Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Mar 2012 23:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 511612
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-01
If you destroy the mass relays at the end, and the destruction of a mass relay causes an explosion big enough to destroy solar systems (like the one in Arrival). Then doesn't it mean that at the end Shepard essentially destroyed the entire galaxy and killed everyone in it? Shepard is essentially the single biggest mass murderer in the history of the galaxy. "
It is rather amazing that people can't see the difference between sending an asteroid on a mass relay and shutting down the mass relay system. If I were to make a comparison it would be like sending a big rock on a nuclear power plant as opposed to just turning it off from the main control room, the first one is going to trigger a nuclear explosion, while the second one does not (or we would know about it...). In this case that is exactly what has happened, in ME2: Arrival Shepard sends a big rock on a mass relay, and we get a big explosion, while in ME3 Shepard just turn off the system (as a consequence of controlling or destroying the reapers).
So yes, if anything what the ending lack is explanation, it is more a realisation problem than a scenario.