 3 endings:


 * -Best: Shepard lives, reapers stoped.
 * -so-so: Shepard died, but the galaxy is safe.
 * -bad: shepard dies, the reapers come back, and the cycle begin again.

bad decisions and disloyal squad members would lead to the bad ending. for example someone is not enough loyal, and in a mission he/she captured by the actual bad guys, and indoctrinated. But if (s)he is enough loyal, the team member will stay with you.

coz I don't know the story, I can't say examples for bad decisions.

Incorrect Desicions
There are a number of quests in which the actually chosen manner of finishing them is not registered by the game (Citadel: The Fan, UNC: Besieged Base). Is there any mention of a patch at all that might remedy this? I'd hate for these bugs to come back in ME3 where I then have again to own up to something I never did. 85.178.193.63 21:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * No patch that I'm aware of. Will there be? Doubt it. Not after all this time. Luckily, it seems like the ramifications of these incorrectly recorded decisions are pretty inconsequential as far as the game is concerned. I doubt they'll give them any greater significance in ME3, especially in light of their bugginess. -- Dammej ( talk ) 21:26, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Party Member Preferences?
Seeing as the ME2 suicide mission could end up with any number of teammates being killed unintentionally (or in my case with subject zero, intentionally), it's likely that Bioware's gonna need to start up an almost clean slate regarding party members.

So, what kinds of characters would you guys like to have as new comrades-in-arms?

For me, I'd like a wuvly wittle Vorcha for a new BFF! Or some sort of comedic wisecracking death commando with a personality akin to Deadpool from Marvel Comics. A more aggressive version of geth would be nice as well. Also, either Urdnot Wrex or Urdnot Wreav needs to join your party somehow. Lastly, is anyone familiar with an anime series called School Days? It has a really beautiful but really demented psychopath girl there named Katsura; she should be the new archetype (and thus the new party member) for the theme of "young human girl with lost innocence and hyper-advanced biotic powers". --Ploxis 06:34, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually a few blogs scattered throughout the site discussing this very matter, as blogs are a more appropriate venue for this kind of discussion than talk pages such as this one. SpartHawg948 06:45, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Chances are, like in ME1, a few squad members may break off from the team by the time ME3 takes place. The biggest example of this would be Thane, who is slated to die within 8-12 months due to his ailment. But this all depends on the gap in time between ME2 and ME3, as well as those whom had survived the suicide mission from ME2. The Reapers are on the move, and there are thousands of them; current speculation states this time frame will not be very long.CaptainFoxx 04:48, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Will they let us keep our ME2 stuff?
Hopefully the upcoming ME3 save file transfers over all your weapons & armor from ME2. Losing the ME1 Heavy Predator X armor and Spectre gear wasn't too bad, but if I don't have my nuke gun, Revenant LMG, and Terminus Assault Armor in ME3, then..... RAAAAGE!!!!!!--Ploxis 06:49, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, commentary that is more suited for a blog or forum than the talk page. Should BioWare release any information one way or the other on this subject, then it would be suitable for this talk page, but until then, it isn't. SpartHawg948 06:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

an idea to end it epic
Me and some other peolple think that there will be a few "reapaer-traitors". I'm thinking about that may, one (or more) of the species what the reapers were made of, was somehow able to defend their "soul" while they were transformed in to a reaper (likely a species what had genetic memories). And the reaper had their memories and wants a revenge. seeing that the organics of this cycle accomplished, what other species couldn't, it decides: "Now is the time".

--Trust in Trance! 00:51, December 13, 2010 (UTC)Any end would be epic if you'd be given the oportunity to make a paragon choice towards the reapers. I keep imagining that there's a unique reaper that has the role of a server for their whole network, a queen or something like that. And the ideea would be to hack that reaper to make it send some virus into all the reapers, to make them controlable and, from here on, either destroy them with a push of a button, or drive them into submission. This last choice would make them the most powerful allies to life in the universe. But is unlikely to happen, though.

Within the 360 lifecycle
So, they want to finish the Mass Effect trilogy within the XBox 360's lifecycle, eh? Well that's reassuring. It means we can expect Mass Effect 3 to be released sometime before 2015. :P SpartHawg948 04:31, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * So the Xbox 360 is supposed to last us 95 years?!? -- Commdor (Talk) 04:41, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! Our children's children will be using them. I mean... what are you talking about? I clearly typed 2015. It says so right there! Silly Commdor! :P SpartHawg948 04:46, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Typo aside, that is still interesting. At least we have confirmation before that date. However I'm still hopeful for a late 2011 or early 2012 release. Lancer1289 04:48, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * My money's on a September 2011 release (probably too optimistic). With no more Halo games being made (for now), it's the best potential launch window. October usually has a slew of other good games bloating the market, Novembers will always be dominated by the next Call of Duty game, and December runs so close to January that it makes no difference. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:53, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * You sure about there being no more Halo games being made? I'm fairly certain the new studio is working on one. SpartHawg948 04:56, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be released next year, though. We've known about Reach since E3 2009, before ODST released. If another Halo game was on deck for next year, we should know by now. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be done because it'd be developed separately. Reach is being developed by Bungie, right? And the new game (Frank O'Connor apparently has confirmed work has started on a "Halo 3 sequel"), as well as the new novels, are being developed by 343 Industries, which is part of Microsoft Game Studios, IIRC. Not saying that there's a new Halo game that'll be out next year, I'm just saying that the statement that there are "no more Halo games being made (for now)" is inaccurate. SpartHawg948 05:12, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

2011 seems a little TOO optimistic. I think we would have had something at E3 2010 if ME3 was going to be released in 2011. Also, we have Dragon's Age 2 to consider as well. According to gamespy, there's a release date of March 2011 for DA2. Seems a little premature, but maybe I've been playing Blizzard games too long where release dates are giving about a month (if that) before hand, and are still subject to change. If that holds for DA2, that rules out 2011 for ME3. I don't think BioWare would risk sinking one game with the other like that. I'm wagering on 2012. That's about two years which seems about right. Also, with Mass Effect 2 going on the PS3, that probably means Mass Effect 3 will also hit the PS3. With the PC and PS3 to contend with, Halo's impact is significantly lessened on release dates.Tanooki1432 17:33, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Very simple. Think about the release date what is optimistic. take as many month to it, what is hard to wait out. you got the date. :-)
 * @Tanooki, there are 12 months in a year. You can release Dragon Age in March and release ME3 late-2011 and neither game will impact the other.
 * Look at the numbers: ME Release: November 07, ME2 announcement: February 09, ME2 Release: January 10. That's 26 months of development. Keeping in mind ME3 is going to be closer to ME2 than 2 was to 1, a December 2011 release (worst-case 2011 scenario) would mean 23 months development, which sounds completely reasonable. Even an October/November release would still be more than 20 months development, which is pretty much what you'd expect. It's longer development than Dragon Age 2 for instance (16 months). Also note than an October 2011 release for ME3 (20 months development, best-case 2011 scenario) is 7 months after Dragon Age 2. Mass Effect 2 was a mere 2 months after Dragon Age: Origins, so that argument doesn't work.
 * Also worth noting is that ME2 was first shown at E3 2009, 6 months before release, the only E3 it was shown at. By your logic it would have been shown at E3 2008, during which ME2 hadn't even been officially announced. Dragon Age 2 was also first shown off only 7 months before its release.
 * If you assume an ME2 type rollout, with a slightly shorter development, then we'd expect:
 * Official announcement later this year, possibly as early as October.
 * First real look at the game at E3 2011.
 * Released late 2011 (November/December, 6 months after first look).JakePT 14:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * @JakePT, points taken. I think I've been playing Blizzard games too long (Examples: StarCraft II: announced in May of 2007, released July 2010; Diablo III: announced June 2008, not yet released, 2011 is probably the best bet). Guess I should be more open minded. Tanooki1432 19:06, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

