493 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

The truth is that most of these critics don't want to be convinced that the Crucible's history may have a decent explanation. Many different things could have happened throughout its development, and it's unfortunate that we didn't get any details about it, but there are people who simply don't want fans to devise an explanation. They want BioWare to do it. And if BioWare does it, they will still complain that the idea is stupid. They don't want to change their minds about ME3 and BioWare.

BSN is all about having an opinion and staunchly defending it, no matter what compelling argument is thrown at you. You "lose" if you change your mind.

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
The truth is that most of these critics don't want to be convinced that the Crucible's history may have a decent explanation. Many different things could have happened throughout its development, and it's unfortunate that we didn't get any details about it, but there are people who simply don't want fans to devise an explanation. They want BioWare to do it. And if BioWare does it, they will still complain that the idea is stupid. They don't want to change their minds about ME3 and BioWare.

BSN is all about having an opinion and staunchly defending it, no matter what compelling argument is thrown at you. You "lose" if you change your mind.

I think the main problem is that many people are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between "it makes no sense" and "I hate it". There are quite a few things in ME I hate with a passion, yet I would never say they make no sense because they do. One thing is the "dark age" of the original ending. It is a perfectly adequate ending to the trilogy, I just hate it because it is depressing that I can't save the civilization I set out to save and because I hate dark age endings in general. Then there's Shepard's death. I've always said you could see that coming from a long way back, but that doesn't make me like it any better that it used to be impossible to avoid (without MP), and I still hate that I have to choose Destroy to avoid it. There are a handful of such things throughout the trilogy.

Regarding the Crucible, I've always liked the fact that we actually build the weapon to defeat the Reapers, instead of just finding it flying around somewhere, that it's a significant part of the story and that it's written to be a great achievement. I also don't see how it doesn't make sense (So, I like it *and* I think it makes sense, which are unrelated facts). I hate the fact that we need the MEU's god-analogue to use it, but there's no "nonsense" about that either. 

If you're looking for things that make no sense, most of those are related to worldbuilding. You can start with the timeline and take it from there. There are also narrative and thematic inconsistencies with the way the organic/synthetic conflict is handled, and the most striking (and insulting) nonsense is actually how Shepard can "convince" people to their way of thinking by shouting at them, most of the time without any real argument behind it. See Leviathan for the most annoying example. Now here's something I hate *and* I think makes no sense, but many people seem to like it, so of course they'll deny that. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 janvier 2014 - 08:22 .

[Daemul]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The most striking (and insulting) nonsense is actually how Shepard can "convince" people to their way of thinking by shouting at them, most of the time without any real argument behind it.

Oh man, don't get me started on this BS. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

The truth is that most of these critics don't want to be convinced that the Crucible's history may have a decent explanation. Many different things could have happened throughout its development, and it's unfortunate that we didn't get any details about it, but there are people who simply don't want fans to devise an explanation. They want BioWare to do it. And if BioWare does it, they will still complain that the idea is stupid. They don't want to change their minds about ME3 and BioWare.

BSN is all about having an opinion and staunchly defending it, no matter what compelling argument is thrown at you. You "lose" if you change your mind.

The Crucible doesn't have a decent explanation. it was a lazy effort by Bioware to incorporate a super weapon without any sort of proper exposition, something any fan could have done. Bioware's games have always had an emphasis on exposition. You see this throughout most of their games. The Crucible is a failure on multiple levels.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 janvier 2014 - 12:30 .

[Han Shot First]

The Crucible doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make any sense because we are told from start to finish that the galaxy is building something that it doesn't understand. "We don't know what it does...but we're building it!" Does that actually sound plausible to anyone?

That's a bit like the scientists on the Manhattan Project not understanding that the weapon they were trying to build would have the power to destroy a city.

[Almostfaceman]

Han Shot First wrote...

The Crucible doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make any sense because we are told from start to finish that the galaxy is building something that it doesn't understand. "We don't know what it does...but we're building it!" Does that actually sound plausible to anyone?

That's a bit like the scientists on the Manhattan Project not understanding that the weapon they were trying to build would have the power to destroy a city.

