1238 réponses à ce sujet

[megamacka]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

megamacka wrote...

Lal. Some people seem to believe that Destroy is renegade and control is paragon....
'' The geth and EDI dies ''.... Yes? Everyone knew that there would have to be sacrifices. And the Geth can be rebuilt, not with the reaper codes perhaps but still. I always play full paragon and I love the whole geth storyline but I think it's wrong for some people to claim that destroy = renegade <.<.

What does it matter? Your job there is to do whatever you feel is best for the galaxy, not uphold your personal morality.

Otherwise, there's always refuse.

My point, exactly ( illusive man voice ). But there are people whom are against some kind of IT that claims that everyone who believes in some kind of IT is only doing so to justify themselves for choosing Destroy which is complete bollocks ....

[RadicalDisconnect]

The Twilight God wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

I'll offer my interpretation. The pipe is no "Crucible Suppression Device." It is simply a power conduit that serves as a routing for the Crucible's energy, and shooting it causes a containment breach whose chain reaction causes a catastrophic failure and the release of the energy contained in the Crucible and Citadel. It's like popping a balloon. For comparison, imagine ammunition inside a chambered rifle cooking off due to overheating; the rifle will discharge.

No, that is MY interpretation with ever so slighty modified word usage. Which I have put forth and you are now claiming as your own. This is too good to be true.

You are nitpicking on terminology in order to avoid dealing with the actual premise, which was addressed in my last post.

The Twilight God wrote...

It's all one device. The circle of beveled cantilevers around the beam, the chasm, the control console and the "breaker box" (CSD). I named it the CSD because it is the part you shoot and it's how I denoted that particular part based on how it is used in the story. I can understand your objection to me designating it as a suppression device as that does imply that the "break box" is the thing doing the suppression in and of itself. On that we agree and I may amend that. But that part of the device is still the most representative of the premise. Hence I chose to designate it as such. However, you're still nitpicking on small irrelevent details, but you are unable to counter the premise: that shooting that "break box" ends the suppression affect and allows the Crucible to fire.

This was also ellaborated on in my alternate ending post BEFORE that:

A suppression device would be analogous to a valve. Shooting the pipe in Destroy is like shooting the propane tank, not opening a valve. Right now, you are treating suppression and containment as one and the same. If you insist that the suppression device is analogous to the former, then perhaps you should rename it.

The Twilight God wrote...

EDI: I believe so. The chasm serves as a form of capacitor, absorbing the Crucible's arming pulse and preventing it from achieving the necessary link to initiate the appropriate overrides with Citadel control. This energy is then redirected into a junction located on your right where it is distributed along an energy dispersal array as well as a console to your left.
Shepard: For what purpose?
EDI: Unknown. However the energy dispersal array is responsible for generating the beam. It is siphoning power from the Crucible to power a fourth device within the bowels of the Citadel.
Shepard: How do I stop it?
EDI: Disabling the device to your right will cause the chasm dielectric to reach capacity. This will prevent the capacitance chamber from discharging. This will also cut power to the energy dispersal array and the other unknown device to your left. Warning: The chasm will discharge directly into the surrounding devices rendering them inoperative. I suggest you avoid direct contact with metallic surfaces.

"Your interpretation"... .  That's funny stuff.

I guess your motto now is "can't beat 'em, join 'em".

No. These lines of speculative dialogue is how you like to think the Crucible is interfaced with the Citadel. You are making the assumption that the pipe contains energy that is rerouted to your "dispersal array" and console for Control. But why must the energy powering those devices go through that pipe? Why not just have your two devices tap into the Crucible's energy directly instead of rerouting through a pipe that can be accessed by a platform? What's funny is that if my interpretation bears uncanny similarity to yours, then the concept can serve a completely different interpretation, not just your IT. Are you claiming your interpretation to be superior?

