98 réponses à ce sujet

[shep214]

if it werent for friggin arrival dlc, this thread wouldnt exist, the entire debate of the relays wouldnt exist.....hats off to the arrival dlc for mindf*cking everyone

[Ariq]

Argraharg wrote...

Obviously at least one solar system with a mass relay didn't get destroyed by the destruction of all mass relays: the solar system with the planet where the Normandy crashed.

Nothing indicates that the Normandy is in a system with a Relay when it crashes. It is possible they were in FTL away from Sol, as there is a confirmed inhabitable planet in easy FTL range (The Manswell expedition colonized planet in the Alpha Centauri system). Or, it is possible that the Normandy dropped out of Relay beam when the shockwave hit, in which case who knows where they are.  The video doesn't show them arrive at a Relay point and then move off, they are in transit before the shockwave catches them. Impossible to tell from the given information.

[TheCrakFox]

Way I see it they're just breaking, not exploding. The energy being released is sent to the next relay.

Makes the endings a little less bleak and destructive, doesn't exactly get rid of the plot holes or fix any of the many, many other things wrong with it though. *sigh*

[Kartre]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Yep.  Thats what I want, is clarification.  It seems obvious to me the relays did NOT destroy everything.  What I can't understand is why this was not made clear.  Literally would take two lines.

Cataylst:  The relays will be destroyed.
Shepard:  Won't that destroy everything in every system with a relay?
Catalyst:  No.  The Crucible requires the energy contained within the relays to fulfill its function.  This energy will be translated from relay to relay, rather than into the local solar systems.

Seriously.  Why Bioware?

Yep. And with that ONE change, I would be satisfied with the ending. Plot holes I can forget, but not playing Mass Murder Simulator 3.

[Dragoni89]

if the explosions were not destructive, why was the joker running for his life? I think we can assume based on the clip shepard just wiped his entire war asset fleet. The losses were way too high for Shepard to use the crucible.

Modifié par Dragoni89, 04 avril 2012 - 05:23 .

[Gerudan]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

The Relay in Arrival was destroyed by smashing a freaking asteroid into it, creating a supernova-like explosion that annihilated the system. At the end of ME3, the Relays are presumably destroyed by the energy surge released by the Crucible.

So why does everyone assume the same reaction would occur? It seems plausible that the Relays being destroyed by the Crucible would not necessarily have the same effect as smashing a giant asteroid traveling at tremendous speed.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you "destroy" a brick of plutonium by burning or melting it, as opposed to squirting tritium and blasting it with a projectile to create a nuclear detonation?

The hit with an asteroid alone wouldn't destroy a freakin' solar system. It is the explosion and release of the energy inside the relay that causes it.

Sure, you can come up with any number of excuses, why the same didn't happen in the end of ME3, but that is all bogus as long as Bioware themselves aren't giving us one.

They made the devastating effect of the destruction of a Mass Relay a pivotal plot point in a DLC, but never bothered to explain, why the same didn't happen with the Mass Relays in ME3. I mean at least Shepard should have objected to the idea. "Wait, what did you say, stupid starchild? That will destroy the Mass Relays? But that means I would destroy half the galaxy!"

But no, he just went with it, because the endings were so well writen and in character.

[legaldinho]

http://social.biowar...ndex/10873692/1

A 9 page thread has covered this ground.

The cycle must be broken.

[K1llm1n1on]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 The Relay in Arrival was destroyed by smashing a freaking asteroid into it, creating a supernova-like explosion that annihilated the system.  At the end of ME3, the Relays are presumably destroyed by the energy surge released by the Crucible.  

So why does everyone assume the same reaction would occur?  It seems plausible that the Relays being destroyed by the Crucible would not necessarily have the same effect as smashing a giant asteroid traveling at tremendous speed.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you "destroy" a brick of plutonium by burning or melting it, as opposed to squirting tritium and blasting it with a projectile to create a nuclear detonation?

As you say, they "assume."
More to the point, many are upset that they aren't more explicitly informed of the final events, where they have to supply their own answers.

