561 réponses à ce sujet

[KingNothing125]

CavScout wrote...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, well, that doesn't stop us from mocking people who believe in Bigfoot.

[nomoredruggs]

It's quite possible that this is a bug.

And it seems it would be quite difficult to recreate the same result, if you get random people exiting the Normandy, even if you use the same save.

[Clayless]

nomoredruggs wrote...

It's quite possible that this is a bug.

And it seems it would be quite difficult to recreate the same result, if you get random people exiting the Normandy, even if you use the same save.

There's no point in theorising on whether or not it's a bug as there's no proof that it even exists.

[nomoredruggs]

Elyiia wrote...

Shallyah wrote...

EDI survives the same way as the data on the hard drive of any computer in the Galaxy. It's not like the Red explossion formats all the data across the Universe, it only destroys synthetic lifeforms. EDI is software. If anything, Destroy would disable Eva's body which EDI is using. Doesn't stop anyone from creating another body for her afterwards, even possibly a replica, if that's what she wished.

It's an ephimeral survival anyway. In all endings EDI will end up dying when the stranded Normandy runs out of power. So those who like to feel better about choosing Control because it would save EDI - too bad.

EDI's mobile platform and her "base" platform would have been destroyed. With nowhere to go, EDI would have died.

The geth are software too, and they get destroyed, according to the catalyst. AI equals synthetic life in this case.

[durasteel]

It doesn't matter.

No, seriously, it really doesn't matter whether EDI steps off of the Normandy in the cut scene. None of it matters. The ending as it currently exists is a sloppy, cobbled-together-at-the-last-minute halfassed mess, and even if EDI danced off of the ship wearing a tutu and playing the trombone you can't say with certainty that it isn't a bug or a hallucination or just a screw-up.

When the new ending is released, we'll probably know what happens to all of our crew. Until then, it is all just lots of speculation.

Make no mistake: we're getting a new ending. Even if foolish pride makes BioWare retain some of the crap bits of the current fiasco, there is no way to "explain" this mess without fundamentally changing it, for the simple reason that the missing details were never previously written. When BioWare says "Oh, we didn't know there was demand for closure!" they're being dishonest. They didn't leave plot holes, contradictions, and vague nonsense in the ending because they thought it was clever, they did it because there wasn't enough time left to do it right when Mac Walters finally addressed the ending.

[Iriguss]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Iriguss wrote...

-Poem style writing snip-

No, as lack of proof of her surviving is not proof of her surviving.

She dies, this is 100% certain. If you disagree, prove it, don't tell me to prove your claim. You know the proof I'll present (tons of videos) and if you don't think it's enough then prove me wrong.

Yeah I'll admit that copied over weird... wasn't suposed to but thats copy and paste for you. (hoping it doesn't happen this time around)

And there you go with that statement again; your making a claim that its 100% certain, I am not. I'm not the one that needs to prove anything because...

A : I'm still not really on one side or the other as neither side has proof
B: You can't say its certain prior to proving it certain, which as of yet you have not. (Lack of survial videos is not proof of your statement please stop pretending it is)
C: as a follow up I am not asking you to prove my point as it isn't mine, if you could let that sink in. I'm asking for your 100% proof that IS NOT a video. (ie the code or variables) If you can't provide this then nothing you say is less suspect than the hersay the other side is providing.
D: Again if it were a bug, then chances are it can't be replicated because no one knows how to get it to work; in which case it'd be hard to replicated to be captured (hell my only camera only shoots in 1 min segments so I can't even try validating it one way or the other)

All I'm trying to get at here is you're saying
"This is wrong!"
They reply " No its not!"
You come back with "Yes it is, its 100% certain without a shadow of a doubt!"
I ask "well where's the proof of that?"
You keep coming back with "They can't provide evidence so it MUST be wrong!"

Do you see where the logical breakdown happens? I'm basically asking you to provide proof at this point, and all you're doing is going into an endless loop of "I don't have to prove anything as there are no videos of her surviving" which even as you previously stated isn't valid proof of your point. It's an assumption not a fact. I've told you what evidence you could provide to prove you're right, and you keep shrugging it off. I don't need to provide evidence she dies with 100% certainty, because I'm not making that claim YOU are.


Again stop asking me to prove edi lives Im just trying to get you to prove she dies in every instance with 100% results. Please provide the code that she dies and you can shut everyone up as you would proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you're right.  I'm asking you to verify and provide the evidence that you would NEED to make the claim

Our_Last_Scene wrote...
She dies, this is 100% certain

That's not asking for proof of her living that's asking for proof that proves your statement is accurate. That's not unfair at all. If you want to debate and you come with a 100% certain statement be able to prove it. That's all I'm asking for at this point.

