4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

Seival wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Seival wrote...

I really don't know why don't you want to understand... The Trilogy show you facts of its story, but you prefer to take some of these facts as a hallucinations or lies.

...I'm sure you read Lord of the Rings. Did you ever think it was written not good enough? Why the Ring didn't manage to show its exact location on some kind of "Magic Mirror", so the Sauron will be able to find and take it back much easier?

Because I like to argue with you or I don't want to understand or you're quite the smarty-pants... Is it a good answer? Seriously, none of your aguments makes a little bit sense. Furthermore you wrap them with a condescending, arrogant tone which discourage any friendly conversation and makes you sound like a presomptuous idiot.
It's enough for me to say that this conversation is over. I'm done with you.

"None of my arguments makes a little bit sense" to you... Please, don't forget about this part.

I wish you could take complicated stories as they are, instead of "I think I could write them much better".

Dude. You're not making any arguments!
All you're doing is saying that people don't understand, that the ending is "complicated" and that the EC will explain everything.

That's not an argument, at best you're spreading propaganda.

I think that you and your confederates here just don't want to reply to anything but to "you don't want to understand" phrases eventually. You disagree with my arguments? It's your opinion. But please, don't try to say that your opinion is "the only correct one".

Modifié par Seival, 02 juin 2012 - 07:51 .

[Seival]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

According to Javik, the Protheans failed to build the Crucible because it was sabotaged by an extremist group that favored control.  Javik also says that its leaders were indoctrinated.  Sounds familiar to me.

You're missing very important point of Control option. The only person/force that can Control the Reapers is the Catalist. All other ways to control the Reapers are not valid. And the only way you can find out about the valid Control option is through conversation with Catalist itself. Which would be impossible without a Crucible.

TIM's control vision was incorrect. All groups that favored control in previous cycles had the same invalid vision of control, because they knew nothing about the Catalist's true nature. And Shepard was the first one who've managed to discover the true meaning of Control. Besides, Shepard is wise and strong enough to take this Control and use it right.

Modifié par Seival, 02 juin 2012 - 08:43 .

[Seival]

One more thing regarding the endings in general...

I've read and heard a lot of players' complaints, which can be shortly described like that: 

"All games are the same nowdays. Yes, more than just similar. Noone can make something original. All stories are just copies of each other. And all finals are so predictable and standard... When someone will make something unique and beautiful at last?!"...

...And after ME3 first playthrough the same players start to yell, that they want non-instructive, decent, boring, and completely predictable endings for their favorite game.

...The more I think about this the more I believe that vast majority of modern games just "downgraded" players to the state, in which they refuse to accept and understand complicated books. Just look around... Threre are almost no games with strong stories... There are almost no games that force you to think about something really important and very complicated. Mass Effect Trilogy and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are most likely the only exception.

...People, we should all support BioWare. And especially their writers and artists. Without games like Mass Effect 3 game development industry will only degradate... And we, players, will actually be the victims in this case...

[Ageless Face]

Seival wrote...

One more thing regarding the endings in general...

I've read and heard a lot of players' complaints, which can be shortly described like that: 

"All games are the same nowdays. Yes, more than just similar. Noone can make something original. All stories are just copies of each other. And all finals are so predictable and standard... When someone will make something unique and beautiful at last?!"...

...And after ME3 first playthrough the same players start to yell, that they want non-instructive, decent, boring, and completely predictable endings for their favorite game.

...The more I think about this the more I believe that vast majority of modern games just "downgraded" players to the state, in which they refuse to accept and understand complicated books. Just look around... Threre are almost no games with strong stories... There are almost no games that force you to think about something really important and very complicated. Mass Effect Trilogy and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are most likely the only exception.

...People, we should all support BioWare. And especially their writers and artists. Without games like Mass Effect 3 game development industry will only degradate... And we, players, will actually be the victims in this case...

To that, I will agree. One of the few things I did like about the ending was that it was not the old fashioned : we need to kill the main antagonist, so that the player would obviously win the game and will live happy. That is too much predictable. I never played Deus Ex so I really can't say how original BioWare was withthe the ending by making it similar to the game.

If the ending's concept was to be explained better and have more basics on it, and not just blurt out of nowhere the fact you can control the reapers now, or even worse, bringing the concept of synthesis which was not even talked about ONCE in the game... then I would have been very pleased with the ending. Fact is, for the ending to be great as it should, some things throughout ME3 need to change, or to be added. I don't think the EC will give us something other than an explanation to the ending. I just hope it will be enough.

