1917 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

I think that narrative purpose of destroying the relays was to show that any kind of victory will not come cheap. Even through each ending already has it's own cost. And even through all losses prior to the dialogue with the Catalist.

But you're saying the Normandy crash scene is supposed to show that the sacrifices can be undone. What would be the point of showing sacrifices if they're gonna show seconds later that those sacrifices are pointless in the long run?
You literally have no idea about narrative and plot structure. Even an amateur can see the flaws presented in this narrative you're making the ending sequence out to be. It's embarrasing, just like whenever you go on about how great DEMs are. Nobody with any grasp on literature and writing shares that kind of opinion because it's common knowledge that DEMs are mostly terrible plot devices and rightly so.

You don't know that some of sacrifices can be undone before you watch the ending completely for the first time. You will be convinced that they are permanent sacrifices, so it will be harder for you to make the final decision.

I literally tell you that BioWare writers are genius. Show me at least one player who could predict the ending. Show me at least one player who was not stunned by the ending at least for a couple of days. Show me at least one role-player who had no hard time choosing the ending... Silence is your answer...

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

I think that narrative purpose of destroying the relays was to show that any kind of victory will not come cheap. Even through each ending already has it's own cost. And even through all losses prior to the dialogue with the Catalist.

But you're saying the Normandy crash scene is supposed to show that the sacrifices can be undone. What would be the point of showing sacrifices if they're gonna show seconds later that those sacrifices are pointless in the long run?
You literally have no idea about narrative and plot structure. Even an amateur can see the flaws presented in this narrative you're making the ending sequence out to be. It's embarrasing, just like whenever you go on about how great DEMs are. Nobody with any grasp on literature and writing shares that kind of opinion because it's common knowledge that DEMs are mostly terrible plot devices and rightly so.

You don't know that some of sacrifices can be undone before you watch the ending completely for the first time. You will be convinced that they are permanent sacrifices, so it will be harder for you to make the final decision.

I literally tell you that BioWare writers are genius. Show me at least one player who could predict the ending. Show me at least one player who was not stunned by the ending at least for a couple of days. Show me at least one role-player who had no hard time choosing the ending... Silence is your answer...

I walked right into the Synthesis beam. Because all options seemed terrible to me and I didn't care.
And I was stunned by it because of all the plot holes and contradictions they managed to fit into so little time. They completely tore me out of the game and brought me into reality because I realized how much they messed up with the ending. Good story telling captivates you into the story and makes you care for what's happening inside that story. The Catalyst scene did the complete opposite of that for most people.

[Kurremurre]

It's quite easy to introduce new premises to make sense of the Normandy crash scene.

Surely you will concede that it is perfectly possible that the Crucible's long-term effects on the galaxy involved a drastic drop in the intellectual properties of its population; i.e., it turned everyone stupid. After all, this would make the reinvention of synthetics all the less likely, which would work in favour of the Catalyst's goals. This would fit hand in glove with the decision to use the ridiculously expensive stealth ship prototype, the Normandy, for a potentially disastrous test.

This alone, however, cannot account for the fact that there is no transition between the Galaxy-wide Fireworks Display and Joker's cockpit to imply a temporal jump. Heck, even the music goes its merry way, as if to imply that the events were concurrent.

Thus we introduce this second premise: whoever was responsible for the editing of the ending cinematic was unable to convey a passage of time between the two scenes, as he couldn't think straight due to a heavy migraine.

Now, of course, I doubt anyone would suggest that this, while POSSIBLE, is anywhere near PROBABLE; and that is ultimately what the issue is. Is a given interpretation likely to be the intended one?

Where the Test Run hypothesis is concerned, the answer must be no. You can't get around this with "what ifs" like "What if the change in colour is due to long-term effects on the mass relays?" (which, I think, is quite patently false considering the new colour is only present in the fiery energy chasing the Normandy, and nowhere in front of it). Possible doesn't mean Probable, and it certainly doesn't mean Actual.

I challenge you to show how your explanation is any more likely to be true than mine.

Modifié par Kurremurre, 10 juin 2012 - 11:34 .

[M Hedonist]

Kurremurre wrote...

It's quite easy to introduce new premises to make sense of the Normandy crash scene.

