KingZayd wrote...
ThinkIntegral wrote...
Yes you're there because it brought you there. Absent the Crucible, you think it would've done so otherwise? And if so, on what grounds? Or rather the question is, even if the Crucible worked what independent grounds show that it would've brought you there anyways? Because it wants to "trick" you? Why? The battle probably would've ended in the Reapers success. Even if that's the case [because of the time limit] why does the Catalyst then let you [unless forced to let you] make a choice which results in an energy bubble and beam being dispersed?
Anyways, I'm basing my thoughts solely on what's been presented before me, and the fact that the Crucible has been premised throughout the entire ME3 storyline as the only way to stop the Reapers and that it must be combined with the Catalyst suggests if the Crucible were never connected to the Citadel, Shepard would not be standing there at the bottom of the Presidium nor would the Reapers be stopped.
Also you're taking things too literal. It mentions change at that moment because it was relevant in that moment for Shepard to make a choice. You know to make sure that the intended receiver [Shepard] is aware that the Crucible has made/allowed it to provide Shepard with 3 options to come up with an alternative to pruning advanced civilizations in the galaxy. It doesn't equate to an idea that change did not occur up until that moment.
Yes it is fairly irrelevant. It's a detail that was not explored in depth so that the narrative of the story could direct you at what's important. The Crucible plans included the design of the Catalyst/Citadel. The fact that the Catalyst is changed after the connection, suggests someone at some point had to have known something. Otherwise, why even include it in the plans?
You haven't seen an explanation that makes sense because you keep asking questions no one has answers to including yourself and going off on tangential points. The relevancy is what has been laid before you in that closed box. And apparently it sounds like you do need all the answers because you keep asking about everything.
1st paragraph:
Because it's all in your head. The reason for bringing you up "there" is so that you can REJECT destruction in favour of some other option. If the option's not there, you can't reject it. You picking something else is meaningless.
3rd paragraph:
So the Starchild is a poet now? It's meant to be taken literally. The change is mentioned to bring up the new possibilities. At no point does he hint that he was forced to bring you upstairs.
4th paragraph:
there was nothing in there to change the AI, therefore nothing of the sort included in the plans. It's important that there be some sort of plausible explanation. If there isn't one, then it's nonsense. Therefore this point is relevant. Also, are we also supposed to believe that one of the earlier cycles decided that the best addition to an anti-reaper weapons was something that didn't affect the reapers (synthesis)? Why would they think that would help?
5th paragraph:
I'm not looking for THE answers. I'm looking for answers that are at least plausible. If people can't come up with plausible explanations, then that suggests there are none.
All in your head. What's the evidence to back that up without resorting to any premise you're already assuming? If you just looked at it plain as can be, face value, what explains that Shepard's in a dream state and the entire purpose of being brought up to the Catalyst is to pick the Destroy option? Walk me through the steps.
I meant literal as in the change didn't happen the minute it said, "Hey the crucible changed me." If you really believe that then you suck at interpreting context and reasoning.
How do you know there was nothing in there? No one in the current cycle even knows how the damn thing works. They just know how to piece part A to B etc. There is no relevance to that because you see the result at the end of the freaking game and because Vendetta says the Crucible designs changed to incorporate the Catalyst. If the writers thought it was more relevant they would've gone more in depth into it.
As for the synthesis, perhaps but it's not conclusive. All we know is that whatever the Crucible as a whole did resulted in you getting three options that the Catalyst had no problem in giving you and letting you go through with. That's all you're gonna get. I doubt the EC is gonna even explain that. So you can drive yourself nuts for all I care, it's your problem not mine.
I never said anything about
the answers I said
all answers meaning everything little freaking minutae that's not even developed fully because the relevancy to the narrative is low. If you couldn't understand that then my statement about you understanding context and reasoning comes off as more likely.
Retour en haut
The Catalyst's voice is not evidence of IT. It does not suggest IT unless one presupposes IT to begin with. It simply a sound effect in the game. You give purpose to it when there is none.
