The leviathans themselves told Shepard the mandate they gave the catalyst "To preserve all life" it was obvious that the mandate has no restrictions so it can be interpreted in a number of ways.
It has no obvious restrictions. That's not the same thing.
Do we know that Reaper programming allows for the possibility of life outside the galaxy? How do we know that?
We need to
know that in order for logic to lead anywhere nesr your conclusion.
If that research has been ongoing prior to the trilogy why isn't it already implemented by the time of the trilogy thye had 2000+ to do it?
And you ask this question because all scientific advancements have alresdy occurred?
It isn't inplemebted because they didn't figure it out yet. Necessity is the mother of invention. Or because bureaucracy slowed it down. Or because whoever was developing it wanted to keep it a secret.
Why are you so convinced that there's no answer to questions just because you don't know for sure what the answer is?
You do need a plan beyond that since there are a lot of things that need to be taken into consideration such as finding habitable planets, having enough supplies to sustain the colony and defense against hostile species in which the people will have practically none its going to be a very demanding project and the war is already consuming too much resources.
None of those things will matter if they get killed by the Reapers. You can't win game 7 without first getting to game 7.
Let's assume they have the means to get the ark out of the Milky Way. Let's further assume that their destruction by the Reapers is imminent. How would any of that other stuff be relevant? Escaping the Reapers now allows future development. Getting killed by the Reapers does not.
Or do you think they'd just accept destruction because they hadn't worked out ever detail in advance?
Hand waving the explanation is lazy writing simple as that.
No one is suggesting they will do that. But to hold your opinion, you need to be confident that no acceptable explanation is possible, and that's an absurd position.
Things rarely are as simple as that, if we nothing to offer them then they have little reason to care about us.
It would make about as much sense as the Reapers telling us that they were beyond our comprehension in the first game. That narrative standard has already been established.
They do matter actually, leaving our people our own people to die without fighting till the bitter end.
They're not running away. They're doing an important job to preserve civilization. How does staying behind to get killed help?
And, your question was about why it would matter to the intergalactic benevolvence.
The details are important since consistency is important in story telling if the details are inconsistent then people won't be able to suspended their disbelief it'd also be lazy writing.
They can't explain every detail. You have to some of the work to suspend your disbelief. If there's a hole, just don't fill it with something that breaks the story. That's all you have to do. Don't invent inconsistent lore.
Star child and Lazarus are alike since they both received no build up they both come out of nowhere.
And the Ark received one line. One line is more than nothing. Not the same.
It didn't, one line that can be easily taken for something else isn't foreshadowing.
That it can be taken for something else is what makes it good foreshadowing. Foreshadowing shouldn't be obvious. Then it would be telegraphing, not foreshadowing.
How am I the one defending ME3? I
hated ME3.
Retour en haut
