1238 réponses à ce sujet

[RadicalDisconnect]

clennon8 wrote...

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.

That makes more sense to you than the idea that the Crucible was built to destroy the Reapers, but the Reapers having anticipated it, 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?

It's fine if you feel that it's an adequate and valid explanation. No, it seems too contrived in my opinion, and to me, there are some aspects in the ending that doesn't align with the concept. But that's just my interpretation. However, regardless of how it's interpreted, this CSD is still a headcanon plot device.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 08 août 2012 - 11:28 .

[megamacka]

http://social.biowar.../index/13582670

How it should have ended

[The Twilight God]

Factor P wrote...


Don't get me wrong: Control and Refuse ARE in the Reapers favor. In Control the Reapers likely get their human
Shepard-Reaper, and in Refuse the cycle continues. I'm just not convinced Shepard is indoctrinated in Control and Refuse. In Control, there are too many missing facts about HOW Reapers are constructed and WHO the "Child" is (which I hope might be clarified in future DLC) that is vital to understanding exactly what is happening if Shepard chooses Control. Shepard might be indoctrinated in Control. Then again he might not. There just isn't enough in-game information right now to know for certain. And is it really so unbelievable that a Paragon Shepard whose ideal has been to spare enemies and sacrifice no innocents if another alternative is available might willingly choose Control? This might even be a plausible willing choice for a Renegade Shepard who didn't destroy the Collector base in ME2.

Yeah, not enough information. Definitely not enough information to trust the Star Child. No enough for Shepard to make a full 180 degree change in perspective from (literally) three minutes earlier. Shepard JUST finishes denouncing control. He denounces it as idiocy from start to finish. And then, in the last 5 minutes, with just one endorsement from the Reaper Ambassador, everything he fought against is magically OK? "Oh, so TIM was right afterall because you say so Mr. Reaper King." Huh?

At the end of the day you have the following with both Control and Synthesis: I believe it will work because the Reapers said so. I believe so much that I'm willing to give my life and bet the lives of trillions on it.

Yeah, a paragon might not like having to kill EDI and the geth (there's no reason to even believe that. You can bet I was checking that memorial board to find out if EDI died), but that doesn't excuse trusting the reapers. Tough luck. You're only rational choice is to kill EDI and geth. The reapers don't become trustworthy just because they give you an option that looks better. That new option isn't legitimized by the fact that you don't like the original. 

[Urdnot_Bucdawg]

 Well thought out and did a much better example of explaining the IT than those extremely prolonged youtube videos .
The problem I've always had with the IT was it never a glaring question ; and then what happens ?Shepard is under proposed indoctrination and fighting to free himself from its effects . According to the IT 's founder , from the moment of the charge to the beams in which harbinger flashfrys him - the rest is all imagined . But there is still a war to be fought and where the IT loses focus on is , lets assume Shepard saves himself from indoctrination - how is the war won ? If the catalyst is all a reaper mindgame is Shepard standing in a battlefield zoned out lost in his own world ? Is Anderson trying to get Shepard to snap out of it ?In the end despite all the blogs , videos and message board posts ad nauseum trying to justify all the so called symbolism and alleged hidden clues what we REALLY have is a massive series of continuity gaffes , programming shortcuts and rushed production with no oversight and the only way some fans can try to cope with is to explain it all away with a magic theory .Sometimes the emperor really doesn't have any clothes . 

Modifié par Urdnot_Bucdawg, 09 août 2012 - 12:46 .

[RethenX]

yep

[The Twilight God]

ajb314 wrote...

1. A question about Destroy: I have not seen the low EMS ending in the EC (I'll youtube it in a bit). Do the cut-scenes or voice-over narration change compared to a high EMS ending? It would seem to me that if the two sequences are the same that would be pretty good proof that the Catalyst was lying about destroy.

No, the Catalyst does not lie about Destroy to my knowledge. It's not necessary.

For low EMS he doesn't claim to really know what will happen, but he paints a horrible picture. Low EMS destroy is a lose-lose scenario and the narrative has no bright future. If you have low EMS you auto-lose. Its just hackett on a dead disabled ship floating in space questioning rather the few survivors can continue to survive and rebuilt. It's actually worst than refusal in that the new cycles races are probably killed off as well or severely set back culturally.

