I think as this is supposed to be the story for everything that the name should be changed and the Mass Effect Story page and the Revelation plot should be incorporated into this page. If we name it something like "Complete Mass Effect Storyline" then we can incorporate everything from the book to future games in it and not have to deal with many articles. Bioevil087 02:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. While looking at the first few edits of the page, it looked like it was going to be a walkthrough of the game, but it's going in a different direction now, which is perfectly fine. I was planning to begin writing/editing a game walkthrough (I just started playing), and originally thought this article would be where that happened, but I agree that this article should, instead, be used as a complete and comprehensive record of the events leading to, during, and after the game. Hence, I believe a new page (suggested name - Walkthrough) should be created to contain only a walkthrough of the game itself. If said page has not been created when I am ready to begin writing/editing it (probably within 24 hours), I'll create it and get it started. JoePlay (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Agreed 2 Extra Page? 3 Again... 4 Storyline Question 5 Dramatic License? 6 Was it Alliance fleet or Shepard who was responsible for Sovereign's weakening? 7 "secondary" page for the Battle of the Citadel? 8 Countered 9 Illusive Man's name

Agreed Edit

Sounds like a good idea to me. Not having to sort through a ton of articles to find relevant plot data would be a great blessing, and it would also be much easier for people who have not played the game(s)/read the book to get the whole of the story better. Battican 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there is already the Mass Effect Guide page that has recently been created. Bioevil087 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the "Storyline" page, should we include side missions in this or a separate page? They're part of the story of Mass Effect, just not the main story. I personally would reccomend a separate page for side missions; there we could have a neat place for all the interesting little things that happen around the galaxy. -Knoxitor

Fine but call it "Complete Mass Effect Storyline: Mass Effect Side Missions" just so it is clear that it is apart of this article. Bioevil087 04:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest only putting the story elements into the story page, and put walkthroughs for the missions in the guide pages. Klaumbaz 05:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As suggested, instead of making a new article for a walkthrough, I've begun writing one on the Mass Effect Guide article, which I cleaned up. JoePlay (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we can integrate the side mission's storyline into its own walkthrough, probably under a sub-heading. -Knoxitor

We forgot to add the Virmire misson...unless thats an optional mission. But, it might be important to the storyline because one Sheppard's commrads dies in the nuke detonation. Kap2310 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure anything needs to be done about this, but I noticed and thought I'd throw it out. A lot of the storyline seems to have been written from a single playthrough perspective; it doesn't really take into account the various ways you can accomplish the same thing (talking to barla von instead of the drunk on the citadel and the 4 ways to get a garage pass on noveria come to mind). I'm not sure it's feasible or even useful to include the various ways you can get things done, but do we want to write this like this is some sort of official way things occurred in the story line? Should we try to make this more general than it is, focusing on the big plot points and thinning out how you get there? --TarkisFlux 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from there. I think a lot of that is my fault because I've scribbled on this article so much. From what I saw, the purpose of this article is to give a summary of the story that's concise and readable, and though I've had a bit of experience doing that, I've not done it for this level of free choice. You're right, there are other avenues you can take and Barla Von is a good example who probably needs a mention, but with something as complex as Mass Effect, I think you either have a detailed walkthrough or a generalised storyline; they don't work well if you try to mesh them together. I guess what I'm saying is that we HAVE pages with the alternate routes on, this one is specifically for the story. We have a good walkthrough for all the options available, so it might work better if this became more generalised. We can always stick a link to the relevant walkthrough section under each plot segment if you want to make it clear there are alternative options. What do you think? -- Tullis 10:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, making this more general and linking to a detailed walkthrough would probably work best. It would also make it easier to add future novels and games to the storyline (they are coming right?), if we wanted to keep the overall story on one page anyway. The Halopedia has a good example of this sort of general storyline overvew with links to novel material and game material, so does the Half-Life wiki (not that I can find the pages right now). --TarkisFlux 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Extra Page? Edit