ME3 could be presented this month
In an spanish (or a page in that language)page i founded some info that the game could be presented (i suppose that in some sort of teaser or something, it doesnt say) this month. Note that the news was posted in september. I leave the page with you, if someone need a translation, ask me. http://www.3djuegos.com/noticias-ver/113112/mass-effect-3-podria-ser-presentado-el-mes-que-viene/ (Changonauta 18:32, October 5, 2010 (UTC))
 * That would be nice. I just hope they don't announce it for, like, June. Prismvg 18:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets hope they´ve got a good teaser or something (Changonauta 18:42, October 5, 2010 (UTC))
 * Teasers are better than nothing, but I'd be more satisfied if they went all the way with it so I could finish. Think I missed any possible innuendos? Ev0lve 18:55, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I could make some sort of translation (Changonauta 19:11, October 5, 2010 (UTC))
 * By request of Ref92 ill make a translation of the news page (it must be noticed that the news was published on September 7th, 2010):

Mass Effect 3 could be presented the next month (rumors says that it will also be announced a launch for the Playstation 3)

A supposedly trusted source has sayd to the American portal Examiner that during october it will be officially presented Mass Effect 3, the third release of the well known saga of Bioware, this presentation has been rumored since the recent PAX Prime wich was celebrated in Seattle a few days ago.

Considering that this information is a rumor, it is true that the existence of Mass Effect 3 is not a secret, Bioware itself has confirmed the game a multiple number of times. It is only remain to see the date that the company would make an official announcement.

It is also probable that the game will be launched for the PS3, after the announce of ME2 for this console.

Please forgive me if some words are not well written, and please tell me if that is so. (Changonauta 19:32, October 5, 2010 (UTC))
 * As much as I'd like this to be true, I really doubt it. Why would the impending official announcement of what is sure to be a big game release only be reported on one site? And it's an obscure one at that, not IGN or Gamespot or anything like that. As cool as the anouncement would be, something tells me this is probably not legit. Arbington 23:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, but lets hope its true (Changonauta 01:15, October 6, 2010 (UTC))
 * It's conceivable that only that site got the info somehow, they're not saying that there was an official announcement of an announcement, they're just reporting a rumour. October would be a good guess for a late 2011 release (ME2 was officially unveiled, with pre-rendered teaser, 11 months before release), but I doubt we'll see any actual gameplay or really solid plot info until E3 2011. Since October is a good guess, it's also not inconceivable that they made up the rumour based on said good guess. If I had to guess though, I'd say they might want to wait until the PS3 version of ME2 is released, as a well timed announcement that ME3 is also coming to PS3 could probably help boost ME2 PS3 sales.JakePT 05:50, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to question the legitimacy as well... As Arbington said, it's an obscure site, and for something as big as Mass Effect 3, BioWare would want to use a big stage, like E3. They're not going to slap up an announcement on their website about it to unveil it. Tanooki1432 01:00, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a good point, possibly nothing happens untill the next E3, but i had to share the info with all of you(Changonauta 01:30, October 8, 2010 (UTC))
 * Oh I don't know. We could have an announcement before E3 2011, but who know really, I'm just hoping for something soon. Lancer1289 01:36, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, soon would be great. Or they could at least announce something else epic, along the lines of LotSB. Arbington 01:59, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Something tells me that we probably won't see something like LotSB again, and if we do, then it will probably be the last DLC Pack before Mass Effect 3. However I do have to say, that I hope that we just don't get appearance and weapon packs until ME3's release. I would hope that BioWare released some mission/assignment packs every now and then, about every 3 or 4 months sounds like a good timeline to me. That is based on what I know of game design mind you, so I can't guarantee its accuracy. Lancer1289 02:15, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * They let us reunite with Liara... They HAVE to make one which allows us to reunite with the surviving human squad member... At least I hope they do... Tanooki1432 03:25, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I want a DLC pack like that too. However I also want one where we can solve a mystery, and also I'd like to see Arcturus Station. However only one of those will probably come true. Lancer1289 03:35, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tanooki, Dragon Age 2 was first revealed when BioWare 'slapped' up a website, in addition to a magazine cover reveal. Mass Effect 2 was announced by just slapping up a teaser trailer that made its way around the web. There's no reason to expect the announcement to accompany a big event, in fact, history says to expect the opposite.JakePT 04:54, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But at the same time, remember that Dragon Age: Origins was announced at a big event, namely E3 2004. I'm not saying that we won't first hear about ME3 outside of some major event, just pointing out that the history isn't really all that suggestive. If you take it all into consideration, the history really doesn't say anything, one way or the other. SpartHawg948 05:10, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Recent history does. All I'm saying is that an announcement not tied to an event is certainly possible, if not probable, given the fact that the first real big event you'd expect an announcement is GDC in March (well, starting Feb 28), and GDC isn't exactly the sort of place for those kinds of announcements (though they do happen sometimes) and February seems a bit late.
 * We also mustn't confuse announcement with first gameplay footage or trailer. There could easily be run of the mill press release saying "Mass Effect 3 announced for Q4 2011 on PC, XBox and PS3" and not hear anything of interest for a little while after that.
 * If I had to guess I'd say ME3, like DA2, will likely be announced by a Magazine, and the first we'll here of that is when the cover is revealed. Even then we'd hear rumblings, as there were for DA2, ahead of time. If that's how the announcement is going down I'd say it's too late for October, maybe even November, since there have been zero credible rumours suggesting an impending announcement. JakePT 05:42, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

And well, october came and went (is that the expresion?) and nothing happened, its a shame actually (Changonauta 22:35, November 1, 2010 (UTC))

ROTJ-style ending
If the Mass Effect series is supposed to be similar to the Star Wars Original Trilogy as has been speculated many times over, then it would be safe to assume that the 3rd game would have an optimistic theme to it, by virtue that the second game is the darkest in the series (like Empire Strikes Back). For this to work, Bioware would have to present an illusion of hopelessness in the character and in the players, then pull them back into a brighter situation, sort of like the Death Star battle scene in ROTJ. H-Man Havoc 16:28, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Who knows, but Star Wars is much more based in Space Combat while the ME series is based on ground combat. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Lancer1289 16:35, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Beta?
I have been hearing that yesterday a beta was released for Mass Effect 3, can anyone confirm whether this is fake or whether there'sactually gonnna be online multiplayer for MAss Effect 3