Low EMS control is pretty much the same as high EMS. The Crucible doesn;t really seem to matter so much in Control which is evidence that it is Citadel/reaper-based and not Crucible-based.

ajb314 wrote...

2. A point of clarification needed about Control (and the other endings, for that matter): So let me get this straight...At some point after the Crucible was first designed, a conversation occurred that may have gone something like this (and please know that this is not a joke and meant in all seriousness)

Addressing the narrative you wrote: Yeah, sort of.

The Crucible is adapted to work with the Citadel. The Citadel in turn was adapted to work with the Crucible. They basically took our plan and turned it back on us. This is a Plan B. The reapers don't want it to dock.

ajb314 wrote...

4. A comment and question about TIM: You made the comment that TIM was a tool through which the Reapers tried to indocrinate us. I have a small amendment to this idea. First, Is there evidence that suggests that a person (especially an organic) can act as a facilitator for indoctrination?

 
Yes, Paul Grayson's reaperized body started putting the whammy on Kahlee Sanders in Retribution..

ajb314 wrote...
It seems to me that in that final conversation, TIM has a different purpose.  Follow me on this...we can surmise that Shepard is being indocrinated (the "oily shadows" at the edges of the screen, our inability to move) but is this the work of TIM or the Reapers? As TIM is indocrinated himself, maybe the Reapers are using him as the second arm of a two-tiered approach to facilitate Shepard's failure. At that moment, Shepard's sub-conscious mind is under a full-blown attack by Harbinger and/or the Reapers. They are using every "insidious" method they can muster to stop Shepard from reaching the CSD. TIM is therefore, preying on Shepard's conscious mind. The Reapers are speaking through TIM in an attempt to weaken Shepard's resolve and basically confuse the hell out of her. This way, if she does manage to resist the sub-conscious indocrination attempt, she will still have TIM words, resonating in her mind.

I guess that's it....I would love to hear your thoughts.

I think TIM is using dominate. He even has a biotic effect when he makes Shep shoot Anderson. The type of control they were working on at Sanctuary was co-opting the reapers' signals. Basically making their own indoctrination field. Indoctrination can't simply insta control people's motor functions like what we see TIM do on the Citadel. If that were the case Soveriegn would have just turned Shepard and company against each other at the end of ME1.

I don't think TIM was full on indoctrinated to to point where he was just an avatar. He thought he was in control. Like Saren and like Shepard when he refuses, picks control or synthesis. Say I put a thought in your head. How do you know your thoughts from the thought I insert? It just becomes your thought. That's kinda how it works on the low setting. Then on high you lose yourself and become a mindless husk or, if you have implants, they pretty much control you totally like an avatar.

The reapers, via a clueless TIM, were using him to convince Shepard of control. But really he was just being held there while they hammered him with heavy, obvius, indoctrination. But when it becomes clear that Shepard is putting up resistance and trying to get through to TIM A.) Shep succeeds and TIM kills himself in acknowledgment or B.) Shep provokes an emotional response to take TIM off balance long enough to shoot him. If Shepard does nothing the Reapers will have TIM kill him since he's breaking the hold and their time is up. As indoctrination can be temporarily resisted and no outright beaten, the encoubter dulled Shepard's wits a bit. So when he arrived in the docking Chamber the Reapers have a better chance with the subtle indoctirnation.

[Factor P]

The Twilight God wrote...

Factor P wrote...


Don't get me wrong: Control and Refuse ARE in the Reapers favor. In Control the Reapers likely get their human
Shepard-Reaper, and in Refuse the cycle continues. I'm just not convinced Shepard is indoctrinated in Control and Refuse. In Control, there are too many missing facts about HOW Reapers are constructed and WHO the "Child" is (which I hope might be clarified in future DLC) that is vital to understanding exactly what is happening if Shepard chooses Control. Shepard might be indoctrinated in Control. Then again he might not. There just isn't enough in-game information right now to know for certain. And is it really so unbelievable that a Paragon Shepard whose ideal has been to spare enemies and sacrifice no innocents if another alternative is available might willingly choose Control? This might even be a plausible willing choice for a Renegade Shepard who didn't destroy the Collector base in ME2.

