276 réponses à ce sujet

[Elyiia]

The only logical conclusion you can come to is the Crucible was designed by the same species that created the Citadel. As far as we know, no cycle has ever come close to understanding the Keepers let alone the Citadel itself.

You can't build a device with no idea how it works, attach it to another thing that you have no idea how it works and then destroy the threat to the galaxy with it.

[Fawx9]

Funkdrspot wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...
I dislike having to kill my new geth buddies or EDI but I appreciate a game that can incorporate a moral delimma.

Of course that assumes the catalyst is telling the truth, and since Sheperd with synthetic parts can take a breath at the end........

The catalyst explicitly states you'll live in the destroy ending.....

If there was ever a perfect time to use the Lex Luther Wrong image this would be it. 

Paraphreashing, but I pretty much have it: "It will wipe out all synthetic life" "Even you are partially synthetic" 

If that's not saying he will most likely die than I don't know what is. 

Sure it leaves the opening for a chance of Shepard surviving but that's cleary not the intention of the star kid telling him that. 

[Funkdrspot]

The Angry One wrote...

And yet Shepard can:

- Fire a carnifex (known to have a killer recoil) one handed while walking into an explosion. AND SURVIVE IT.
- Grab 900,000 volt paddles.
- Sprint and jump like an olympic champion.

Yeah. Dying. Sure.

It's the end and they wanted it to be dramatic. People can get a last second burst of adrenaline when they know they're dying but it doesn't stop the fact that they're still dying.

The Angry One wrote...

Hackett says lots of things. He's afraid.

Lol is that really the best answer you have? A completely assumption based on nothing is your response to what the game has been saying from start to finish?!

Now if I turned around and said something like that to you, you'd completely cry about how I'm trying to rewrite canon.

It seems to me that you use canon as you see fit. Sometimes you rewrite it to serve your own narrative. Sometimes you use it as evidence to back up your ideas.

The Angry One wrote...
Their agenda wins. Specifically, that of the Catalyst. Remember, the actual Reapers are just his pawns too.
Pawns can be sacrificed.

More reaching...

The Angry One wrote...
Mass relays down. 10,000 year dark age. Everyone cut off from their homes. Earth devastated by the Citadel impact. Etc.

This has already been addressed in other threads. lol @ 10k years of dark ages.

[DJBare]

Funkdrspot wrote...
The catalyst explicitly states you'll live in the destroy ending.....

"You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want, even you are part synthetic"

[Kreid]

The Angry One wrote...
No it does not. The idea that organics by themselves created a device to interface with an unknown second device to perform a function they weren't aware of to do something they couldn't predict is beyond absurd.

You are told in the game that the Crucible's function is to create enough energy to destroy the Reapers, at an unknown point it was modified to interface with the Citadel (The Catalyst) in order to use the Mass Relays to direct the energy. That's the explanation we're given, you can or cannot believe it but there's nothing wrong with it.

Modifié par Creid-X, 16 avril 2012 - 01:04 .

[Eire Icon]

The Angry One wrote...

Where are you getting that the fleet is not intact? With high EMS, you see largely fleet victories against the Reapers. That the ground war was going badly is irrelevant. Fighting a ground war without total air superiority is suicide in any case.

The Fleet is all in one place, the Reaper fleet is not. The Galactic fleet versus the Reaper fleet in a straight up fight will always lose. Please point me to any evidence accross the three games that suggest otherwise.

If there was the slightest chance they could win in a straight up fight why place so much emphasis on the crucible? and why is there no plan B?

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard would.

You have got to be kidding me

The Angry One wrote...
Stopping the Reapers does not = following the will of the Reapers.
Again, this is Saren logic.

Stopping the Reapers = Stopping the Reapers and saving humanity

Saren's logic was surrender, two different things. Unless you somehow see destroying the Reapers as surrender

[The Angry One]

Elyiia wrote...

You can't build a device with no idea how it works, attach it to another thing that you have no idea how it works and then destroy the threat to the galaxy with it.

That so many seem to blindly accept that yes, they designed this thing while being utterly clueless as to it's function worries me.

Creid-X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
No it
does not. The idea that organics by themselves created a device to
interface with an unknown second device to perform a function they
weren't aware of to do something they couldn't predict is beyond
absurd.

You are told in the game that the Crucible's function
is to create enough energy to destroy the Reapers, at an unknown point
it was modified to interface with the Citadel (The Catalyst) in order to
use the Mass Relays to direct the energy. That's the explanation we're
given, you can or cannot believe it but there's nothing wrong with it.

That is the explanation we're given from in-universe speculation.

Modifié par The Angry One, 16 avril 2012 - 01:05 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Hackett says they can't win conventionally throughout the whole game. Otherwise I'm sure he'd organize a better battleplan than going head to head.

