Geneaux486 wrote...
Let me be more specific: Unless you get the ending where Earth literally burns, you can safely assume that the Catalyst itself did not destroy or kill anyone or anything.
Assume. Not shown. Not implied. Not referred to. Nothing. Nada. In other words this is your interpretation and not anything the ME3 ending gives you. Again, if you like to do that, that's fine, but in so far as making something designed to make people speculate, it's poor design because it's as informative as a blank page; it doesn't even explain it's own references.
Anderson gives us regular reports on Earth. People are dying or being captured, major cities are burning, communications are cut off, as is the case with Palaven and Thessia.
He gives you reports in the first half. After that he just makes general references to how bleak things are. That by the way is not the case in Thessia because they specifically state that since the Asari are such powerful biotics the Reapers don't bother with the indoctrination/wait game, they just went in and started breaking everything in sight. By the time you get to Earth you don't know how bad things are beyond extrapolation however reliable that is given what little data we have.
Destruction of synthetics means destruction of synthetics, so if it's synthetic, it was destroyed.
Then you're contradicting yourself because space ships are synthetic but you interpret the destory end to mean the Quarians and the Turians have a fighting chance. If anything and everything synthetic is destroyed that means their space ships no longer function and they are going to die.
Game doesn't tell us. What it does tell us is that the Reapers stop attacking organics as soon as the effect takes off, and that activating the Crucible will "end the cycle". That's more than enough to go off of.
No, that's nothing to go on because it has nothing to do with speculating on the future. If that's speculative then you have a very odd idea of speculation because all that says is "the reapers are gone."
In the same way there's nothing to indicate that synthesis won't cause the universe to implode, yes.
Which is precisely the point and the problem. The conversation is literally:
"So Synthesis will fix things!"
"Alright, cool, so how?"
"Dunno. It just will."
That's not conductive to speculation or discussion because everything else is inserted from an outside source.
We see that the Normandy wasn't obliterated, nor was the planet they landed on, so actually, it is my point.
No, we see the Normandy crash landing on an unknown planet. The Alpha Relay when it exploded did not destroy an entire star cluster or an entire galaxy, it destroyed the system it was in and possibly some of the systems around it. We see nothing to indicate that the planet the Normandy landed on was in a system with a mass relay or even near a mass relay as in Arrival the Normandy successfully escapes from the Alpha Relay system with only seconds to spare which indicates that seconds is all you need once you enter a mass relay corridor to escape the shockwave of an exploding relay; which assumes Joker was flying it through a mass relay and didn't just go straight into FTL from Earth using the conventional drives which also does nothing to indicate anything at all about whether a mass relay exploding at the end of ME3 does or does not wipe out life in the surrounding system.
But it's neither.
I will concede that it's a subjective argument and thus moot to argue. So rephraseing; by my standards it's poor storytelling and poor speculative groundwork.
I have more than proven that to be false at this point, citing various specific in-game examples. If you want to keep thinking that we're not given information that we actually are, that's certainly your right, but at this point I can do little more than repeat myself.
Aside from Anderson you specified absolutely zero in-game examples; what you specified was your interpretation of how things would occur. You cannot say that any of your answers are definitive because none of the things I quesitoned were shown in the ending at all. Furthermore what was shown can be interpreted in multiple ways without being contradictory.
Your point needed clarification, hence why I asked for it. We see the effects of our choices because there is a sequel in which to do so. At the end of the story, there is no sequel, so yes, some things are going to be ambiguous.
No, you wanted to redefine my point into being about how cause and effect can only be shown from one game to the next which is not my argument. The Mass Effect series is what I referred to, not specific games, but the series as a whole. The series' central point was making decisions and seeing the effects. That was the claim since before the very first game. Cause and Effect. The series, not the individual games but the entire series as a whole, was based on that principle. The ending does not incorporate it.
Retour en haut
