1238 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

This level of "I'm rubber you're glue" discourse isn't really worth responding to (I don't know why TTG wasted so much time repeatedly responding to HYR's blathering for example) but I'm going to make this short response anyway.

Here's a tip: nobody cares what you consider "worth" responding to. Dodging and dismissing any kind of critical analysis for whatever reason doesn't invalidate it just because you say so. It's your arbitrary opinion, one that has little-to-no credibility with anyone else but yourself.

Being as you consider yourself some type of paragon of social discourse up on your high horse, if you yourself have anything to say of worth, then say it. Otherwise, everyone else will rightly assume that you do not.

The fact that you've acknowledged my posts that you deem unworthy about 7 different times now is telling of how worthy your opinions really are.

For how big you act, I personally haven't gotten the vibe that I'm speaking to someone above the age of 15 with you.

clennon8 wrote...

Agreed.  Live and let live.

 

Clearly, that is why you yourself have stated you want the people who enjoyed their endings to suffer. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

I don't see IT'ists going into other threads and trying to sh*t on other people or their ideas the way anti-IT troglodytes do when they come into threads like this one.

Then you're blind. The premise of IT is to schit on Control/Synthesis/Refuse in favor of making Destroyers feel more validated about their decision.

Criminey cripes. The title of this OP is accusing all others who don't share his/her opinions of being indoctrinated.

That you believe yourself to be on the moral high-ground is laughable. You and The Butthurt One should go bowling.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 08 août 2012 - 05:42 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

OP, inventing plot devices like "Crucible Suppression Device" is not a very compelling way to forward your argument/theory. If you're going to use that tactic, then I can also invent an even simpler plot device to show why your version of IT isn't correct in another interpretation.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 08 août 2012 - 05:53 .

[clennon8]

Well, yeah, IT is based on the premise that people who didn't pick Destroy essentially "lost" the game, but it isn't about validation or rubbing it in. It's just how we're interpreting thematic content and in-game evidence. I guess I get why you would be upset about it, though. You really want your green ending to be the bestest most super-special one, and you just can't stand that some people think you actually got tricked. I wonder who's really butthurt here? I mean, I gave up on trying to talking Synth-heads out of believing that stuff a long time ago. You can have it. Take your green ending. Believe it's true if you want. I'll be over here.

Modifié par clennon8, 08 août 2012 - 05:58 .

[megamacka]

clennon8 wrote...

Well, yeah, IT is based on the premise that people who didn't pick Destroy essentially "lost" the game, but it isn't about validation or rubbing it in. It's just how we're interpreting thematic content and in-game evidence. I guess I get why you would be upset about it, though. You really want your green ending to be the bestest most super-special one, and you just can't stand that some people think you actually got tricked. I wonder who's really butthurt here? I mean, I gave up on trying to talking Synth-heads out of believing that stuff a long time ago. You can have it. Take your green ending. Believe it's true if you want. I'll be over here.

Or perhaps synthesis and control just goes more into the favor of the reapers. The reapers obviously don't want to get destroyed ( ''
[color=rgb(34, 34, 34)">Is ]not preferable to extinction? '' ). And who knows?[/color] Perhaps shepard will change over time and begin the cycles anew, there is no telling. And synthesis is what the reapers wanted all along, they are harvested civilizations both organic and synthetic and remember the human reaper in ME2? Synthesis also removes a whole lot of what it means to be '' human '' I guess you could call it . Emotions etc, it's almost like submission to the reapers. I dunno really... Arguing about it is kinda pointless, discussing however fine.

  The way I choose to see it is that the reaper kiddo may or may not lie but his certainly making control / synthesis seem to be better than destroy since he doesn't want to be destroyed. And I choose NOT to believe him. 

  Oh yeah.... and I don't like reapers 

i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/psn8214/Deal_with_it_mass_effect_2.jpg

Modifié par megamacka, 08 août 2012 - 06:48 .

[MattFini]

@Twilight God

I love this thread. Was never much of an IT believer (although I really liked it as a theory), this thread has convinced me that it's the truth.

Everything is well-presented and argued.

Really great stuff, my man!

[The Angry One]

[megamacka]

The Angry One wrote...

HAHAHAHAHA, damn you! I spilled my drink all over the table because I couldn't stop laughing xD
Kind of summarizes the entire series lol. All three games r about denying reaoers existence xD

Modifié par megamacka, 08 août 2012 - 08:04 .

[The Twilight God]

Part I: Destroy Analysis - Addendum: Low EMS Destroy-Only Scenario
Part II: Control Analysis
Part III: Synthesis Analysis
Part IV: Refuse Analysis
Part V: The Catalyst's Deceptions
Part VI: The Implications of the Leviathans

Addendum: DESTROY AS THE ONLY CHOICE
The subject of Low EMS ending in which the Collector Base was destroyed
Updated: 25 SEP 2012

 

My detractors argue that in situations where Destroy is the only option it makes no sense for the Kid to inform Shepard about the power conduit. This argument is a very shortsighted perspective given what we have witnessed EDI accomplish all throughout Mass Effect 2. By appearing as the little boy from the opening mission the Kid has already demonstrated an ability to see into Shepard's mind and would be aware of the resource Shepard has at his disposal in the form of EDI. There is a mentality among Star Child loyalists that Shepard is an unresourceful incompetent ****** who could never figure his way out of a wet paper bag if not for the benevolent Reaper Ambassador. The following depicts a plausible low EMS Destroy-only scenario without the Star Child's immediate intervention.