Sorry, I forgot to add signature FluffyWelshCake 10:36, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and say it's most likely fake. If there were a beta released yesterday, this would not be the first anyone would have been hearing of it, trust me. I'm not too huge on keeping an eye on all the sources and listening for the latest rumors, but some of the contributors here are really good at that stuff. Almost "corporate espionage" good. :P
 * Where did you hear this from? Was it word of mouth, or somewhere on the internet or in a magazine? SpartHawg948 10:41, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Just Googled "Mass Effect 3 Beta" to see what I cam up with, and the one and only result on the topic was someone asking where they can find the supposedly leaked beta, though in this case, the beta was apparently leaked nearly one year ago! How the beta for ME3 would be leaked before ME2 even came out is beyond me, so I assume they were asking about ME2, and accidentally hit 3. (See here) BTW, the second result was to our own Attican Beta page! :D SpartHawg948 10:44, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I got told by my friends that there was a beta, but apparently they were talking shit and playing a trick on me causeI'm really into Mass Effect, gain sorry for posting this as a topic FluffyWelshCake 18:04, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Language please. Is it really so hard to abide by the language policies on this site? As to the topic itself, I really dobut there will be a public beta. A private beta, for sure, but not a public one. Lancer1289 18:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the language, I hope they do FluffyWelshCake 15:49, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Where, I wonder, would the logic be in having a public beta test for a game that is primarily (or perhaps strictly) single player? It's not like an MMOPRG, like World of Warcraft, which has online servers that can be switched off (thus requiring people to eventually get the release version) and have content added in future patches (thus there being something NOT in the beta). If you played the public Beta test of Mass Effect 3 all the way through, would you be compelled to get the actual game having beaten it once already? Maybe, if you have several million different Commander Shepards (like Lancer). But since the game does not require an internet connection to play, there's nothing stopping you or other people from just playing the Beta version and only getting the retail version after the price has come down and/or there's a ton of DLC to play. If they're even interested in DLC. It would be a terrible business plan. Tanooki1432 21:25, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when does 40 = 1 milllion. 36, six with each class which will carry trhough all three games, and one of each class started in ME2. Yes I still have Too Much Time on My Hands but I haven't even started them all yet. Only 30 completes on ME and 22 on ME2. Lancer1289 21:31, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. All I knew is that you had a lot... Sorry... Tanooki1432 22:11, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

They could add an online mode where you don't actually play as Shepard, with stuff like deathmatches where instead of your typical engineer class you would play as a Quarian,or instead of a soldier you play as a Krogan FluffyWelshCake 22:15, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to say that the idea of death matches with engineers as Quarians and soldiers as Krogan would not quite work. The game would not be balanced at all and it would lead to a superclass which would dominate everyone. So in order to have a chance, you need to play as that character, but that takes all of the fun out of the game. Of course this is just my assumptions on the subject matter. Hate to crush ideas, but felt as though some input here was necessary. --Herky15 20:24, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

"Announcement"?
== Warning Posible Spoilers ==

Guys i´ve founded this http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/10/mass-effect-3-outed-on-ea-store/. Is it worth to put it into the page? (Changonauta 02:17, December 11, 2010 (UTC))

More info if you want to read http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/5421601(Changonauta 02:21, December 11, 2010 (UTC))
 * That's just the thing, it's already in the page. However I'm extrememly hesitent to take this as Official, note the caps. Since ME3 will probably be announced officially in give or take 23 hours, at least from my perspective, I think we can wait until then. We already a blog about it, and it is again already mentioned in the page, site note 5. As this official, I have to say no as that will probably happen tomorrow. Curse whoever messed up at EA. Lancer1289 02:24, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Lancer, i was a little excited (i fell so nerd right now) that i just putted the link in here :S(Changonauta 02:27, December 11, 2010 (UTC))


 * I just want to go on the record as being strongly opposed to not allowing this information. I don't see any reason to be so hesitant. This is from the official EA website. It's obviously not meant to be there because the game remains unannounced, but it's a huge stretch to consider the possibility of it being inaccurate, and even if it is, we can change it. JakePT 07:54, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I do considering it was yanked so quickly. Probably an oversight, but seriously, why can't we wait just 18 hours give or take. Is that really so hard to ask? We know that there's something big, and it's by BioWare, and it's likely, extremely likely it is ME3. However I am strongly opposed to putting anything in the article beyond what there is now. It could have been planned to tie into what BioWare's been doing all along. Just throwing that out there.
 * Also yes it was EA's site, but was it an official announcement? Of course not. It was probably a mistake or something that was planned, and don't start hammering me over that. It's possible, yet unlikely. But again I'm going to oppose anything right now until we have something official from EA or BioWare. I don't consider that official in any way, shape, or form. Lancer1289 08:10, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well i suppose we should wait a bit, it is possible that today EA or Bioware release more info about the game and confirm that it is indeed Mass Effect 3 (although, and i suppose that i speak for everyone, there is little doubdt that the game is indeed Mass Effect 3)(Changonauta 15:22, December 11, 2010 (UTC))

Well after the anouncement, what does it mean "Holidays 2011" to you my North American friends? (Changonauta 01:56, December 12, 2010 (UTC))
 * Basically in around a year's time - Holiday period is about now in North America (I think... I'm not North American...) Bronzey 01:58, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Typically Holiday can mean anything between Thanksgiving, which is the fourth Thursday in November, to Christmas. Sometimes it goes until the end of December, but that's the typical range. Lancer1289 01:59, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * All rigth, its almost the same thing here on Chile (without the thanks giving and between December and March, well actually not the same period of time, but its close) (Changonauta 02:01, December 12, 2010 (UTC))
 * Latter half of Q4, to put it simply. I wouldn't be surprised if it's pushed into early 2012 though, since a quite a few big games are coming out at that time (ME3, ESV, U3). None of them are going to be happy competing with the others for sales. Since ME3 is the only one of those without a hard date, unless the others move, I'd say ME3 will. It might be OK if ME3 releases late December though, since the others are early November.JakePT 04:45, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Is it me or the armor (Shepard´s armor) its almost the same that the one used by him on ME2?(Changonauta 02:13, December 12, 2010 (UTC))
 * It does look similar - perhaps they're just recycling old models to save having to create a new armour. If the armour was any different, fans would go crazy wondering what it was :) Bronzey 02:18, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Hell yeah. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QEfQ6CNmXY
 * Well I guess it is impossible to follow a simple language policy after all. Lancer1289 03:00, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i suppose it is from the excitment or something like that my friend --Changonauta 03:59, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was Hell changed from something else? Or has this wiki jumped off the deep end when it comes to our language policy?JakePT 04:45, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Human's Casualty counts?
On the first trailer, that guy mention the Human's casualty counts? could that be for London alone?, not the the whole world.

Considering this

http://na.llnet.bioware.cdn.ea.com/u/f/eagames/bioware/masseffect2/resources/assets/market/books/incursion-01.pdf (Look at the last page)

0.06% wouldn't sound fatal enough, would it? --Chawit Chiwarattanaphan 15:14, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know if it just London, the British Isles, or the whole planet. Lancer1289 18:01, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * My guess would be London for what its worth. TheFedExPope 20:16, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict? I'm not so sure though. When looking at it, why would the Reapers only land in London, rather than the entire planet? I just don't see the logical reason why the Reapers would only land in London, when they have the forces to land all over the planet. Lancer1289 20:20, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think the Reapers have cut off communications (you can see the massive destruction in the trailer. Maybe simply blowing up a bunch of crap is enough to disrupt communications). The guy in Big Ben doesn't know where the defense forces have retreated after all. I would imagine there are many major cities under siege at once, and it does take thousands of years for the Reapers to wipe out life after all. TheFedExPope 20:26, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I mention it at first because the information on the page that was derived from the trailer, implied or sounded much like "it's a count for whole world". Though I see the information had been replaced with an official ones, We can just drop this "Speculation"

I believe it is only counts for either London or either UK, He did not know the rest because the communication has been cut --110.164.106.173 00:08, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * But the sniper said "reports have been coming in from other major cities. Its a well coordinated attack." Therefore 1) It is a worldwide attack 2) the are still comunications, at least around Earth cities.--Ironreaper 01:29, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well sir, that was really worth mentioning, which means that he implied that those said amount were the whole world's. which I will repeat again

"0.06% wouldn't sound fatal enough, would it?"--Chawit Chiwarattanaphan 02:29, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * (EDIT: Sorry, semi-messed up the page, FIXED) --Chawit Chiwarattanaphan 02:31, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) So any particular reason you removed the headline to this section in your last edit Chawit? And you didn't resore it to its original state. Still would like an answer though.
 * As to the question, I also tend to agree that isn't probably fatal, but we also don't know the circumstances. That could only be military dead, or it could include civilians and military. We just don't know. Still seven million either way is a lot. Lancer1289 02:36, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes I did, It was my mistake, I was about to sign signature, and it is some how cropped out the headline, where I noticed soon after . And at the time I forgot that I could actually restore that. My apology --Chawit Chiwarattanaphan 03:09, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Definally the Whole World. Bioware wouldn't have every city being wiped out, it would leave u completely defensless, and unlike the other victories in Mass Effect, unrealistic. I'm thinking this attack is sometime after the invasion, and our colonies are wiped out. Hunter Zealot signing out.