[Seival]

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

One more thing regarding the endings in general...

I've read and heard a lot of players' complaints, which can be shortly described like that: 

"All games are the same nowdays. Yes, more than just similar. Noone can make something original. All stories are just copies of each other. And all finals are so predictable and standard... When someone will make something unique and beautiful at last?!"...

...And after ME3 first playthrough the same players start to yell, that they want non-instructive, decent, boring, and completely predictable endings for their favorite game.

...The more I think about this the more I believe that vast majority of modern games just "downgraded" players to the state, in which they refuse to accept and understand complicated books. Just look around... Threre are almost no games with strong stories... There are almost no games that force you to think about something really important and very complicated. Mass Effect Trilogy and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are most likely the only exception.

...People, we should all support BioWare. And especially their writers and artists. Without games like Mass Effect 3 game development industry will only degradate... And we, players, will actually be the victims in this case...

To that, I will agree. One of the few things I did like about the ending was that it was not the old fashioned : we need to kill the main antagonist, so that the player would obviously win the game and will live happy. That is too much predictable. I never played Deus Ex so I really can't say how original BioWare was withthe the ending by making it similar to the game.

If the ending's concept was to be explained better and have more basics on it, and not just blurt out of nowhere the fact you can control the reapers now, or even worse, bringing the concept of synthesis which was not even talked about ONCE in the game... then I would have been very pleased with the ending. Fact is, for the ending to be great as it should, some things throughout ME3 need to change, or to be added. I don't think the EC will give us something other than an explanation to the ending. I just hope it will be enough.

I'm sure it will be enough. Even Normandy crash scene will make sense with correct explanations. Somehow I think they will not remove the scene from the game. So the scene has to have some meaning...

...I have one more theory about it, actually. Crash scene is clearly not a "shameless retreat". The scene could happen much later then just after the battle for the Earth. And it looks like... A test-launch of a ship through the reconstructed or newly built Mass Relay... i.e. one more clue, that Mass Relays network can, and will be reconstructed.

Modifié par Seival, 03 juin 2012 - 11:56 .

[Ageless Face]

Seival wrote...

I'm sure it will be enough. Even Normandy crash scene will make sense with correct explanations. Somehow I think they will not remove the scene from the game. So the scene has to have some meaning...

...I have one more theory about it, actually. Crash scene is clearly not a "shameless retreat". The scene could happen much later then just after the battle for the Earth. And it looks like... A test-launch of a ship through the reconstructed or newly built Mass Relay... i.e. one more clue, that Mass Relays network can, and will be reconstructed.

I really doubt the scene happened later in the game. Notice that if you are waiting too much time to make your choice at the ending, the crucible is desroyed. That means, that for your choice to actually have effect, the reapers would have left/ been destroyed immediately. If they weren't they would have destroyed the crucible.

If the reapers are leaving right after Shepard makes his/her choice, it means that the energy from the crucible also hit the relays at the same time. And if the Normandy was already traveling in the relay when it happened...

So maybe it was not two minutes after Shepard made the choice, but they definitely left too soon to the point of making us very suspisious. And angry. The Normandy leaving does not make sense what so ever, both in time aspect AND the fact the Normandy is leaving at all.

[JA Shepard]

Seival wrote...

One more thing regarding the endings in general...

I've read and heard a lot of players' complaints, which can be shortly described like that: 

"All games are the same nowdays. Yes, more than just similar. Noone can make something original. All stories are just copies of each other. And all finals are so predictable and standard... When someone will make something unique and beautiful at last?!"...

...And after ME3 first playthrough the same players start to yell, that they want non-instructive, decent, boring, and completely predictable endings for their favorite game.

...The more I think about this the more I believe that vast majority of modern games just "downgraded" players to the state, in which they refuse to accept and understand complicated books. Just look around... Threre are almost no games with strong stories... There are almost no games that force you to think about something really important and very complicated. Mass Effect Trilogy and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are most likely the only exception.

...People, we should all support BioWare. And especially their writers and artists. Without games like Mass Effect 3 game development industry will only degradate... And we, players, will actually be the victims in this case...

Good point. In hindsight, the choices are the only part of the ending that I do like. For the longest time I couldn't believe that Shepard would ever make any of those choices. It wasn't until much later that I realized that may have been the point. I thought the worse case scenario was Shepard having to die or lose someone close to her in order to win. Instead Shepard has to do something for which she may be irredeemable. Bioware went a step further and broader with the notion of heroism and I give them a lot of credit for doing something that you rarely see in stories in any medium.