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

There's another problem with your CSD that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. If a Crucible Suppression Device is required to be deactivated in order to release the energy of the Crucible, then why does it have to be disabled by shooting a pipe? Why not access a control panel? Is this super-advanced AI so damn inflexible as to not be able to bring up a holographic control panel? Wouldn't that be a much safer and quaranteed method of releasing the energy?

Why would the Reapers build a switch to shut off the device that is preventing them from dying? But, hey, it may have a switch somewhere. They're morons, right? The "CSD" is essentially a break box (power junction). In the same way that I can turn off power by flipping a swtich I can accomplish the same effect more crudely by flipping the breaker off.

Your argument revolves around the speculation that this "suppression device" actually exists, and you are defining how it exactly works. How am I supposed to argue against a device that you defined in your headcanon, where you can simply handwave any potential problems with more headcanon explanations?

Building such a failsafe will require the reapers knowing exactly how the Crucible works. However, now you're claiming that the Crucible is also capable of powering devices in the Citadel, your "dispersal array" and a console that allows for control of the Reapers. Please enlighten me on how a device that is meant to suppress the energy of Crucible, and yet is able to use that energy to power the "dispersal array" and Control console, can't be turned off. Isn't using the console for Control essentially a way of turning off the "suppression device," i.e. like opening the valve of a propane gas tank to a Bunsen burner?

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

You also didn't answer another point in my post. The game shows that the Catalyst can turn off the Crucible,

 
No, the Catalyst turns off the synthesis beam. This has been addressed already. Go reread over my previous posts. I even pointed out the posts in which this was address. You know, the posts you purposely ignored because you cant come up with a rebuttal.

Then why doesn't the game allow you to change your mind and shoot the pipe? Why would he turn off only the synthesis beam and leave the others still open?

Knock off the cocky comments. You completely missed my point. I was never out there to prove you wrong in your own headcanon. Your headcanon is your playground, so it's pointless for me to prove you wrong in that setting. Whenever I question your claims, you can handwave a solution that suits your theory. I'm here to point out that your headcanon isn't holier or more valid than any other headcanon. If I can speculate a plot device similar to your CSD, but serves an entirely different interpretation of the ending, is my interpretation inferior to yours?

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 10 août 2012 - 10:02 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...
Knock off the cocky comments.

^This

[clennon8]

It's too bad that this thread is largely a spectacle of baby seals being beaten with clubs. The OP material deserves better discourse.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

If the OP had a better attitude, his material would get what you think it deserves.

[megamacka]

 Welcome to the interwebs guys! 

Modifié par megamacka, 10 août 2012 - 05:53 .

[clennon8]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

If the OP had a better attitude, his material would get what you think it deserves.

He is kind of a meanie.

[Gran_Duma]

Shepard is a bad ass. Can't be indoctrinated.
Dats science.

[megamacka]

Gran_Duma wrote...

Shepard is a bad ass. Can't be indoctrinated.
Dats science.

Saren was a badass too 

By the way, ranger jack how do you add stuff like '' nobody else dies today '' on your profile pic?

Modifié par megamacka, 10 août 2012 - 06:01 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

clennon8 wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

If the OP had a better attitude, his material would get what you think it deserves.

He is kind of a meanie.

yes

But seriously, he needs to accept that his theory is just an interpretation and is as valid as any other. He also needs to stop forcing it on others in other threads. His attitude is not helping him one bit.

[Lord Goose]

What does it matter? Your job there is to do whatever you
feel is best for the galaxy, not uphold your personal
morality. Otherwise, there's always refuse.

Refuse works if you don't trust Catalyst.
If you trust him, when all three options should be valid ways to stop the Reapers.
Unless you can somehow convince yourself that he is lying about everything, but telling truth about your favourite ending.

[megamacka]

Lord Goose wrote...

What does it matter? Your job there is to do whatever you
feel is best for the galaxy, not uphold your personal
morality. Otherwise, there's always refuse.

Refuse works if you don't trust Catalyst.
If you trust him, when all three options should be valid ways to stop the Reapers.
Unless you can somehow convince yourself that he is lying about everything, but telling truth about your favourite ending.