A lot of the controversy over the endings lies in the conclusions some have come to when trying to sort them out.

[The Lightspeaker]

K1llm1n1on wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 The Relay in Arrival was destroyed by smashing a freaking asteroid into it, creating a supernova-like explosion that annihilated the system.  At the end of ME3, the Relays are presumably destroyed by the energy surge released by the Crucible.  

So why does everyone assume the same reaction would occur?  It seems plausible that the Relays being destroyed by the Crucible would not necessarily have the same effect as smashing a giant asteroid traveling at tremendous speed.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you "destroy" a brick of plutonium by burning or melting it, as opposed to squirting tritium and blasting it with a projectile to create a nuclear detonation?

As you say, they "assume."
More to the point, many are upset that they aren't more explicitly informed of the final events, where they have to supply their own answers.

A lot of the controversy over the endings lies in the conclusions some have come to when trying to sort them out.

Which just further reinforces what a godawful mess the endings are. When your narrative doesn't even make it clear whether or not you've just wiped out about 90% of the galaxy then you've screwed up somewhere in a major way.

[Silpheed58]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 The Relay in Arrival was destroyed by smashing a freaking asteroid into it, creating a supernova-like explosion that annihilated the system.  At the end of ME3, the Relays are presumably destroyed by the energy surge released by the Crucible.  

So why does everyone assume the same reaction would occur?  It seems plausible that the Relays being destroyed by the Crucible would not necessarily have the same effect as smashing a giant asteroid traveling at tremendous speed.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you "destroy" a brick of plutonium by burning or melting it, as opposed to squirting tritium and blasting it with a projectile to create a nuclear detonation?

1.) Because the only example we have of a relay going boom boom is in a previous DLC.  It wiped out the solar system.  While this can be called speculation to believe this, there is president.

2.) How is it more "plausible that the MRs do not explode if caused by the crucible?  This is just speculation with out president.  Some one else in another thread tried to explain it off by saying that this was answered by the search for the Catalyst.  This is a mistaken assumption, and if it's not poor storytelling is to blame, the search for the Catalyst was started due to the energy released by the crucible would have been release in an uncontrolled manner, and everyone assumed this beam was part of a weapon.  As you saw in the end atop the citidel the crucible was releaseing its energy in a focused beam. 

[Silpheed58]

That or its magics

[Nefelius]

Arrival didn't prove that "explosion is a result of a asteroid smashing".
It proved that a Relay CAN be destroyed by asteroid, and when destroyed - the resulted energy release wipe everything around it.

Dc. Kenson says it all.

Modifié par Nefelius, 04 avril 2012 - 05:39 .

[Alibenbaba]

The relays wouldn't explode because the crucible re-calibrates the plasma induction coils into a stable Hastings configuration. The resulting feedback loop can be re-routed through the eezo core shield emitters resulting in a quantum radiation surge most of which can be diverted in the obvious way, through the connected gate network.
The process would of course drain the eezo chrystals and render the gate inert, but it's much better than a catastrophic release.

See? Everything perfectly explainable in in-game terms. -.-

[legaldinho]

Sigh. It's depressing watching the same arguments being repeated again in exactly the same trenchant way. "ur stupid" "no ur stupid its canon"

Maybe the cycle isn't a lie and the godchild was telling us the truth...

[Silpheed58]

Alibenbaba wrote...

The relays wouldn't explode because the crucible re-calibrates the plasma induction coils into a stable Hastings configuration. The resulting feedback loop can be re-routed through the eezo core shield emitters resulting in a quantum radiation surge most of which can be diverted in the obvious way, through the connected gate network.
The process would of course drain the eezo chrystals and render the gate inert, but it's much better than a catastrophic release.

See? Everything perfectly explainable in in-game terms. -.-

::Whispers::  Space magics

Modifié par Silpheed58, 04 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[thefallen2far]

Asteroid hitting a mass relay is kinetic energy. The only way for kinetic energy to equal destruction of. A solar system is when it triggers a release of chemical or atomic energy.