Hackett: Shepard. Commander!
Shepard: I -- What do you need me to do?
Hackett: Nothing's happening. The Crucible's not firing. It's got to be something on your end.

Shepard begins his crawl over to the console

Hackett: Commander Shepard!

Shepard dazedly states, "I don't see -- I'm not sure how to..." as he waves his hand across the lower portion of the holographic terminal display on the console. Finally he collapses.
 
Apparently, the platform located directly in front of the dais console is designed with a pressure plate trigger. It is activated on the conditions that the Citadel ward arms are open (15 degrees) and that an individual remains on the platform. When these conditions are met the platform lifts them up to the underside of the Citadel Tower, while at the same time the ward arms open to a complete 90 degree angle. At this point the Citadel is converting to mass relay mode. The beam that fires from the Citadel to the Charon mass relay is the same as the beam fired from the Charon mass relay to the Arcturus mass relay.
 
Upon arriving in the chamber on the Citadel Tower underside, Shepard can see the tip of the Crucible hovering above. He struggles to his feet and limps forward. Before him is a rather large unknown contraption built into the Citadel.

Shepard: Admiral... I'm here. I see the Crucible above me.

Hackett: Where the hell were you, Shepard? You weren't responding.

Shepard: I must have passed out for a bit. But I'm here now. I see it.

Hackett: Is it doing anything? I need to know what's going on in there, Commander.

Shepard: Hold on. Let me look around.

Shepard looks and around and tries to make heads or tails of what's before him.

Shepard: There is some contraption built on the Citadel. There is a beam running through it down into a chasm.

Hackett: The Prothean design did not mention any special arming procedures. The Crucible should have fired.

Shepard: Joker, bring the Normandy by and scan the docking chamber. See if EDI can figure something out.

Joker: Heading your way, Commander.

Shepard hears a sound and turns to look around, but sees nothing. He continues to inspect the contraption.

Hackett: How are you holding up, Shepard?

Shepard: I'll live.

EDI: Shepard, it appears the Reapers have anticipated the possibility that the Crucible might be successfully docked with the Citadel. They have erected a countermeasure to prevent it from interfacing with the Citadel.

Hackett: Is this going to be a problem? Can you figure out how to bypass their defenses?

EDI: I believe so. The apex of the array in front of you is manufacturing and dispersing a steady stream of positively ionized superconductive plasma particles matching no known classification. These particles are maintained in an artificial gravimetric conduit sustained by alternating mass effect field emitters which comprise the chasm wall. This superconductive channel has created a controlled arc in which the Crucible's energy is shunted to the Citadel. This arrangement is simultaneously siphoning energy from the Crucible and distorting the Crucible's override pulse as it passes through the ionized channel. These systems are preventing a crucial step in the Crucible's arming procedures.

Shepard: How do I stop it?

EDI: The array is receiving copious amounts of energy via a power junction to your right. From there three conduits feed the entire array. Disabling the power conduit will cut power to the triangular planks encircling the plasma channel. Without the superconductive properties of the unidentified particles the Citadel will no longer be able to maintain its siphoning link to the Crucible. The override pulse should then be able to establish a connection to the Citadel's relay controls.

Hackett: Commander, can you make it happen?

Shepard: I have a pistol...

Hackett: It'll have to do.

EDI: Shepard, in order for the Reapers to have prepared this device they would need to have obtained technical schematics on the Crucible. However, my scans show that the device was created approximately 200, 000 years ago.

Shepard: A previous cycle got a little too close for comfort?

EDI: That is a likely hypothesis. There is also the issue of the junction to your left and its intended function.

Shepard: What does it do?

EDI: Unknown. However the device is emitting signals matching known Reaper artifacts. I would not touch it if I were you.

Shepard: Noted.

Hackett: That's not important right now. Shepard, end this.

Shepard moves over until he can line a shot. He raises his pistol to fire and then...

Kid: STOP! Your Crucible device is severely damaged.

Shepard: Looks like you were right about this power conduit, EDI.
 
Shepard (addressing the Kid): Who are you?

Kid: I am the Catalyst

EDI: Who are you talking to, Shepard?

Shepard: There is a kid -- I mean, it looks like a kid... made of blue light. It says it's the Catalyst.

EDI: Unlikely. The term "Catalyst" is merely a Prothean designation used to conceal the identity of the Citadel. That fact has not changed.

Kid: I see you are working with an AI. It matters not. I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: *hmph* It insists it is.

EDI: No, it is not. Shepard, I am detecting no other presence in your vicinity. You are hallucinating. Try to stay focused on your objective.

Shepard (addressing the Kid): Why should I believe you? You're in my head. You only show yourself to stop me from arming the Crucible. You have to be with the Reapers... you have every reason to lie to me.