You already knew from the beginning that the crucible could destroy the reapers. You did not know about Synthesis and Control however.

   So imo, not trusting in the catalyst but still picking destroy is valid. Since he just came up with Control /synthesis out of nowhere. Illusive man only claimed that he could control them etc, but you never knew how. Perhaps the control panel was installed by cerby when they went to the citadel ?  

Id like to believe that Bioware did this on purpose, that they wanted us to interpret the ending in our own way and gave us the means to do so. The question is, are the writers really that smart?

Modifié par megamacka, 10 août 2012 - 06:38 .

[megamacka]

By the way, just something that I came to think of now when I turned on the TV and saw the movie. Synthesis ending kinda reminds me of the movie '' equilibrium '' if you have seen it. That's how I see it, the whole no feelings part. Less humanity more machine. Almost like slaves to the reapers. Fake peace, with nothing worth fighting or dying for.

Modifié par megamacka, 10 août 2012 - 09:07 .

[The Twilight God]

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

A suppression device would be analogous to a valve. Shooting the pipe in Destroy is like shooting the propane tank, not opening a valve. Right now, you are treating suppression and containment as one and the same. If you insist that the suppression device is analogous to the former, then perhaps you should rename it.[/quote]

The entire contraption is what I would figure is the suppression device. The conduit junction, however, is what you - the player - actually interact with. It's what people identify with the choice and it is what you interact with to allow the Crucible to fire. That's why I refer to it. As I already explained in one of the previous posts you seemingly chose to ignore... again.

And a  "propane tank"? What a sec... you aren't "creating plot devices" are you? Because it clearly was conduits which run to the beveled cantilevers, conduits running in and out of it, clearly has wires inside it, clearly shows electrical discharges when fired upon. I don't know how that strikes you as a "protane tank" instead of "power junction/breaker box".

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

No. These lines of speculative dialogue is how you like to think the Crucible is interfaced with the Citadel. [/quote]

No, they are explaining how I think it works. (i.e. that the conduit hub you shoot is a "break box" powering the contraption). You claimed this was your interptretation, which is nothing more than mine but claiming it's gas powered instead of electric. Why would you do that? If I was to make a guess, I'd say it's because the evidence leaves no room for any other "interpretation" and if you can't beat 'em, you join 'em.

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

You are making the assumption that the pipe contains energy that is rerouted to your "dispersal array" and console for Control. [/quote]

Well, the cables literally run ito the array. Either the array is sending power through the top cable to the Citadel or the power to the conduit is coming from the bottom cable. I choose to go with the later since that pulse is going down into the chasm and there is a conduit coming up out of the chasm and going in the direction of the assumed "incoming" cable to the "breaker box". But these details are interchangeable. The premise still stands: Destroying the "breaker box" cuts the power, stops the suppression effect and allows the Crucible to fire.

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

But why must the energy powering those devices go through that pipe? Why not just have your two devices tap into the Crucible's energy directly instead of rerouting through a pipe that can be accessed by a platform? [/quote]

Shouldn't you be asking Bioware for the technical schematics. I can only guess the specifics of how power flows. I needed to give EDI something to say in regard to it. But, sure, I can change it to say that.  The Control console could have its own power input seperate from the "CSD" and the CSD could just be where power enters the suppression device. But it's an irrelevent detail. Doesn't change anything. The premise still stands. When will I hear your rebuttal to the premise? Or do you simply not have one and you're stalling?

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

What's funny is that if my interpretation bears uncanny similarity to yours, then the concept can serve a completely different interpretation, not just your IT. Are you claiming your interpretation to be superior?[/quote]

You haven't given me a different interpretation. You posted mine and put your name on it. How can the same thing be superior or inferior to itself?

