873 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Mr Indivisible wrote...

Two things I find amusing about the pro-ending crowd:

1. They don't want us to have additional endings, at worst more variety to the endings (and at best, a whole new chapter!) means more re-playability, and potentially extra content.

2. They defend artistic integrity in a medium that is purely interactive, TV is not, Paintings are not, Books are not. Games are a fully interactive experience, start to finish, and as such involve the end user (note its called user) in its world and creative process. Why shouldn't we have input? (Even non-interactive mediums have input from the public, seriously here guys)

I won't say anything about the second point, but in the first point, it's that the endings as is?  Are fine.  I'd prefer to see more CONTEXT.  To see an explaination for what takes place.  I mean, the idea of the Catalyst would likely be far more palatable if there was more background information.

But there's no reason to completely rewrite the ending.

Does it not bother you the Godchild uses circular logic, contradicts himself and in one instance, blatantly lies to you? The Synthesis ending supports a notion not of unity, which was an underlining message of Mass Effect 3 in its own subtle manner, but one of prejudice. It gives the impression synthetics are the pinnacle of organic evolution, a statement Sovereign states in Mass Effect. Therefore, we are indirectly agreeing with the Reapers. Furthermore, the idea has racist tendencies as synthetic are perceived superior. Organics need synthetics to survive but the reverse is not true.



I also fancy how the OP is only defending the Synthesis ending and himself using contradictory logic and now making a bold claim that the Retake Mass Effect movement has been dealt a major blow, citing Ray's response as evidence. You (OP) make a statement that further clarity of the Synthesis ending is forthcoming when Ray never made such a claim. For someone in defense of artist integrity, you also are again defending only one ending and ignoring the remainder. This constitutes a deflection, if not outright deception, because you are defending your preferred ending but attaching it to a more popular topic.

Lastly, I have witnessed more hostility here from your said, demanding we accept the Retake movement is over, that we are a vocal minority and so forth. If members Retake are harassing you than report them both to BioWare and the movement itself. We have largely remained civil, a statement Jessica has acknowledged. Thus, I ask you not to lump all members of Retake as antagonistic, when this is clearly not the case.

I understand my post could be perceived as an "attack." Such an assumption would be incorrect as I am standing your argument, the stance you have chosen and my personal perception of it, as illustrated above. Your opinion on the endings and artistic integrity is yours alone, just as mine is mine own.

[CavScout]

111987 wrote...

Joush wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Why cant organics and synthetics co-exist? Shep proves they can

The fact that for out of the 300 years the Geth have been in existence, they've been at odds against organics, disproves your assertion. A week of cooperation diesn't guarantee anything in the long term.

The Geth stopped fighting the Quarians when the Quarians left orbit and stayed in their own small area of space. So they had a few decades of war followed by 250+ years of peaceful coexsistance, followed by attacking organics only under the control of Reapers. EDI never, when allowed to act as a free willed being, made an attempt to oppose all organic life. 

The Geth butchered anyone that came near their territory, even those that came in peace. The 'true' Geth also didn't feel the need to warn the galaxy about the Reapers in ME1, or even if they didn't want to cooperate with organics, they still let the rest of the Geth proceed unchallenged.

The Heretic Geth were also never under the control of the Reapers; they chose to side with Sovereign.

Actual in-game facts are impervious to this crowd.

[Cloaking_Thane]

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Why cant organics and synthetics co-exist? Shep proves they can

The fact that for out of the 300 years the Geth have been in existence, they've been at odds against organics, disproves your assertion. A week of cooperation diesn't guarantee anything in the long term.

Clearly we played far different games. I dont even know where to address it but lets start here

The quarians started the war, and once legion uploaded the complete consensus all was well

For like a week, when both of their existences were threatened. They even said they would try to be seperated because they realize the threat of conflict between the two was a real concern.

Who knows how long their cooepration would have lasted? It could have been permanently; it could have been a few months of years after the war.

Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

[Ions]

By creative risk, do you mean when Joker, Tali and Garrus(the latter two differing for players) betrayed themselves and the entire game up to then by fleeing through a Relay?
You forgot to add that to your OP.

[Mahrac]

CavScout wrote...

pomrink wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The argument is valid. You're saying folks should buy something they don't like. Except you won't hold your self/side to the same "rule". At best you pandering with crappy logic at worst just a hard-on hypocrite.