I agree with this point. And not only this, but it seems like everyone you run into already knows about the project - it's the worst kept secret ever - yet the Reapers never get their hands on it. There should have definitely been missions to help preserve the project secrecy and discover what it does before so much is thrown into its construction. And, considering the battle, there should have been much more made of protecting that big honking thing once it was introduced onto the battlefield, especially considering that the Reapers brought the Citadel to Earth to protect it. 

That's if you've even got to stick with the Crucible idea in the first place... meh.

[Display Name Owner]

The idea of the Crucible itself made sense enough to me. I liked the idea of turning the Mass Relays against the Reapers, although there wasn't much focus on how the Crucible actually did that.

What I don't like at all is how it was basically fished out from under the sofa like a lost penny. Instead of actually finding it and things about it, we get told 5 minutes after the prologue "Hey. This exists. Isn't that convenient?" Also yeah, as previous poster pointed out the fact that it's somehow incomprehensible as easy to build as a lego set doesn't make sense. That could have been avoided if the Crucible was brought up earlier with time to actually learn a thing or two about it.

[Arcian]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BSN is all about having an opinion and staunchly defending it, no matter what compelling argument is thrown at you. You "lose" if you change your mind.

You just accurately described the entire synthesis fanbase.

[Fixers0]

The problems regarding the Crucible as device twofold, number one: A distinct lack of requirement information and relevance neeeded to fullfil it's function as a narrtive tool. Number two: What information and relevance is providied by the narrative is contrived and nonsesical . At it's core, these are the problems with the crucible and it's why it's such an incredibly uneffective narrative device.

[Tron Mega]

the crucible is the reason i dont play ME3.

everytime hacket said something about the crucible i wanted to take the game out of my console and melt it in my microwave. its like the entire ME universe is blinded by stupidity, along with half of BSN.

really, i cant wait till ME4 comes out so i can lol at all the bad decisions and say "i told you so, again."

[ruggly]

Ieldra2 wrote...
 how Shepard can "convince" people to their way of thinking by shouting at them, most of the time without any real argument behind it. See Leviathan for the most annoying example. Now here's something I hate *and* I think makes no sense, but many people seem to like it, so of course they'll deny that. 

Outside of the fact that it's pretty obvious retroactive foreshadowing I liked Leviathan for the investigative way of finding them, if a bit simple, and the underwater portion.

As for Shepard shouting at everything to fix it, I'm not quite sure what else they could have done?  Very long and diplomatic talks would have been boring.

[Br3admax]

Tron Mega wrote...

the crucible is the reason i dont play ME3.

It's not really that big a deal.

everytime hacket said something about the crucible i wanted to take the game out of my console and melt it in my microwave. its like the entire ME universe is blinded by stupidity, along with half of BSN.

Your superioriy complex is showing. This implies that even half the BSN likes it, or that even half the BSN even plays ME. Try harder. It also implies that not agreeing with it somehow makes you inherently smarter. It doesn't. 

really, i cant wait till ME4 comes out so i can lol at all the bad decisions and say "i told you so, again."

What have you actually told anyone? How was the Crucible even involed in these "bad decisions?" What have you actually done besides saying, "I hate the Crucible because reasons," huh? 

Modifié par Br3ad, 11 janvier 2014 - 03:20 .

[Obadiah]

Han Shot First wrote...

The Crucible doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make any sense because we are told from start to finish that the galaxy is building something that it doesn't understand. "We don't know what it does...but we're building it!" Does that actually sound plausible to anyone?

That's a bit like the scientists on the Manhattan Project not understanding that the weapon they were trying to build would have the power to destroy a city.

My explanation of Hackett's statements along those lines is that the Aliiance scientists and builders understood enough of it to know it was a bomb capable of releasing a destructive FTL blast on a system wide scale, they just weren't sure of it's exact effects, and so through Hackett that translated as, "We don't know."

[General TSAR]

Arcian wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BSN is all about having an opinion and staunchly defending it, no matter what compelling argument is thrown at you. You "lose" if you change your mind.