Hmm. I like the idea of having a single page with all the novels and games on it, but this page is pretty long as it is. Having the entire series on one page might be a problem for readers and editors, and besides, it'll take forever to load even in a good browser. I'm wondering if it might be better to keep ME: Revelation and the first game on this page, then create a second page - call it something like Storyline II - for ME: Ascension and Mass Effect 2, and put links to that at the top and bottom of this page. So we still keep the storyline together, just make it a bit easier to handle wiki-wise. Thoughts? -- Tullis 10:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again... Edit

There's at least six topics in this Wiki that mention "Saren's Brother", PLEASE cite your sources and references as to where that came from because there's no mention in the game of Saren ever having a brother and neither is there any mention of him having a brother in the Revelations book.

I've edited it out as much as I can on those pages but I can't edit out of the "Timeline" topic so that needs to be fixed ASAP. --Digital Holocaust 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Timeline for citation. Next time, please ASK where the information is coming from first before editing wholesale. --Tullis 11:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It also may be really useful to add citation to the actual articles where the references to his brother is made. Saves a lot of confusion in the future if people overlook it in the book. --Digital Holocaust 11:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Storyline Question Edit

There is something that has been picking at my brain lately.

Saren needs to find the Conduit in order to gain access to the Citadel to reactivate the Citadel Relay to dark space. But what I don't understand is why didn't he just walk into the Citadel and do it? (When he still had his Spectre status and wasn't being hunted down I mean). I just don't understand why he had to go through all that trouble traveling the galaxy and then using the Conduit to travel there when he could have just as easily walked into the Citadel and done it that way?

If anyone could answer this for me it would be very helpful. Thanks.

SoBi 17:39, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Partly, I think, because even a Spectre might have aroused suspicion if he walked into the Council Chambers and started activating stuff while a giant warship approached from outside. Besides, the Citadel defences might have conceivably taken Sovereign down if the Council had been able to call for help via the mass relays. He needed to sneak a geth army onto the station to bypass its defences from the inside first. --Tullis 18:13, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. That makes perfect sense. Thank you for clearing that up and being so helpful.

SoBi 21:38, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that that's true, but the same question occurred to me, and that's the best answer I have. --Tullis 21:45, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Well it's the only possible explanation really.

SoBi 00:57, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Dramatic License? Edit

There are a couple of plot points which have been really bugging me. The first, in ME1, when Udina locks you out of the Normandy and you have to have Anderson's help to get you out. Really dramatic scenes follow. The problem here is that when you first become a Spectre, they make it a point that Shepard no longer takes orders from the two of them. It's even said, "You don't answer to us now." So why can't Shepard cancel the lockdown? That scene seems to indicate he/she is above Udina on the chain of command.
The second is a minor thing from ME2. The Omega 4 Relay is the only way to the Collector base. None of the fancy pre-rendered exterior shots show another Relay once you're through that one. So how does the Normandy get back? Seems like it'd be a long way and/or impossible using FTL...
BAPACop 20:13, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Shepard could probably get around the lockdown him/herself, but wouldn't be able to override it for the Normandy and her crew. They are, after all Alliance military assets. It's not that Shepard is above Udina in the chain of command, it's that Shepard is outside of the chain of command (at least the one Udina is in). But yeah, Shepard needed the Normandy, and Udina has authority over the Normandy and its crew that Shepard cannot override, as at the end of the day, it is an Alliance warship. As for the second point, remember that ships routinely travel between systems using FTL. The simplest fairly likely explanation is that there is a relay in another system somewhere nearby, and that the Normandy utilized this to leave. I mean, you have to figure, the Collectors themselves were able to get out, so there has to be some way. SpartHawg948 20:26, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Spart has covered the Udina question already. Regarding the Omega-4 relay, I have a sneaking suspicion that Bioware took the dramatic licence overboard a little, to the extent that they wanted to make a very heroic 'flying off into the sunset/nebula' cutscene. I guess if we wanted to be forgiving, we could say that there was another relay nearby that they used (although if the galactic core was so isolated, why would there be?). Personally I think it's a bit of a minor plot hole, but we could easily invent some other excuse (they did a U-Turn in FTL, came back and used the Omega-4 relay to get back to the Sahrabarik system, for example). Bronzey 02:42, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Again though, it's not really a plot hole. After all, it's clearly established that there is a way out, otherwise, how would the Collectors have been going about their business all this time? Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, if a TV show episode is shot entirely in an interior room, and at the end, the characters are known to be preparing to leave, is there a plot hole? After all, it's an interior room, no visible way to leave the building. Of course it isn't! Just because you can't see the door, doesn't mean there isn't one. SpartHawg948 02:47, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