Kid: This is no lie. Releasing the Crucible's energy in its current state will destroy the mass relays, creating a chain reaction that will be unpredictable and devastating. The effects of the blast will not be discriminate. All complex life forms will be targeted: both synthetic and organic.
 
The Kid begins its spiel about Reapers being mere tools, inevitable organic extinction, cleansing fire, etc., but Admiral Hackett cuts it off.

Hackett: Shepard, snap out of it. We don't have time for this. It has to be a Reaper ploy. Ignore it. We need to act.

Shepard: It says the Crucible is damaged and will kill us all. EDI?

EDI: The Crucible has sustained severe damage. However, the reaper core you acquired from the Illusive Man is more durable than standard power cores. The Crucible can fire, but its computational capabilities will be severely limited. There is no way to predict the exact outcome if it is armed. There were never any absolute guarantees. The alternative is to allow the Reapers to continue the Harvest.
 
Shepard: That's not going to happen.

Hackett: We don't have a choice. Commander, I'm ordering you to arm the Crucible.

Shepard (addressing the Kid): I... I can't trust you.

Kid: You doom yourselves.

Hackett: Commander Shepard?!?

Shepard shoots the power conduit and the low EMS Destroy ending ensues.

<Alternate "The Kid is an actual holographic projection" scenario>

Shepard (addressing the Kid): Who are you?

Kid: I am the Catalyst

EDI: Unlikely. The term "Catalyst" is merely a Prothean designation used to conceal the identity of the Citadel. That fact has not changed.

Kid: I see you are working with an AI. It matters not. I am the Catalyst.

EDI: No, you are not.

Shepard (addressing the Kid): Why should I believe you? You're in my head. You only show yourself to stop me from arming the Crucible. You've got to be with the Reapers... you have every reason to lie to me.

The Kid begins its spiel about Reapers being mere tools, inevitable organic extinction, cleansing fire, etc., but Admiral Hackett cuts it off.

Hackett: Enough!  We don't have time for this. We need to act.
 
Kid: Releasing the Crucible's energy in its current state will destroy the mass relays, creating a chain reaction that will be unpredictable and devastating. The effects of the blast will not be discriminate. All complex life forms will be targeted: both synthetic and organic.

Shepard: EDI?

EDI: The Crucible has sustained severe damage. However, the reaper core you acquired from the Illusive Man is more durable than standard power cores. The Crucible can fire, but its computational capabilities will be severely limited. There is no way to predict the exact outcome if it is armed. There were never any absolute guarantees. The alternative is to allow the Reapers to continue the Harvest.

Shepard: That's not going to happen.
 
Hackett: We don't have a choice. Commander, I'm ordering you to arm the Crucible.

Shepard (addressing the Kid):  And there is no way I could talk you into just standing down?

Kid: No. That would conflict with my purpose. Without the Reapers to harvest organic life you would be lost forever to the Chaos. By activating the Crucible you will not only doom this cycle, but all those to come.

Shepard: Or you could be lying to save your own hide. I can't take that risk.

Shepard shoots the power conduit and the low EMS Destroy ending ensues.

A Further Analysis of the Low EMS vs. High EMS
The subject of EMS in relation to ending options

Effective Military Strength (EMS) is the rating that dictates the military strength of your combined fleets. The lower the number, the less effective your forces are against the Reapers. A low EMS (0-1749) results in several reaper destroyers breaking through the Shield Fleet assigned to escort the Crucible. The outcome is that the Crucible is severely damaged upon arrival.
 
Low EMS
 
If the Collector Base is destroyed the Reaper Heart survives the blast and is recovered by Cerberus. This "heart" was used by Cerberus to power their headquarters. It is acquired as a war asset once Cerberus HQ is shut down and is utilized in the construction of the Crucible; presumably as a primary power supply to operate its systems. Reaper components are apparently more durable than standard components and therefore survives the reaper attack. The Crucible has power to operate, but its processing systems are degraded.  For this reason the Crucible's energy is indiscriminate with low EMS because the Crucible can't perform the necessary calculations to refine its energy.


In the alternate Control-Only scenarios the Reaper Brain is recovered from the intact Collector Base. This "brain" was used by Cerberus as a computational device capable of crunching unheard of amounts of data in nanoseconds. It is acquired as a war asset once Cerberus HQ is shut down and is utilized in the construction of the Crucible; presumably as a primary processing unit which is used to compute the necessary calculations to produce a stable release of energy. Because the Crucible's primary power source is destroyed, it is incapable of operating under its own power and therefore Destroy is not an option. However, the intact "brain" can still be uploaded with Shepard's psychological code and make the necessary computations necessary to distribute this code.
 