Its basically like going "Bears aren't humans 100% certain" "How so?" "Well, here is their bone structure, general size difference, ...."  I'm asking how you can prove bears aren't human and you're responding with "Well, no one has provided evidence they are so they must not be. Here look at these videos of bears see they look different!"

tl; dr   Something about bears... honestly, I'm losing track considering I'm basically asking for something you should have provided when making a statement of fact.

[Elyiia]

You can't prove she doesn't come out from destroy. You can prove she does, if she does. No one has provided evidence of her appearing.

Even with the odds stacked in favour of her appearing, it doesn't seem to happen.

[Iriguss]

Elyiia wrote...

You can't prove she doesn't come out from destroy. You can prove she does, if she does. No one has provided evidence of her appearing.

Even with the odds stacked in favour of her appearing, it doesn't seem to happen.

Sorry to say, but yes, yes you can prove that. Its called the code. There are variables in there that would give a "no apperance" in that instance. I'm asking for the proof in the code which is possible to do. There would be 1 switch to control that, just 1. Provide that switch and you've proven your point.

That's what Im asking for; provide what switch makes that call and prove its set to the off postition in the destory ending, otherwise your basing your assertions on an asumption. I'm trying to strengthen your argument work with me folks.

Until then, it can very easily be explained as a bug that can't be explained. Because again, ME3 was great but it had a lot of bugs so it is entirely plausible as much as you folks refuse to admit it.

[Clayless]

Of course, you're missing the point, the proof I have is (something I'm assuming you've already seen, just look at any destroy video on Youtube, if you really want me to prove my claim I will just link you the tons and tons of videos).

Now what you're saying is "I don't think that's enough proof, I think you're using incomplete evidence to come to a conclusion, I say there isn't 100% certainty that she dies she might survive." I'm saying "Prove it".

I am 100% certain she dies. I am getting this information out there, because she dies 100% of the time. If you disagree, prove it. There's no point asking me to prove your claim, I already have all the evidence I need to know and tell everyone that she dies 100% of the time. It is a fact, EDI dies in the destroy ending 100% of the time. The fact that it's the "destroy all synthetic life" ending and there being no evidence of her, a synthetic, surviving the ending like some people claimed, is enough evidence to make me 100% certain. The claim I'm making is intentionally (bold?, understated? what do you call a claim where a synthetic dies in the destroy all synthetics ending?) and it's supposed to cause people to come in here and get the truth out. The truth is she dies though, and this thread is here to show that, as there's a lot of misinformation out there that she can walk out the Normandy when she can't.

Now, if you disagree, and I can't stress this enough, it's up to you to prove your claim as lack of evidence of her surviving is not evidence of her survivng. If you think she might, if you think you need a piece of code to be 100% certain, if you think I'm giving out misinformation, then prove me wrong. Don't sit and expect me to do it, because I wont. I will continue to say EDI dies in the destroy all synthetic life ending, with 100% certainty, and I will continue to ask for proof from the ones that claim otherwise. If you can prove me wrong I will update the OP, change the thread title, admit I was wrong and give you full credit. But I'm not wrong,

EDI doesn't survive the destroy ending.

[Iriguss]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Now what you're saying is "I don't think that's enough proof, I think you're using incomplete evidence to come to a conclusion, I say there isn't 100% certainty that she dies she might survive." I'm saying "Prove it".

EDI doesn't survive the destroy ending.

Where have I once said that? Let me go over my position AGAIN as you seemed to have missed it

fact: I don't disagree or am I trying to prove a point
fact: I'm not asserting she lives or dies. Stop pretending I am.
fact: You made an absolute STATEMENT and I'm asking for you to validate it. As all STATEMENTS can be validated.

Not a fact as no evidence exists : Edi survives
Not a fact as no code has proven it true : Edi dies with 100% results

"Wrex is a Krogan." is a statement of fact that when asked to be proven you'd simply show Wrex is indeed a Krogan.
fact: I'm asking for you to provide the code, as yes, it is the ONLY thing that will prove your STATEMENT.

If you're not willing to prove your STATEMENT don't make it. As then I would challange you to prove the invisible tea cup floating around the earth keeping aliens at bay is wrong. We've never been attacked aliens after all so I must be true. 