If there was another relay nearby:

a) How could the Normandy know if it existed at all and if aware, how could its location be known in the isolated and dangerous galatic core?

b) Why couldn't they just use that relay in the first place? Why go through the dangerous Omega-4 Relay when there's a safer backdoor?

Before my questions get attacked, I'd like to offer my own explanation: Joker jumped them in the same fashion as at the end of the Collector Ship mission. Although, even this raises the question "why not just FTL the way there instead of using the relay and ripping off Star Trek (2009)?"
SlayerEGO1342 23:16, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing how relays work. They work in pairs. One relay connects to another relay. They're not using a "Back door" relay, they're simply using the Omega-4 relay's partner to jump back out. Yeah they don't show it, but it's been established that one relay sends you to another relay. Why would the Omega-4 relay function any differently? Who knows why they didn't show the relay being used in the cinematic, but it's not a plot hole, just a calculated omission of information. Dammej 23:25, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You need to play the game again.

a)They could probably see it once they were in the galactic core. After all finding relays isn't the problem, its knowing whats on the other side.

b)Because they didn't know where it's partner was. Furthermore, it would more than likely use the same identification system as the Omega-4 Relay.

Star Trek) *facepalm* That would take years.Bastian964 23:29, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, first let's tackle the very last question, why not just FTL them there. The answer is because they wanted to get there in time to stop the Collectors, Remember that FTL over great distances (i.e. anything other than cruising around one cluster) takes an incredibly long time, hence the need for mass relays. Now, per your questions.

First, it's not really an 'if'. There IS another way out (as the Collectors demonstrated every time they left their 'home system'.

A) They knew there had to be some way out (for the aforementioned reason). They knew it had to be close. Close as in within practical FTL range. This makes it pretty easy to narrow down the list of candidates, as they were in a rather confined area of space.

B) It's quite simple. The Omega 4 Relay (and its counterpart in Collector space) were most likely 'Primary relays'. Per the Codex: "Primary mass relays can propel ships thousands of light years, often from one spiral arm of the galaxy to another. However, they have fixed one-to-one connections: a primary relay connects to one other primary relay, and nowhere else." If this is the case, which seems likely based on the vast distance between Omega and the Collector station, they literally couldn't get to any other relay from the Omega 4 relay. Simple as that. SpartHawg948 23:31, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Was it Alliance fleet or Shepard who was responsible for Sovereign's weakening? Edit

I just read a twitter message from Mac Walters and it said the following: "Sovereign was focusing a great deal of energy controlling Saren directly, like a puppet. His death made Sovereign vulnerable." Then again on the wiki page it says Alliance fleet weakened Sovereign. Should this be fixed? Dogmatix314 07:01, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

No, because it doesn't state that it was the Alliance fleet that weakened Sovereign. This is a misreading of the current wording, which indicated that Sovereign didn't become susceptible to the Alliance warships until after the squad destroyed the Saren avatar. SpartHawg948 07:48, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I kinda assumed that "Fleet is slowly getting the upper hand" meant Shepard didn't have much to do with Sovereign weakening. Anyways in my opinion the wording in the article is easily misunderstood. Dogmatix314 07:54, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