Think of it this way, if a car hits a wall, the car doesn't explode, it dents. If it explodes, the crash ignited the fuel line causing the chemical reaction causing the explosion. If you burn the car, explode the car, it should have the same energy release because you're igniting the fuel.

If en asteroid hitting a relay causes a destruction of a solar system, the energy was in the relay.... it exploding would not reduce the destruction of the solar system.

The whole ending didn't make sense, scientifically, which is why everyone's saying "space magic". Like for instance, why would more troops on the ground lessen the effect of the citadel explosion from space across the whole planet?

[Apathy1989]

I never understood the butthurt over this. I made the same leap of logic that these destructions were different.

[AllegedVixEo]

I feel that the ending where Shepard wakes up in all the rubble and the "Stargazer" are both definitive conclusions to the point that the blast from the relays did NOT destroy everything. Without question.

The purpose of Arrival was not to simply show that a relay explosion can blow up the entire system.  It was meant to be a game changer for Shepard, no pun intended, and foreshadow the events to come in ME3. You can't make the kinds of decisions that you are forced to make in Arrival and still live happily ever after, and I think that the purpose of the DLC was to prepare fans for the realization that this is it, kiddos.

Now, while I agree it is expected that Shepard would question the "starchild" about the safety of the galaxy, that's neither here nor there in relation to the original questions posted.  Granted we did see a supernova explosion in Arrival, and the codex tells us that a relay that is destroyed will cause that effect, Bioware provides sufficient evidence to show that at the end of ME3 that is not the case.  This is evidenced by the people cheering on Earth, to Shepard waking up, to Stargazer - all of which you see if your galactic readiness is high enough. It's not just left up to assumption.

The real question is NOT "Did the blast from the Crucible have the same devastating effects as the Relay explosion in Arrival?" but instead, "Why didn't it have the same effect?"  To answer that question, I think many of the people on the above thread post several acceptable explanations - it's a different kind of explosion, the energy from the crucible is being dispersed before the relay breaks apart, the crucible itself could be the reason for the difference.  All of which are logical conclusions that many of us jumped to at the end of the game, without questioning it.  I imagine that our collective need to question every piece of the puzzle will prompt Bioware to spoon feed us answers like these so our speculation riddled brains can go back to being so very alive and full of goo.

Modifié par AllegedVixEo, 04 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[Vortex13]

I would hope the relays killed everyone I cared about rather than the alternative of them dying slowly.

Also, if you think about it, destroying the relays, but leaving people alive to reverse engineer the things kind of defeats the point of removeing them in the first place.

Allow me to illustrate:

Mass Relays exploding, from what I have seen in game (Codex entries, Arrival DLC) points to destroying a relay as a big no no.

But lets take a step back for a second and say that the crucible energy wave did indeed destroy the relays without causing a supernova, by transfering said energy point to point, relay to relay across the galaxy, leaving the burnt out husks floating in space.

Apart from the fact that the liberation fleet is now stranded on Earth and all long range travel is now gone, you still have an issue with the basis of the galatic society disapearing.

Ignoring the starvation, and plagues that will certainly follow cutting off all supply chains, you still have to deal with the loss of all commerce and trade, and the sheer loss of data. Remember the extranet required the mass relays to transfer data and that most colony worlds did not contain all the information available due to bandwith issues.

But Earth and the respective captial planets did have Quantam Entanglment Communicators; okay so they will be able to talk to each other, but transfer data on say, a power generator, or a food processor? In Mass Effect 2 EDI said that the amount of data to be transfered was miniscule compared to the extranet, as in quantam bits tiny.

But lets say that the races can somehow transfer data to each other, were are they going to get supplies? Places like war torn Earth, Palaven, and Thessia would be hard pressed to find resoures for short term surrvival let alone being able the set aside and stockpile items for long term recovery. Also even if convential FTL travel was possible, with adequate fuel and drive core discharge locations, you are still looking at least a 30 year one way trip to reach you destination.