Surely you will concede that it is perfectly possible that the Crucible's long-term effects on the galaxy involved a drastic drop in the intellectual properties of its population; i.e., it turned everyone stupid. After all, this would make the reinvention of synthetics all the less likely, which would work in favour of the Catalyst's goals. This would fit hand in glove with the decision to use the ridiculously expensive stealth ship prototype, the Normandy, for a potentially disastrous test.

This alone, however, cannot account for the fact that there is no transition between the Galaxy-wide Fireworks Display and Joker's cockpit to imply a temporal jump. Heck, even the music goes its merry way, as if to imply that the events were concurrent.

Thus we introduce this second premise: whoever was responsible for the editing of the ending cinematic was unable to convey a passage of time between the two scenes, as he couldn't think straight due to a heavy migraine.

Now, of course, I doubt anyone would suggest that this, while POSSIBLE, is anywhere near PROBABLE; and that is ultimately what the issue is. Is a given interpretation likely to be the intended one?

Where the Test Run hypothesis is concerned, the answer must be no. You can't get around this with "what ifs" like "What if the change in colour is due to long-term effects on the mass relays?" (which, I think, is quite patently false considering the new colour is only present in the fiery energy chasing the Normandy, and nowhere in front of it). Possible doesn't mean Probable, and it certainly doesn't mean Actual.

I challenge you to show how your explanation is any more likely to be true than mine.

This, all of it.

[Taboo]

^ LOL

[SackofCat]

Aside from QEC and Rachni, the only existing form of communication that survives the disabling of the relays is tight beam which is not FTL. The intragalactic communication network was based on comm buoys that were linked through mass relays (extranet).

Discussing the narrative problems that arise from this interpretation is valid. However, the OPer's perspective on a sound narrative may be at odds with what some people believe. Perhaps the OPer prefers to "agree to disagree" and leave the narrative implications out of the interpretation. There are probably people that would assume it is pointless to debate something that is so subjective because one opinion is just as valid as the next. There may also be people that think that an unexpected turn in the narrative at the end of a story is brilliant.

[Joe Del Toro]

Kurremurre wrote...

It's quite easy to introduce new premises to make sense of the Normandy crash scene.

Surely you will concede that it is perfectly possible that the Crucible's long-term effects on the galaxy involved a drastic drop in the intellectual properties of its population; i.e., it turned everyone stupid. After all, this would make the reinvention of synthetics all the less likely, which would work in favour of the Catalyst's goals. This would fit hand in glove with the decision to use the ridiculously expensive stealth ship prototype, the Normandy, for a potentially disastrous test.

This alone, however, cannot account for the fact that there is no transition between the Galaxy-wide Fireworks Display and Joker's cockpit to imply a temporal jump. Heck, even the music goes its merry way, as if to imply that the events were concurrent.

Thus we introduce this second premise: whoever was responsible for the editing of the ending cinematic was unable to convey a passage of time between the two scenes, as he couldn't think straight due to a heavy migraine.

Now, of course, I doubt anyone would suggest that this, while POSSIBLE, is anywhere near PROBABLE; and that is ultimately what the issue is. Is a given interpretation likely to be the intended one?

Where the Test Run hypothesis is concerned, the answer must be no. You can't get around this with "what ifs" like "What if the change in colour is due to long-term effects on the mass relays?" (which, I think, is quite patently false considering the new colour is only present in the fiery energy chasing the Normandy, and nowhere in front of it). Possible doesn't mean Probable, and it certainly doesn't mean Actual.

I challenge you to show how your explanation is any more likely to be true than mine.

You are the smartest chicken on the goddamn forums. Thread won.

[SackofCat]

Kurremurre,
I could try but it would require a great deal of "what ifs". Whether I succeed is not impossible but improbable.

I had not thought to link this theory with the "everybody is now stupid" hypothesis. I have no explanation for the lack-of-transition/unexplained jump in time. Some manner of discontinuity (if that is a word), while conceivably less obvious than OPer's idea, seems to exist in connection with the Normandy crash scene in any case (unless the crucible can move or create mass relays and/or planets).

[M Hedonist]

SackofCat wrote...

Kurremurre,
I could try but it would require a great deal of "what ifs". Whether I succeed is not impossible but improbable.

That's the point.
It's impossible to prove whether this theory is right or wrong. However, the amount of baseless assumptions it makes makes it extremely improbable.
I honestly don't even know why you're defending this theory so fervently. You're wasting energy and potential.