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Your argument revolves around the speculation that this "suppression device" actually exists, and you are defining how it exactly works. How am I supposed to argue against a device that you defined in your headcanon, where you can simply handwave any potential problems with more headcanon explanations?[/quote]

The suppression effect is inferred by the in-game evidence. Which you are well aware of. I laid it out for you and as usual you choose to willfully ignore it. Don't think I haven't noticed that you have not come up to a rebuttal. I arranged the deduction is a numbered list.

What's stopping you? Go ahead. Rebute what I posted in the posts above. Or can't you? (This is reminding me of the Illusion Man conversation on the Citadel. How fitting)

So what is your alternate explaination? Why do you think blowing up some random cable junction located on the Citadel allows the Crucible to fire? How do you explain that the Crucible has no proper "on switch" for Destroy?




[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Building such a failsafe will require the reapers knowing exactly how the Crucible works.[/quote]

Not exactly as there are bound to have been modifications along the way since they last saw it, but they clearly had eyes on it in some cycle. Why else would any of that stuff be pre-built onto the Citadel?

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

However, now you're claiming that the Crucible is also capable of powering devices in the Citadel, your "dispersal array" and a console that allows for control of the Reapers. [/quote]

I'm saying the Reapers are able to cipher power from it which is inferred in the fact that the Crucible is used to power control and synthesis. I'm not saying the Crucible is designed to do this. Once the contraptions pulls the power, how it is distributed has nothing to do with the Crucible. Gasoline (Crucible) isn't designed to power an electric lamp (control console), but if I build a generator (array and/or chasm) the fuel's (Crucible's) energy can then be distributed as electicity to the lamp (Control Console). 

And about the "dispersal array"... out of curiousity, what do you think all that crap around the beam is? You think it's just there for show?

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Please enlighten me on how a device that is meant to suppress the energy of Crucible, and yet is able to use that energy to power the "dispersal array" and Control console, can't be turned off. Isn't using the console for Control essentially a way of turning off the "suppression device," i.e. like opening the valve of a propane gas tank to a Bunsen burner?[/quote]

Went over this already. *Sigh*

Yes, by directly interacting with the contraption within the intended range of use. The pad lock example comes back to mind. I try to open a door, but there is a pad lock on it. I take some bolt cutters (or a pistol) to the pad lock and break it. The door opens. I conclude that the pad lock was preventing the door from opening.

You say, "No, that doesn't prove the pad lock was keeping the door from opening, I can use a key on the pad lock and it opens as well or I can put in the right combo to open it." This would be shoddy logic on your part to disprove that the lock is preventing the door from opening.

1. The Crucible in and of itself can only facilitate one outcome: Destroy. (it needs the relay network to send "destroy" all across the galaxy)
2. The Citadel can do Synthesis, but lacks the power to enact it without the Crucible. Control is similar. 
3. There is a device on the Citadel at the docking point which is keeping the Crucible from doing firing (i.e. performing Destroy). Otherwise there would never be a chance to do Control or Synthesis.
4. Control initiates a Citadel function using the Crucible as a battery. Same with Synthesis.
5. Destroy disables that which is preventing the Crucible from firing itself and using the Citadel as a dispersal device.

What part do you not understand?

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Then why doesn't the game allow you to change your mind and shoot the pipe? Why would he turn off only the synthesis beam and leave the others still open?[/quote]

Ask Bioware. My guess is that the decison is made. How would you suggest they do Refuse? A 20 sec timer before it's decided what you do? Not that any of this is relevent. *sigh* 

Star Kid won't turn off the "CSD" because it would be suicide for the Reapers (i.e. the Crucible enact Destroy). The Control console only turns on when you approach it (another thing the Stat Child can turn on and off at will). It turns off the Synthesis beam because Shepard is rolling over and giving up. 

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Knock off the cocky comments. [/quote]

Stop making it so easy.

Your entire "counter argument", if you could even call it that, amounts to nothing but blatant willfull ignorance and calling in-game events and dialog that ALL players witness as "headcanon". You are saying I headcanoned in-game dialog, the codex, established plot lore or cutscene events. Whenever you don't like something it's "headcanon".  By your illogical perspective Liara caring about Shepard is headcanon because that would just be my "interpretation" of dialog and events. And that claim would be bullsh*t just like the the rest of your headcanon rants.