So, basically prove you're right so I can side with you or just keep spouting hot air to make you feel better about not having real proof of your STATEMENT. I'm done here until you provide the concrete evidence you're right.

(or figure out how this can't happen as a glitch.... still haven't touched on how that may be the case. As many glitches can't really be duplicated because they break the rules and therefore my not happen enough to capture it.)

[ohnotherancor]

Yeah, I was always skeptical of the claims that EDI lived in the destroy ending.

My first runthrough was a femShep who romanced Garrus. I took Garrus on every mission once he joined the crew and EDI tagged along until Tali showed up. Tali and Garrus accompanied Shepard on Priority: Earth.

Initially, I chose control and Garrus and EDI stepped out of the Normandy. I changed my mind, went back, and chose destroy instead, resulting in Garrus and Vega stepping out. Not sure why the game considered Vega Shepard's second best friend seeing as how I never took him anywhere, but that's not the point of this thread.

I'm fairly certain that EDI is not supposed to survive the destroy ending and the people that have seen her do so are experiencing a glitch. Though it'd be nice to see a video of EDI surviving destroy, glitch or no.

[Clayless]

Iriguss wrote...

I'm done here

That's fine. You never made any claims in the first place apart from the evidence never met your standards.

Met mine though, and if you don't want to add or take away from it I guess your statement of being done here is perfect.

[sAxMoNkI]

Our_Last_Scene, all you can conclusively say is that you are 100% certain that EDI was destroyed *during your gameplay experiences*. If it was physically impossible for EDI to walk off the Normandy in the Destroy ending then why would people make claims to the contrary?

Correct scientific process would say that something is 100% certain only when there is irrefutable proof of the hypothesis.

In this case due to the pooled experiences we have here we can say that it is highly likely that EDI is in fact destroyed, but it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that it is so. The only two ways this could be confirmed is either by;
A) The publishing of a repeatable and consistent method that anyone can follow to show EDI departing the Normandy in the Destroy ending
An analysis of the game code to determine whether it is in fact possible for any scenario to occur that would allow EDI to walk off the Normandy undestroyed.

TL;DR - Although your hypothesis seems most likely your claim that it is 100% certain is erroneous. Take Gravity, there is a proposed method for the mechanism of its action which is generally accepted as it fits current observations. It is highly likely this theory is correct, HOWEVER by the same token there is a slim possibility it could be untrue and if irrefutable evidence was found to disprove the current theory it would be abandoned.

Without absolute proof of a hypothesis you cannot talk in absolutes.

[TJX2045]

I wish a mod would assume direct control of this thread and lock it.

This argument and "proof" is going nowhere. The people who saw Edi live and walk out saw what they saw. It may be a bug, it may not. No matter how blind you want to be, the ending in its current state is too speculative to have "proof." Her death is not 100% certain because we do not see her lifeless android body. For all we know she could've been crippled. Who knows. I think the point is most people do not care to prove to you what they saw when they know the truth for themselves.

If you want someone to prove that EDI is dead, how about you call up Bioware and ask them directly? Call up Casey Hudson or one of the writers.

You're just trolling. Either you know you are or you are a troll in denial. You've dismissed more claims than the Turian councilor and in the most conceited and arrogant attitude I've seen.

If you're so sure that you have proof that she doesn't live, then clearly you don't need proof that she does, because you've got proof that it can't be so. You've answered your own question. Let it go and everyone else who saw EDI come out will have the proof to themselves.

Pointless thread is pointless.

[Clayless]

TJX2045 wrote...

I wish a mod would assume direct control of this thread and lock it.

This argument and "proof" is going nowhere. The people who saw Edi live and walk out saw what they saw. It may be a bug, it may not. No matter how blind you want to be, the ending in its current state is too speculative to have "proof." Her death is not 100% certain because we do not see her lifeless android body. For all we know she could've been crippled. Who knows. I think the point is most people do not care to prove to you what they saw when they know the truth for themselves.

If you want someone to prove that EDI is dead, how about you call up Bioware and ask them directly? Call up Casey Hudson or one of the writers.

You're just trolling. Either you know you are or you are a troll in denial. You've dismissed more claims than the Turian councilor and in the most conceited and arrogant attitude I've seen.

If you're so sure that you have proof that she doesn't live, then clearly you don't need proof that she does, because you've got proof that it can't be so. You've answered your own question. Let it go and everyone else who saw EDI come out will have the proof to themselves.

Pointless thread is pointless.

Actually I'd consider this quite important, in fact the claim that EDI survived the destroy ending is quite groundbreaking.