I think its more like Earth is the initial stage of the Reapers invasion. The sniper states no one knows what the Reapers are or what they want and that Earth wasn’t prepared for an attack like this. But if the Reapers had already attacked other places (the Citadel, alien home worlds), then they would know what they are and what they want, or at least it would give Shepard the credibility to tell people. The Reapers are aware that Shepard, a human, is their greatest threat and it would make sense they would seek to wipe out the most dangerous species first. Also, if all the major cities are being attacked, as the sniper claims, then its not hard to believe the Reapers have all their forces in this assault. They have at least three attacking London, so even if they have the presumed 200+ Reapers, all of them would be stretched across all the cities of Earth. I think they found a way to bypass the Acturus Station and attack Earth directly, while shutting down the Charon Relay manually so to cut off reinforcements. This creates a situation similar to ME2. The final mission involves you going through the relay which they managed to reactivate, but you can only do it once so you have to have as many forces ready if you’re going to win. The other races would be disbelieving, afraid or just don't care about the fate of humans or Shepard's word. If this is an initial attack and the Reapers cut communications off-planet, the Council would have no reason to believe you. so you spend the game convincing them to offer support.--Ironreaper 06:17, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * By 200+ do you mean the estimated number shown at the end of ME2? Because I would doubt 100% that the Reaper fleet numbers only in the hundreds. TheFedExPope 08:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still say it is probably the whole world, unless BioWare is going to do something like Halo and land only in a certain part of the world. Although, hypotheticlaly, if they are looking for say an archive of Prothean knowledge, which was recenly uncovered in the British Isles and was being looked over in London, then it might make sense focus landings in Britian and Europe. That would at least make sense.
 * As to Hunter's comment, I hightly doubt that all of humanity's colonies would be whiped out. That's completely unrealistic as we know that would take years, and I seriouly doubt that ME3 would take place over the course of years. Probably every city isn't being whiped out, but probably a good majority are under attack. Lancer1289 13:49, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, which fits well into my new theory which i like more then the old one. While the largest bulk of the Reaper force is focused on Earth, what if they are also launching separate attacks on other major sites. It It would give the other races a reason why not to get involved in saving Earth and would let Shepard visit more homeworlds and stop the attacks. While my original theory was based on logic, this fits more into the style of a video game.

But back to the original point of this conversation i think its just London, or at least England. Considering six billion people are here on Earth now and the Mass Effect Earth has a much larger population, since it is stated to be overpopulated, then the numbers given don’t seem to match the extent of the devastation implied.--Ironreaper 13:51, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

And just so everyones clear, the full quote is "Two million dead in the first day. Another seven by the end of the first week." That makes nine million casulties so far.--Ironreaper 14:04, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Acutally Earth toay is closer to 7 billion than 6 billion, or at least from what I read. And in ME the population was 11.4 billion, see Earth. Also it states that the operpopulation is in the slums in some regions that are still developing. So while 9 million might be small, we still don't know if that is military alone, or with civilians as well. To be honest I'm not sure where to call it and I don't want to guess. Lancer1289 14:18, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have posted an exact reference numbers there, on the first post, Is the link working for you guys?--118.172.110.204 00:31, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't we forgetting that they want to capture humans so they can subvert them into their next 'slave race' or something like that. Its been a few months so my memory is a bit hazy but that should be the gist. Why would they want to kill us if they want to subvert us? I think the 2-9 million he is talking about is purely military or contractor based, which is truly catastrophic if you think like they are real caualties. If, for instance they have roughly twice the population today, if 1-5 million people died in 1 week, that would be a global crisis (discounting the truly great number of older people who bite the dust naturally), all that aside this is merely speculation... TheEncounter 02:42, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that no specification is given whether it's military casualties or casualties in general, we can't just assume one or the other. But you do have to remember that the unknown enemy "Big Ben" snipes is targeting a woman and a child, leading me to believe the figure includes civilians. What we should also remember is that the reason they were capturing humans, the Human-Reaper, no longer exists. Therefor, we can't really use that line of thinking to justify assumptions either. It should also be noted that, contrary to what has been stated, even these days, 1-5 million deaths in a week wouldn't really be a crisis, not when you figure that the current global population is right around 7 billion. 1 or even 5 million is only a tiny fraction of that number. Tiny. SpartHawg948 04:07, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe

Point taken I saw them attacking civies but the point is still valid. Of course this assumes a lot but whats the point of a talk page if you dont get the facts out through logic? This attack is on a global scale right? and as stated previously, the sniper may only know what is in the UK proper, seeing as how we can assume a sniper does not know the global death toll with conditions the way they are, in conditions like those could you honestly say you would care or know the death toll? ANyway the link has global birth and death rates. So 2-9 million people in the UK alone in one week, even with a bloated population, is a lot, since the annual monthly death rate of the PLANET is around 4.6 million. Of course you can increase all the values by whatever the mass effect universe has it at but the sting is still therte. TheEncounter


 * Hardly a tiny fraction. Think of modern disasters where thousands of people are killed in a  span of days.  It becomes covered world wide and relief is sent across the globe.  Nothing has ever killed nearly that many people in the span of a few days, so by modern standards, its a massive casualty rate, even with inflation.  You have to remember, the death tolls for disasters like Haiti and the Tsunami in Indonesia were nowhere close to that and those were disastrous.  Plus the amount of infrastructure damage from the giant beam attacks makes it even worse combined with a surprise attack.  Thought I'd add that, you can't evaluate it statistically, look at it from a normal human point of View. 04:23, January 3, 2011 (UTC)Rhapsody
 * So... you're saying that 1-5 million isn't a tiny fraction of 7 billion? I'm afraid that you're wrong. Mathematically, it is a tiny fraction of 7 billion. That's the point I was making. Stating that modern disasters with many fewer deaths get publicized and responded to all over the globe... really proves nothing. Of course they do. We live in the modern, 24-hour new cycle era. Anything with more than 100 or so deaths (50 or more on a slow news day) is going to get covered world wide, and governments and private organizations will be tripping over themselves to respond. And your examples are, intentionally or otherwise, red herrings. The earthquake in Haiti and the tsunami in the south Pacific were disastrous, for the countries affected. And why was that? Because the losses made up a much greater percentage of their people than would 1 or even 5 million out of 7 billion. Really, you're just making my case for me.


