Okay I'll come back to address one more thing
>>25085961Good guys do NOT always find ways to save everyone, and it isn't edgy to think that. Hell, if saving everyone was the only way to go, Lysandre would've been saved at the end of XY, he's a sympathetic villain who once did a lot of good and was close friends with Sycamore, there was a chance there. Is XY edgy for killing him offscreen (supposedly at least, I fully expect him to come back if there's a sequel to XY, probably with him rebuilt as a cyborg from offscreen injuries)?
You don't throw your hands up and say "we either save EVERYONE or all of us die, no middle ground!" That's the idealogy of a lunatic extremist. You try to save everyone and if you can't you go with the next best plan. You don't actively thwart anyone trying their own thing just because it has more collateral damage than yours; if people have to die to save you and your entire planet, then that's simply the way it is.
If Zinnia told them to postpone their plan until Rayquaza was summoned, then that would have been a different scenario. Hell, she could have come up front and said "wait, I know a better way" and she probably would've gotten less resistance and more support than she did beating everyone up and refusing to spill the beans about her plan until AFTER she fucked up the only other chance of the world not being destroyed.
It's childish to assume saving everyone is the ONLY option, and it isn't edgy for me to say that. There have even been other Pokémon games with sacrifices, PMD2 has you cast away the future world to nonexistence to save the present (until a bonus story in Sky reveals the future world survived because reasons; you didn't know that though). Is PMD edgy for this reason, because it made you choose (in-character, not a game choice) to throw away one world to save another? Do you call any game series where not everyone makes it and the heroes have to sacrifice something "edgy?"