To me, the choices represent deeply held beliefs and ideas, and the way people have debated them on this forum confirm that. Shepard must not just sacrifice her life, but also be willing to sacrifice a very important part of herself to save the galaxy. It's a real offering to the universe, not just the hero doing the hero thing. It was and still is very unsatisfying as a player but I can appreciate the storytelling aspect of it. 

People keep saying "I would never do "X" or "Y" when discussing the choices. Shepard does make those choices even though each is bad in its own way. While everyone in and out of the ME universe can cling to their principles and beliefs that they all value so much, she doesn't have that luxury in the end. Shepard is actually making one of three impossible choices to allow those people to keep living and hold to those principles. Shepard may be just as hated as she will be loved for whatever she chooses when the history is written, and she won't be able to make many billions understand that what she did was for them. Knowing that and still being willing to give up one's own beliefs and values, no just life, for other's sake is an unbelievably heroic act. That's not the cliche sacrifice we are all used to. Only now do I see it for what it could be. That could be what "losing everything" is.
The presentation and execution of the ending wasn't exactly stellar, but looking back they had an idea that could have been a very worthy end for the character and hopefully the EC can take the good part that's already there and build upon it.

Modifié par JA Shepard, 03 juin 2012 - 12:58 .

[Seival]

JA Shepard wrote...

Seival wrote...

One more thing regarding the endings in general...

I've read and heard a lot of players' complaints, which can be shortly described like that: 

"All games are the same nowdays. Yes, more than just similar. Noone can make something original. All stories are just copies of each other. And all finals are so predictable and standard... When someone will make something unique and beautiful at last?!"...

...And after ME3 first playthrough the same players start to yell, that they want non-instructive, decent, boring, and completely predictable endings for their favorite game.

...The more I think about this the more I believe that vast majority of modern games just "downgraded" players to the state, in which they refuse to accept and understand complicated books. Just look around... Threre are almost no games with strong stories... There are almost no games that force you to think about something really important and very complicated. Mass Effect Trilogy and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are most likely the only exception.

...People, we should all support BioWare. And especially their writers and artists. Without games like Mass Effect 3 game development industry will only degradate... And we, players, will actually be the victims in this case...

Good point. In hindsight, the choices are the only part of the ending that I do like. For the longest time I couldn't believe that Shepard would ever make any of those choices. It wasn't until much later that I realized that may have been the point. I thought the worse case scenario was Shepard having to die or lose someone close to her in order to win. Instead Shepard has to do something for which she may be irredeemable. Bioware went a step further and broader with the notion of heroism and I give them a lot of credit for doing something that you rarely see in stories in any medium.

To me, the choices represent deeply held beliefs and ideas, and the way people have debated them on this forum confirm that. Shepard must not just sacrifice her life, but also be willing to sacrifice a very important part of herself to save the galaxy. It's a real offering to the universe, not just the hero doing the hero thing. It was and still is very unsatisfying as a player but I can appreciate the storytelling aspect of it. 

People keep saying "I would never do "X" or "Y" when discussing the choices. Shepard does make those choices even though each is bad in its own way. While everyone in and out of the ME universe can cling to their principles and beliefs that they all value so much, she doesn't have that luxury in the end. Shepard is actually making one of three impossible choices to allow those people to keep living and hold to those principles. Shepard may be just as hated as she will be loved for whatever she chooses when the history is written, and she won't be able to make many billions understand that what she did was for them. Knowing that and still being willing to give up one's own beliefs and values, no just life, for other's sake is an unbelievably heroic act. That's not the cliche sacrifice we are all used to. Only now do I see it for what it could be. That could be what "losing everything" is.
The presentation and execution of the ending wasn't exactly stellar, but looking back they had an idea that could have been a very worthy end for the character and hopefully the EC can take the good part that's already there and build upon it.

+1

[Jamie9]

I agree with everyone else when they say they were interested by the unique-ness of the ending. My anger is aimed more at Priority: Earth as a whole than the very end.

Priority: Earth should have been the most epic mission in the trilogy; more so than the Suicide Mission. You should have been positioning Jack and her biotic squad; the Geth; the Krogan; the STG forces.

They squandered so much potential in that mission.