 * As for claiming that nothing in history has killed that many people in a short period of time, well... you're kinda wrong there too. Some examples: In the span of 25 weeks in 1918, 25 million people died of the Spanish flu. All told, 3% of the world's population died of the flu pandemic from 1917 to 1920. To put that in perspective, that was 50 million people out of 1.8 billion. A much larger percentage than we have here (which further reinforces my point that 5 million out of 7 billion is a tiny fraction). In less than four months in 1994, 1 million Rwandans were killed in the Rwandan genocide. 4 million people were killed in a series of floods in China in 1931, and nearly 2 million when the Yellow River flooded in 1887. 830,000 were killed in an earthquake in China in 1556, and 800,000 in another in 1976. I'm not even going to bother listing all the famines that killed millions within a relatively short span of time. So, to reiterate, there have been many events throughout world history that have killed even more people than this in the span of a few days. I looked at it statistically (which you can do, btw), and you seem to be looking at it emotionally. One of those methods is objective and non-biased, and is the preferred method, historically speaking (meaning - from the perspective of a historian). The other... isn't. SpartHawg948 04:50, January 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly - I read it, I'm unimpressed. Your reasons are shoddy at best and you can Not look at it statistically in the case you are looking at it in.  You stated 9 million (2 million in the first day, 7 million additional in the rest of the week) is not a crisis.  Name one of those examples that was not considered a crisis.  They all were I'm certain, especially for the local regions and even on a global scale (especially with increased globalization).  So yes, it would be considered a crisis.  OH, and I'm afraid you sound like a pompous prick who spends too much time playing with numbers and objectifying wiki articles to remember how the Real World works. Yeah, and I did read the language policy.  Rhapsody Out.


 * When did I ever say that 9 million losses wasn't a crisis? Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I said, and this is a verbatim quote, "It should also be noted that, contrary to what has been stated, even these days, 1-5 million deaths in a week wouldn't really be a crisis, not when you figure that the current global population is right around 7 billion." A far cry from your claim that "[I] stated 9 million (2 million in the first day, 7 million additional in the rest of the week) is not a crisis." If you have to make up arguments and ascribe them to me, that kind of says something about your argument, doesn't it? As for your argument itself, your logic is what is truly shoddy. You make specious and easily disprovable claims, then when I do disprove these ludicrous claims, you simply ignore them and instead attack me for something I never said! Oh, and here: You wanted me to name one of those events that was not considered a crisis: The 1976 China earthquake. Due to the political situation at the time, it wasn't considered a crisis by China or by the world as a whole. Ditto for the earthquake of 1556, for similar reasons. Of course, seeing as you are willing to ignore both history and math in your pursuit of irrationality, I'm sure you'll ignore these facts as well. SpartHawg948 04:39, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Multiplayer and the Collectors
"The trailer alluded to rumors of a new multiplayer element for the series, which will likely take place amidst the human resistance's battle with the Collector invasion force." That is from an IGN article. Did I miss something? Where was multiplayer alluded to in the trailer? Also, weren't the Collectors ALL wiped out in ME 2? The creature that the guy kills in the trailer looks like a husk IMO. Either IGN knows something we don't, or they need to pick better article writers... TheFedExPope 20:19, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is IGN who need better article writers. The trailer released last nigh didn't include anything for a multiplayer. Although we've heard rumors of a multiplayer, we have nothing solid as of yet. Lancer1289 20:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Husks, refering to TheFedExPope's coment, ddn't have much to do with the Collecters except for the fact they used reaper tech to make them, both the Geth and the Reaper in the Gas Giant from ME2 had husks of there own without any known help from the Collecters,who themselves arn't much more than husks made from Protheans.

I believe (no source or confirmation) I heard that there would be multiplayer, but in an entirely separate ME game, not directly tied in to the mainstream series or Shepard, like Shadowrun set in the ME universe. -- Swordser Buddy, 19:00, December 14, 2010

Release date
Not everybody is American and knbows what "Holiday 2011" refers to. Technically this points to a January release for a number of reasons. An addition is REQUIRED to clarify this point (which I have done numerous times only for it to be deleted almost immediately) - simply (Xmas)Kendroche 22:02, December 12, 2010 (UTC).
 * And I say that is unnecessary as Holiday in advertising always states the Christmas Season, whether or not you are in North America. If it is in the Summer, adertisers always put "Summer Holidays" or just "Summer". It never refers to the Summer or anything after Christmas. So I say, for the fourth time, that it is completely unnecessary. Lancer1289 22:06, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Holiday season means December, not Christmas. Lots of people have holidays during this time of year. More specifically, it refers to the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas, when people are busy shopping for these various holidays. Many religious and cultural holidays fall into this period, not just Christmas. SpartHawg948 22:09, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the Christmas getting in there. Because I'm Catholic, Roman that is, it's a slip of the tounge, or in this case the fingers. But yes Holiday does refer to the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas due to the reasons mentioned above. Lancer1289 22:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was more referring to Kendroche's inaccurate use of Christmas in the article. SpartHawg948 22:13, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah that is what was going on. Ok then. Lancer1289 22:15, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I heard from somewhere it is November 1st, 2011. But rumour is still a rumour, Citation is needed and less likely. --118.172.107.84 00:10, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep we will need a source for that kind of information. Lancer1289 00:17, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * From a retail standpoint, Holiday 2011 is usually November-December, sometimes September-December. It is used as a signification of a time for major Christmas (or other holiday observation) purchases. As in allowing full time for advertisement and word of mouth to help sell the game before or for the holidays.--Xaero Dumort 07:39, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Resources
Is Bioware going to gave use to the resources in ME3? i mean, there was a lot of rich planets in Mass Effect 2 and there was this assignment (UNC: Valuable minerals i think) in ME1, so what do you think? Changonauta 23:53, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll use the mineral locater, and have to scavenge planets. Why? Because some minerls are either too small for machines, or in weird locations(Like a merc base). Fun.BriNg iN DeR FLAmeS?! 03:10, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Timing of Earth attack
In order for ME3 not to take place entirely on Earth (which would kind of destroy the foundation of Mass Effect), wouldn't the Repaer attack on Earth have to take place either in the beginning or the end of the story of the third game? Like, if it happened in the beginning you'd kind of be gathering support throughout the galaxy AS Earth is being destroyed, which would interfere with the pacing and decision-based nature of the gameplay. I personally think that maybe it's either impossible to save Earth or based on certain decisions in ME and ME2 (not uniting krogans, killing rachni queen, not uniting the geth, not encouraging the consolidation of quarian power), it is part of the plot, like an end all result, that Earth and therefore a majority of human life is lost. Bioware does say they want the conclusion to be epic. I think it'd have more emotional stake if Shepard is fighting to stop the Reapers knowing that Earth is gone and doing so would primarily help the 'alien' races that haven't been attacked yet, especially if your particular Shepard is xenophobic. --LBCCCP 04:31, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the player will be given a choice whether to save Earth or save the Citadel. Keeps in theme with the Renegade/Paragon endings present in the other two games. GiantEnemyCrab 06:27, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, what part of "As Commander Shepard, an Alliance Marine, your only hope for saving mankind is to rally the civilizations of the galaxy and launch one final mission to take back the Earth." says that the game takes place entirely on Earth. I really have no idea where that idea even came from. No one's suggested anything like that, and the only official trailer we have is very explicit in saying that Shepard isn't on Earth.JakePT 07:03, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah when it says "taking back the Earth" I would think that means at the beginning the Reapers take Earth. Not exactly hard to imagine, is it? :O) Of course it seems a little odd that you would have time to rally the galaxy's civs if the Reapers have taken Earth. I would think they would move hastily to their next civilization or maybe star system. Or probably the Citadel. Of course there's also the question of how the Reapers get to the galaxy if the Citadel doesn't respond. All shall be revealed in time... TheFedExPope 08:16, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Earth will probably be the final mission, broken into probably quite a few parts, and the Reapers attack it in about the middle of the game. If anything you have to first run around the galaxy, rallying support, then you hit Earth to take it back. As to saving either Earth or the Citadel, that is really farfetched as that really isn't a Paragon/Renegade decision, that's just one really bad choice. Save humanity's homeworld and leave the Citadel to recover, I seriously doubt the Reapers would actually destroy the thing; or save the Citadel and leave humanity's homeworld burning and devastated. A decision like that would ruin the game because that isn't a Paragon/Renegade choice, that's just bad writing if that actually goes through. Lancer1289 13:36, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think that there will be numerous planets for you to save, but it matters which planets you save first. If you save the Migrant Fleet before you save another planet, that said planet is history. If you screw around on other planets before you decide to go to Earth, our planet is gone. --1000Monkeys 20:18, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that. They woudn't dangle the opportunity to see and fight on Earth, then take it away because you are playing the story. As to the order, they might do something like in Dragon Age or ME2, it doesn't matter what order as long as it gets done. Lancer1289 20:24, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