If "don't buy it if you don't like it" is valid for the DLC it's valid for the game as well. Hell, the game had "much fanfair" too. Yet here you are, with it purchased, crying to high-heaven about how much you dislike it.

Where did I say folks should buy something they didn't like? I'm missing that somewhere, where I even implied that. Infact, I would not have purchased the game had I read the leaks. You're just resorting to ad hominems.

I should have elborated much fanfair, I meant it will likely be known what the new endings will be before they are purchased.

It is not valid for the game because many of us pre-ordered the game. At that point, the game was purchased before we knew what problems it had. Many people will no longer pre-order games. Please, do not insult anyone.

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

So I shouldn't have bought something that was promsed to have '16 distinct endings' because I should have known that there were three to six, depending on deffinition, and that they were all similar-to-identical? what?

[Spectre Hal Jordan]

I'm probably just being cynical, but I'm starting to think that some of the pro ending proponents are trolls orBioware/EA plants. For the people who truly enjoy the ending, lucky you. I personally felt betrayed that everything I did was for nothing. If Shepard had set off the Crucible with his dying breath and took out the Reapers, I would have been fine. It would have hurt to see him die, but at least he would go out like a hero instead of meekly accepting the star child's bs logic. At least in my game, the geth were helping the quarians re-acclimate to Rannoch, and Joker was dating EDI. Don't tell me that all synthetics will kill all organics.

I would have rather watched cut scenes of my crew going down fighting instead of getting beamed up to the Normandy so they could run away from the battle for the fate of the galaxy. I feel like the characters I came to love became cowards when it mattered most. To me it was a betrayal of everything they had accomplished up to that moment and the people who sacrificed their lives to get them there (Ashley/Kaiden, Mordin/Padock, possibly Wrex & Bakara, Thane/Kirrahe, Legion).

I refute the claim that all we want is a "happy ending" I want an ending that doesn't commit character assassination of Shepard and the Normandy. If you feel that the original ending honors them, then I'm happy for you. I for one will continue to hold the line until my concerns are addressed by more than corporate double speak, and attempts to marginalize the "Retake" movement as a fanatical minority.

Modifié par Spectre Hal Jordan, 22 mars 2012 - 01:35 .

[MongoNYC]

This smells of a PR "toe in water" distraction tactic that agthunter mentioned in his posts. HOLD THE LINE.

Modifié par MongoNYC, 22 mars 2012 - 01:34 .

[ashdrake1]

Machazareel wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose. 

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

Not true.  There are a good number of people that discuss plot holes and dues ex devices.  That's nice and all, but look at the poll for people that want a good old fashioned happy ending.  Look at the we can't get the ending we want thread.  The largest user created thread on the forums.  It is primarly dedicated to a happy ending.

[JasonC Shepard]

ashdrake1 wrote...

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again you are presuming that artists who promote their art are somehow degrading it. The premise is false.

But isn't there enough promotion with the Mass Effect 3 ads and with the actual game?  My view on promotion is, if you can't win someone over with the experience you've already provided then there is no reason to further promote it.  Pushing a consumer to buy more of your work isn't right from my stand point.  They either enjoy it and will buy more, or not.

It being art or not is related to how much promotion or advertising went on. The notion that promoting your work is bad is just weird.

No, promoting isn't bad.  My point is that they've put enough promotion into this game where once the player finally sits down and beats the game, they should be able to make their own decision.  Adding more promotion after that is unnecessary and seems wrong.  Thats pushing the player.

How are there not choices?  There are three of them, even if you did not like them.  Shepard has always had to make the tough choices.

I think you quoted the wrong person.

[KTheAlchemist]

CavScout wrote...

pomrink wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The argument is valid. You're saying folks should buy something they don't like. Except you won't hold your self/side to the same "rule". At best you pandering with crappy logic at worst just a hard-on hypocrite.

If "don't buy it if you don't like it" is valid for the DLC it's valid for the game as well. Hell, the game had "much fanfair" too. Yet here you are, with it purchased, crying to high-heaven about how much you dislike it.

Where did I say folks should buy something they didn't like? I'm missing that somewhere, where I even implied that. Infact, I would not have purchased the game had I read the leaks. You're just resorting to ad hominems.