[Kunari801]

Even Javik says it right, "Subjugating the Reapers will not bring victory. Only their extinction will."

[Seival]

Kunari801 wrote...

Even Javik says it right, "Subjugating the Reapers will not bring victory. Only their extinction will."

It's just Javik's opinion. Protheans had their chance to stop the Reapers. But they managed only to slow the Reapers down. And Protheans were much more advanced, than current galactic civilization. It looks like the biggest Protheans' disadvantages were their traditions and way of thinking.

[Ageless Face]

Kunari801 wrote...

Even Javik says it right, "Subjugating the Reapers will not bring victory. Only their extinction will."

A lot of people bring up Javik when they talk about the choosing destroy as the only viable option. But Javik was held by his believes, his culture , and mental trauma. When you take it as it is, then his arguments should not be any more valid than TIM's. If you take Javik's arguments as viable, you should also think TIM is more than indoctrinated, tyrant, psycho.

[Seival]

Jamie9 wrote...

I agree with everyone else when they say they were interested by the unique-ness of the ending. My anger is aimed more at Priority: Earth as a whole than the very end.

Priority: Earth should have been the most epic mission in the trilogy; more so than the Suicide Mission. You should have been positioning Jack and her biotic squad; the Geth; the Krogan; the STG forces.

They squandered so much potential in that mission.

Well, "Priority: Earth" definitely could be improved without corrupting the endings. But, BioWare already said there will be no additional gameplay added with EC.

...But I think you already heard those unused VOs with Geth Primes, Jack and Zaeed. Maybe BioWare planned to make an additional singleplayer DLC which will use those VOs...

[Bill Casey]

HagarIshay wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

Even Javik says it right, "Subjugating the Reapers will not bring victory. Only their extinction will."

A lot of people bring up Javik when they talk about the choosing destroy as the only viable option. But Javik was held by his believes, his culture , and mental trauma. When you take it as it is, then his arguments should not be any more valid than TIM's. If you take Javik's arguments as viable, you should also think TIM is more than indoctrinated, tyrant, psycho.

The entire reason the Protheans failed is because they were sabotaged from within by Prothean separatists who believed they should dominate the Reapers rather than destroy them. It was later found out the Prothean separatists were actually indoctrinated...

The Prothean empire itself is a testament to the (thematic) failure of Control. Their domination and subjugation of other species is what ultimately made them weak. This is a theme that is repeated through the Salarian uplift program, Cerberus, Tali's Father, Miranda's father, etc...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2012 - 06:50 .

[Shallyah]

Seival wrote...

It's just Javik's opinion. Protheans had their chance to stop the Reapers. But they managed only to slow the Reapers down. And Protheans were much more advanced, than current galactic civilization. It looks like the biggest Protheans' disadvantages were their traditions and way of thinking.

Javik is a very special character, because you can only get him through paid DLC. In that regard, anything he says or does appears to me as a kind of spoiler, a "reward" to those who paid to get Javik, or bought the Collector's Edition.

Hence I am inclined to believe whatever he says, because of its "hey you paid for this, so you get privileged info" nature. At least Javik doesn't appear in the game in the last 5 minutes to bomb you with random beliefts that some of you are so willing to take as the galactic bible.

"The Protheans only managed to slow down the Reapers". It's thanks to the Protheans (Crucible template and the VI they left, amongst other things) that this cycle gets a shot at wining at all. You sure are one for acknowledging other people's merits.

By the way, Javik himself explains the reason for the Protheans were wiped - because the galactic civilization was too alike, as there was only voice, the empire, and everything fell under it. Then the Reapers learned their weaknesses, and the Protheans couldn't adapt because they lacked diversity. You don't need to make up your fantastic reasons for the Protheans were wiped, limit yourself to making up facts about why Control is the best ending, you're pretty good at that already.

Modifié par Shallyah, 03 juin 2012 - 06:53 .

[Ageless Face]

Bill Casey wrote...

The entire reason the Protheans failed is because they were sabotaged from within by Prothean separatists who believed they should dominate the Reapers rather than destroy them. It was later found out the Prothean separatists were actually indoctrinated...

  
...But why does it matter? are all the people who were indoctrinated wanted to control the reapers? No. And TIM didn't want to control the reapers because he was indoc. Power hungry. 

The repaers attacked sanctuary because they realised TIM wanted to control them. So Do you honestly think the reapers would tell the indoc people to try and control them?

  

Funny enough, this is quoted from previous page on this thread.