What about the Citadel signal?
I know it's still early and Bioware is good at creating story motivations, but I'm a little concerned about the ME3 plotline. Presumably the reapers have been using the same basic, successful strategy for millions and millions of years. They hide out in deep space somewhere and send a single agent to prep for the invasion by taking control of the Citadel relay. What's different this time? Why couldn't they just wait another 100 years or so (a drop in the bucket for Reapers) until Shepard dies of old age, if he's such a problem? That's my concern, I guess, and it's probably unfounded: that Bioware won't address why the Reapers change their strategy and hit Earth instead. FarmerBob12 16:10, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Because that wouldn't be interesting? The Reapers might think that the galaxy at large know them (which isn't the case), or they might want retribution on humanity for soverign's Death. paladin cross.


 * Correction: They LEAVE one of their number behind (in this case it was Sovereign) to keep an eye on things after each cycle of genocide, while the rest head out to dark space to chill. Neither does that said reaper take control of the Citadel, it just signals the Keepers to activate the relay that is the Citadel, allowing its brethren to pour through. The Protheans threw a wrench in that plan by altering the Citadel and the Keepers, forcing Sovereign to assault the Citadel and do it himself (...itself...). My guess is that the point of creating a new reaper in ME2 was to attempt the same plan. The Reapers still had tools (the Collectors) in the Galaxy, so they have the Collectors create a new Reaper, and the Reaper does what Sovereign tried: seize control of the Citadel and activate the relay. Since Shepard was killed at the start of ME2, they (the Reapers) probably weren't expecting that particular road block to surface again. Well, since BioWare needs to make money and fans need satisfaction, the Reapers got hosed and Shepard was revived, and once again foiled their plans.


 * To answer your question, the Reapers have nothing in the Galaxy to work with, their Vanguard (Sovereign) is in pieces and the Collectors are either wiped out or have so few numbers they might as well be extinct. As a result, a change of plans is merited. As for why they don't wait until Shepard is dead, they could be running low on gas. Vigil said in ME1 that it could be likely that Sovereign attempted to signal the Keepers centuries before the events of the game. It could be that the reapers are running low on juice and if they don't do something now, they won't have any means of continuing their plot. Other reasons as to why they don't wait until Shepard is dead are BioWare employees have a strong urge to eat, and Mass Effect fans need satisfaction. Tanooki1432 16:31, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tanookil. That is what I was looking for. I'd forgotten that Sovereign/Navara was hidden somewhere close by in Milky Way for all those millenia. Also, just a thought, but could Vigil have been referring to the Rachni Wars? Presumably, either the Collectors or a reaper were responsible for driving the rachni to fight. FarmerBob12 16:42, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Tanooki is correct in they leave one behind. However Vigil also noted that the Reapers probably couldn't survive in dark space forever to the low on gas theory is probably power or resources. We don't know how long Sovereign was trying to signal the keepers, so this might suggest that they are cutting it close. However it could also suggest that if they don't do something soon, then the organics of the galaxy will be able to develop weapons against them. Harbinger, possbily depending on research, already saw the Thanix, so it knows that organics are probabl not going to be a push over. Remember the longer you wait, the stronger the enemy becomes. Usually. And remember Reapers is capitalized and Shepard is not a he or a she, there is no canon one. Just saying. Lancer1289 18:10, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine the Reapers choose Earth for several reasons. Humanity has given them the most trouble. Humanity is the best candidate for creating the next batch of reapers. Earth is probably a weaker target than the combined might of the Council fleets, giving the Reapers a chance to "refuel" before they begin the mass genocide. FarmerBob12 21:54, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Time to refuel? This assumes that the other races would sit idly by and allow the Reapers this "time to refuel". Doing so would be sheer lunacy. Most of your reasons made sense. That last one? Not so much. SpartHawg948 03:11, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned the refueling theory as a reason why they might be choosing to attack Earth, because it was brought up by Tanooki and Lancer. Also, I never said they needed "Time to refuel" - I said they might need a "chance". It is all just a theory anyways, but even if it's correct, nobody knows what sort of fuel they would need or how long it would take to get it. Maybe they would find such materials on the way to Earth. Who knows? FarmerBob12 21:01, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to announce that when I saw the trailer, small amounts of wee came out. That is all.
 * And that is completely inappropiate. Lancer1289 20:55, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

If they wanted to rest then why attack the largest Navy in the galaxy and a main council member. Either way if Earth was hit the rest of the council would send help.Not to mention Arcturus station is in sol.I&#39;m creative enough to make one it&#39;s just that nobody cares enough to read it 03:54, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Problems: Arcturus Station is not in the Sol system. It is in the Arcturus System, which links to Sol via the Charon Relay and its partner. Also humans don't have the largest navy, the turians do since they do fill the role of galactic peacekeepers. Humans probably have the fourth, after the other three Council races, but they do not have the largest, no matter choices made in certain games. Also depending on your actions, humans probably aren't the main Council member. In neutral or renegade yes, but not in the paragon path. Finally, if Earth was attacked, then the rest of the Citadel Races would probably send help, but they could also look to their own security. Lancer1289 03:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Right, Forgot about Arcturus.I can't remember where it said that Humans have the largest Navy but it might have been the Renegade play through and as for fourth i think it would be higher as it is said the Humans and Turians are becoming major Peacekeeping partners and for the Renegade the Asari cede their Citadel Defense position to the Turians either way the Humans have over 300 ships(right?)And of course they are going to look to their own Defense but it would be Extremely stupid not to hit them when they are already occupied(at least some of them)Plus aren't the Turians known for Bringing out overwhelming response to any kind of attack?I&#39;m creative enough to make one it&#39;s just that nobody cares enough to read it 04:16, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's turian, asari, and human, remember the race name caps rule. However even in the Codex it states that humans only have eight dreadnoughts in ME2, while the salarians have double, the asari, almost triple, and the turians quadruple. Granted dreadnoughts are not the defining element of a how many ships a species has, but it does tell something. Dreadnoughts would never work alone, so they require a fleet, and usually a decent sized one at that to protect them. As for humans having 300, never heard that, but in Revelation it does say 200. As to the asari ceding their defense and patrol positions, it was probably because they couldn't maintain them in the wake of what Shepard did at the Battle of the Citadel. They were still probably licking their wounds. I don't think humans in ME2 would be larger than fourth, even if the renegade options were taken. You just can't build ships that fast and you do need ot have reserve forces. Lancer1289 04:22, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the humans have the largest military is probalby based on the comment from Mass Effect: Ascension, "the Alliance Navy has now become a dominant military force in the galaxy" after the Battle of the Citedal. It is unclear if the other races have rebuilt their forces in the two year period between this and ME2. If the Council died, it is indicated the turians did, as they are about to break the Treaty of Farixen. If the Council was saved, it seems to be a level of peace and cooperation between humans and the other races that indicates less interest is being placed on defense. But, of couse, even if interest was reduced the other races propably have been able to rebuild their forces and lick their wounds by then, making the above comment out of date.--Ironreaper 04:35, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