I should have elborated much fanfair, I meant it will likely be known what the new endings will be before they are purchased.

It is not valid for the game because many of us pre-ordered the game. At that point, the game was purchased before we knew what problems it had. Many people will no longer pre-order games. Please, do not insult anyone.

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

Funny, again, that you mention that. Because one of the reasons we bought it and are now disappointed is that Bioware lied to us about the nature of the ending structure.

Were we supposed to psychically divine that this was the case?

[CMD-Shep]

one simple phrase...
Synthetics (reapers) were created to cull advanced organic races every 50,000 years in order to stop said advanced organics from being killed by synthetics.

Brilliant!

[fafnir magnus]

Given: The Mass Effect game is art

Assumption: based on feedback, the bioware stance has long been that fans are as much a part of the creative process as the developers, it is a relationship among equals, I will direct you to google to find relevant quotes.

Extrapolation: If it is a relationship among equals, and many of the fans demonstrate dissatisfaction with the ending that may or may nor be mirrored among the developers and some of the writers, then it is fair to assume that the product is not in keeping with the wishers of the artists, which in this case by bioware employee's own admission the group of people considered the artists behind the mass effect production includes the fans.

Conclusion: Thus by the preceding series of rationalizations I am a part of the team that had a hand in the development of mass effect three, and my input is crucial to story development. The ending fails to reflect this, as there is little to no genuine impact from the decisions made on previous games and throughout the campaign. Those that argue earth's state at the end of the crucible event is the whole point, I would insist this is an unnecessary devolution from the galactic-wide political power we wielded in saving/damning the council, and picking a human councillor in mass effect 1, as well as whether or not to deliver extremely advanced reaper tech into the hands of cerberus. These were decisions that would not inherently mitigate decisions made earlier in the game. The ME3 ending, on the other hand, has the destroy option which completely negates the quarian/geth conflict. The Synthesis option is mass brain washing. The control option is pointless, as you would just send the reapers back to dark space. The cycle is not doomed to repeat itself in time, as demonstrated by the geth-quarian peace accord.

Now that we've moved beyond that let me get to my nitty gritty about why the final level of Mass Effect 3 sucked. The game takes a hard left on the creative encounters that usually define Mass Effect and instead decides that endless waves of enemies with no real mechanic changes makes for a difficult game. Yes, woopdy do, you throw three banshees at me at once. I'm so impressed. No ravagers, one harvester, a few marauders, and banshees. It screams of non-creative level design where the developers sat down and went "man, we've got to get this out soon because EA needs higher quarterly numbers, let's just stack the enemies." In fact, that would be an unsurprising thought process for a highly pressured developer pushed by its corporate leash holder into doing a release before the game was truly ready for prime-time. This is the ultimate point that undermines your artistic integrity argument. You cannot serve two masters, an artist stays true to the art, a business stays true to the numbers. Bioware acted as a business and treated Mass Effect 3 as a commodity. If Bioware could honestly come out and say "we spent as much time on this as we wanted to, and this is something we're happy with, especially as a culmination of this multi-year long series" then I'd be fine with it. All I've seen out of bioware releases are PR scanned declarations that the endings are "working as intended" and that "clarification will come soon". I'm sorry, but direct quotes from Bioware employees prior to release undermine the idea that things came out as intended.

My big example are the rachni. The Rachni are alleged to be a very important part of the final battle, with the lead writer at bioware even insisting they will have an impact throughout the game. At no point do Rachni ships join the final fight, and I see no rachni foot soldiers going toe-to-toe with the reapers. In fact, I see very little out of any of my war assets in that fight beyond the destiny ascensions joining in with the flood of tediously overdone ship models. I even have to see a concentration of the entire galactic might fail to take down ONE destroyer class reaper?

In conclusion, the game in and of itself was good until the end, and the end failed to deliver on the promises made throughout the campaign. Even the "closure" portion of the game where you talk to all your companions takes place in an instanced area safe from harm except for a random turret plopped down to keep you from realizing how much nothing was going on there. I'm not just disappointed in the ending, the entire final level was an exercise in how to completely miss the point of the mass effect series. The best conversations in mass effect 1 and 2 were those that were supplemented with some subtext of active conflict, where the story and the gameplay meshed together. In this one you have a clearly defined wall between gameplay moments, and story moments, and that is so tragically not what the entire series has been about.