Hackett is a fallible mortal. What he says doesn't necessarily match what you do and see in the game. 

You know, like the message you recieve after reaching 100% Galactive Readiness with stupid high war assets, or how the Turians and Krogan were holding their own on Palaven, or how your kill Destroyers left right and center using VERY conventional methods. 

[Kreid]

The Angry One wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can't build a device with no idea how it works, attach it to another thing that you have no idea how it works and then destroy the threat to the galaxy with it.

That so many seem to blindly accept that yes, they designed this thing while being utterly clueless as to it's function worries me.

Creid-X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
No it
does not. The idea that organics by themselves created a device to
interface with an unknown second device to perform a function they
weren't aware of to do something they couldn't predict is beyond
absurd.

You are told in the game that the Crucible's function
is to create enough energy to destroy the Reapers, at an unknown point
it was modified to interface with the Citadel (The Catalyst) in order to
use the Mass Relays to direct the energy. That's the explanation we're
given, you can or cannot believe it but there's nothing wrong with it.

That is the explanation we're given from in-universe speculation.

And what's your reason to not take it at face value? there have been over 2.000 cycles of extinction, some might have kept the Citadel like ours or recovered it from reaper control somehow, some might have discovered the Catalyst but they weren't able to construct/complete the Crucible. There are many ways in which this could make sense aside from the Crucible being a part of the Catalyst's plot.

Modifié par Creid-X, 16 avril 2012 - 01:09 .

[The Angry One]

Eire Icon wrote...

The Fleet is all in one place, the Reaper fleet is not.

And? It takes time for the Reapers to move around too. They are not infinite.

The Galactic fleet versus the Reaper fleet in a straight up fight will always lose. Please point me to any evidence accross the three games that suggest otherwise.

The codex. The battle with high EMS.

If there was the slightest chance they could win in a straight up fight why place so much emphasis on the crucible? and why is there no plan B?

Because of bad writing.

You have got to be kidding me

Shepard would never submit to the Reapers if there was even the slightest chance of another solution.

Stopping the Reapers = Stopping the Reapers and saving humanity

By dooming it?

Saren's logic was surrender, two different things. Unless you somehow see destroying the Reapers as surrender

It is surrender. Surrender to the will of the Catalyst. Shepard is trusting that the Catalyst is telling the truth with no reason to. Shepard is gambling everyone's future on the word of this psychotic, genocidal liar.
It's surrender, because the Catalyst is making the terms and controlling the situation. It decides the price that must be paid. It is holding the galaxy hostage.

[Elyiia]

Eire Icon wrote...

The Fleet is all in one place, the Reaper fleet is not. The Galactic fleet versus the Reaper fleet in a straight up fight will always lose. Please point me to any evidence accross the three games that suggest otherwise.

If there was the slightest chance they could win in a straight up fight why place so much emphasis on the crucible? and why is there no plan B?

Because it has nothing to do with the story itself. Bioware decided (stupidly) against a military victory. That left some kind of super weapon to kill the Reapers. How do you get a player to accept a poorly written super weapon as the only option? Constantly tell them it's the only choice.

It's a plot device, nothing more.

And what's your reason to not take it at face value? there have been
over 2.000 cycles of extinctions, some might have kept the Citadel like
ours, some might have discovered the Catalys but they weren't able to
construct/complete the Crucible. There are many ways in which this could
make sense aside from the Crucible being a part of the Catalyst's plot.

Because there's no evidence to the idea of actually adding the to crucible. The only time we're told this is from a Prothean VI, and they clearly knew what they were doing.

Modifié par Elyiia, 16 avril 2012 - 01:09 .

[MaxMcKay]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Now, granted, I don't like Starchild either. I thought the crucible would be more of a conventional weapon that would be like a super laser but I don't get everyone who obsesses over this idea of being able to tell the starchild off. The options he describes aren't HIS options, they're the triggers for firing the crucible. The crucible isn't an Improbability Drive so it's not going to give you the option to turn reapers into bowls of petunias and sperm whales. It's primary design is to kill off all synthetic life in the galaxy but you get some other options if you understand the tech behind it better.

So yes, the options between control, synth (we just spent 3 games fighting against these options and just talked TIM into an hero b/c it was too risky ) and destroy( we just brokered peace between the geth and quarians and have EDI ), do kinda suck, but sometimes life is complicated. I dislike having to kill my new geth buddies or EDI but I appreciate a game that can incorporate a moral delimma.

If you're that turned off by having to decide and you think you should be able to 'defy' the starchild, then don't pick anything. Shepard bleeds out on the Citadel, the fleets lose to the reapers and the current cycle ends. Simple as that.