The way I read it is that the fleet is getting the upper hand in the engagement. This is indisputably true. After all, it's not just Sovereign the fleet is dealing with. It's geth ships too. At least, that's how I read it. SpartHawg948 07:58, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very true that the Geth fleet was getting pounded by the Alliance. However Mac Walter's (lead writer in mass effect 2/3) twitter message info is not taken into account at all in the article. By that I meant the connection between Sovereign's dropping shields and death of the avatar is not mentioned in the article anywhere. Dogmatix314 08:59, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

OK, I finally read correctly the sentence in the article. Even if I was wrong, I'll still say the currect wording can be misleading to those whose mother tongue is not English. Dogmatix314 09:06, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

To that I really only can say that this is the English Mass Effect wiki, and I would have to agree that the current wording is fine. Even to people who's native tongue is English can misread things, and I've seen that happen all the time. Lancer1289 12:26, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

how about jumps to each title, at the top?Dukeleto 07:32, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Because I'm very confused here. Lancer1289 12:29, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

"secondary" page for the Battle of the Citadel? Edit

I was wondering what you folks thought of a more "traditional" battle page (like this or this). And do them for all known battles, like Shanxi, The Citadel, Earth (in ME3), etc.

They wouldn't replace, but be "secondary" pages, being entirely about the battles themselves, as an addendum (for lack of a better term) to the battles being told as a narrative, like in these "storyline" articles.

Any objections?

--WTRiker 07:28, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin on another wiki who's confronted and dealt with the same question...I think it's a good idea in a few cases, but not all. For instance, the Battle of the Citadel would be a good idea for a page, in that it's a canonical name. However, Battle of Earth and Battle of Shanxi would not be good ideas IMO, in that (as far as I know), such terms have not been used in-universe, and at least in Shanxi, everything that's on it is covered adequately in the First Contact War article.

There are exceptions however, where sometimes a term has to be used to cover a conflict that has no in-universe name, yet is so large that it's too difficult to simply intergrate it, or have it piecemeal. Mostly I've seen this done/done it myself for RTS games, and while the titles of the conflict are based on conjecture, it's conjecture that I think is worth it in presenting a full article. A war article for the events of Mass Effect 3 would be good in this context...but probably moot in that it's set to vary based on player choice.

So yeah. Battle of the Citadel yes, Battle of Shanxi no, battles from ME3...probably not, as there's too much variation of outcome.--Hawki 08:40, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

And speaking as an admin on this wiki, I have to say no because we have actually approached this before and there were several issues that cannot be resolved. The fact that the player can make several decisions that can alter the course of the battle. The formatting would be a mess and we'd have more notes about separate paths that it would just look horrible. Lancer1289 13:21, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Shanxi during the First Contact War is a fixed story, no? And RE: Btl of the Citadel, what about "rigging" the choices like the Epilogue section in this article? Alternatively, what if I create a "prototype" page for Shanxi or Citadel, and see what you think of it? --WTRiker 08:47, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Countered Edit

He countered, she countered, everybody counters. Doesnt anybody reply?

Comments like this belong elsewhere as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 16:18, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Illusive Man's name Edit

The Illusive Man is referred to as just "Jack" for the majority of the Mass Effect: Evolution section. Would it not make sense for him referred to as just Harper? I think this should prevent confusion between this Jack and Subject Zero, without having to refer to him by full name. I would have asked this on Jack's (Subject Zero's) page, but we don't know her surname. --CrackFoxJunior 22:43, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a high chance of anyone confusing the two given the differences in the time frames of Evolution and ME2/ME3 and the characters themselves, but if you wish to change all the Jacks to Harpers in the Evolution section, I have no objection. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:49, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

True, a fan of the series might not confuse the two, but some one unfamiliar with the series could. Just a thought. --CrackFoxJunior 23:05, July 7, 2012 (UTC)