Deductive Analysis:

1. In mid and high EMS scenarios, both Control and Destroy options are available.
2. In low EMS scenarios the heart or brain decide which option of the two (Destroy or Control respectively) is available.
3. Low EMS scenarios results in the Reapers severely damaging the Crucible.
4. Therefore, the greater damage sustained in low EMS scenarios must account for the lack of choices in low EMS scenarios.
5. The Heart is a power source per the codex.
6. The Brain is a computational processor per the codex.
7. The Heart allows for only Destroy in low EMS; Therefore, the ability to destroy must be linked to the presence of the power the heart provides.
8. The Brain allows for only Control in low EMS; Therefore, the ability to utilize the control prongs must be linked to the presence of the computational computer.
9. Given the fact that the human reaper parts survive the Reaper attacks against the Crucible and the fact that if those parts aren't present its associated capabilities are lost, it is deduced that the Reaper parts are more durable than the standard non-reaper parts that take their place if they are absent.
10. If you have the heart, you do not have the processor brain. Therefore you have a power source for the Crucible, but no computational capabilities.
11. If you have the processor brain you do not have the heart. Therefore you have computational capabilities, but no power to run the Crucible.
12. The lack of computational capabilities and the presence of a power source allows for an energy release that destroys everything indiscriminately.
13. The presence of computational capabilities and a power source (in mid and high EMS) allows for a Crucible that targets reaper technology.
14. Conclusion #1: The computational capabilities of the Crucible determine the effects of the blast wave.
15. The lack of a power source and presence of computational capabilities allows for the control ending with damage to the Normandy, Big Ben collapsing and critical damage to the relays.
16. The presence of computational capabilities and a power source (in mid and high EMS) results in the control ending with minimum damage to the relays, Big Ben standing and a relatively undamaged Normandy.
17. The lack of computational capabilities and the presence of a power source results in the inability to initiate the control ending.
18: Conclusion #2: Control is not heavily dependent on the Crucible's power, but instead is dependent on its computational capabilities.
 
Mid EMS
 
In this scenarios the Crucible has taken damage, but not enough for any crucial system to be outright destroyed. The presence of either the Heart or the Brain still matter however. Therefore, it can be deduced that some amount of damage to the non-reaper component still takes place. For instance, if you have the brain the EMS requirements for the high EMS version of the control ending is lowered. Likewise, if you have the heart the EMS requirement to achieve the high EMS Destroy ending is lowered.
 
The Crucible is too damaged to power Synthesis, which is essentially forming synthetic molecules from pure energy. The power requirements would equate to a nuclear detonation per atom. Multiply this by the amount of new atoms created to match existing atoms and Synthesis requires enough energy to match or nearly match the energy contained within the entire galaxy. Or convert that same amount of dark matter into traditional matter. Yes, it's absurd. Regardless, this is why Synthesis requires a high EMS.
 
High EMS
 
This designation varies depending on the ending and which reaper component you possess. However, for the purposes of this thesis high EMS represents a score high enough to allow for all three Crucible related endings. In this scenario the Crucible takes no damage. At least none that we see on screen. The following are EMS requirement (ignoring reaper component bonuses) that may or may not be accurate.
 
Destroy:
Low EMS: 0 - 1749
Mid EMS 1750 - 2649
High EMS: 2650 and up
 
Control
Low EMS: 0 - 2349
High EMS: 2350 and up
 
Synthesis:
High EMS - 2800 EMS and up
 
With an EMS of 3100 and up Shepard can survive the Destroy ending assuming The Illusive Man did not execute Anderson. If Anderson was executed I believe the requirement is 4000 EMs and up. The survival at 3100+ may represent the fact that rescue teams arrived in time to save Shepard's life due to a higher number of surviving forces and hence a greater number of search teams combing the Citadel for survivors. At the beginning of the breathe scene you can hear debris being shuffled around indicated rescuers are nearby. So the next question is why does the manner in which Anderson dies matter at all? It is possible that he did not die right away, but rather regained consciousness while Shepard was chatting with Starbinger and managed to inform the Alliance where they were which narrowed down the search. Or perhaps Anderson didn't die and is the one we hear shuffling through the debris if you have 3100+ EMS. Speculation for everyone.
 
 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:51 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Dem Headcanons. Is this supposed to be your 'explanation' for Low EMS destroy? Making **** up?

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 08 août 2012 - 09:31 .

[clennon8]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Dem Headcanons. Is this supposed to be your 'explanation' for Low EMS destroy? Making **** up?

Trying hard to prove that you really are a troglodyte?

What TTG is doing is answering the question "Why wouldn't the Catalyst just ignore Shepard in the low EMS scenario?" by giving an example of how that hypothetical scenario might play out.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

clennon8 wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Dem Headcanons. Is this supposed to be your 'explanation' for Low EMS destroy? Making **** up?

Trying hard to prove that you really are a troglodyte?

What TTG is doing is answering the question "Why wouldn't the Catalyst just ignore Shepard in the low EMS scenario?" by giving an example of how that hypothetical scenario might play out.

Making up a hypothetical scenario and using it as proof for his theories isn't ****?

Nothing in the game provides any evidence for the existence of a "Crucible Suppression Device" and yet the OP continues using it (a hypothetical device/scenario) as proof for his theories.

In other words, trying to present headcanon as fact.

[megamacka]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Dem Headcanons. Is this supposed to be your 'explanation' for Low EMS destroy? Making **** up?

Trying hard to prove that you really are a troglodyte?

What TTG is doing is answering the question "Why wouldn't the Catalyst just ignore Shepard in the low EMS scenario?" by giving an example of how that hypothetical scenario might play out.