Yeah, not enough information. Definitely not enough information to trust the Star Child. No enough for Shepard to make a full 180 degree change in perspective from (literally) three minutes earlier. Shepard JUST finishes denouncing control. He denounces it as idiocy from start to finish. And then, in the last 5 minutes, with just one endorsement from the Reaper Ambassador, everything he fought against is magically OK? "Oh, so TIM was right afterall because you say so Mr. Reaper King." Huh?

At the end of the day you have the following with both Control and Synthesis: I believe it will work because the Reapers said so. I believe so much that I'm willing to give my life and bet the lives of trillions on it.

Yeah, a paragon might not like having to kill EDI and the geth (there's no reason to even believe that. You can bet I was checking that memorial board to find out if EDI died), but that doesn't excuse trusting the reapers. Tough luck. You're only rational choice is to kill EDI and geth. The reapers don't become trustworthy just because they give you an option that looks better. That new option isn't legitimized by the fact that you don't like the original. 

I am merely bringing up a point in your analysis of Control I disagree with and giving alternative explanations and you are countering by being sarcastic and saying things like tough luck, telling me I didn't like the original or that I think the Reaper-Child is trustworthy. I am not sure what the issue here is other than disagreeing on whether or not Shepard must be indoctrinated to choose Control. I am NOT saying that you are wrong and I am right. I am just saying there is lack of data to be sure either way. I have also repeatedly said that Control is in the Reaper's favor. There is no question that the Reaper-Child is untrustworthy. He mixes truth with lies but there is no way to distinguish where the truth and lies blur. We can only assume. But that's not the issue here. The issue is simply: must Shepard be indoctrinated to choose Control? You think he is, I say not necessarily.

Shepard is collaborating with the Reapers. Shepard is being naive. Shepard is being dumb. Shepard is an idealist who must "save everyone" if given the option. Shepard is indoctrinated. All these are all possibilities.

It has already been established that a successful cycle is one where one species is preserved in Reaper form. In an unsuccessful cycle, such preservation does not occur. In ME2 it was established that Shepard was an icon of humanity. It was also established that the Reapers began to focus on humans through the Collectors, and they wanted Shepard. The question is why. It has been stated more than once that a Reaper has many minds, but one will. The minds are of the people, but Shepard was likely intended to be that will. Clarification of this and how a new Reaper is constructed from a single species is the information that is needed to fully understand what is going on in Control. What if the Child-Reaper is the Avatar of the last successful cycle? What if Control merely turns Shepard into "a Reaper" but not their supreme overlord? What if a condition of the controller is that s/he cannot be indoctrinated and must willfully submit or collaberate with the Reapers in order for a cycle to be successful? Too many what ifs.
 
Overall, OP I thank you for sharing your ideas. Your analysis on Synthesis and Destroy, observation of how the Crucible connects to the Citadel and the "CSD" is very logical and well thought out. I agree with some of your well supported ideas, just not all of your ideas. I do wish you had been more open to discussion, however.

Modifié par Factor P, 09 août 2012 - 01:44 .

[megamacka]

Liara didn't do anything to stop kai leng from grabbing the VI on thessia.... She was obviously not injured, damn u Liara! If you would have acted none of this would have happened! It would have been a happy ending ....

[Wayning_Star]

if you tell a story long enough, with enough belief, many will find it true.. the IT is one of those stories.

[saracen16]

I'll read the rest of the posts tomorrow, but it's shaping up to be interesting. However, I see a statement I suggest you take back:

The Twilight God wrote...

Never mind the fact that Shepard is not an organic-synthetic hybrid himself.  I believe EDI, Liara (if romanced) and Doctor Chakwas dismiss this notion.

Shepard is an organic with synthetic components. By definition, that makes him an organic-synthetic hybrid. Not like a husk, no, but something else.

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

I disagree with you. Mike Gamble, Patrick Weekes and Chris Priestly, are people who worked on the game, and, thus, have much more insight into story than you. Also, what information is not contradicting anything and it was done on the official Q&A session from Bioware.

Where are many examples when signficant information comes out in that format. For example, "Dumbledore is gay", "Medic is not former German officer of World War II" etc.