Nah I just wanted the endings they promised in writing oh and apparently the BBB seems to agree Bio/EA has a issue there as people are filing FTC doc's against them and actually may have a case there as well.

[The Angry One]

Creid-X wrote...

And what's your reason to not take it at face value? there have been over 2.000 cycles of extinction, some might have kept the Citadel like ours, some might have discovered the Catalys but they weren't able to construct/complete the Crucible. There are many ways in which this could make sense aside from the Crucible being a part of the Catalyst's plot.

Nope, sorry. This is the first time the Reapers lost control of the Citadel this way. The Reaper plan has functioned unchanged for billions of years. If not, you'd think they'd have been more careful about securing the Keepers.
Oh and if other races found out about the Citadel and Catalyst... why not SAY SO? Leave a PICTURE for god's sake. ANYTHING.
The in-universe speculation makes no sense whatsoever.

[Shaoken]

Hell, Bioware should really just throw in that option. You tell Starchild you refuse his choices, he accepts. Beat beat beat the Reaper's blow up the crucible and wipe out the fleet, breaking the back of the galaxy and marching on unopposed. Cut to scene of Harbinger altering the Citadel so the Crucible can never be used again.

[curufinwe03]

Funkdrspot wrote...
1. The codex does not specifically state what a thanix can do against a reaper barrier, which is worlds stronger than normal barriers

2. Soverign was destroyed b/c it was completely offline and because it was the narrative that Bioware wanted. In addition to their barriers, Reapers have a lot of armor. Think about the armor plating on the Normandy and how it was able to take a thanix w/o blowing up in ME 2

3. Collector ship != Reaper



Having these weapons wouldn't change anything because it's not the narrative Bioware wanted. They would have simply addressed the potential plothole by either throwing out more reapers, making the thanix less powerful against reaper barriers or by giving the reapers more armor.

1. Shields are kinetic barriers. They protect you from kinetic energy, like a projectile. The Thanix cannon fires a beam of molten metal, so it inflicts damage not only with kinetic energy but also with heat.

2.The narrative Bioware wanted... you hit the nail on the head. In ME3 they changed their narritive to fit better with the ridiculous conclusion of the game. And if a reaper goes "offline", does his armor vanish too?

3. So the reapers gave the collectors only lego to build their ship? Of course it used reaper tech, and the collector base to. They built a reaper in there.

Modifié par curufinwe03, 16 avril 2012 - 01:12 .

[GiarcYekrub]

The Angry One wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

What's being suggested is basically surrender ?

Surrender is taking a choice that the freaking LEADER OF THE REAPERS gives you.

I think the kid is a VI like Avina and Vigil, It's the interface to fire the crucible and give a little understanding

Thank you for again providing an example of those liking the ending not paying attention to it.

"I control the Reapers. They are my solution."

Yes, but how does that control manifest, did he also not state the citadel was part of him? Well thats true the citadel now connected to the crucible can control the reapers, but only when Shepard chooses to.

[Kreid]

The Angry One wrote...
Nope, sorry. This is the first time the Reapers lost control of the Citadel this way. The Reaper plan has functioned unchanged for billions of years. If not, you'd think they'd have been more careful about securing the Keepers.
Oh and if other races found out about the Citadel and Catalyst... why not SAY SO? Leave a PICTURE for god's sake. ANYTHING.
The in-universe speculation makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree with the Citadel part, since we assume this is the very first cycle that didn't see the Reapers coming from it, but, it's clear someone knew about the Catalyst, if not he wouldn't have been mentioned by name in the Crucible's schematics.

Modifié par Creid-X, 16 avril 2012 - 01:13 .

[Fawx9]

Creid-X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can't build a device with no idea how it works, attach it to another thing that you have no idea how it works and then destroy the threat to the galaxy with it.

That so many seem to blindly accept that yes, they designed this thing while being utterly clueless as to it's function worries me.

Creid-X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
No it
does not. The idea that organics by themselves created a device to
interface with an unknown second device to perform a function they
weren't aware of to do something they couldn't predict is beyond
absurd.

You are told in the game that the Crucible's function
is to create enough energy to destroy the Reapers, at an unknown point
it was modified to interface with the Citadel (The Catalyst) in order to
use the Mass Relays to direct the energy. That's the explanation we're
given, you can or cannot believe it but there's nothing wrong with it.

That is the explanation we're given from in-universe speculation.

And what's your reason to not take it at face value? there have been over 2.000 cycles of extinctions, some might have kept the Citadel like ours, some might have discovered the Catalys but they weren't able to construct/complete the Crucible. There are many ways in which this could make sense aside from the Crucible being a part of the Catalyst's plot.

The in universe explanation for the relay's was Protheans for thousands of years. 