Modifié par Sauruz, 11 juin 2012 - 12:32 .

[Seival]

SackofCat wrote...

Aside from QEC and Rachni, the only existing form of communication that survives the disabling of the relays is tight beam which is not FTL. The intragalactic communication network was based on comm buoys that were linked through mass relays (extranet).

Discussing the narrative problems that arise from this interpretation is valid. However, the OPer's perspective on a sound narrative may be at odds with what some people believe. Perhaps the OPer prefers to "agree to disagree" and leave the narrative implications out of the interpretation. There are probably people that would assume it is pointless to debate something that is so subjective because one opinion is just as valid as the next. There may also be people that think that an unexpected turn in the narrative at the end of a story is brilliant.

Let's say there are no QEC left or Rachni can't help. The most important thing to do for any isolated cluster's population will be an attempt of relay reconstruction. It's logical that they will do this work to the point, when the relay can be used to send communication signals, but will not risk to send any ship through the relay before it will be completely recalibrated. That's how different clusters could regain FTL communications... And then they will be able to coordinate recalibration process and test-flights.

...But anyway, I'm sure there are more then enough QEC pairs left, so communications will not be a problem from the beginning.

Modifié par Seival, 11 juin 2012 - 12:37 .

[Peranor]

Kurremurre wrote...

It's quite easy to introduce new premises to make sense of the Normandy crash scene.

Surely you will concede that it is perfectly possible that the Crucible's long-term effects on the galaxy involved a drastic drop in the intellectual properties of its population; i.e., it turned everyone stupid. After all, this would make the reinvention of synthetics all the less likely, which would work in favour of the Catalyst's goals. This would fit hand in glove with the decision to use the ridiculously expensive stealth ship prototype, the Normandy, for a potentially disastrous test.

This alone, however, cannot account for the fact that there is no transition between the Galaxy-wide Fireworks Display and Joker's cockpit to imply a temporal jump. Heck, even the music goes its merry way, as if to imply that the events were concurrent.

Thus we introduce this second premise: whoever was responsible for the editing of the ending cinematic was unable to convey a passage of time between the two scenes, as he couldn't think straight due to a heavy migraine.

Now, of course, I doubt anyone would suggest that this, while POSSIBLE, is anywhere near PROBABLE; and that is ultimately what the issue is. Is a given interpretation likely to be the intended one?

Where the Test Run hypothesis is concerned, the answer must be no. You can't get around this with "what ifs" like "What if the change in colour is due to long-term effects on the mass relays?" (which, I think, is quite patently false considering the new colour is only present in the fiery energy chasing the Normandy, and nowhere in front of it). Possible doesn't mean Probable, and it certainly doesn't mean Actual.

I challenge you to show how your explanation is any more likely to be true than mine.

+100

[SackofCat]

Seival,
I think you may have misunderstood how the comm network/extranet and what it would take to reestablish inter-cluster communication without QECs (attempting to use the Rachni for this purpose would make your theory less plausible).

While the information on comm buoys and how they work is a little confusing, their destruction by the reapers is noted in ME3. While it is possible that the reapers would consider destroying all the comm buoys a lower priority once they have isolated every system and probably every planet, the only way to recreate the system is to rebuild the buoys and, presumably, have a ship travel (without mass relays, mind you) the distance that intended messages would have to travel.

Truthfully, my knowledge of astronomy and distance between systems is rather limited but others have claimed it might take years or even decades (the Milky Way galaxy is 100000-120000 light years across).

Since mass relays need a pair and, most likely, the only way to "align" them is by coordinating their construction and calibration, then the comm buoy system or something similar would have to be in place if they are to be built in less than a few lifetimes (human or maybe even asari).

Time to install a new a new comm system -plus- time to coordinate, compare notes, or even start building -plus- however long the unmanned drone tests went in for -equals- when Normandy's crash takes place. Don't forget that the human squadmates do not appear to have aged in this span of time as well.

Without QECs, I'm afraid your idea becomes less plausible.

[Kurremurre]

SackofCat wrote...

Discussing the narrative problems that arise from this interpretation is valid. However, the OPer's perspective on a sound narrative may be at odds with what some people believe. Perhaps the OPer prefers to "agree to disagree" and leave the narrative implications out of the interpretation. There are probably people that would assume it is pointless to debate something that is so subjective because one opinion is just as valid as the next. There may also be people that think that an unexpected turn in the narrative at the end of a story is brilliant.