 
The Prothean empire itself is a testament to the (thematic) failure of Control. Their domination and subjugation of other species is what ultimately made them weak. This is a theme that is repeated through the Salarian uplift program, Cerberus, Tali's Father, Miranda's father, etc...

 

No. That is a testement for TIM trying to control. He is an antagonist, and we need reasons why his experiments and idealism are wrong. Otherwise, people really won't understand why we are not helping TIM and his idea of controling the reapers.

We are never given an actual reason as to why not controling the reapers. Shepard is refering to why TIM can't control the reapers to use it to his own advancement. We are never giving the idea of controling the reapers and get them out from the galaxy, or use them as protecters up until the end game. So if your Shepard will use the repaers to do what TIM has done, then Shepard is a hypocrite and yes, we have been taught the hole game why Shepard is now the villan. However, if your Shepard will not do that, and will save the galaxy, there is no reason as to why not control them. So back to your original statement... the Protheans are there to show us why TIM was wrong. Never been said why Shepard using the crucible is wrong.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 03 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[filetemo]

Have you guys thought about how bad control is because if the catalyst is right, reaper shepard will eventually agree with him and start the cycle again?

[Seival]

Shallyah wrote...

Seival wrote...

It's just Javik's opinion. Protheans had their chance to stop the Reapers. But they managed only to slow the Reapers down. And Protheans were much more advanced, than current galactic civilization. It looks like the biggest Protheans' disadvantages were their traditions and way of thinking.

Javik is a very special character, because you can only get him through paid DLC. In that regard, anything he says or does appears to me as a kind of spoiler, a "reward" to those who paid to get Javik, or bought the Collector's Edition.

Hence I am inclined to believe whatever he says, because of its "hey you paid for this, so you get privileged info" nature. At least Javik doesn't appear in the game in the last 5 minutes to bomb you with random beliefts that some of you are so willing to take as the galactic bible.

"The Protheans only managed to slow down the Reapers". It's thanks to the Protheans (Crucible template and the VI they left, amongst other things) that this cycle gets a shot at wining at all. You sure are one for acknowledging other people's merits.

By the way, Javik himself explains the reason for the Protheans were wiped - because the galactic civilization was too alike, as there was only voice, the empire, and everything fell under it. Then the Reapers learned their weaknesses, and the Protheans couldn't adapt because they lacked diversity. You don't need to make up your fantastic reasons for the Protheans were wiped, limit yourself to making up facts about why Control is the best ending, you're pretty good at that already.

If you get the character through paid DLC it doesn't mean the character always speaks truth or always gives wise advices. Your reward for paying is an additional portion of story, nothing more.

Protheans helped a lot indeed, but still didn't manage to solve the problem themselves. Yes, Protheans gave us very valuable info, but they can't be very good advisers. Their "advices" led them to death.

...Again, there is no "best ending". There are three different endings. And I prefer Control.

[MegaSovereign]

But I thought the Catalyst's logic was flawed?

Why do you people have double standards? You only pick control/destroy if you don't agree with the catalyst about how synthetics will eventually kill off organics. Either you think the Catalyst's logic is true or you don't.

[Jamie9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

But I thought the Catalyst's logic was flawed?

Why do you people have double standards? You only pick control/destroy if you don't agree with the catalyst about how synthetics will eventually kill off organics. Either you think the Catalyst's logic is true or you don't.

Or the third group - you're not sure if he's right. So you want to investigate.

[jijeebo]

filetemo wrote...

Have you guys thought about how bad control is because if the catalyst is right, reaper shepard will eventually agree with him and start the cycle again?

Doesn't the catalyst say that Shepard will continue the cycle as he sees fit?


That doesn't mean he's going to bring back the Reaper-harvests.


EDIT: I watched it on youtube and he didn't... My mind must be playing tricks on me.

Modifié par jijeebo, 03 juin 2012 - 08:28 .

[Ageless Face]

filetemo wrote...

Have you guys thought about how bad control is because if the catalyst is right, reaper shepard will eventually agree with him and start the cycle again?

 Yes, it was discussed before. Both synthetics and organics are afraid of the reapers. Yes, Legion said the heretics were afraid of the reapers in ME3, that's why they joined the reapers. EDI admitted she was afraid of them at the final conversation with her. If the repaers will do a house inspection every few hundred of years, then both the synthetics and organics would live happily with each other under the repaer's watchfull eyes.