Fine, but lets say that the greatest surviving minds of the galaxy team up and find a way to rebuild the Mass Relays. Okay but even then, with the quantam entanglement communicators to allow the scientists to properly link up the Relays and not have them shoot the traveling ships into a sun or planet, your only really linking a war torn capital world with a war torn captial world. This of course would put you right back to square one in the finding supplies department.

But lets say that the combined supplies of the individual worlds is enough to sustain galaxtic society. Fine, but then how are the different races going to power the rebuilt relays? Remember the whole counter argument was that the relays discharged their stored energy in a non-destructive way, okay so without a power source how would the races use the relays?

And even ignoring all the issues above, you would still run into the issue as to why the relays had to be destroyed in the first place. As most other forum users have said, the relays were a tool of the Reapers and by using them galatic society was a slave to the Reapers will.

"You evolve along the paths we desire" 

But wouldn't leaving dead Reapers (those killed in the fighting and the destroy ending), and the bits of Reaper tech in the form of husks, marauders, banshees, ect and the broken Mass Relays mean that we were still traped under the Reapers oppressive rule? Since, reverse engineering the tech would be using the Reapers means to meet our goals.

[fiendling]

TheCrakFox wrote...

Way I see it they're just breaking, not exploding. The energy being released is sent to the next relay.

Makes the endings a little less bleak and destructive, doesn't exactly get rid of the plot holes or fix any of the many, many other things wrong with it though. *sigh*

Did you miss the entire galaxy view of the chain reaction with each mass relay's destruction clearly visible from hundreds, if not thousands, of light years away? To put it in perspective, the Milky Way (our galaxy) is at least 100,000 light years in diameter. Do you have any idea of the amount of energy required to produce the size of the explosions you see from the vantage point it is shown? It is supernova level at the minimum.

[fiendling]

Aplogies for the double post.

Modifié par fiendling, 04 avril 2012 - 06:33 .

[AllegedVixEo]

Vortex13 wrote...

I would hope the relays killed everyone I cared about rather than the alternative of them dying slowly.

Also, if you think about it, destroying the relays, but leaving people alive to reverse engineer the things kind of defeats the point of removeing them in the first place.

Allow me to illustrate:

Mass Relays exploding, from what I have seen in game (Codex entries, Arrival DLC) points to destroying a relay as a big no no.

But lets take a step back for a second and say that the crucible energy wave did indeed destroy the relays without causing a supernova, by transfering said energy point to point, relay to relay across the galaxy, leaving the burnt out husks floating in space.

Apart from the fact that the liberation fleet is now stranded on Earth and all long range travel is now gone, you still have an issue with the basis of the galatic society disapearing.

Ignoring the starvation, and plagues that will certainly follow cutting off all supply chains, you still have to deal with the loss of all commerce and trade, and the sheer loss of data. Remember the extranet required the mass relays to transfer data and that most colony worlds did not contain all the information available due to bandwith issues.

But Earth and the respective captial planets did have Quantam Entanglment Communicators; okay so they will be able to talk to each other, but transfer data on say, a power generator, or a food processor? In Mass Effect 2 EDI said that the amount of data to be transfered was miniscule compared to the extranet, as in quantam bits tiny.

But lets say that the races can somehow transfer data to each other, were are they going to get supplies? Places like war torn Earth, Palaven, and Thessia would be hard pressed to find resoures for short term surrvival let alone being able the set aside and stockpile items for long term recovery. Also even if convential FTL travel was possible, with adequate fuel and drive core discharge locations, you are still looking at least a 30 year one way trip to reach you destination.

Fine, but lets say that the greatest surviving minds of the galaxy team up and find a way to rebuild the Mass Relays. Okay but even then, with the quantam entanglement communicators to allow the scientists to properly link up the Relays and not have them shoot the traveling ships into a sun or planet, your only really linking a war torn capital world with a war torn captial world. This of course would put you right back to square one in the finding supplies department.