What the in game "knoweldge" suggests is that somone fully understood the Citidals workings to a point where they could build onto it and harness its energy, but never left that level of knowledge behind for other races to find when it came time to stop the reapers. 

Which makes no sense if at the end of each cycle the races were leavingbehind things that would help the next. I mean why wouldn't you tell the next cycle how the bloody citidal actually works. 

[Funkdrspot]

Fawx9 wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...
I dislike having to kill my new geth buddies or EDI but I appreciate a game that can incorporate a moral delimma.

Of course that assumes the catalyst is telling the truth, and since Sheperd with synthetic parts can take a breath at the end........

The catalyst explicitly states you'll live in the destroy ending.....

If there was ever a perfect time to use the Lex Luther Wrong image this would be it. 

Paraphreashing, but I pretty much have it: "It will wipe out all synthetic life" "Even you are partially synthetic" 

If that's not saying he will most likely die than I don't know what is. 

Sure it leaves the opening for a chance of Shepard surviving but that's cleary not the intention of the star kid telling him that. 

Uh yeah it pretty much is. Notice how he explicitly states that he will die if he tries to control them? 

[Elyiia]

Honestly, even losing would be better than the options we get. With high EMS the Reapers are sustaining heavy losses and they're going to be able to make at max a single Capital ship. Assuming of course that we don't blow ourselves up to spite the Reapers. That means the next cycle would be fighting against a damaged Reaper fleet and with the Yahg at the helm, they're probably going to win.

[The Angry One]

Creid-X wrote...

I agree with the Citadel part, since we assume this is the very first cycle that didn't see the Reapers coming from it, but, it's clear someone knew about the Catalyst, if not he wouldn't have been mentioned by name in the Crucible's schematics.

That just supports the idea that the Catalyst/it's creators designed it, else how did others know?
Besides the Catalyst they refer to is the Citadel itself, and not spacebaby. Actually spacebaby is lying about being the Catalyst too. It fits neither the in-game definition, nor the dictionary or chemistry definitions.

[xxskyshadowxx]

Eire Icon wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Where are you getting that the fleet is not intact? With high EMS, you see largely fleet victories against the Reapers. That the ground war was going badly is irrelevant. Fighting a ground war without total air superiority is suicide in any case.

The Fleet is all in one place, the Reaper fleet is not. The Galactic fleet versus the Reaper fleet in a straight up fight will always lose. Please point me to any evidence accross the three games that suggest otherwise.

If there was the slightest chance they could win in a straight up fight why place so much emphasis on the crucible? and why is there no plan B?

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard would.

You have got to be kidding me

The Angry One wrote...
Stopping the Reapers does not = following the will of the Reapers.
Again, this is Saren logic.

Stopping the Reapers = Stopping the Reapers and saving humanity

Saren's logic was surrender, two different things. Unless you somehow see destroying the Reapers as surrender

Saren's logic is one of your choices as is TIM's logic....and that is only part of what makes the ending laughably terrible. Regardless...you don't save humanity with any of the choices. You blow the relays in all three choices, which means maybe 4-5 hours after you make that choice, humanity is wiped out.

Shepard knows this...yet doesn't question it at all. Shepard doesn't even ask if blowing the Relays will result in the same catastrophe as what happened in Arrival. Nope. He/she just surrenders to Reaper logic and ends the Cycle in place of the Reapers...and if the Relays do blow the same way and the cinematic strongly suggests that they do, then what Shepard does is WORSE than the Reapers because he/she wipes out the most advanced lifeforms, along with the less advanced lifeforms that the Reapers were leaving alone.

That is not a heroic end to a trilogy; it's not even  bittersweet. It's just sloppy and badly written...and it's not even original. Hell the Cruicable isn't even original...it was done in a anime that was made in the 80's/early 90's (the anime got the bittersweet ending right, by the way).

[Eire Icon]

The Angry One wrote...

It is surrender. Surrender to the will of the Catalyst. Shepard is trusting that the Catalyst is telling the truth with no reason to. Shepard is gambling everyone's future on the word of this psychotic, genocidal liar.
It's surrender, because the Catalyst is making the terms and controlling the situation. It decides the price that must be paid. It is holding the galaxy hostage.

There is no reason not to believe that the Catalyst is telling the truth. Again Shepard is out of options.

Shepard isn't gambling everyones future as at that moment in time they have no future, he has nothing to gamble.

I find it amazing that you would find extinction preferable to being forced into a difficult and not completely ideal choice

[DJBare]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Uh yeah it pretty much is. Notice how he explicitly states that he will die if he tries to control them? 

Well, there ya go, a dead shepard controlling the reapers, wait, what?

You know, you do have a very good point.