67 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfen919]

Ratimir wrote...


Here's my alternate theory:

The Crucible is yet another Reaper backup plan.

It is not passed from victim race to victim race, but instead planted by the reapers each cycle.

................

It's possible...

ZombifiedJake wrote...

EDIT: Maybe not a deus ex machina by definition, but it certainly felt that way. 

Uniting the galaxy should have been the sole focus.

 

Though the game did state that the Reapers could not be defeated by conventional means. It would require some new knowledged gained about the Reapers' weakness or something similar. In this case it was some new technology, problem was that it wasn't Reaper technology. Instead it was technology handed from one cycle to the next, like Ratimir had stated.

Modifié par Wolfen919, 30 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Given the premise of ME3 and the lack of development in ME2, a transparent plot device like the Crucible was kinda inevitable.

[Tazzmission]

pettrox wrote...

the crucible was bad i didnt like it i thought that the point of ME3 was for the Fleet to win not have a super weapon...

imo the crucible was the atom bomb for the mass effect universe

i dont think world war 2 wouldve been won without it

same for the crucible yea the endings may not be what you expected but you still defeated the enemy in the end wether its controll or destroy or synthesis

[Litany of Fury]

I didn't really mind the fact that it was a MacGuffin - I can't really explain why, I just didn't mind. However, I did think that it was going to work a bit differently.

Given that everyone in-game keeps harping on about how it manipulates dark energy and such like, I thought that it must destroy or damage Reapers because they have some relation to dark energy. I came to the conclusion that the Reapers run on dark energy reactors in addition to mass effect cores, which would explain why they never have to refuel while lasting millions upon millions of years. Which is also why the Crucible firing would only affect Reapers and not everything else.

So I thought that the Crucible would fire, and the dark energy used to power the Reapers gets all messed up, resulting in ships shutting down, some exploding from a catastrophic failure in their reactors, while others still only lose weapons/shields/propulsion. Then the fleet moves in and mops up the crippled (but not entirely beaten) Reaper armada.

But no, instead it doesn't seem to have anything to do with dark energy at all. Unless all synthetic life runs on dark energy and nobody noticed.

[rpgfan321]

I thought the Crucible would do exactly what it did at the ending. I just did not expect the Starchild ... and my god that kid!

And because it was an unknown technology, spanning thousands of years, but humans and aliens are able to decode it in such a speed? I expected some backfire or collateral damage from firing the super weapon. It smelled fishy (obviously for it is a plot device). But geez, that kid annoys me.

[Wolfen919]

Tazzmission wrote...

pettrox wrote...

the crucible was bad i didnt like it i thought that the point of ME3 was for the Fleet to win not have a super weapon...

imo the crucible was the atom bomb for the mass effect universe

i dont think world war 2 wouldve been won without it

same for the crucible yea the endings may not be what you expected but you still defeated the enemy in the end wether its controll or destroy or synthesis

Then we get into "who made the catalyst" bit. I would have rather kept the Crucible exactly as it was presented to us; a superweapon. I would have rather seen the Crucible erradicate the Reaper's shields only to have the War Assets mean something, despite how "lame" the idea may be.

Still better ending than ME3. :innocent:

rpgfan321 wrote...

I thought the Crucible would do exactly what it did at the ending. I just did not expect the Starchild ... and my god that kid!

And because it was an unknown technology, spanning thousands of years, but humans and aliens are able to decode it in such a speed? I expected some backfire or collateral damage from firing the super weapon. It smelled fishy (obviously for it is a plot device). But geez, that kid annoys me.

 

So you expected 3 lame decisions on how the superweapon worked? No thanks. I would have rather ME3 ended with just one decision (to use the Crucible), then based on War Assets determine who lives and who dies. The decisions from the previous games would matter because that would ultimately determine a majority of our war assets. Not only would the decisions matter in that regard, but maybe in a ME2 ending style determine who will be the victor. Maybe the Rachni comes to save the Krogan?

Modifié par Wolfen919, 30 mars 2012 - 09:53 .

[Rolling Flame]

I like the idea of it being a Reaper trap. It would've been a great twist to see it attach to the Citadel, everyone getting ready for it to do something... only for it to do nothing.

I suppose the only problem would be everyone looking back, and thinking, "Well, what the hell was the point of doing that?"