[quote]RadicalDisconnect wrote...

You completely missed my point. I was never out there to prove you wrong in your own headcanon. Your headcanon is your playground, so it's pointless for me to prove you wrong in that setting.[/quote]
 
Everything I have posted is based on in-game evidence and events. That evidence and those events are not something I pulled out of thin air that exists within the confines onf my head. It exists in-game. Therefore, for my theory to have any validity all the pieces have to add up. It's your job as the opposition to show that it doesn't add up. If you can't do that you can choose whether or not to believe my conclusions. But if you cannot do that and you are aware that you can't... GTFO. You have no reason to even post here as a detractor if you find no incongruity in my conclusions.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 11 août 2012 - 03:05 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

The propane tank is a damn analogy for the Crucible. You can either shoot the tank with incendiary rounds to release the chemical energy inside the tank in the form of a firey "explosion," or use a valve to release the energy in a controlled manner. As for analogies, I never said that my propane tank analogy is superior to your padlock analogy. On the other hand, your padlock analogy isn't superior to mine either. It's different. That's all. What is so hard to accept about that?

Bioware never said that the Control console isn't directly tapped into the Crucible. You are making the claim that it's the console's energy is routed through the Destroy pipe. That is your speculation, and it is a cornerstone of your theory. That speculation isn't necessarily wrong, but neither is the opposite. If the energy isn't routed through that pipe, what does that mean for your theory? I'm here to point out that your theory isn't any more or less valid than any other interpretation, and you shouldn't flaunt yours as superior.

Oh, and you're taking the fact that the Reapers can anticipate how the Crucible might work as fact. How? To use your analogy of gasoline-powered generator for electricity, keep in mind that a gasoline powered generator won't run on diesel or kerosene. Yet these fuels are all petroleum-based. Your gasoline generator has to be specifically designed for the properties of gasoline, as diesel and kerosene have different chemical properties like different flashpoints, volatility, combustion temperature, and so on so forth. Even multi-fueled engines like the ATG 1500 gas turbine engine is only optimized for a single type of fuel, JP-8 kerosene in the case of the US military. Running the ATG 1500 effectively on diesel or gasoline will require mechanical modifications. So yes, if the Citadel wants to tap into the energy of the Crucible, then its interfacing mechanism has to be very specific.

That was a long digression. The overarching point is that you can't simply assume that the reapers know how the Citadel will interface with the Crucible. As such, how can they build such a robust suppression device unless they know very specific details about the Crucible's energy release system? Right now, I'm simply questioning whether the existence of a "suppression device" is the only way to interpret what the Destroy pipe is. In any case, the reapers' knowledge of the Crucible's design is besides the point. Because you know what, I also believe that the reapers are aware of some of the details of the Crucible. However, the manner in which the Citadel interface with the Crucible is your interpretation.

You need to knock off the arrogance and be more open-minded. Your interpretation isn't the only interpretation, and it certainly doesn't align with mine. I'm not here to claim your theory is absolutely wrong. I'm here to say that you can't treat it as the only correct interpretation. Right now, instead of respectful disagreement and acknowledgement that there are multiple ways of interpreting the ending, you are insisting that your interpretation is the most valid of all. If you can't accept that there can be different interpretations, then I'm finished talking to you.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 11 août 2012 - 04:07 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

Double post, since edit is right next to quote...

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 11 août 2012 - 03:21 .

[The Twilight God]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

The propane tank is a damn analogy for the Crucible. You can either shoot the tank with incendiary rounds to release the chemical energy inside the tank in the form of a firey "explosion," or use a valve to release the energy in a controlled manner.