Modifié par fafnir magnus, 22 mars 2012 - 01:35 .

[pomrink]

CavScout wrote...

pomrink wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The argument is valid. You're saying folks should buy something they don't like. Except you won't hold your self/side to the same "rule". At best you pandering with crappy logic at worst just a hard-on hypocrite.

If "don't buy it if you don't like it" is valid for the DLC it's valid for the game as well. Hell, the game had "much fanfair" too. Yet here you are, with it purchased, crying to high-heaven about how much you dislike it.

Where did I say folks should buy something they didn't like? I'm missing that somewhere, where I even implied that. Infact, I would not have purchased the game had I read the leaks. You're just resorting to ad hominems.

I should have elborated much fanfair, I meant it will likely be known what the new endings will be before they are purchased.

It is not valid for the game because many of us pre-ordered the game. At that point, the game was purchased before we knew what problems it had. Many people will no longer pre-order games. Please, do not insult anyone.

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

You just repeated me saying I shouldn't have bought ME. How is that related?

Now that I have purchased it, I am unsatisfied and want my problem fixed.

I never said people should buy things they don't like. WHERE DID I ADVOCATE PEOPLE PURCHASING THINGS THEY DISLIKE?

[ashdrake1]

Yup

[111987]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Why cant organics and synthetics co-exist? Shep proves they can

The fact that for out of the 300 years the Geth have been in existence, they've been at odds against organics, disproves your assertion. A week of cooperation diesn't guarantee anything in the long term.

Clearly we played far different games. I dont even know where to address it but lets start here

The quarians started the war, and once legion uploaded the complete consensus all was well

For like a week, when both of their existences were threatened. They even said they would try to be seperated because they realize the threat of conflict between the two was a real concern.

Who knows how long their cooepration would have lasted? It could have been permanently; it could have been a few months of years after the war.

Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

Legion would say you were a racist for calling EDI basically a human.

But of course it's a pessimistic viewpoint; I'm arguing from the perspective of the Reapers, as is the Star Child. You can be logical, make sense, and even have evidence to back you up, but that doesn't make you right (I for example do NOT believe the Reapers are right).

[CavScout]

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again you are presuming that artists who promote their art are somehow degrading it. The premise is false.

But isn't there enough promotion with the Mass Effect 3 ads and with the actual game?  My view on promotion is, if you can't win someone over with the experience you've already provided then there is no reason to further promote it.  Pushing a consumer to buy more of your work isn't right from my stand point.  They either enjoy it and will buy more, or not.

It being art or not is related to how much promotion or advertising went on. The notion that promoting your work is bad is just weird.

No, promoting isn't bad.  My point is that they've put enough promotion into this game where once the player finally sits down and beats the game, they should be able to make their own decision.  Adding more promotion after that is unnecessary and seems wrong.  Thats pushing the player.

Not liking the promotion, which is certainly your right, doesn't degrade the art itself.

[StartOrange]

In any other case, I would agree with OP 100%.

The reason I don't is that Bioware went out of its way to brag about the games epic conclusion, 16 totally different endings, that it wouldn't be a A, B, C ending etc etc.

And if you promise something to me that makes me buy your product, then you damn well better keep it. Like I said before: if what Bioware did isn't lying, what is?

THAT is why I complain and express my displeasure. If Bioware hadn't said anything about the ending, made no such promises etc etc, then I would shut up and be happy with what I got.

Ignorance suits you well OP.

[Shallyah]

MintyCool wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

Welcome to the 2%. Good luck with your topic.

A poll created by a vocal angry minority. Do you really feel this random forum poll actually has any real significance what-so-ever?  Or is it simply a prop to make you feel better about your disappointment with the story?

Insignificant poll is insignificant.

If the 98% of poll voters are a vocal minority, what does that make your 2%? 


On the real topic, no artistic integrity is being vioalted here because Mr Muzyka has already stated that the artistic integrity of Bioware's storywriters will not be violated by creating additional and/or alternative content. But let's sum up some points to coutner this pro-ender argument.

First, there are currently 16 possible endings to Mass Effect of which you selected one. You have no issue with 15 more existing, nor should you have issue with whatever additional endings are added, if any. You keep your ending, and caring about what others get is childish and selfish.