You just accurately described the entire synthesis fanbase.

Zing!

[txgoldrush]

Han Shot First wrote...

The Crucible doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make any sense because we are told from start to finish that the galaxy is building something that it doesn't understand. "We don't know what it does...but we're building it!" Does that actually sound plausible to anyone?

That's a bit like the scientists on the Manhattan Project not understanding that the weapon they were trying to build would have the power to destroy a city.

First off, they come to have a clearer grasp of it as its being built.

Second, the BSN keeps forgetting that building it out of blind faith would not happen if Liara got the location of Vendetta from he Archive instead of Cerberus, and thus they were forced to work backwards.

Hell, the timing of finding about the Crucible is more inconvenient than convenient.  Had it been found earlier, it would have been used far earlier with all info found.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 11 janvier 2014 - 08:44 .

[txgoldrush]

And really, if you are a fan of ME1, and criticize the Crucible for coming into ME3 conveniently, than you are a hypocrite.

Because Shepard sure did find that beacon conveniently in ME1. Nevermind the Conduit was also a complete unknown until the end, but they believed in it anyway.

Hell, ME3 follows the same plot formula as ME1.

[Han Shot First]

txgoldrush wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The Crucible doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make any sense because we are told from start to finish that the galaxy is building something that it doesn't understand. "We don't know what it does...but we're building it!" Does that actually sound plausible to anyone?

That's a bit like the scientists on the Manhattan Project not understanding that the weapon they were trying to build would have the power to destroy a city.

First off, they come to have a clearer grasp of it as its being built.

Second, the BSN keeps forgetting that building it out of blind faith would not happen if Liara got the location of Vendetta from he Archive instead of Cerberus, and thus they were forced to work backwards.

Hell, the timing of finding about the Crucible is more inconvenient than convenient.  Had it been found earlier, it would have been used far earlier with all info found.

The scientists and engineers building the Crucible have no idea what it is designed to do. That appears to be true from start to finish. In fact Shepard goes into the end run completely blind, and needs the Catalyst to explain to him how it works. I find that to be one of the more silly aspects of the series, tied perhaps with ME2 presenting humanity as genetically diverse. (we're not) If those scientists and engineers are capable of building it, they should also be capable of understanding what they are working on. You can't have one without the other.

I understand why the Crucible is presented that way. Having the Crucible's function be somewhat mysterious provides (in theory) drama to the end run. The problem for me at least, is that it comes at the cost of rendering the entire project nonsensical. It would be like the scientists on the Manhattan Project not having any idea that Fat Man or Little Boy could potentially destroy cities.

Instead I think Bioware should have looked to provide that drama by other means. Give the Crucible a known function from start to finish, but then have the Reapers throw a wrench in the works. Have it not function the way it was originally designed for, and force Shepard to seek an alternative.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 janvier 2014 - 02:34 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

And really, if you are a fan of ME1, and criticize the Crucible for coming into ME3 conveniently, than you are a hypocrite.

Because Shepard sure did find that beacon conveniently in ME1. Nevermind the Conduit was also a complete unknown until the end, but they believed in it anyway.

Hell, ME3 follows the same plot formula as ME1.

The Conduit and the Crucible is an odd comparison. Shepard and friends were not trying to use the Conduit for the bulk of the story, they were simply trying to stop Saren from using it since he believed it could be used to return the Reapers. The function of the Conduit was independent of its importance, while with the Crucible its importance in the plot is soley justified by its function. For example, if the Conduit ended up being the Dark Space Relay itself or some sort of super weapon the goal remains the same, "Stop Saren from using the Conduit" the fact that Saren wanted it was all it needed. If the Crucible, however, was known to have given everyone cancer or destroyed everything in existence, people probably would have hesitated to have spent the scarce time and resources to build it.

Also, what beacon are you talking about? The one on Virmire or the one on Eden Prime? One was located at a research facility dedicated to bringing back the Reapers, you think Saren would have scoured the galaxy for any he could find to help locate the Conduit to bring back there; and the other one was the objective of a pick-up mission.