Making up a hypothetical scenario and using it as proof for his theories isn't ****?

Nothing in the game provides any evidence for the existence of a "Crucible Suppression Device" and yet the OP continues using it (a hypothetical device/scenario) as proof for his theories.

In other words, trying to present headcanon as fact.

His talking about the tube that you shoot right? Or did I miss something? It's a weird way to trigger a machine.... blow up this tube and it fires. Makes more sense that the reapers or cerby put it there when they moved the citadel to stop it from firing when the crucible docked or something.

[clennon8]

.

Modifié par clennon8, 09 août 2012 - 12:42 .

[clennon8]

megamacka wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Dem Headcanons. Is this supposed to be your 'explanation' for Low EMS destroy? Making **** up?

Trying hard to prove that you really are a troglodyte?

What TTG is doing is answering the question "Why wouldn't the Catalyst just ignore Shepard in the low EMS scenario?" by giving an example of how that hypothetical scenario might play out.

Making up a hypothetical scenario and using it as proof for his theories isn't ****?

Nothing in the game provides any evidence for the existence of a "Crucible Suppression Device" and yet the OP continues using it (a hypothetical device/scenario) as proof for his theories.

In other words, trying to present headcanon as fact.

His talking about the tube that you shoot right? Or did I miss something? It's a weird way to trigger a machine.... blow up this tube and it fires. Makes more sense that the reapers or cerby put it there when they moved the citadel to stop it from firing when the crucible docked or something.

Yes, the CSD is the tube that you shoot.  And, yeah, it makes absolutely perfect sense that it's a suppression device as opposed to a trigger.

[RadicalDisconnect]

clennon8 wrote...

The CSD makes sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than believing that the Crucible is just a big battery built to power a Reaper transmogrifier.

If you're going to invent a headcanon plot device to explain your theory, go ahead. Just don't give other people crap when they use the same tactic for an interpretation that's different from your's.

[clennon8]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

The CSD makes sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than believing that the Crucible is just a big battery built to power a Reaper transmogrifier.

If you're going to invent a headcanon plot device to explain your theory, go ahead. Just don't give other people crap when they use the same tactic for an interpretation that's different from your's.

As I've said, you can have whatever headcanons/interpretations you want.  I only object to people coming into this thread, not bothering to understand what's being said, and acting like knuckle-draggin hurr-durr machines.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

The CSD makes sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than believing that the Crucible is just a big battery built to power a Reaper transmogrifier.

If you're going to invent a headcanon plot device to explain your theory, go ahead. Just don't give other people crap when they use the same tactic for an interpretation that's different from your's.

^THIS a thousand time this.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

clennon8 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

The CSD makes sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than believing that the Crucible is just a big battery built to power a Reaper transmogrifier.

If you're going to invent a headcanon plot device to explain your theory, go ahead. Just don't give other people crap when they use the same tactic for an interpretation that's different from your's.

As I've said, you can have whatever headcanons/interpretations you want.  I only object to people coming into this thread, not bothering to understand what's being said, and acting like knuckle-draggin hurr-durr machines.

Except the OP is trying to present headcanon as fact. In a discussion board.

[Factor P]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
Nothing in the game provides any evidence for the existence of a "Crucible Suppression Device" and yet the OP continues using it (a hypothetical device/scenario) as proof for his theories.
In other words, trying to present headcanon as fact.

Actually there is a good deal of evidence to support the OPs observation of a "CSD." Regardless of what someone calls it, it is fact that there is some sort of device at the tip of the Citadel that prevents the Crucible from automatically firing. This is analogous to reaction between two reactants that will not occur spontaneously and requires a catalyst to "set off" the reaction to produce a product. What OP has noticed about the docking of the Crucible to the Citadel and what happens after the destruction of the device is plain in sight. There is no "headcannon" to the fact that shooting the device sets off a reaction.

Simply put:

A Catalyst is something that sets off a reaction, but is unchanged by the reaction.
When the Crucible docks to the Citadel, nothing happens.
Shepard ends up in an area with three panels. A "Child AI" says Shepard has to make a choice.
Without Shepard, the Crucible will not activate. Nothing will happen.
You/Shepard must set off the Reaction in order for the Crucible to activate.
Destroing the "CSD" as the OP calls it sets off a reaction.

Modifié par Factor P, 08 août 2012 - 10:34 .

[clennon8]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

The CSD makes sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than believing that the Crucible is just a big battery built to power a Reaper transmogrifier.

If you're going to invent a headcanon plot device to explain your theory, go ahead. Just don't give other people crap when they use the same tactic for an interpretation that's different from your's.

As I've said, you can have whatever headcanons/interpretations you want.  I only object to people coming into this thread, not bothering to understand what's being said, and acting like knuckle-draggin hurr-durr machines.

Except the OP is trying to present headcanon as fact. In a discussion board.

Oh noes.  The author is making a logical inference and presenting it as a "fact" within a larger theory about a video game ending.  Let's scream HEADCANON nine billion times because I'm insecure about whatever poor choices I've made in my life.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Factor P wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
Nothing in the game provides any evidence for the existence of a "Crucible Suppression Device" and yet the OP continues using it (a hypothetical device/scenario) as proof for his theories.
In other words, trying to present headcanon as fact.