 
Problem: The "CSD" is part of the Citadel, not the Crucible. You never actuially interact with the Crucible to enact Destroy. You break something on the Citadel and it just happens. Your propane tank analogy fails in that you never even touch the tank. It fails for Control and Synthesis as well as the Citadel enacting these options. The "on switch" is on the Citadel, not the Crucible. Those two don't involve breaking anything. Control and Synthesis involve using whatever is on the Citadel to start a Citadel process as intended (like an on switch). Destroy involve breaking something to deactivate something else. Which in turn allows Destroy, a Crucible process, to occur. This is inferred by in-game events/cutscenes.

As always, if you disagree with this assessment explain why you disagree. But we both know you're incapable of critical thought or putting together a logical argument. Just tell me what we ALL can witness in-game is just in my own head. Tell me there are a hundred other "valid interpretations", but remain unable to express a single one that isn't full of holes that I will quickly point out. Go ahead. I dare you.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Bioware never said that the Control console isn't directly tapped into the Crucible. You are making the claim that it's the console's energy is routed through the Destroy pipe. That is your speculation, and your theory hinges on that aspect. That speculation isn't necessarily wrong, but neither is the opposite. If the energy isn't routed through that pipe, what does that mean for your theory? I'm here to point out that your theory isn't any more or less valid than any other interpretation, and you shouldn't flaunt yours as superior.

Doesn't matter. Irrelevent nitpicking about non-existent schematics details which having nothing to do with the premise I presented. Keep dodging the subject. What? Can't come up with a rebuttal can we? My thesis too strong? Too air tight? My logic and deductuion skills too good for you? Maybe you're out of your league here. Perhaps you should try the hallucination IT thread.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Oh, and you're taking the fact that the Reapers can anticipate how the Crucible might work as fact. How?

How do you explain the whole setup at the docking area if they didn't already have some inkling of its design? It's just a coincidence that all that crap that is clearly made for the Crucible was set up around where the Crucible would dock? Jesus Christ...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

You need to knock off the arrogance and be more open-minded. Your interpretation isn't the only interpretation, and it certainly doesn't align with mine. I'm not here to claim your theory is absolutely wrong. I'm here to say that you can't treat it as the only correct interpretation.

I'm going to go ahead and say it's the only way it could be. Disagree? Prove me wrong. Present a plausible alternative. And don't just take my thesis, substitute some words and call it your own. Otherwise.. you might as well GTFO. You have nothing to add to this discussion.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 11 août 2012 - 03:44 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

Evidently, you started responding to an older version of the post. I've added more stuff to my earlier post, so address those first. I'll give a longer response in a bit.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 11 août 2012 - 04:09 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

If you can't accept that yours is not the only interpretation and that it's certainly not the only 'correct one' then you are little different from those Bible thumpers or militant atheists.

Bioware has commented several times that the events depicted in the slide do happen. Now unless you think Bioware is lying (which you have denied in the past) you're theory doesn't hold water.

You're debates contain several instances of Arguement From Ignorance. Since your theory ca't proven wrong (because only Bioware's direct statements could do that) you are saying it is correct. As such I see little point in debating anymore. You want to keep believing in your little theory go right ahead.

Now watch as the OP uses this as some sort of 'acceptance of defeat' or something.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Knock off the arrogance. It'll do you lots of favors.

Let's begin.

I'll say again, I also believe that the Reapers are aware of some of the details about the Crucible. Otherwise, the Citadel wouldn't be able to interface with the Crucible so well that it can tap into the Crucible's energy to allow an external player to control the Reapers. Alternately, the first cycle that started on the Crucible may have designed the interfacing systems, and the details of its origins and functions were lost over the cycles. There are a few explanations on the origin of this interface, but the important part is that the interface is there. However, the nature of the Citadel's interface with the Crucible is different from your interpretation. I'll give my interpretation here.