All I want is proof, and I'm actually quite perplexed that no one really asked for some beforehand. Though fortunately it seems from this thread that I'm not the only one, there are a lot of others that want proof too, which is absolutely fantastic.

Instead of trying to discredit me through speech people should discredit me through action. Don't try saying what you'd accept as proof and why you disagree with me, instead show proof of her survivng in the first place. Instead of speculating that she might've, or saying "Maybe it's a bug" people should show this bug first. There's a reason why this thread isn't for speculation, or why I've not been discussing whether or not it's a bug, because there's no proof of it in the first place.

Once there's proof I'll update the OP to show it, and then you can speculate on whether or not it's a bug, because right now it's quite jarring that people are accepting the claims that EDI survived the destroy ending with no proof and have instead skipped to the "Maybe it's a bug" phase. It's missing out step 1, seeing it first.

[Noblewolf]

pikey1969 wrote...

A fan on the SomethingAwful forums just
posted a relatively casual Q&A with Patrick Weekes. This
'interview' is a recollection of a casual Q&A style conversation he
had with Patrick Weekes. It should be noted that the following content
has healthy deal of paraphrasing from the fan and simply the fan trying
to recall the conversation after he left the convention.

Source.

DISCLOSURE:
PLEASE bear in mind the following tweets from Weekes regarding this
interview before continuing to read the 'interview'.



After that tweet, a few more tweets from him surfaced regarding the interview...

James
isn't there to be dumb. He's often used as a voice for people new to
series. That was one joking aside presented as my response. 

Also
doesn't include second half of my response in re EDI: I WAS nervous,
but I thought Chris Hepler aced her continuing character arc.

And second half of James was that I expected a basic marine and was blown away by what FPJ brought to the character. 

So please take that with a grain of salt.  (This was in response to the original interviewee's apologetic tweet)

Thanks, @sethjdickinson, no harm done. They were great questions. Just didn't want anyone to think I was slamming EDI/James. 


Sooooo, now on to the good stuff, the informal interview is 'quoted' below. 

Okay,
here is what I asked Patrick Weekes, and his answers as best as I can
remember them. I've paraphrased but I'm doing my best to stick to what
he said rather than introduce any interpretation.

THESE ARE NOT DIRECT QUOTES.

-Is there still a setting to explore after the ending? Is everything ruined?

The setting is definitely not ruined. We still have a big, lively galaxy.

-Will
long-distance superluminal travel still be possible post-Ending? (will
Tali or Wrex or Garrus see their homeworlds again? Will everyone
starve?)

Galactic civilization will rebuild. The mass
relays were not necessary for interstellar flight. Remember, what does
it say in the Codex about the speed of ships? That's right, 12
lightyears per (day? hour? minute?). And that's only the cruising speed,
not the maximum speed.

People have never needed to research
basic FTL improvements before because they have mass relays. With the
relays gone, new technology will increase that speed. Additionally, the
element zero cores of the dead/controlled Reapers can be used to improve
FTL drives. Starflight will continue using conventional FTL.

-Why did Joker leave Shep behind?

Joker would never abandon Shep without a good reason. Hopefully this will be clear in the Expanded Cut.

-Why can EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We
argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and
should therefore be destroyed, but (unclear, don't remember - wish I'd
been able to ask a followup as his response doesn't make much sense)

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes.
We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay,
that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died.
The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it
blows up, millions might survive.  You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived. 

-Is it better for Kelly Chambers if we talk her into suicide?

No, see above.

-Who wrote the death of Joker's sister?

I did! We intentionally did not connect the dots. We were very interested to see how fast gamers figured it out.

-Whose idea was it to make the Rayya fall out of the sky if you destroy the Quarian fleet?

Someone in the audio department, it was brilliant.

-Did the mass relays pull an Arrival and go supernova?

No, they didn't. (i'm paraphrasing here, please don't interpret this too hard) They overloaded, they didn't rupture. We
really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed.
People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect. 

(Mr.
Weekes dropped a lot of hints that he really didn't like the ending. He
also said something that was almost 100% verbatim from the Penny Arcade
Forum post often attributed to him)

-Why did Legion pull a 180 from his Mass Effect 2 philosophy?

He
and the Geth were backed into a corner. They'd been made a lot dumber
by the attack on the Dyson swarm. There was no other choice for Geth
survival.

-What was up with the Rachni story? Why did we get railroaded?