Oh, excellent! If we don't need an explanation for the transition, that brings my hypothesis down to only requiring one premise! Theory proven! I am a genius!

In all seriousness, though, this doesn't help the Test Run hypothesis at all. As far as I'm aware, there are rules to follow when trying to tell a story; it isn't quite accurate to say that one opinion is just as valid as the next. We have to ask ourselves how likely it is that someone would reason like this and deviate from established principles when working on the conclusion of a massive trilogy. What you're suggesting is that it is possible - which, theoretically, it is - but again, that isn't the issue. The question is whether it is probable.

Simply put, you have just added another "what if", which solves nothing.

Kurremurre,
I could try but it would require a great deal of "what ifs". Whether I succeed is not impossible but improbable.

As Sauruz has already pointed out, that doesn't work. At best, adding "what ifs" can help making a case for the Possibility of something, but not the Probability of it. In fact, when Ockham comes along with his Razor, it will prove to have had the opposite effect.

Modifié par Kurremurre, 11 juin 2012 - 08:26 .

[SackofCat]

The reason for a transition or, more precisely, the lack of one, does need to be explained. This is because when (lack of transition) left as vague as it is (under this interpretation), it seems to serve no narrative purpose. Everything you quoted after the first two sentences is not necessarily directed to this topic in particular nor was it meant to be prescriptive.

The further away you go from the work, the closer you are to creating something yourself. I would only disagree with calling it a "what if" unless it is a "what if we ignore the narrative problems that may arise from this interpretation" but that I my opinion.

I am having trouble making a convincing case that the OPer's interpretation is the most probable. This usually (as it does now) means that I can make a more convincing case that it isn't.

[dorktainian]

.......

shep has his N7 armour on at the begining of ME2, he also has his N7 armour on in the 'breath' scene.

Coincidence?

[Seival]

SackofCat wrote...

Seival,
I think you may have misunderstood how the comm network/extranet and what it would take to reestablish inter-cluster communication without QECs (attempting to use the Rachni for this purpose would make your theory less plausible).

While the information on comm buoys and how they work is a little confusing, their destruction by the reapers is noted in ME3. While it is possible that the reapers would consider destroying all the comm buoys a lower priority once they have isolated every system and probably every planet, the only way to recreate the system is to rebuild the buoys and, presumably, have a ship travel (without mass relays, mind you) the distance that intended messages would have to travel.

Truthfully, my knowledge of astronomy and distance between systems is rather limited but others have claimed it might take years or even decades (the Milky Way galaxy is 100000-120000 light years across).

Since mass relays need a pair and, most likely, the only way to "align" them is by coordinating their construction and calibration, then the comm buoy system or something similar would have to be in place if they are to be built in less than a few lifetimes (human or maybe even asari).

Time to install a new a new comm system -plus- time to coordinate, compare notes, or even start building -plus- however long the unmanned drone tests went in for -equals- when Normandy's crash takes place. Don't forget that the human squadmates do not appear to have aged in this span of time as well.

Without QECs, I'm afraid your idea becomes less plausible.

Agree. That's why I prefer think that QECs remain intact.

[M Hedonist]

So you're just gonna ignore all of the comments me and Kurremurre wrote? Great, I was getting tired of arguing, anyway.
The isles. THE ISLES! They're a wonderful place to be, except when they are horrible. Then they are HORRIBLY WONDERFUL! Good for a visit! Or for an eternity.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

So you're just gonna ignore all of the comments me and Kurremurre wrote? Great, I was getting tired of arguing, anyway.
The isles. THE ISLES! They're a wonderful place to be, except when they are horrible. Then they are HORRIBLY WONDERFUL! Good for a visit! Or for an eternity.

Ignore? Not at all.

Your comments were noticed and took note of. But I should keep explaining my theory to those, who disagree. I don't want to disprove someone elses theories here. I want to explain mine... And support BioWare's work of course.

Modifié par Seival, 11 juin 2012 - 11:55 .

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

So you're just gonna ignore all of the comments me and Kurremurre wrote? Great, I was getting tired of arguing, anyway.
The isles. THE ISLES! They're a wonderful place to be, except when they are horrible. Then they are HORRIBLY WONDERFUL! Good for a visit! Or for an eternity.