Let's take a look at some known facts:
- The Crucible will not fire without some kind of activation on the Citadel
- The energy of the Crucible can be released in three ways, shooting a pipe, using the Control console, or jumping into a beam of energy
- The Crucible can be turned off at the Catalyst's discretion

About the last point. I personally think that the shutdown of the synthesis beam is indicative of the Catalyst turning off the Crucible. Otherwise, why would all the ending options be removed from the player if he so much as shoots at the Catalyst's hologram? Before you tell me that he only turns off the synthesis beam, what other in-game evidence do you have to disprove my assertion? If he only turns off the synthesis beam, then why can't you change your mind? Is it because Bioware wants to intentionally removes your ability to change your mind in the game, or is it that the Catalyst really does turn off the Crucible? I personally find the latter to be more compelling, but if you believe in the former, then so be it; it's a difference of opinions. This is one example of the fundamental differences between your interpretation and mine, as I have a different idea of Catalyst's level of influence and capabilities. 

The Citadel is interfaced with the Crucible in a manner such that the Citadel taps into the Crucible's energy supply with three different devices, a Control console on the left, a mysterious pipe on the right, and a circulating beam of energy in the middle. Any one of these three devices is a valid trigger for the Crucible. Shooting the mysterious pipe will violently release the energy of the Crucible. It is unknown what this pipe is. What is known is that it taps into the energy of the Crucible somehow. Again, given that in my interpretation, the Crucible can be turned off by the Catalyst, I find it dubious that this pipe is a suppression device; it would be a pointless redundancy. The pipe may simply be a part of the connection node that the Citadel uses to interface with the Crucible.

Destroying the pipe would then cause a catastrophic energy containment breach that violently discharges the energy of the Crucible and Citadel in a highly destructive form. Based on your EMS, which is essentially a measure of the condition of the Crucible, this energy can either be partially filtered so that it only overloads Synthetic life, or be completely rampant as a wave of indiscriminating, entropic destruction. Compare this to releasing the energy of the Crucible in a more controlled form by using the Control console.

The different ways that the energy is released is reflected by the condition of the Citadel after release. There are two distinct states of the Citadel after triggering that depend on the method of discharging the Crucible. It either remains intact and closes in Control, or gets engulfed in explosions and destroyed in Destroy and Synthesis. In Control, the energy being released as a blue controlling wave (however the hell that's supposed to work, thanks Bioware...) is regulated enough such that the power output is not destructive towards the Citadel. In contrast, the Destroy and Synthesis endings show that the energy is discharged so quickly and violently that the massive power output causes enormous damage to the Citadel and outright destroys the Presidium ring. In fact, as pointed out in another thread, I believe both Synthesis and especially Destroy outright kills the Catalyst since the Presidium ring, the likely location where the Catalyst's hardware is housed, is clearly engulfed in detonations and fireballs as the Crucible was firing.

On a side note, I do not want to discuss Synthesis. It transcends any remote scientific possibility and delves straight into the realm of Disney fairy-tale fantasy. As far as I can tell, it violates fundamental physical theories like the Uncertainty Principle.

Do I trust the Catalyst? Without meta-gaming, definitely not. For one, I would be suspicious if the collective intelligence of the Reapers is telling me that it's in my power to destroy them, and how to do so. For the same reasons, I would also be even more suspicious when he introduces Control and Synthesis. However, in the situation, I was backed into a corner. I can either take a leap of faith and take his words face-value, or I can idly sit there and watch as the Reapers gradually obliterate my fleets. Destroy appears to be the least risky, hence why I chose it.

On another note, none of us can claim to know exactly what the Catalyst's motivations, goals, and thought processes are, or how he is "programmed," so to speak. The game has intentionally left it far too ambiguous for us to make any meaningful judgments other than the following facts:

- He is the collective embodiment of all Reapers
- He likely turned on his creators (this is even more reinforced by leaked dialogue in Leviathan), forcing them to become the first Reapers, including Harbinger
- He is voluntarily giving you three options on how to end the cycle, including his destruction (the number of choices he gives you is the result of his judgment on the condition of the Crucible)
- He states that he himself can't make any of the three choices happen
- He allows you to decide his, and by extension, the Reapers' fate, as long as you choose one of his three options
- He will not extort you to make any choice (provided that your EMS is high enough), he simply watches
- He will turn off the Crucible, or at the very least, the synthesis beam if he deems that you are unwilling to make a choice

There, that's my interpretation and it doesn't involve indoctrination. Does it bear similarities to yours? Yes, in some aspects. Do I claim it to be superior? No; it's simply different. Is it really a surprise that not everyone interprets the decidedly vague endings the same way? And guess what, this post doesn't have any cocky gloating either. So is this interpretation invalid or inferior?