Actually there is a good deal of evidence to support the OPs observation of a "CSD." Regardless of what someone calls it, it is fact that there is some sort of device at the tip of the Citadel that prevents the Crucible from automatically firing. This is analogous to reaction between two reactants that will not occur spontaneously and requires a catalyst to "set off" the reaction to produce a product. What OP has noticed about the docking of the Crucible to the Citadel and what happens after the destruction of the device is plain in sight. There is no "headcannon" to the fact that shooting the device sets off a reaction.

Simply put:

A Catalyst is something that sets off a reaction, but is unchanged by the reaction.
When the Crucible docks to the Citadel, nothing happens.
Shepard ends up in an area with three panels. A "Child AI" says Shepard has to make a choice.
Without Shepard, the Crucible will not activate. Nothing will happen.
You/Shepard must set off the Reaction in order for the Crucible to activate.
Destroing the "CSD" as the OP calls it sets off a reaction.

Which is why the Catalyst chooses to turn off the Crucible of he thinks you won't use it? What? Again, this CSD is a headcanon plot device. I feel that it's very contrived while you may feel that it's valid. Just different interpretations.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 08 août 2012 - 10:44 .

[XxDarkTimexX]

Wayning_Star wrote...

being indoctrinated ain't so bad, heck the food is good, everybody likes you and you get steep discounts where ever reaper tech is sold.. also, revisionist history is as accepted as upscale genetic manipulation. But I digress, as the dream states really really suck, and wake me up to the truth..every time. dammit!!

hey don't forget when the reapers leave you have vacation all you want

[clennon8]

Basically, what all you literalists are saying is that the Crucible doesn't do anything. It's just a battery built to power a Reaper-built transmogrification device. That's all it was ever meant to do, right?

Somehow that makes more sense to you than the idea that the Crucible was built to destroy the Reapers, and that the Reapers, having found out about it cycles ago and anticipated the possibility of it eventually being built, built a suppression device into the Citadel?

The CSD is just too fantastical for you? But the idea of building a giant Energizer battery and hoping that whatever Reaper device you hook it up to will do something good seems okay?

Modifié par clennon8, 14 août 2012 - 06:14 .

[Factor P]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Factor P wrote...
Simply put:

A Catalyst is something that sets off a reaction, but is unchanged by the reaction.
When the Crucible docks to the Citadel, nothing happens.
Shepard ends up in an area with three panels. A "Child AI" says Shepard has to make a choice.
Without Shepard, the Crucible will not activate. Nothing will happen.
You/Shepard must set off the Reaction in order for the Crucible to activate.
Destroing the "CSD" as the OP calls it sets off a reaction.

Which is why the Catalyst chooses to turn off the Crucible of he thinks you won't use it? What? Again, this CSD is an invented headcanon plot device. I feel that it's very contrived while you may feel that it's valid. Just different interpretations.

What I am stating is very basic science, applied to the reaction that occurs between the Crucible, Citadel, Shepard and the Child AI.

In a reaction that does not occur spontaneously:
Reactant A + Reactant B + Catalyst > Product(s) + Catalyst

Modifié par Factor P, 08 août 2012 - 10:53 .

[The Twilight God]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...






[quote]What he was doing was undeniably a form of control. There's no question about it. OTOH, the case for the Catalyst being the player's indoctrination is a shoddy claim at best.[/quote]My usage of the term was correct. You took my words to insinuate something I never said or suggested.[/quote]

And dominate is undeniably a form of control. I rest my case.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Even if you think it lies (which, no, we have not established... I dispute it) we were told there is *something* out there that controls the Reapers.[/quote]

It's all been established in my thesis. If you disagree please share your counter arguments.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

That didn't have to do with the Catalyst. He was noting patterns that repeat themselves every cycle, such as Prothean traitors/splinter-groups then and Cerberus now.[/quote]

He mention the splinter group beforehand, yes, but the conversation then takes a new direction. Vendetta specifically says the pattern extends beyond the reapers (before they were created). Essentially, backing up the Catalyst's claims that the collapse of galactic civilization was occuring predictably prior to the Reapers creation. However, this pattern is too prevalent to be mere chance. In this he is referring to the peaks of evolution and dissolution. This force is inferred rather than known. In the same way the notion of a God is inferred rather than directly known or observed.

Read the conversation line by line. It seems to me that it is foreshadowing a future threat. This "threatening force" is then the reason that the reapers were created if that part of the Star Child's story is to be believed. That is my opinion on the subject.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Nobody actually knows what their true goal is, not until Shepard at the Catalyst's chamber when it's being told to him. But I thought you didn't believe the things he said, so why believe that?[/quote]

The Reapers do no attack non-space faring species. This is inferred by the mere existence of the current galactic governments and demonstrated when Anderson says they ignored the Yahg homeworld. 
.
[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

He's not playing to human elements here. Adding to that, he personally does not approve of Destroy either. So even if he were seriously Shepard were to miraculously figure out that shooting the tube is how to do it, why inform him about it when he can leave it to long-shot odds?[/quote]

Here is a link to a scenario. You can decide for yourself if you think it sounds "miraculous" or plausible.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

As I said, they assumed it. They still weren't really sure about the details. Destroy, vs. Control or Synthesis, is a detail.[/quote]

There was no ambiguity. He clearly states the scientists are convinced it will destroy the Reapers. If you chose to willfully ignore this conversation that is your perogative. I see no point in arguing this with you.
 