You're stepping outside the written word and giving these people's small talk authority over something that is already set in stone. Their insight is not necessary. We have eyes and ears of our own. We have the game. We've played it. It is what it is and their is nothing their words can do to change it. If they want to change what they wrote their only options are DLC and/or an expansion. An author's authority ends once the work is released to the masses. Once it's out there and set in stone it takes more than small talk or tweets to change what has been written.

Dumbledorf is not gay. JK Rowling can't prove that he is. I can't prove that he isn't. There is nothing in the books (or at least movies) to show his sexual orietation one way or the other. If she actually wants him to be gay (vs political pandering) she can write a prequel and set it in stone. Otherwise, her claims are no more value than anyone else's.

Lord Goose wrote...

Your personal opinion.
For all we know, Relays could be rebuilt in matter of weeks. Where is no data that says otherwise.
Also, even if it would take, 50 years for Krogan it is not much time.

It's not my personal opinion. It is established game lore.

Once believed to be of Prothean origin, mass relays were in fact created by the Reapers using technology far beyond that of other living species. The enormous structures, scattered throughout the stars, create corridors of virtually mass-free space. This allows instantaneous transit between locations normally separated by years or even centuries using conventional FTL drives.

Lord Goose wrote...

If Reapers are alive where is a chance what new Control Entity may snap (potential risk). If Reapers are dead it is not possible. Also, Renegade Control Entity is on the way to create dystopia, given it's fascistic slogans.

Not interested in "what if" headcanon. We're taking them as is, at face value, outside the context of the game leading up to the ending. Shepard doesn't flip out and go "kill you to save you" on people. They help everyone out and that's all they do.

Renegade control is the same as paragon: Hi,  I'm the new sheriff in town.

One says, "I will protect the weak and maintain order",
One says, "I wish a motherfu*k would try to fu*k up the peace."
Same difference.

Lord Goose wrote...

As I said "where is a tiny chance what Shepard surivives in Destroy ending". Not "Shepard definitely lives". Control and Synthesis are "certain death", but Destroy is "chances of survival are slim".

Control has a chance for Shepard to make a cylon avatar and reunite with all his friends. Actually more than a chance. He either does if he wants or he doesn't. It's up to the player to headcanon and noody can take that away from them via lore. Destroy, I can talk point by point for why Shepard defintely dies in Destroy without a miracle rescue scenario. In argument against me has to involve denouncing the legitimacy of synthesis and "shepard's energy".

Lord Goose wrote...

It's not just an ethical violation. It is forceful "surgery" on the galaxy scale.

So? I thought your buddy said it couldn't be force and you guys seem to love to believe anything it says? I guess everyone wanted it, right? Or it couldn't have worked. Nobody seems to have a problem with it. Yeah!! ll praise the Reapers!!! We're sooooooo not indoctrinated!!!

Lord Goose wrote...

Well, in that case "Shepard refused to work with Catalyst" is a plus.

Refusal to work with the Star Kid is Destroy. Refusal is refusing to save trillions of lives.

Lord Goose wrote...

+ Citadel intact. minor amount of lives saved compared to the whole galaxy's loses, but something

You can't say that those people died in Destroy. Where is no information about that.

It's actually contradicting. In the CG cutscene the ward arm connections to the presidium explode (people think it's the tower, but it's real 4 explosion that look like one big one) and the ward arms actually start coming off. Then in the epilogue the arms are attached, but torn to shreds. But there are enough large explosions on the surface of the wards to state that alot of people would have died in them. Also, notice that the relay rings blow off in the firing scene, but then in the EC the rings are intact but everyhitng else to torm to shreads... they should fix that.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 09 août 2012 - 03:03 .

[The Twilight God]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

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.

How is a device that exists in the game an invented plot device?

Does giving something a name  as to easily identify it without going into a full description of it every time I referrence it mean I invented it out of thin air?

[CheeseWithMold]

Pretty good theory. You might have gotten me convinced.

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

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

It is an alternate way things could play out if the Star Child never grabbed Shepard's attetnion and just let things play out. It isn't an argument of any kind. It's an expansion of an idea. That idea being that Shepard doesn't need the Star Child to figure out how to arm the Crucible. 