Modifié par Rolling Flame, 30 mars 2012 - 09:50 .

[Ultra Prism]

There is alternate ending to ME3 in OXM winner contest ... that had cool idea

[Tazzmission]

Wolfen919 wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

pettrox wrote...

the crucible was bad i didnt like it i thought that the point of ME3 was for the Fleet to win not have a super weapon...

imo the crucible was the atom bomb for the mass effect universe

i dont think world war 2 wouldve been won without it

same for the crucible yea the endings may not be what you expected but you still defeated the enemy in the end wether its controll or destroy or synthesis

Then we get into "who made the catalyst" bit. I would have rather kept the Crucible exactly as it was presented to us; a superweapon. I would have rather seen the Crucible erradicate the Reaper's shields only to have the War Assets mean something, despite how "lame" the idea may be.

Still better ending than ME3. :innocent:

to be fair and as a agnostic person i think mass effect always had a religion theme to it

think about it

geth saw the reapers as gods

ahsley gives you the big who created everything speech in me1

hanar look at the protheans as gods

asari have that statue on thessia of a goddess


also soverin says in me1 to you we have no creator so maybe the reapers didnt know they are the spawn of creation?


i also think imo the catalsyt either a. lost controll over the reapers or b. he was lying


it gives us that god/lucifer theory if you think about it from that prospective

the whole ghost kid god thing didnt bother me at all but i wish they did flesh it out more

[Ibecomedeath]

IMO the Crucible is a trap... Another piece of Reaper tech left behind so that civilisation develops along the paths the Reapers desire...

There is no other explanation as to why it would incorporate the Citadel and most of all 'change' the Catalyst...

[Nauks]

It'd a Reaper trap.

Either to unite the galaxy and get them in the same place at the same time.
Or to throw us off, wasting time on a futile, never intended to work contraption while the Reapers do their thing.
Or, if a bit dubious, have us build the thing and bring it to the citadel, while intended to help the Reapers some how, all along.

[Renew81]

I wasnt sure what to think of it i thought it was some sort of device that would
make the reapers vulnerable enough to even the odds in the space battle..but was wrong.

[Ibecomedeath]

Tazzmission wrote...

to be fair and as a agnostic person i think mass effect always had a religion theme to it

think about it

geth saw the reapers as gods

ahsley gives you the big who created everything speech in me1

hanar look at the protheans as gods

asari have that statue on thessia of a goddess


also soverin says in me1 to you we have no creator so maybe the reapers didnt know they are the spawn of creation?


i also think imo the catalsyt either a. lost controll over the reapers or b. he was lying


it gives us that god/lucifer theory if you think about it from that prospective

the whole ghost kid god thing didnt bother me at all but i wish they did flesh it out more

I disagree entirely... BioWare simply acnkowledged that religion is an
important part in most societies, why would aliens be any different?

Modifié par Ibecomedeath, 30 mars 2012 - 09:56 .

[Carlthestrange]

The catalyst should not be a walking, talking space ghost.

That is all.

[Tazzmission]

Ibecomedeath wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

to be fair and as a agnostic person i think mass effect always had a religion theme to it

think about it

geth saw the reapers as gods

ahsley gives you the big who created everything speech in me1

hanar look at the protheans as gods

asari have that statue on thessia of a goddess


also soverin says in me1 to you we have no creator so maybe the reapers didnt know they are the spawn of creation?


i also think imo the catalsyt either a. lost controll over the reapers or b. he was lying


it gives us that god/lucifer theory if you think about it from that prospective

the whole ghost kid god thing didnt bother me at all but i wish they did flesh it out more

I disagree entirely... BioWare simply acnkowledged that religion is an
important part in most societies, why would aliens be any different?

i believe you misunderstood what i said

im saying i agree with what bioware is doing

im just saying they may have used ancient alien theory to try to explain it a tiny bit


because the asari got to where they are mainly because of the prothean becon of thessia

we also learn the protheans did in fact study early ancestory with humans ( ancient alien theory)

Modifié par Tazzmission, 30 mars 2012 - 09:59 .

[Annihilator27]

I was surprised when I was right about it.Before ME3 came out out I kept thinking what if each cycle was working on a weapon to help the next.Something like the Crucible to defeat the Reapers was inevitable and the Catalyst just contradicted things.