Synthesis does not make sense as an intended function of the Crucible as no one would know that synthesis is the Reapers ultimate goal. How could they? They've never been direct about their motivations nor presented any non-confrontational alternatives. And if some species at some point did know, it would make more sense to convey their intentions for syntehsis to the Reapers. Not secretly hatch a plan to fight their way through reaper forces only to give them exactly what they want. 

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
And again, there's the thing with Liara after Refuse. If she *knew* it would work towards destroying the Reapers, she'd probably attribute the failure to something else. But nope, she tells the next cycle that the Crucible didn't work.[/quote]

She didn't attribute it to anything. She just says it didn't work, which stems from her own ignorance of what transpired on the Citadel. I doubt anyone would speaking well of Shepard if they knew he just sat back and allowed the Reapers to win without making any attempt to prevent the harvest.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

^ So basically: IT is true; Bioware denies it; therefore it is true. Alternatively, IT is true; Bioware does not deny it; therefore it is true.[/quote]

Quote me on this. Otherwise, you are intentional fabricating a strawman.

Bioware has neither confirmed or denied anything. But the writers are no longer relevent. The game exists as it is and my conclusions can only be based on the presented subject matter (i.e. the game itself). It is out of Bioware's hands now. What they wrote, what they presented in the Mass Effect series, exists independently of any person's whims. As I have said before, "It is what it is". The only way to change what it is is to change the game itself with DLC or an expansion. 

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...






[quote]And yet you don't say what exactly it is I haven't answered....[/quote]Many answers don't feel satisfactory. The glaring one being, why is Destroy presented? ...among others.[/quote]

Translation: You've answered all questions asked, but my angst and pride demands I never stand down.

Feel free to call that a strawman

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Well, you were the one saying that it was a single frigate taking out a cruiser, even with weak pew-pew guns. Doesn't make much sense to me that Collectors, working with Reapers, wouldn't have a stronger ship. It didn't seem to make sense to you either.[/quote]

It makes perfect sense to me. The technology utilized by the collector ship are not equivalent to Reaper technology. The technology utilized by the collector ships is not sufficiently advanced beyond Cerberus technology to guarantee victory and/or the collectors ships are not designed fo engagements with small fast vessels. This seesm obvious to me. You seem to be the one having trouble soaking this in.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's pretty cut-and-dried: "they have a weakness" ... Reapers attack it. Not a lot of room for interpretation.[/quote]

When the youtube video started it started after that phrase. Probably blacked out when I altered the resolution. I agree with you that Henry Lawson believed the Reapers attacked because he believed he found a weakness. Rather or not there actually was a weakness, produced by his efforts, is yet to be demonstrated. As he clearly could not take control from Reaper forces and Reaper force are hinted to be taking control of Cerberus forces. 

I am unfamiliar with the Reapers' prerequisite that a target be a threat before they attack. The Reapers could have simply attacked because it was a population center. And they discovered it threw the eyes of a newly wrestled cerberus soldier. You are, of course, entitled to speculate that they feared Cerberus would find a way to control them. 

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

See, that's what I have a problem with. Saying "he/she/it is just LYING!" to me is largely just an easy way out of things. Catalyst is lying, Bioware is lying, Mr. Lawson is lying....[/quote]

He is lying. He cannot take control of reaper forces. Otherwise, the attack on Sancuary would not be possible. but he clearly states that he can do these things when communicating with The Illusive Man. That makes his statements to The Illusive Man untrue (i.e. a lie).

Agree or disagree?

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Well, the IFF tipped them off. Also, it is more likely they want his body because he was an exceptional solider, a specimen that would warrant obvious interest from the Collectors/Reapers seeing how strong they can make their indoctrinated minions and simple husks.[/quote]

Because 1 extra goon will make all the difference when thousands of them arrive and begin the harvest.

No, the very beginning of ME2. The Collectors came after Shepard. And then Harbinger caught a case of necrophilia and wanted Shepard's body. The Reapers are obcessed with Shepard.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Now remember what I told you to. On one hand, they would be foolish to chase him across the galaxy to stop him. On the other, he is just as important as anything that could legitimately neutralize the Reapers. If the latter were true, why would they not want to chase him across the galaxy and make sure they get him right away? Harvesting is a long enough process anyway, it can wait quite easily.[/quote]