It's not headcanon as it's not intended to taken as how the actual game plays outs. It's a scenario I created in response to the idea that Shepard figuring things out would somehow be miraculous, but it's obviously not based on events that take place. Do you really have to get butthurt over everything?

[RadicalDisconnect]

The Twilight God wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

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.

How is a device that exists in the game an invented plot device?

Does giving something a name  as to easily identify it without going into a full description of it every time I referrence it mean I invented it out of thin air?

By headcanoning how the device exactly functions. You invented the thing's functionality. Oh, and you described it in a manner that supports your theory. Sounds like a plot device to me.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 09 août 2012 - 02:58 .

[The Spamming Troll]

OP, i like the way you think.

i wish bioware tried this hard.

[The Twilight God]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

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.

Such a possibility eliminates the ability to enact Destroy because it could just say, "No" and turn the Crucible off.

And if you think the Crucible "changed" the Star Child's personality or shackled it somehow, how do you simultaneously accept its claim that the Crucible is "just a battery"? By that logic the Crucible's "changes" to the Star Child should have ended the conflict right then and there without having to fire the Crucible. The option to force it to stand down should exit if shackled or simply ask it to stand down if it's now more compliant.

It's willing to allow you to destroy all reapers and itself (when it can supposedly not allow it), but not willing to simply stand down? That isn't very logical for a supposed AI. A billion years of reaping and harvesting and you're tell me this thing just rolls over and allows Shepard to kill it "just because"?

[The Twilight God]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

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.

How is a device that exists in the game an invented plot device?

Does giving something a name  as to easily identify it without going into a full description of it every time I referrence it mean I invented it out of thin air?

By headcanoning how the device exactly functions. You invented the thing's functionality. Oh, and you described it in a manner that supports your theory. Sounds like a plot device to me.

So how does it really function?

[Ranger Jack Walker]

clennon8

Your condescending attitude is not helping you one bit. As for who is insecure? Tell me why do so many destroyers feel the need to make so many threads justifying their choice? Are they so insecure with their choice and need to feel that it is the right choice that they need to make threads to try and invalidate the other choices? You see a new anti-Control/anti-synthesis thread pop up everyday. In comparison, ther are only a couple of anti-destroy threads. Are you that insecure with your choice that the only way you can justify your choice is to make other people's choice look bad?

[clennon8]

@RJW: I am only being condescending to you because you insist on repeatedly tripping over your own knuckles. Apparently, you now want me to answer for all the Destroy-supporting threads in existence, even though I have created none? How about we just talk about this thread, which I also did not create. And how about you offer up one single decent counterargument to the OP's theory instead of obsessively quibbling over how he has presented it? That would be great, thanks. Until you do that, consider this my last response to you.

Modifié par clennon8, 09 août 2012 - 07:43 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

How about the fact tat the OP's entire theory hinges on a 'Crucible Suppression Device' the existence of which is never stated nor inferred in the game?

Saying it makes sense to you does not mean it is true. Going from 'Shooting the tube activates the crucible' to 'something was actively suppressing the Crucible' is big leap that is not supported by anything in the game. The fact that it requires the invention of plot device that is never reffered to in the game automatically makes it headcanon. You can't debate with or against headcanon.

The OP also has used his headcanon in other threads. While I will openly admit that my interpretations on the endings are just that: interpretations, the OP keeps using his headcanon as fact.

And I don't expect you to answer for all the 'Destroy is the only good choice; threads. It's just something to think about before you accuse others of being insecure.

If anyone wants to believe that a CSD exists, go rightt ahead. Just don't use it as fact to back up your claims.

[RadicalDisconnect]

The Twilight God wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

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.

How is a device that exists in the game an invented plot device?

Does giving something a name  as to easily identify it without going into a full description of it every time I referrence it mean I invented it out of thin air?

By headcanoning how the device exactly functions. You invented the thing's functionality. Oh, and you described it in a manner that supports your theory. Sounds like a plot device to me.

So how does it really function?

It was never explicated. We only know the results. This has been a problem with the EC. It would frequently show us "what," but almost never give us "how" or "why." Your interpretation of the power conduit as a part of some CSD is no more valid than any other interpretation.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Yes I am indoctrinated.