"Step aside for those who can make the harder choices" spoilers

#11garanPosted 6/13/2013 11:49:48 AM
Wiping out the entire galaxy seems like a hard choice to me. Since that is what the original ending did, with the destruction of all the mass relays creating hundreds of supernovas.
#12phoenix52Posted 6/13/2013 1:23:17 PM
garan posted...
Wiping out the entire galaxy seems like a hard choice to me. Since that is what the original ending did, with the destruction of all the mass relays creating hundreds of supernovas.


If I remember correctly, we see that those explosions are not the same as the one that happened in Arrival. I chose destroy with a high EMS and the energy wave deactivated the Reapers and left everything else intact. Obviously we're meant to understand that the galaxy was never ravaged by terrible explosions if the Crucible worked as it was meant to, even in the pre-EC ending.
---
Its like having a knitting contest between the best regular old lady knitter in the world and a guy who's superpower is specifically to be the best knitter ever
#13edgecrusher02Posted 6/13/2013 2:54:34 PM(edited)
garan posted...
Wiping out the entire galaxy seems like a hard choice to me. Since that is what the original ending did, with the destruction of all the mass relays creating hundreds of supernovas.


this is just another one of those things that people jumped to. why anyone would assume the worst case scenario when it makes absolutely no sense to do so is beyond me. i get that people were upset about the abruptness/vagueness of the original ending, but jumping to conclusions about stuff like this and then insisting that its true is ridiculous. i literally never once thought that i was actually destroying the entire galaxy. i mean... really? people really thought thats what happened? im sorry, but for lack of a better way of saying it i always found that to be laughably stupid. as in, it hurts my brain to try to comprehend that that was a thing.... that people actually thought.

as for arrival, there is a difference in using a machine to do something without knowing the outcome... and slamming a massive object into it. also, you can destroy a machine without blowing it up/detonating it.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed. no gods, no kings... only man.
#14SageOfLifePosted 6/13/2013 4:49:28 PM
edgecrusher02 posted...
garan posted...
Wiping out the entire galaxy seems like a hard choice to me. Since that is what the original ending did, with the destruction of all the mass relays creating hundreds of supernovas.


this is just another one of those things that people jumped to. why anyone would assume the worst case scenario when it makes absolutely no sense to do so is beyond me. i get that people were upset about the abruptness/vagueness of the original ending, but jumping to conclusions about stuff like this and then insisting that its true is ridiculous. i literally never once thought that i was actually destroying the entire galaxy. i mean... really? people really thought thats what happened? im sorry, but for lack of a better way of saying it i always found that to be laughably stupid. as in, it hurts my brain to try to comprehend that that was a thing.... that people actually thought.

as for arrival, there is a difference in using a machine to do something without knowing the outcome... and slamming a massive object into it. also, you can destroy a machine without blowing it up/detonating it.


It might have something to do with the fact that we saw what happens when a mass relay is totally destroyed. That bit was retconned for a reason.
---
There's no box! There never was!
#15garanPosted 6/14/2013 11:41:20 AM
^I was purposefully ignoring the EC retcon because the original game ended with the mass relays all exploding, and we know exactly what happens when a mass relay explodes-- it takes the whole system with it.
#16SageOfLifePosted 6/14/2013 1:02:49 PM
garan posted...
^I was purposefully ignoring the EC retcon because the original game ended with the mass relays all exploding, and we know exactly what happens when a mass relay explodes-- it takes the whole system with it.


Even if you accept that the nature of the explosions had different results, trapping that many people in a few depleted systems is hardly any better.
---
There's no box! There never was!
#17edgecrusher02Posted 6/14/2013 5:48:41 PM(edited)
^it can only be considered a "retcon" if they outright said it was one thing, and then changed it to something else. that is not what happened. in arrival the narrative said the mass relay would be destroyed, purposefully. in the ending of ME3 it was not said one way or the other. but it was said that it was being used to do something. there is a difference between it being used, and it being destroyed. again, why anyone would assume that we just played an entire series about saving the galaxy only to actually kill countless and leave the galaxy in a horrible state at the at the very end is beyond me. it is also beyond ridiculous. again.... really? people actually legitimately thought that?

saying that it is not isnt even something that should need to be explained. even then, it is something that is explainable with even the most miniscule amount of thought and common sense combined with what the story tells us it will do. unless someone wants to assume worst case scenario about every little thing. in which case i question how they can enjoy any story.

if someone chooses to see it that way then by all means go ahead. but dont assume something so absurd as an attempt to find more "wrong" with the ending. im not saying thats what you are doing, but that thought is just... wow. i cant even find a proper word to describe it so i will just say absurd again.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed. no gods, no kings... only man.
#18SageOfLifePosted 6/14/2013 5:53:43 PM
edgecrusher02 posted...
^it can only be considered a "retcon" if they outright said it was one thing, and then changed it to something else. that is not what happened. in arrival the narrative said the mass relay would be destroyed. in the ending of ME3 it was not said one way or the other. again, why anyone would assume that we just played an entire series about saving the galaxy only to actually kill everyone at the at the very end is beyond me. it is also beyond ridiculous.

even if it wasnt outright said that this time was different, it is something that is explainable with even the most miniscule amount of thought and common sense. unless someone wants to assume worst case scenario about every little thing. in which case i question how they can enjoy any story.

if someone chooses to see it that way then by all means go ahead. but dont assume something so absurd as an attempt to find more "wrong" with the ending. im not saying thats what you are doing, but that thought is just... wow. i cant even find a proper word to describe it so i will just say absurd again.

again.... really? people actually legitimately thought that?


The retcon we're referring to was the fact that in the original ending, the relays are shown blowing up, while in the EC, they were not. Do you think the developers did that for kicks?

Also, it's called the law of conservation of detail. If people are explicitly shown that X results from Y, then they will assume, upon seeing Y a second time, X will also happen. Otherwise the audience needs to be shown that what appears to Y is in fact, Z. The original ending failed spectacularly in that area.
---
There's no box! There never was!
#19SageOfLifePosted 6/14/2013 6:07:15 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#20DEV1ANTGAMERPosted 6/14/2013 7:07:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_RGX1ujGUU

A NON-INDOCTRINATION THEORY video on why Destroy is still the only right choice.