If Shepard was stationary and running events from a planetary base of operations the Reaper would probably have obliteraed it. As it was, his command center is on the fastest stealth frigate in the known galaxy. You're comparing apples and oranges. Attacking Sanctuary or any colony is a simple task compared to tracking down a stealth ship. Furthermore, your argument hinges on the assumption that Sanctuary was attacked because the Reapers feared the reprecussions of the experiements conducted there. I disagree. It was simply a population center (that conflicted with their goals)  that they became aware of and they attacked it. Say the Reapers attack a fuel processing plant (which they do) is it because they fear the fleets in that sector pose a credible threat or because it's a target whose existence conflicts with their goals. All I'm saying is that a reaper attack does not signify that the target is considered genuinely threatening to the Reapers.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

And it was said by someone (forget who) after Cerberus HQ mission that the Reaper heart/brain was used as a power-source![/quote]

An unnecessary power source. Equivalent to having a a stationary laptop powered by an electrical grid, backed up by a generator, backed up by an UPS and then having it's own battery. Is carrying another battery (the reaper Core) really all that important? Sure, it could give it another hour or 2 of functionality, but if things are so bad that you've lost power, the generator has run out of fuel, UPS has ran out and the battery is dead you've got bigger problems to fry.

Only the core is a power source. The brain is processing power. The Crucible works just fine without the core. The Crucible works just fine without the brain. So neithers functionis critical in the least. Each is interchangeable, neither fills the role of the other and thus each is unncessary. This is simple logic. Now if you could survive Control with the Brain or survive synthesis with the core then you'd have a case. As it is implimented it only comes into play in lose-lose scenarios. 

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Doesn't matter. The point stands. That Shepard survives Destroy is a plus to many people! Per this poll: http://social.biowar...58/polls/37887/ ... Shepard being alive is an important factor to 65% of all voters.[/quote]

10% of the vote (or 16 people). The third option is used to skew the numbers. Not a never good poll.

Perhaps you didn't understand when I said it doesn't matter. It is headcanon. It is subjective. Just like claiming a con for synthesis is that it is unethical. Or if I claimed a pro for Control is that Shepard is a space god who can make an avatar body and reunite with friends and LI.

The fact is Shepard has to anticipate death in all scenarios.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's not really metagaming either when the Catalyst says clearly that Shepard will die in Control/Synthesis, but merely suggests he would *maybe* die from Destroy (which is correct, seeing as his survival depends on EMS). The player doesn't know that the Citadel will explode either, so he can shoot the tube and get out for all they know.[/quote]

Not if the Destroy blast fries all his implants and nanites. We know his face and eyes are synthetic as well as the spinal connection between his pelvis and torso. So he is blind, possible limited motor functions and paralyzed below the waist (at least). His body also had break in the spine at the neck and mid back. If we take it further and believe synthesis at face value (it needing Shepard's "energy") then he must have alot of cellular nanites. Cellular decay? Organ failure? Coma? Survival odds aren't looking good. He just dies slower. Lazarus II?

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

It isn't headcanon, he IS alive in that scene. That he survives or dies afterwards is the headcanon part. Still more to go off of than Control/Synthesis.[/quote]

He narrates Control. And if taken at face value there is no reason you can't headcanon a cylon avatar body. Control has th emost to go off of. Synthesis is magic so anything is possible.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Yeah right. Try to sell people on this site that morality is not a real issue to the vast majority of players' endings and see how much support you get for it.[/quote]

I don't care is 99.99% pondered the morality of it. It's subjective.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

No, EC provides a proper denouement to the story when it otherwise lacked one. It ties up loose ends with the story and foreshadows future events to some extent.[/quote]

Foreshadows to the full extent as none of the epilogue slide actually happen at the time th enarrator is s (save reapers rebuilding in synthesis epilogue). The hope or intention of the narrator is that it will all happen, but that is never guaranteed.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

One?

The Reapers win in Refusal. Therefore, choosing Refusal = indoctrination![/quote]

That is not my argument.  My position is as follows:
1.) Shepard is aware that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally.
2.) Knowing this, Shepard decides to fight the Reapers conventionally.
3.) Shepard must therefore know that he is condemning the current races to extinction.
4.) Shepard has intentional abetted in the murder of trillions.
4.) Conclusion: Shepard is stupid/crazy or, given the universe and adversary, indoctrinated.

Disagree? By all means, tell us your alternative explaination. We're all dying to hear it.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

That is a false assumption, and one can easily prove it wrong by pointing out the fact he was around before the first Reaper was even created.[/quote]

That only works if the Reapers were around before he was. Assuming it is truthful in this regard, it would be like saying that Jeff Dunham is not Peanut, Jose, Walter, Bubba, etc. becuse he was around first. Jeff dunham is the collective intelligence of all the puppets. If I have no reason to trust the puppets, why would I have reason to trust the master whose got his hand up each off their butts?  

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Also, it's a little questionable to cite evidence from a source you've been calling a liar. It's clear, then, that you're picking and choosing what you want to believe. That is basically the crux of my criticism with IT: that it exists because people just don't want to believe the ending of ME3.[/quote]

I point out lies. I do not blindly declare that every word out of the Star Child's mouth is a lie "just because I say so". Having been proven positive that the Star Child has lied, his overall credibility has been rendered questionable. Ergo, I do not trust it and it has given me no reason to trust it.  This seems to be a concept you cannot or will not grasp.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 08 août 2012 - 11:27 .