That was a typo on the number of ships but i really wasn't counting the Dreadnoughts as their isn't many of them even the turians only have about 28(was it)We really don't know how many ships the salarians or asari have to be sure.But since the humans have stationed ships to protect the citadel later on it can only imply two things.Either the other fleets don't have the numbers and re stationed them to protect their colonies or the humans have taken an active interest in protecting the Citadel. Maybe due to a defense treaty?Actually disregard the humans defending it thats only if the council diesI&#39;m creative enough to make one it&#39;s just that nobody cares enough to read it 05:58, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

This is what I guess, :Simplest Logic: If Citadel send help, they weaken their defence force ; not knowing that the Reapers have more troops out there or not. Refuses to help earth, which means Reapers can pick planet one by one, That's where Shepherd come in, convince council that saving Earth is important. (sorry if somebody said something like this already, Tl;dr) --Chawit Chiwarattanaphan 10:39, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironreaper: Dominant military force does not in any way equal the largest fleet, or the largest military for that matter. During the 100 years war the British could be considered the dominant military force, even though their military at the time was at the very most, half of what France could field. Britian accomplished more with less and I believe this is the same situation. Dominant =/= largest fleet or military. I still believe that humans have the fourth largest fleet, no matter the consequences of your actions.
 * Morris: The number of dreadnoughts can be easily looked up on the Codex on dreadnoughts. In ME, turians = 37, asari = 21, salarians = 16, humans = 6 (with one under construction). In Mass Effect 2, and we’ve confirmed this multiple times over, turians = 39, asari = 20, salarians = 16, humans = 8. The turians actually have almost five times the number of dreadnoughts that humans have (8*5 = 40), so I was a little off. However, that also doesn’t mean that they have the largest fleets either. I still say the turians have the largest fleet, followed by the asari, then the salarians, then humans. You wouldn’t send a dreadnought out alone, it would be like sending a modern day carrier out by itself, not a very wise strategy. As to defending the Citadel, that does not only happen if the Council dies. No matter the choices the Alliance fleet guards the stations for months after the battle. Due to a treaty, maybe, the Alliance guards the Citadel, while the rest help guard their colonies and rebuild their fleets, or for another reason. However we do know that Alliance ships were stationed at the Citadel before and after the Battle of the Citadel. I believe the Alliance Sixth Fleet was based at the Citadel. Also we know that there were more ships in that fight than what we see. I also believe there is somewhere a mention that all Citadel races have to have forces stationed at the Citadel. Although I think that may only be Council races, unsure where or if I read that. SO saying that it implies two things, is really narrowing the options, as there are a number of other explanations that are also there.
 * Chawit: That is really narrowing the viewpoint, however we don’t know the actual size of the Reaper fleet, nor that it only attacked Earth. My guess would be that ME3 is like Dragon Age, except you have to help the various species fight off their own Reaper attacks in order for them to help Earth.
 * The bottom line is there are still may things that we just can’t answer until next year. We can only guess. Lancer1289 15:55, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I said "That's what I guess", indeed anything else could happen, but given if the council keep running like this, Dismissing the the claims of reapers and call it a myth on ME2, even after they could have died from sovereign's attack, who knows?, many of them is still racist (or prejudice) and yet to have good terms with the Alliance. So I suggested that --Chawit Chiwarattanaphan 01:44, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Council is racist? Or prejudiced? Based on what? I've seen absolutely no evidence of either racism against or prejudice towards humans on the part of the Council. All I've seen is established powers (the Council races) expressing frustration at a powerful new player (the Alliance), and them trying to make the Alliance pay what they feel are its proper dues. You can't have good relations with someone who you feel is racially inferior, so the Council can't both be racist towards humans and still "have good terms with the Alliance", and it's still fairly difficult to have good relations with someone you're prejudiced against. If you have evidence to back your assertion that the Council is racist or prejudiced in regards to humans, I'd love to see it. If not, maybe we should lay off the baseless accusations. All I see is politics and diplomacy as usual. SpartHawg948 02:47, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've double check things, just forgot what I said, It is completely wrong, The racist and prejudice thingy is not from the council, I was meant to say that they did not have good term with alliance but that actually are depends of Shep's action. I mean there was a distrust at first, but whether it will go on or not depends on ME1's ending., Though my points stands, If the council keep up what they are acting like, It wouldn't be surprise if they do so. --Chawit Chiwarattanaphan 15:28, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

What about carriers, I believe humanity is the only race with them, and they are dreadnought sized vessals without a main gun, so they aren't limited by the Firaxen treaty, so they might field more ships than turians. They most likely would escort carriers the same, if not better, than dreadnoughts, meaning humanity might have more ships overall than turians. --Paladin cross 16:09, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we know humans were the first to field carriers. We don't know if other races use them now too or not. Funny thing about military innovations: When someone has it, everyone else has to have it. No one wants to let another power be the only one with a new weapon (such as carriers), or to be the only power without this new weapon. And assuming carriers must be better escorted is specious reasoning. We know that it takes years to build dreadnoughts. We know carriers are dreadnought-sized. We know the main difference is that, in place of a gun, carriers have hangers and launch/recovery facilities. Hangers are much more complex than a gun. We know that today, it takes much longer to fit a ship with hangers and launch/recovery facilities than it does to fit a ship with guns. Why then would we assume that humanity would have 30+ carriers? (We'd need at least 30 to "field more ships than the turians" in terms of cap ships). And why are we assuming that these carriers would, combined, get more escort ships than the 37 turian dreadnoughts do? There's just no fact (or logic) supporting these assertions. SpartHawg948 17:10, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We konw that carriers get a lot of escorts, and so did dreadnoughs/battlehips when they were still in use. We do know that carriers also took longer to build, IIRC, than battleships. I guess that the trians probably have a lot, probably at the very least three times the number, of ships humans do. So I'd agree that there are no facts or logic supporting those assertions either. Lancer1289 17:37, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