As a side note, if the Catalyst and the Reapers can build a "Crucible Suppression Device" to prevent the Crucible triggering their destruction, then why would they allow the Citadel to interface with the Crucible at all? Why didn't they just make it mechanically impossible for this interfacing in the first place? If your CSD exists, then why leave it accessible for tampering or disabling (by shooting, lol...)? If the Catalyst is smart, why can't he construct the suppression device in some obscure, inaccessible location, and place a completely inert pipe and fool you into thinking that shooting the pipe will disable the suppression device?

Hell, lets stretch this a bit. Suppose that the Catalyst is keen on making Synthesis happen. Then why can't he just place an inert pipe in the middle? He could then tell you that shooting the pipe will destroy the Reapers while in actuality, shooting it will cause the platform to rotate and drop you into the synthesis beam. Why didn't he opt for this instead? If you're insisting that the Catalyst is trying to indoctrinate and deceive you, then it's probably the most transparent deception I've ever seen.

Just a quick tip: filling your posts with gloats and ad hominem to try to intimidate the opposition doesn't make your arguments any more compelling, so I suggest you knock it off.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 12 août 2012 - 07:01 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The Beam causes Synthesis but it definitely cannot be it's sole purpose. Far more likly is that the beam is the raw energy inside the crucible channeling into the Citadel. When the Crucible docks with the Citadel, the beam activates supporting this claim.

[megamacka]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

If you can't accept that yours is not the only interpretation and that it's certainly not the only 'correct one' then you are little different from those Bible thumpers or militant atheists.

Bioware has commented several times that the events depicted in the slide do happen. Now unless you think Bioware is lying (which you have denied in the past) you're theory doesn't hold water.

You're debates contain several instances of Arguement From Ignorance. Since your theory ca't proven wrong (because only Bioware's direct statements could do that) you are saying it is correct. As such I see little point in debating anymore. You want to keep believing in your little theory go right ahead.

Now watch as the OP uses this as some sort of 'acceptance of defeat' or something.

We don't get to see everything however :-). There was a twitter post and forum post about Kasumi in synthesis for example. If she survived in ME2 and you did the loyalty quest she was to be reunited with keiji but it was unknown wherever or not she would still be ABLE to feel love. I truly believe that bioware made the endings like this on purpose, Mike gamble saying that he doesn't want to deny the IT because he doesn't want to affect how people interpret the ending confirms this to me. Some people claim that his actually confirming the theory by not saying it's not true, that's complete bollocks tho.

  I think that they've made the endings so that you have all the necessary parts/hints to interpret the ending both ways hence making everyone happy. Right now people are fighting in the name of their own way of seeing how things went on after you made your choice. 

  Right now all we can do is await Leviathan. It should hold more info.

Modifié par megamacka, 11 août 2012 - 11:50 .

[megamacka]

http://social.biowar...ndex/11840840/1

The original ending idea that was leaked hence replaced with the current one we have now. It was kinda hinted on multiple times throughout the games..... Too bad some people feel like they need to leak stuff and ruin it for people. Happened to gears of war 3 too.... But they kept their ending anyway.

  Or maybe the top dogs in the team decided that they didn't want that ending.....

 '' 
The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."  '' 

Why do you hate humans so much Bioware? 

Modifié par megamacka, 11 août 2012 - 05:59 .

[PsyrenY]

megamacka wrote...

Gran_Duma wrote...

Shepard is a bad ass. Can't be indoctrinated.
Dats science.

Saren was a badass too 

No, he was just an ass.