But lets say that the combined supplies of the individual worlds is enough to sustain galaxtic society. Fine, but then how are the different races going to power the rebuilt relays? Remember the whole counter argument was that the relays discharged their stored energy in a non-destructive way, okay so without a power source how would the races use the relays?

And even ignoring all the issues above, you would still run into the issue as to why the relays had to be destroyed in the first place. As most other forum users have said, the relays were a tool of the Reapers and by using them galatic society was a slave to the Reapers will.

"You evolve along the paths we desire" 

But wouldn't leaving dead Reapers (those killed in the fighting and the destroy ending), and the bits of Reaper tech in the form of husks, marauders, banshees, ect and the broken Mass Relays mean that we were still traped under the Reapers oppressive rule? Since, reverse engineering the tech would be using the Reapers means to meet our goals.

I always guessed that the relays have some sort of generator inside of them which creates the energy that is stored in the Relay, so fixing them could mean fixing the energy problem.  If you chose the "destroy" ending, all AI tech has been wiped out and presumable is unrenderable.  The implication being that AIs would take decades, if not centuries, to rebuild so using Reaper carcasses for wrong doing wouldn't necessarily be an issue.  However, the relays could potentially be rebuilt because they are not  AI.  I invision the Quarians helping stranded fleets learn to be self sustainable, while some could colonize on Mars and others attempt to help rebuild Earth.  In the meantime, the Crucible Scientists can use data from the Prothean archives on Mars and their own combined knowledge of tech to rebuild Relays.  It's not hopeless.  It's just not easy.

[K1llm1n1on]

The Lightspeaker wrote...

K1llm1n1on wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 The Relay in Arrival was destroyed by smashing a freaking asteroid into it, creating a supernova-like explosion that annihilated the system.  At the end of ME3, the Relays are presumably destroyed by the energy surge released by the Crucible.  

So why does everyone assume the same reaction would occur?  It seems plausible that the Relays being destroyed by the Crucible would not necessarily have the same effect as smashing a giant asteroid traveling at tremendous speed.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you "destroy" a brick of plutonium by burning or melting it, as opposed to squirting tritium and blasting it with a projectile to create a nuclear detonation?

As you say, they "assume."
More to the point, many are upset that they aren't more explicitly informed of the final events, where they have to supply their own answers.

A lot of the controversy over the endings lies in the conclusions some have come to when trying to sort them out.

Which just further reinforces what a godawful mess the endings are. When your narrative doesn't even make it clear whether or not you've just wiped out about 90% of the galaxy then you've screwed up somewhere in a major way.

That's one way of looking at it, but conversely, some are OK with the ambiguity in the ending as it doesn't restrict the possibilities of what players can imagine, leaving more room for different situations and directons for things to come.

Personally, I lean in the latter direction as far as the snding but I can't get over the sense that the strategy behind all of this is to get me to pay for more content.

I guess I'm on the proverbial fence.

[sp0ck 06]

fiendling wrote...

TheCrakFox wrote...

Way I see it they're just breaking, not exploding. The energy being released is sent to the next relay.

Makes the endings a little less bleak and destructive, doesn't exactly get rid of the plot holes or fix any of the many, many other things wrong with it though. *sigh*

Did you miss the entire galaxy view of the chain reaction with each mass relay's destruction clearly visible from hundreds, if not thousands, of light years away? To put it in perspective, the Milky Way (our galaxy) is at least 100,000 light years in diameter. Do you have any idea of the amount of energy required to produce the size of the explosions you see from the vantage point it is shown? It is supernova level at the minimum.

That seemed to be more of a cool graphical effect showing the spread of the Crucible's energy than an actual view of the entire galaxy exploding...

[goose2989]

BurtieBee wrote...

We weren't given any information to tell us otherwise. The only information we do have says relays destroyed=supernova.

I think it's clear we're supposed to assume this isn't the case, given the fact that Joker and crew (and the planet they landed on) weren't vaporized by the blast.

But still.. bad show, Bioware.

Also to note: if the explosions weren't supposed to be damaging, why would the Normandy crash at all?