Blueprotoss wrote...
I am disappoint wrote...
Me too.
I only wish I could forget all the retcons they did such as the Normandy landing on the run to Harbinger and the Normandy not getting damaged by the coloured waves in every ending.
The Relay Explosions were pretty clear, control made the relays seem intact and Destory blew them the f**k up along with the Citadel.
If you think those were explanations then you don't understand the original endings.
Speculations for everyone on this comment because the Relay explosions didn't have any close ups after the Sol Relay decided to explode/implode. Btw you need to learn want is and in't a retcon because the EC isn't a retcon.
I think I see the problem.
Before the ECDLC the only experience of relay explosions were that once destroyed, they blow up spectacularly.
There are a few things I could bring to that debate such as the amount of energy buiild up present in the device, the added extra mass of the asteroid contributing to the amount of energy in the device and the devices ability to store energy up to a given point where it is then released in a massive pressure/'energy release. But for the sake of this conversation we'll put those to one side.
Relays have been said to be nigh on indestructable........ or very hard to destroy, then we get to the question of why destroy a relay and potentially close yourself off to valuable resources areas. We'll gloss over that last bit too.
Continuity wise we have seen a relay explode and it took out a solar system. In the Pre ECDLC ending we saw a relay seemingly detonate/come apart and then saw the effect's of that destruction....... and I'll say that again because it's important, the destruction....... of the relay spread out across of the galaxy. The pre ECDLC ending went a bit OTT by showing everything essentially blowing up and providing little to no context which resulted in mass speculation given the evidence and the continuity we had to go on.
So we know destroyed relays take out solar systems and we saw a relay destroyed and a huge AOE result from each relay as it was hit. We can only assume that each relay is being affected in the same way as the first as we never see collaberative evidence but from the the AOE's i.e. the results of each hit relay being the same it lends support that each relay is being destroyed.......... It is no surprise that given these chains of events we can postulate that the relays just took out alot of places ala The Arrival as in the ME continuity we have never seen a relay explode safely.
Then we come to the ECDLC. The manner in which the relay is destroyed in the ECDLC is totally different than in the pre'ECDLC and/or The Arrival. No mega explosion's or total destruction of the relay. Just it's working part's. After the working parts are destroyed the general structure of the relay remains intact indicating that no explosive force is at work once the working parts are destroyed. Suddenly, we have context to support the premise that the relays being destroyed will not smoke every solar system they inhabit.
But wait a minute......... the two destruction scenes, total destruction and partial destruction. They changed the scene. Not changed as in 'we don't fire beams of light of at the next relay' changed. Changed as in 'We've fired off the beam and now you can see the relay is not exploding and killing everything'.
What happened? It's been stated above that this is not a change/alteration/simplification and or retcon. Really? Here's something I pulled from wiki.
Retroactive continuity (
retcon for short)
[1] is the alteration of previously established facts in a fictional work.
[2] Retcons are done for many reasons, including the accommodation of
sequels or further derivative works in a series, wherein newer authors
or creators want to revise the in-story history to allow a course of
events that would not have been possible in the story's original
continuity.
Other reasons might be the reintroduction of popular characters,
resolution of errors in chronology, the updating of a familiar series
for modern audiences, or simplification of an excessively complex
continuity structure.
Now I 'm a firm believer in ppl taking a stand for what they choose is important to them. I do it too. But the other thing I do is alter my stance based on new, previously unknown or more accurate information. Not because of flexible morals but because, being scientifically trained I pursue what I tentatively label as truth. And in this case the term 'change' and 'retcon' by their very definitions fit aspects......... And this is again important. Aspects, of what BW did to their story.
So while BlueProtoss may have a point, that we didn't see the results of the explosions and so cannot say the relays destroyed everything. Pre ECDLC We have existing evidence and substantiating evidence that support the relays most likely blew up as in The Arrival. After the ECDLC we now have strong evidence that none of the relays blew up like The Arrival. However, by your own logic we must allow for the possibility that they may have exploded as we did not witness how each and everyone of them were destroyed. (Hey I know. But being a scientist I've had to witness and record results from thousands of individual samples in a trial. It's mind numbingly tedious but it's the only way to get true results that you can be confident are correct).
Given that this is not science however but a story I think it safe to assume, given the events of the ECDLC that none of the relays killed off anything. However by the defintition given above. I do label this alteration in the continuity of events in the story a Retcon.
Modifié par Redbelle, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:42 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