[DrDark101]

My very first thought was "They are really not going to pull a The day the Earth Stood Still are they". As I played the game though my worries were allivated somewhat during converstions that insinuated that while no one really knew what the Crucible would do they were'nt just ging to light the thing and hope for the best. This idea was hammered home numerous times, but...

Turns out it was a giant blow everyone back to the dark ages device afterall.

[Samzo77]

I saw it immediately as an unconventional solution to a war that couldn't be won in a fire fight. First vision in my head was of a pulse device that disables the entire reaper army, or the controlling force of the reaper army.

I didn't see a problem with it as a part of the plot.

[KingZayd]

Tazzmission wrote...

Wolfen919 wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

pettrox wrote...

the crucible was bad i didnt like it i thought that the point of ME3 was for the Fleet to win not have a super weapon...

imo the crucible was the atom bomb for the mass effect universe

i dont think world war 2 wouldve been won without it

same for the crucible yea the endings may not be what you expected but you still defeated the enemy in the end wether its controll or destroy or synthesis

Then we get into "who made the catalyst" bit. I would have rather kept the Crucible exactly as it was presented to us; a superweapon. I would have rather seen the Crucible erradicate the Reaper's shields only to have the War Assets mean something, despite how "lame" the idea may be.

Still better ending than ME3. :innocent:

to be fair and as a agnostic person i think mass effect always had a religion theme to it

think about it

geth saw the reapers as gods

ahsley gives you the big who created everything speech in me1

hanar look at the protheans as gods

asari have that statue on thessia of a goddess


also soverin says in me1 to you we have no creator so maybe the reapers didnt know they are the spawn of creation?


i also think imo the catalsyt either a. lost controll over the reapers or b. he was lying


it gives us that god/lucifer theory if you think about it from that prospective

the whole ghost kid god thing didnt bother me at all but i wish they did flesh it out more

i always interpreted the theme to be a stargate interpretation of the gods. they've always been advanced species who have been deified.

[Carlthestrange]

I kinda wish this war had ended like Dragon Age Origins. You won through raw manpower, actually winning because you had gathered an army.

Always annoys me when they have to release some kind of "Superweapon" to win the war. Its so cliche.

[Myrmedus]

Felt a -little- like it was pulled out of the storyteller's butts but, since it was introduced at the beginning of ME3 at least, I could stomach it.

[ZLurps]

The whole Crusible was bit jarring...

I liked it better if it were pulse weapon, emitting signal, bit like EMS (Electro Magnetic Pulse) but only affecting Reaper nano machines, nanides as they are called in ME lore.
In ME Retribution how nanides work in huskification is explained pretty well and having weapon like that would  eliminate husk problem too. (if pulse were relayed to all systems).

Modifié par ZLurps, 30 mars 2012 - 10:11 .

[Dark Specie]

Carlthestrange wrote...

I kinda wish this war had ended like Dragon Age Origins. You won through raw manpower, actually winning because you had gathered an army.

Always annoys me when they have to release some kind of "Superweapon" to win the war. Its so cliche.

To be fair, in DAO you didn't win because of raw manpower. You won because you struck against the heart of the enemy (the Archdemon). If it had been all about raw manpower, then it should've been possible to defeat the horde merely by gathering a large/strong enough army  .

[Carlthestrange]

Dark Specie wrote...

To be fair, in DAO you didn't win because of raw manpower. You won because you struck against the heart of the enemy (the Archdemon). If it had been all about raw manpower, then it should've been possible to defeat the horde merely by gathering a large/strong enough army  .

And who is to say killing Harbinger wouldn't be like chopping off a snakes head?

[Dark Specie]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Dark Specie wrote...

To be fair, in DAO you didn't win because of raw manpower. You won because you struck against the heart of the enemy (the Archdemon). If it had been all about raw manpower, then it should've been possible to defeat the horde merely by gathering a large/strong enough army  .

And who is to say killing Harbinger wouldn't be like chopping off a snakes head?

"We're each a nation"  . I think the Reapers have been explained to not work that way, whereas in DAO, it's known through in-game lore and the like that ALL blights have ended because the "head of the serpent"" was cut off...