Welcome
to game development. In some games (Alpha Protocol) they make a bold
choice where some decisions can knock entire missions out of the story.
At BioWare, we never want people to be locked out of content due to a
decision several games ago. We just didn't have the resources to do an
alternate for the Rachni mission, so we decided that the Rachni mission
could occur whether or not players saved the Queen.

-Why didn't (X squadmate from ME2) return?

There
was a very ugly month of development where we fought out who would
return. We knew we had to have a smaller cast so we could fit in more
squad banter. Eventually we decided to bring Garrus and Tali back, so
they could be squadmates in all three games. We also knew we'd have Vega
in order for new players to have someone dumber than they were.

I
was very resentful of Vega at first because I thought he was taking a
slot that could've gone to a ME2 character, but he grew on me.

-Why did EDI have cameltoe?

We don't get a lot of feedback from the art department but (unclear, wish I remembered this better  )

Lots
of discussion about how he was uncomfortable doing Pinocchio stories
for both Legion and EDI because 'EDI was fine, she was an AI, she was
cool - do we really need her to turn into Commander Data? We had seven
seasons of Data, that was enough.'

-Why did you write Pinocchio stories for all the synthetic characters?

See above

-What was up with the Human Reaper in ME2? Why did it look so dumb?

We
wanted to use the Suicide Mission to show several steps of the Reaper
development process, from human reaper embryo all the way to cuttlefish.
But the mission grew too complicated so it was cut for time.

Do the Reapers really only generate one capital ship per cycle? How do they ever break even?

Well,
we never totally pinned that down. But this cycle was really anomalous.
They don't normally take any capital-size Reaper losses at all.

-What was up with Kai Leng? How do you feel about him?

We
really wanted to have a recurring antagonist for Shep, a 'Darth Maul'
(his words). But I feel like there was some definite conflict between
cutscene and gameplay there, and I think it's something we have to work
on.

'He was a great antagonist in the books' 

-Why did we only get top and bottom dialogue choices, no middle?

Part
of it was resources. Part of it is that Mass Effect 3 is a war story
and it's really hard for Shep to feel middling about the Reapers.

-How did YOU feel about the ending?

(I didn't ask this, but he seems to have gone to GREAT lengths to think ways around a lot of stuff the ending implied.)

Why no female (alien X?)

Resource
limitations. They have a very strict budget for how many different
characters they can use in a given area. Some are basically free - if
you have human males you have Batarians because they're humans with
funny heads, if you have human females you have asari, etc.

Where was Harbinger? Can we ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of him?

I definitely want more closure on Harbinger. That'd be hilarious. Stop punching yourself, Harbinger.

How did the Reapers storm the Citadel? Why didn't they shut down the relays as per their original plan once they had control?

Originally
we planned to have a cutscene of Reapers taking over, Reaper monsters
punching buttons, et cetera. But we cut it, partially for resource
reasons and partly because it disrupted the pacing.

The Reapers
didn't shut down the mass relays because the Keepers interfered with
that. (I wish I could've asked a follow-up here, it doesn't make much
sense.)

Why don't Ken and Gabby have more dialogue?

They
actually have a bunch more on disk, but we somehow introduced a bug
where their dialogue is tied to your approval level with Ash. If Ash has
low approval, or isn't present, most of Ken and Gabby's dialogue won't
play.

Why do you guys do Star Wars style space battles instead of the battles described in the codex?

We
want to provide a familiar, compelling visual experience for people who
grew up on Star Wars and stuff like that. These are some of our
favorite parts of the game.

***

Things I wish I'd asked:

Why the drat Starchild?

What was up with the Stargazer? (He touched on the Stargazer once and pretty much said 'oh, yeah, the Stargazer.'

Again:
NOT DIRECT QUOTES. These are NOT OFFICIAL BIOWARE STATEMENTS. Please
don't gently caress Patrick Weekes over by posting these as 'official
BioWare PR' or whatever. Please feel free to ask me follow-up questions,
as I definitely didn't cover the whole conversation with him.

My
takeaway was: the epilogue DLC is probably going to do a lot of good
and be pretty well written, and Patrick Weekes should've been lead
writer on ME3.  

And
there you have it. Everything in that quote box is the interview
EXACTLY as it was posted on the SomethingAwful forums. Don't forget
about the preceding section's additional Tweets from Weekes regarding
this interview after this thread surfaced on BSN. Weekes,
understandably, wanted to clarify some of the content in that interview
as it was paraphrased from the interviewer's memory (before you send the
fan shared that interview your hate mails, please note that he went
through the trouble to share this information).

