Dean_the_Young wrote...
nicksmi56 wrote...
@Dean_the_Young Garrus and Tali are most likelly dead, unles mystery planet has foods they can eat.
Or the Normandy has foods they can eat and the means to make more. Or if there's a colony on the world which can provide. Or if help arrives from outside the system, either called in or from rescuers searching for the Normandy. Or-
We're not even sure the food isn't poisonous or something. Nobody knows where they are. Unless you assume everything on said planet is hunky dory, your squad is dead
Unless you assume things are fatal, your squad will live.
See how easy this is? We can do this all day. What you're exhibiting is known as the confirmation bias: you've made a decision of what you want to happen, and then are framing everything else in terms to support your pre-determined conclusion.
No, he is using established lore for the cusp of his argument while you are inventing the narrative. Your theory suggests Joker managed to crash on the one planet within the Sol System that just so happened to have food capable of supporting all organic species. That alone is extremely contrived writing, made worse because there is no exposition to support why such a planet happens to exist that no one has ever heard of.
Regardless, we know the results of a Relay's destruction. This was depicted in the Arrival DLC and thus became canon. A writer must retain consistency in their story and cannot refute established fact, unless they provide proper exposition on the rationality behind doing; a natural progress or development previously unknown. For instance, say the intention from BioWare was the Crucible beam had precisely the necessary density and would hit the exact spot needed so the Relays would have a concentrated and less destruction blast radius. If this was the case, it is the responsible of the writer, not the reader, to offer exposition to explain why this differs so greatly from Arrival. In fact, my example is a contrivance, and ultimately poor writing but at the very least, there is an explanation to carry the narrative. Not following these rules will create plot holes, hence the abomination we are left with.
By using our imagination to fill in the blanks of the story itself. We are doing BioWare's job and last I recall, I did not receive a paycheck for that.
Your earlier reference to Dragon Age Origins is unfounded because we know the relevant conclusion to our companions stories. One possible ending is Alistair becomes King, Leliana mourned your passing and/or wrote poetry and etc. Morrigan is the only unknown however she explains this in the actual game, stating she will leave, never be seen again. Her ending was how proper ambiguity is written because the narrative informed us, in lieu of demanding we make assumptions. We are not necessarily required to know her motivations, provided the action itself is justifiable to her character, which is it. Anything thereafter can be left vague because it is not necessary for the story. Alistair's reign in term of success or failure can be left to the interpretation and preference of the reader, because it is not relevant to his story arc of accepting Kingship.
tl;dr: What you are proposing is a deluded fantasy; blind optimism if you would. You are certainly welcome to do so, in actuality all this amounts to is you inventing narrative and rationality that did not exist or is contradictory to established lore with no canonical foundation. In short, it's fanfiction, and little more.
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 01 avril 2012 - 08:24 .
Retour en haut