And eventually, both the organics and the synthetics will be advanced enough to overcome the singularity, so the reapers will no longer be needed anyway. They will sleep in dark space, or will protect the milkey way from other galaxies.

It's that simple.  

[Seival]

filetemo wrote...

Have you guys thought about how bad control is because if the catalyst is right, reaper shepard will eventually agree with him and start the cycle again?

The Catalist itself clearly stated that its "solution" doesn't work anymore. So even current Catalist changed its mind about the Cycles... Because Shepard's actions convinced it... There are no reasons for Shepard to start the Cycles again.

Modifié par Seival, 03 juin 2012 - 08:36 .

[Seival]

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

I'm sure it will be enough. Even Normandy crash scene will make sense with correct explanations. Somehow I think they will not remove the scene from the game. So the scene has to have some meaning...

...I have one more theory about it, actually. Crash scene is clearly not a "shameless retreat". The scene could happen much later then just after the battle for the Earth. And it looks like... A test-launch of a ship through the reconstructed or newly built Mass Relay... i.e. one more clue, that Mass Relays network can, and will be reconstructed.

I really doubt the scene happened later in the game. Notice that if you are waiting too much time to make your choice at the ending, the crucible is desroyed. That means, that for your choice to actually have effect, the reapers would have left/ been destroyed immediately. If they weren't they would have destroyed the crucible.

If the reapers are leaving right after Shepard makes his/her choice, it means that the energy from the crucible also hit the relays at the same time. And if the Normandy was already traveling in the relay when it happened...

So maybe it was not two minutes after Shepard made the choice, but they definitely left too soon to the point of making us very suspisious. And angry. The Normandy leaving does not make sense what so ever, both in time aspect AND the fact the Normandy is leaving at all.

...The more I think about it the more I believe that Normandy crash scene describes exactly the test-launch of a ship through the reconstructed or newly built Mass Relay. And it happens much later than the Battle for Earth...
 
The main proof I have right now is the nature of explosion that hit the Normandy. Crucible explosions were unable to damage the Normandy. But the "shockwave" in the Normandy crash scene almost disintegrated the ship. This "shockwave" might be some kind of post-effect of "new/reactivated mass relay calibration issues". And the Normandy might be the first ship with living crew used for a mass relay test.

...I'll try to find additional proofs of this theory. And I have a strong feeling that I'm right   

Modifié par Seival, 03 juin 2012 - 09:54 .

[Seival]

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

I'm sure it will be enough. Even Normandy crash scene will make sense with correct explanations. Somehow I think they will not remove the scene from the game. So the scene has to have some meaning...

...I have one more theory about it, actually. Crash scene is clearly not a "shameless retreat". The scene could happen much later then just after the battle for the Earth. And it looks like... A test-launch of a ship through the reconstructed or newly built Mass Relay... i.e. one more clue, that Mass Relays network can, and will be reconstructed.

I really doubt the scene happened later in the game. Notice that if you are waiting too much time to make your choice at the ending, the crucible is desroyed. That means, that for your choice to actually have effect, the reapers would have left/ been destroyed immediately. If they weren't they would have destroyed the crucible.

If the reapers are leaving right after Shepard makes his/her choice, it means that the energy from the crucible also hit the relays at the same time. And if the Normandy was already traveling in the relay when it happened...

So maybe it was not two minutes after Shepard made the choice, but they definitely left too soon to the point of making us very suspisious. And angry. The Normandy leaving does not make sense what so ever, both in time aspect AND the fact the Normandy is leaving at all.

...The more I think about it the more I believe that Normandy crash scene describes exactly the test-launch of a ship through the reconstructed or newly built Mass Relay. And it happens much later than the Battle for Earth...
 
The main proof I have right now is the nature of explosion that hit the Normandy. Crucible explosions were unable to damage the Normandy. But the "shockwave" in the Normandy crash scene almost disintegrated the ship. This "shockwave" might be some kind of post-effect of "new/reactivated mass relay calibration issues". And the Normandy might be the first ship with living crew used for a mass relay test.

...I'll try to find additional proofs of this theory. And I have a strong feeling that I'm right   

I'm watching the crash scene again and again... I have a feeling that I'm missing something very important... 


...Looks like I've found something.


Watch the crash scene carefully. Did you see how exactly the "shockwave" damages the Normandy in the space? It hits engines hard, but have almost no effect on the other parts of the hull... I should observe the scene more. Maybe there are some other clues there...