Geneaux486 wrote...
Unless you get an ending where you see Earth literally burn, yes.
Your interpretation. We never see the fleet in the ending, not a single ship, hell, we don't even see the wreckage of any of there ships when the Crucible docks. All we see are Reapers in the surrounding area. That you conclude they did is interpretation yet without solid evidence any contrary interpretation is equally valid. That's my entire point; there is neither evidence indicating one way or another which means all things are valid and all things are not valid. You can't have a meaningful discussion at that point unless you preface everything by "asuming that we agree that..." and that's a wretched way to guide a discussion.
As bad as Earth. This is stated at various points in the game.
Which tells us nothing as all we get to go by is London. Is every city like London? Anderson mentions that the Reapers were starting to aim for more rural areas so are they like this too? Worse? Better? See above. Furthermore the Reapers are explicitely stated to have taken a different approach to attacking Thessia.
On a case by case basis, the game either mentions them at some point, or it doesn't.
See above.
Everything. The effect hit every Mass Relay, therefore it was the same effect everywhere.
I'm don't mean distance. I mean the Catalyst implies it effects not just Reaper based technology when it infers that Shepard will die too because he's partly synthetic due to the implants Cerberus used to resurrect him. How far does that go?
Every Reaper. The control pulse hit every relay in the galaxy and spread to each surrounding system.
Again, I don't mean physical distance. Is every Reaper now just Shepard? Do they have a proverbial Shepard sitting around in there heads telling them what to do? Does it just suggest? Argue? Are the Reapers for the most part the same, just altered with Shepard's internal ethics? Is it just impulse or literal control? Is it permanent? Does a mental entity that can be identified as Shepard still exist in there or is it like synthesis in that it's merely a framework based on Shepard's personality that's been overlayed atop Reaper personalities?
Why would everything become a husk? Making a husk involves draining vital fluids and other bits from the person being transformed and replacing them with tech. There's nothing to suggest that supplementary synthetic mutation would have this effect.
Nothing to indicate it won't either. That is again my point. Synthesis means nothing because it has no definition as such anything and everything is valid about it because nothing says it does not one way or another. I do admit that the question was sensationalized and exaggerated to prove a point. The same point every other question highlights which you haven't addressed likely for the very reason why I brought them up.
Untrue. The explosions are clearly not the same as that of the Alpha Relay because we see affected parties such as Reapers, humans, ships, and planets take the pulses without being obliterated. There are numerous expalantions for this.
We see it when the Citadel does it's thing but we don't see any of those planets when a relay explodes. And yes, the explosion is different but how different? We don't know so again, my point.
Only it isn't lacking. Everything I've said in this post up to now is based on what is observable in the game itself. That's my point, we are given more to work with than you seem to think. There is ambiguity in the ending, yes, but that is not all there is.
Again, it isn't because the game does not portray any of it, those are your interpretations and your conclusions and every single conclusion is equally valid. That is what makes it poor story telling. That is what makes it poor speculation.
Yet everything else the Catalyst predicts, the initial change of synthesis, the result of control, or destruction, and the destruction of the Mass Relays, all come true. There's nothing to suggest the Catalyst is wrong about what the synthesis effect will be. Therefore, rejecting the Catalyst's explanation is a personal choice, and does not invalidate what I have said.
There is nothing to indicate it will be right either beyond "because it said so." The Catalyst speaks of long term things, the entire synthetic debate is itself a big picture long term issue, but what we are given is short term alone when your choices are all about the long term big picture. If you want to argue that as a speculative ending the ME3 ending is good then that is why it is not because it does not deal at all with speculation; it gives you a bang and a then it's done without a glimpse into the future of what those choices mean. That is why any conclusion is made from whole cloth: it is not supported by what is shown in the ending because none of it is there. Anything you come up with is wholey your own and it may very well be stellar and amazing but it is not based on Mass Effect 3's ending anymore then me claiming that Synthesis means everything gets turned into Husk is based on ME3's ending.
Making choices then seeing the after-effects in the next game. Why exactly is my point on that invalid?
Thank you for avoiding the point and splitting hairs. None the less that itself is invalidated because if there are subsequent games then the consequence will not be of your choices because a future game cannot incorporate control, destroy, and synthesis individually and simultaneously thus you don't actually see the consequences of your choice, instead you're told that this is what Shepard picked and this is what happened. In such a situation the Effect aspect is perhaps validated but the Cause then becomes the issue and we go back to square one.
Retour en haut
. Lots of room for future story telling with that one. I had just thought he had not fixed the citadel for fear of being discovered by the reapers. 