Ignore? Not at all.

Your comments were noticed and took note of. But I should keep explaining the theory to those, who disagree. I don't want to disprove someone elses theories here. I want to explain mine... And support BioWare's work of course.

You just don't get the point, do you?

Kurremurre wrote...

I challenge you to show how your explanation is any more likely to be true than mine.

The point is that we cannot prove that your theory is impossible. However, considering the amount of baseless assumptions your theory makes, it is extremely improbable to the point where it's less likely to be implemented than any other possible explanation of the scene.
Which means that your theory is pointless to discuss unless you can prove that it is more likely than other theories.

Modifié par Sauruz, 11 juin 2012 - 11:57 .

[Kurremurre]

Oh, no, Sauruz. Seival is absolutely right. My intention was, in fact, to propose a new hypothesis that I found to be the most likely explanation.

Granted, I did say that I doubted anyone would ever find my interpretation to be true, or even probable. It should be clear, however, that I exclude myself from this group - I myself find it very probable.

And yes, I did write a paragraph explicitly concerning the Test Run hypothesis, but that was merely a joke! Quite a hilarious one, too, if you ask me. HA! HA!

You silly, silly goose.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

So you're just gonna ignore all of the comments me and Kurremurre wrote? Great, I was getting tired of arguing, anyway.
The isles. THE ISLES! They're a wonderful place to be, except when they are horrible. Then they are HORRIBLY WONDERFUL! Good for a visit! Or for an eternity.

Ignore? Not at all.

Your comments were noticed and took note of. But I should keep explaining the theory to those, who disagree. I don't want to disprove someone elses theories here. I want to explain mine... And support BioWare's work of course.

You just don't get the point, do you?

Kurremurre wrote...

I challenge you to show how your explanation is any more likely to be true than mine.

The point is that we cannot prove that your theory is impossible. However, considering the amount of baseless assumptions your theory makes, it is extremely improbable to the point where it's less likely to be implemented than any other possible explanation of the scene.
Which means that your theory is pointless to discuss unless you can prove that it is more likely than other theories.

Yet, people keep discussing it. So, I don't really think it's pointless.

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Yet, people keep discussing it. So, I don't really think it's pointless.

So my argument doesn't matter because SackofCat is still discussing the theory with you?
And you're just gonna ignore the fact that your theory has to make 14 baseless assumptions to work?

I'm tired of yelling at a brick wall. Take it away, Sheogorath.
I hate indecision! Or maybe I don't. Well, make up your mind. Or I'll have your skin made into a hat. Maybe one of those arrowcatchers. I love those hats!

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yet, people keep discussing it. So, I don't really think it's pointless.

So my argument doesn't matter because SackofCat is still discussing the theory with you?
And you're just gonna ignore the fact that your theory has to make 14 baseless assumptions to work?

I'm tired of yelling at a brick wall. Take it away, Sheogorath.
I hate indecision! Or maybe I don't. Well, make up your mind. Or I'll have your skin made into a hat. Maybe one of those arrowcatchers. I love those hats!

Who said that your arguments doesn't matter? They matters, but I disagree with them. If you really tired of yelling, then stop it, and keep constructive discussion of the Normandy crash scene. It's as simple as that.

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Who said that your arguments doesn't matter? They matters, but I disagree with them. If you really tired of yelling, then stop it, and keep constructive discussion of the Normandy crash scene. It's as simple as that.

I am being constructive. Every form of critique is constructive. It shows you what you have to improve to make your piece of work better.
I doubt you're really interested in constructive discussion since you've ignored most of my arguments. You have yet to prove that your theory is more likely than any other theory on this scene. I have brought this up at least 20 pages ago already.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Who said that your arguments doesn't matter? They matters, but I disagree with them. If you really tired of yelling, then stop it, and keep constructive discussion of the Normandy crash scene. It's as simple as that.

I am being constructive. Every form of critique is constructive. It shows you what you have to improve to make your piece of work better.
I doubt you're really interested in constructive discussion since you've ignored most of my arguments. You have yet to prove that your theory is more likely than any other theory on this scene. I have brought this up at least 20 pages ago already.

Not every form of critique is constructive. And I already answered all of your arguments, actually. So, if you have some more counter-arguments to the Normandy crash scene theory, go ahead.