@Auld Wulf:
"The Crucible changed me" can imply any number of things. In this very thread, JShepppp interprets it as changing how the Catalyst views the situation by very the fact of its existence - no hacking required. If you want to interpret it as hacking, by all means do so. However, the statement is sufficiently vague that we don't
know exactly what the Catalyst meant.
You're also putting a lot of weight on one statement by a character who is later shown to
not have all the facts:
It is stated by a Prothean VI, who is making an educated guess, that the Crucible was redesigned to include the Citadel at some point, for the purpose of taking advantage of the Mass Relay Network. At this point, nobody has any knowledge of the true nature of the Catalyst, so when they say Catalyst, they mean Citadel.
Furthermore, we still don't know who originally designed the Crucible. For all we know, Crucible-Citadel functionality was built in from the start. Crucible-
Catalyst functionality may never have been built in, because nobody knew exactly what the Catalyst was - most just thought it was the Citadel. Or, alternatively, the Crucible was indeed designed to hack the Catalyst, because some or other race discovered the Intelligence.
We don't know."Little more than a power source..." For what it's worth, I dislike this particular statement and wish it wasn't in the game, but hey...
Again, we do not know what the "little more" in the Crucible is. It could be a Synthesis module, since the Crucible somehow proved to the Catalyst that Synthesis was possible.
It could be a small module that determines how the energy is utilised, which Shepard ends up standing on. Or, as you say, the "little more" could include a hacking module.
To the best of my knowledge, there is
no concrete in-game proof that the Crucible hacked the Catalyst. There
are some statements that can be taken to imply that, but implication is not proof.
And finally - although I don't actually believe kal_reegar has done so here - there is nothing wrong with discarding or ignoring bits of canon if it conflicts with a person's enjoyment or immersion within the game. For example, in the Control ending, there's a slide of Reapers standing over London. I completely ignore this slide as that's not something that my Shepard would allow to happen (the only way I can vaguely include it is by having him consider it at one point, and then discard the idea out of hand). I ignore that EDI can't feel the Normandy in Rannoch: Admiral Koris, when realistically it ought to be the other way around - her mobile platform should no longer be functioning (as a result, I just don't take her on that mission). I completely ignore Mass Effect: Evolution for various reasons. I'm also aware that Ieldra2 ignores various religious and/or 'new Eden' themes within the ending choice for the sake of immersion and enjoyment.
kal_reegar has a valid interpretation of the end of the game that allows him (or her) to enjoy the game's end. What does it matter to you if that interpretation does not match your own interpretation of the facts? Especially an interpretation that maintains the choices of Control and Synthesis rather than throwing them out as Reaper tricks?
And why do you feel the need to throw out the actually-fairly-demeaning-statement "It's all there if you pay attention" when this is
already a thread where we trawl through the details of the trilogy to find possible interpretations? That statement comes off as especially disdainful when, as far as I can tell, there is no proof.
Modifié par JasonShepard, 06 juin 2013 - 09:04 .
Retour en haut
The Leviathans, who may or may not agree that the Reapers were a bad idea, do nothing but pass down these plans. They don't complete the designs, they don't pass on the idea that this is rather important, they don't build anything over the 50,000 years that are inbetween harvests. Nothing. 