@Lancer. I find your criticism of my post regarding "dominate military force" a little unfair. The term was used in the context of a quote, not my own wording, which i was using to explain why someone else would come to the conclusion from it that humans have the most ships. I never stated that i agreed with the assumption. In fact, the reminder of the post was pointing out why this assumption is incorrect, and ultimately pointing to your conclusions as the more logical ones. You assumed i had come to an incorrect assessment by taking part of what i said out of context, when i was in fact illuminating why others who had come to that conclusion from the quote where in fact incorrect.--Ironreaper 07:48, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was merely pointing out that dominant does not equal the largest fleet by any stretch of the word. So I really don't see how it is unfair when I provide an example of how dominant doesn't equal largest. Also note that I wasn't just directing it at you, but rather responding to your comment, but rather for anyone else who also comes to the conclusion that dominant = largest. Granted it does show that there are other reasons to not believe it, but I merely just provided another example. Again I was just responding to your comment, so I really don't see how it is unfair. Lancer1289 13:49, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Geth working with Reapers
May i just point out something i saw in the recent ME3 trailer, you see geth dropships flying around and these could not be the "good" geth that mindue were changed by shepard in legions loyalty mission as when one of the dropships lights are shined on the soldier in the tower and he stands back and seems shocked. So it seems that the geth are know working with the reapers. sloth man 12 2:50 PM (AEST),December 15 2010
 * (edit conflict) Perhaps he's just shocked that a spotlight was on him, or that the reinforcements, which include geth have arrived. We already know the mainstream geth are not working with the Reapers, just a small sect of them, which you either mostly destroy or completely reprogram in ME2. Legion has stated quite clearly that the geth oppose the Reapers. And come to think of it, it doesn't even look like a geth ship, or at least one we've seen. We see what look like Mantis gunships and something that I can't identify, perhaps a new dropship or Reaper fighters. Considering what we know of the geth thanks to Legion, I highly doubt that they would switch sides so quickly. Also note that the geth value self-determination, and every species has the right to exist. Lancer1289 03:57, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bout that i dunno why i said geth but still if it is something like the alliance military then i dont really think they would use the mantis gunship as it is pretty much used only by blue suns, eclipse and possibly blood pack. I still think that the light is a bit suspicious but the dropship does fly away so im not entirely shore. sloth man 12 3:06 PM (AEST), December 15 2010
 * I highly doubt that the Mantis is used exclusivly by merc groups. Granted we only see those two Suns and Eclipse use them, I'm am positive that they aren't the only ones. The Mantis was probably originally developed for militaries, then was sold, or stolen, to merc groups and to ship producers. Personally I think the light is from a friendly that was just checking the building. And what do you mean by shore? Lancer1289 04:21, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No, the Mantis gunship is used by plenty of groups. Certainly more than just the Blue Suns, Eclipse, and Blood Pack. Those are just the ones we see using them in ME2. To quote from the A-61 Mantis Gunship article: "the Mantis remains in service in dozens of armies across the galaxy." (emphasis added) This is actually taken directly from the Codex entry for the Mantis, as is the statement that the Mantis is the "workhorse of mercenary bands throughout the galaxy". So no, the comment that the Alliance military wouldn't use the Mantis because "it is pretty much used only by blue suns, eclipse and possibly blood pack"is demonstrably false. We have canon evidence that many mercenary groups and "dozens of armies across the galaxy" use the Mantis. This could very well include Alliance ground forces, or the armies of individual nations on Earth. SpartHawg948 04:25, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Calm down! it was just a mistake. Besides in my codex it does not even have the dropship and from what ive "seen" from every single time i saw the gunship it was being used by merc groups. BTW, when it says armys it does not actually mean it is being used by main law enforcement and defense forces of species, planets, nations or other.
 * And you base this statement on... what, exactly? If there's a source for that claim, I would love to see it. SpartHawg948 04:36, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, merc groups or not, I would think using them against the Reapers takes priority. Everyone's existence is at stake. Freakium 04:42, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Just because something is seen being used by one group, doesn't mean it is used only by those groups, and we even have proof of that. I forgot to check the Codex on the Mantis, mainly because I also forgot that it had a Codex entry. And I also agree, what are you basing that statement on? Lancer1289 04:46, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Freakium i was just about to say that.

Getting back on topic, would the "Heretic" Geth ever try to work with the reapers again even now that there forces have been near annihilated or are there anymore existing heretic Geth after Shepard re-programmed some of them if not all of them.
 * Well that's the thing, if you reprogrammed them, then they would all rejoin the main geth faction. I doubt they would defect again. As to just blowing up the station, me thinks that when most of your people have been annihilated, maybe it's time to reconsider. That has one tricky canon issue. Lancer1289 05:16, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are also the options in ME2 to leave Legion deactivated, or send his platform off to a Cerberus lab. In either of those cases, the Heretic Geth would likely still be serving the Reapers. FarmerBob12 20:49, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * So basically, it's seeming pretty unlikely that the geth Heretics are involved. The Reapers were not too fond of them to begin with, and there are just so many canon issues to work around. They could play a role, but I wouldn't bet on it. SpartHawg948 21:01, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Narrator of Reveal Trailer
I acknowledge that I may be digressing a bit here, but the trailer's narrator bears a striking similarity to Jason Statham. If that turns out to be true, then it either means a) He allowed Bioware to use his likeness for the game, or b) Not only he does option A, but voices the character as well. There's even option c) He could only be doing this for the trailer, but not for the actual game, which I find unlikely. I used to think the latter option when the very first ME2 trailer was released, with Legion wearing Shep's armour (don't correct the spelling on this, I'm Canadian, so we do use the "u"), since it could've been that the Geth soon to be known as Legion was just a virtual publicity stunt. H-Man Havoc 12:00, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off... quick note: Moved this thread from where it was to here for purposes of housekeeping. Remember folks, new sections should go at the bottom of the page, not midway through the page between two older sections. It makes it so much easier for the admins when the page needs to be archived, as I'm sure this one will.
 * Now, to the point at hand... I don't really see it. I mean, I see a resemblance, but not a "striking similarity". The face of "Big Ben" appears a bit heavier, and the nose and browline look a bit different as well. And honestly, when I first heard the narration, my first thought (though I've since pretty much discounted it) was David Wenham. I must, in the interests of speculation and admin-duties and all that, also point out that (though it's more than likely the case, and I personally think it is the case) it is not yet known/demonstrated/confirmed/whatever that the voice narrating the trailer belongs to the guy with the rifle. Just throwing that out there... don't kill the messenger! :P SpartHawg948 15:45, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Sean Bean to me...

Whoever wrote the last quip: Sean Bean's voice is deep, but not that deep.... it's also a slightly different accent than Bean's. H-Man Havoc 16:11, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

That was me, I don't have an account yet. Bean has lowered his voice for a lot of his roles. What got me thinking that it was him was the way he said the word 'cities'. Check out when he says the word 'cities' or 'city' in the Fellowship of the Ring. Only Sean Bean can say it like that.
 * And that isn't proof by any stretch of the word. What you need is sourced information, and your gut and audio comparisons, which are extremely flimsy, aren't sources. They are guesses, and that equals speculation, which isn't allowed anyway. We need a source for that. Lancer1289 16:43, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Well fortunately for me, what I think, can't be deleted off a talk page, since speculation is allowed on talk pages. H-Man Havoc 17:58, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Unless Lancer, you were referring to the other contributor. H-Man Havoc 18:00, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep I was referring to the comment left by the user. Even admins can't remove comments from talk pages unless there are extremely, extremely specific circumstances. Speculation on talk pages is ok, as long as it doesn't make its way into the article without a source, which is what the user needs for something like that. Audio comparison and your gut aren't enough. This isn't NCIS. That’s the TV show of course, not the actual agency. Lancer1289 18:09, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the show. H-Man Havoc 20:15, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I wasn't sure if anyone reading would get the point of the joke I was trying to make. Apparently I didn't do it well enough. Lancer1289 20:16, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

But if it is Sean Bean I get to say I told you so, deal?
 * I don't think it's Sean Bean, but it's only fair that if it is him, you get to say "I told you so." I mean, I'd want to say it if I was right. SpartHawg948 23:41, January 8, 2011 (UTC)