Second, all through history great authors of media that is universally considered as art (unlike videogames) have adapted their work to their audience. There are numerous precedents from centuries past, all the way back to bards, one of the prime and most ancient forms of artist, sang songs and played instruments adapted and molded to the delight of their current audience, to appease the majority of them. They changed their rythms and verses depending on which town or even which part of the town they were performing at.

Third, a good number of artists can allow their target audience to sample their work in the creation process. This is not possible inthe videogame industry. A game is top-secret until the day it sees the light officially. The creators have no way to know if the audience will  really love their product as much as they have envisioned, so it is great news to everyone that the developpers actually listen to their loyal and passionate fans, if nothing else to mold future products to their target audience.

Fourth, videogames isn't a passive form of art, like about every other. Music, paintings and even cinema are passive forms of art. One artist creates something and displays it for a passive viewer. The viewer either likes it or not. The only diferenciating factor between good art and bad art is that good art is liked by more people than bad art. Hipsters aside, that is the real scaling factor. However, videogames are interactive art. The audience is given full level of involvement with the piece of art, and becomes part of it, there is a personal and emotional investment that does not exist in passive forms of art. It is only logical that the audience's opinion matters. The key words being "interactive" and "investment".

Fifth, this is good for consumers, and already has precedents in the gaming industry, especially in the modern industry in which "fixing" a game is as easy as sending out a new patch. Many people have been educated in the presumption that things are as they are, and either you like them or you don't. You can't change anything because you don't matter. Those values are archaic and settled down by people who are in control and afraid that change. Once upon a time in some cultures people thought that they had to sacrifice their firstborn child to the gods, to thwart their wrath, and nobody dared to question those ways because they were stablished. Until someone questioned them and children stopped being sacrificed in vain. But since we are in a Mass Effect forum section, I will offer a more fitting example. Did Shepard just lie down and accept that the Reaper's cycle is something stablished, that it is as it is, unchangeable, and there is nothing that can be done about it, because it has been happening for pretty much as long as the universe has existed? If he had, none of us would have played Mass Effect to start with.


Bottom line is: Bioware is not only retaining their artistic integrity and respect, but showing that they are ready to deliver their fans and followers that which they desire, within reason. That is awesome news, and I definitely will buying anything that Bioware can produce, because they are not only the best company at RPG-making - they are also the one that truly cares about those who love and support their products.

Modifié par Shallyah, 22 mars 2012 - 01:39 .

[Machazareel]

ashdrake1 wrote...

Machazareel wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose. 

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

Not true.  There are a good number of people that discuss plot holes and dues ex devices.  That's nice and all, but look at the poll for people that want a good old fashioned happy ending.  Look at the we can't get the ending we want thread.  The largest user created thread on the forums.  It is primarly dedicated to a happy ending.

No, it's primarily dedicated to an ending that makes sense and isn't contrary to pre-release statments of the developers.

[pomrink]

ashdrake1 wrote...

Machazareel wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose. 

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

Not true.  There are a good number of people that discuss plot holes and dues ex devices.  That's nice and all, but look at the poll for people that want a good old fashioned happy ending.  Look at the we can't get the ending we want thread.  The largest user created thread on the forums.  It is primarly dedicated to a happy ending.

An honest question, can't something be happy and "deep" at the same time?

[CavScout]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Does it not bother you the Godchild uses circular logic, contradicts himself and in one instance, blatantly lies to you?

You willing to lay these out?

[Fox544]

Don't feed the trolls people.

[Geneaux486]

StartOrange wrote...


Ignorance suits you well OP.

I can see disagreeing with the OP, but to look at the sheer amount of information and sources included in the initial post and call him ignorant when he's clearly done his homework is asinine.

[W1BBY]

MintyCool wrote...


We defend creative risk and artistic integrity in all mediums of art.

Fine. Have it you way. Be warned, this may get a little crude.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a human rapes and kills another human and calls it art. He/she claims that it was a dance executed by the his/her own body and the victim's body. The person then says that no one has any right to critique or condemn what he/she has done because it must be appreciated as art. Are you going to defend him/her?

[CavScout]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

Hell, Legion tries to kill Shepard if he doesn't support Legion.