Additionally, check out these particular posts from Michale Gamble who dropped by in this thread and shared a couple thoughts.

Michael Gamble wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

Michael Gamble wrote...

Cmon - give us some time with the DLC, and let's try to avoid hatin' on Patrick or Jessica:P

Honestly,
after all the valid and incisive criticism leveled at the Catalyst and
his presence in the ending, why insist on keeping him around? 90% of
what's wrong with the ending can be solved simply by retconning him out
of existence.

Why not just answer this question directly?

Is
your question about whether or not we are going to retcon the catalyst?
The answer is no. We've already said we are not changing the endings,
but again - there are many things that we *can* do without changing
them. 

A lot of folks had questions that we want to answer for
them - but just like any piece of content, we are not going to outline
the specifics before release. 

Michael Gamble wrote...

By
the way, Patrick, John, Reid myself - we were all ready to answer those
kinds of questions in dialogue just like the original OP. It was the
whole reason we came to PAX. In fact, a lot of people may have gotten a
bit *too* much out of me

Either way, we met hundreds of folks -
and we were so happy and pleased that everyone just wanted to talk and
have some great convo.

All of us are feeling pax with a sense of...renewal, and we are ready to work our butts off in the months ahead.

Hope you all enjoy resurgence!

And that's all folks!

Personally, I still won't be fully satisfied with
the RGB options as they exist, as I feel they were too
artificially/arbitrarily weighted by 'moral dilemmas' (they REALLY need
to at least add another option on top of the three or greatly alter
certain aspects of the existing three). However, it looks to me like
most of the people at Bioware are coming around to the fact the endings
were not as quite 'complete' for the fans as shipped (caused by EA being
pricks with deadlines/funding in my personal opinion). It also sounds
like they'll have the full writing team fully dedicated and hard at work
with this project now. On top of some of the revelations from above,
there's a LOT of promising stuff here for the coming Extended Ending
content update.

ps. I Weekes too.

[Clayless]

Already covered earlier in the thread but I'm just going to put it in the OP so people stop claiming Patrick said she can survive:

-Why can EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed, but (X argued that she wasn't fully a Reaper so therefore shouldn't be destroyed. After a lot of debate we finally settled on the fact that she shouldn't be able to survive the destory ending, because ultimately she was an AI and even had Reaper tech in her like the Geth and Reapers).

That is a possible outcome of that conversation. Everything in the game actually points to that being the outcome, as there is no proof that EDI can survive.

Hearsay like that can be misinturpreted, until there is actual evidence of her surviving it's clear that she dies in the destroy ending.

[Clayless]

Updated the OP, added a bunch of videos and the news this is a top result on Google, wayhey.

[Monarchos915]

I'm so glad that this thread exists. I've been arguing for this with friends for a while. No where have I seen proof that EDI actually survives destroy. You'd figure after all this time the game has been out, someone, somewhere would have managed to get a capture of that and upload it to YouTube. I mean the Catalyst says all synthetic life will be destroyed, so the point is to disprove that particular statement, which is the origin of the argument in the first place.

[Elyiia]

You'd think, for so many people who believe that EDI survives someone would be able to prove it...

[PsyrenY]

Monarchos915 wrote...

I'm so glad that this thread exists. I've been arguing for this with friends for a while. No where have I seen proof that EDI actually survives destroy. You'd figure after all this time the game has been out, someone, somewhere would have managed to get a capture of that and upload it to YouTube. I mean the Catalyst says all synthetic life will be destroyed, so the point is to disprove that particular statement, which is the origin of the argument in the first place.

[NM_Che56]

Remember, this assetion hinges on whether or not star child (i.e. the Reaper general) is telling the truth.

[PsyrenY]

Master Che wrote...

Remember, this assetion hinges on whether or not star child (i.e. the Reaper general) is telling the truth.

You mean the guy with no reason at all to lie to you?

[NM_Che56]

Elyiia wrote...

You'd think, for so many people who believe that EDI survives someone would be able to prove it...

There is no proof that EDI dies either.  There is only speculation based on the assertions of some ghost child who is in control of the Repears.

Show me her lifeless body or her battery power bar if you want to dispute it; i.e proof

[NM_Che56]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Remember, this assetion hinges on whether or not star child (i.e. the Reaper general) is telling the truth.

You mean the guy with no reason at all to lie to you?

Correct. Star Child is the embodiment of impartiality.  The fact that he created the Reapers shouldn't influence whether or not you believe he has ulterior motives when he tells you that you could die too since you are part synthetic.