561 réponses à ce sujet

[eddieoctane]

The problem with the "all synthetic life" line is that it is heavily implied that Shep's implants will stop functioning and thus Shep will die as well. If the hero lives, Starchild was lying. What else was he lying about? Maybe the Geth are alright. Maybe EDI is fine. Just because she isn't seen doesn't mean she is dead. Otherwise, only 3 people survived the crash of the Normandy. One of them isn't going to be any good at surviving, period. So now you've got 2 random people, God only knows where they're at, trying to survive in what may or may not be a hostile environment, with 50/50 odds of the local life not even being edible.

So I'm going to keep her survival as my head-canon, as will many other players, and I'll gladly watch Casey being chased around like Frankenstein's monster if he opens his mouth to say otherwise.

[Hihoshi101]

Master Che wrote...

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.

Wait, What?
Created Reapers= Impartial good believable guy?

[Clayless]

Wrong thread people, this isn't for speculation, it's for videos of her walking out like claimed.

Catalyst makes claims, all his claims come true, someone makes a counter claim, shows nothing to support this, so the default is she dies.

[Dendio1]

The current endings dont show enough to confirm/deny anything more than the relays being destroyed

Extended cut should fix this

Modifié par Dendio1, 03 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[NM_Che56]

Hihoshi101 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

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.

Wait, What?
Created Reapers= Impartial good believable guy?

sarcasm

[WYLDMAXX]

EDI wouldn't die if Shepard used Carbonite.

[NM_Che56]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Wrong thread people, this isn't for speculation, it's for videos of her walking out like claimed.

Catalyst makes claims, all his claims come true, someone makes a counter claim, shows nothing to support this, so the default is she dies.

Wrong. The default is that you dont' see her exit  the Normandy, but you do see Shepard breath.  All his claims do not come true (i.e. Shepard may die), so Star Brat's credibility takes a significant hit on the starboard bow.

Too many holes
There's too many people
Seeing too many problems
With not much fact to go around
Cant you see
This is the land of assumption

[PsyrenY]

Master Che wrote...


Wrong. The default is that you dont' see her exit  the Normandy, but you do see Shepard breath.  All his claims do not come true (i.e. Shepard may die), so Star Brat's credibility takes a significant hit on the starboard bow.

When does he say "Shepard WILL die" in Destroy?

Master Che wrote...

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.

"could"
And yes, he is impartial, at least as far as the Crucible is concerned. If he wanted you to lose/die he wouldn't have activated the elevator at all.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 03 mai 2012 - 05:32 .

[Clayless]

Master Che wrote...

(i.e. Shepard may die)

[NM_Che56]

I do know the difference between MAY and WILL. The point is that because the possibility doesn't come true proves he is not omniscient. So it is not unreasonable to think that he could be wrong about other things as well.

The point is that Star Child tries to dissuade Shepard from picking destroy with this revelation (incidentally, I don't think he even mentions EDI). The fact is I can't assert EDI lives no more than you can assert she dies. We do not have visual confirmation. Without that, we speculate.

Regading impartiality: How could he be considered impartial when he tells you that he created the Reapers and this whole reaping business was his idea that he's been implementing for millions and millions of years? If he was truly impartial, he would just let you do what you came to do without trying to show you more options and persuading you not to pick one over the other.

[PsyrenY]

Master Che wrote...

I do know the difference between MAY and WILL. The point is that because the possibility doesn't come true proves he is not omniscient. So it is not unreasonable to think that he could be wrong about other things as well.

It CAN come true (i.e. you CAN die in Destroy) so he is not wrong in the slightest.
At best he said "even you might die" which is perfectly true.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 03 mai 2012 - 05:42 .

[DJBare]

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?

Apart from scewing up it's billion year plan? Reapers use misdirection and deception all the time, why should the catalyst stop lying now?

[NM_Che56]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Master Che wrote...

I do know the difference between MAY and WILL. The point is that because the possibility doesn't come true proves he is not omniscient. So it is not unreasonable to think that he could be wrong about other things as well.

It CAN come true (i.e. you CAN die in Destroy) so he is not wrong in the slightest.
At best he said "even you might die" which is perfectly true.

If he cannot say "it will come true", then that proves he is not omnicient which logically leaves open the possibility that he can be wrong about other things.

You and others are betting the farm on him being right.  Based on what? He's demonstrating that his knowledge has limitations.  That's a flaw.  A flaw that can show up in other areas.

Again.  No body.  No proof she's alive or dead either way.

[NM_Che56]

DJBare wrote...

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?

Apart from scewing up it's billion year plan? Reapers use misdirection and deception all the time, why should the catalyst stop lying now?

*puts out fist*

Right there.  Fist pound!

[Little Princess Peach]

The endings have gone strange for me
I picked destroy last night and I ended up with the Paragon endings >.>

[NM_Che56]

Here's another thing that has me questioning all sorts of things:

Liara, my LI, made the run to the beam with me, so did Garrus. Epic. Long time friend and lover side by side with me till the end. BOOM! Big Harby Beam of Death.

Everyone around me is either dead or seriously injured. I look like burnt toast with strawberry jam.

Fast forward to LOST. Liara gets out of the Normandy without a SCRATCH!

WT...?

You'd think she'd be in as bad of shape as me.  I don't see Garrus...so did he get away scratch free or did he get burned?  I don't see him and I have two totatlly different outcomes.

Modifié par Master Che, 03 mai 2012 - 05:56 .

[Clayless]

Master Che wrote...

I do know the difference between MAY and WILL. The point is that because the possibility doesn't come true proves he is not omniscient. So it is not unreasonable to think that he could be wrong about other things as well.

The point is that Star Child tries to dissuade Shepard from picking destroy with this revelation (incidentally, I don't think he even mentions EDI). The fact is I can't assert EDI lives no more than you can assert she dies. We do not have visual confirmation. Without that, we speculate.

Again you're speculating, this isn't what this thread is about, it's about proof of EDI walking out the Normandy in the destroy ending.

While you can speculate that, despite everything else he said coming true, because we don't see EDI's lifeless body maybe she actually survived the "destroy all synthetics" ending, but that's all it would be, speculation, and weak speculation at that.

So yes, I can assert that a synthetic dies in the destroy all synthetic ending, you can speculate to your hearts desire against it but until there's actual proof of her surviving, like some people have claimed is a fact; she dies.

[PsyrenY]

DJBare wrote...

Apart from scewing up it's billion year plan? Reapers use misdirection and deception all the time, why should the catalyst stop lying now?

Because (a) it was already winning with no need to talk to Shepard at all and ( it told the truth about Destroy killing the Reapers? Why on earth would it do that if it was trying to deceive you? It's completely devoid of logic.

[NM_Che56]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Master Che wrote...

I do know the difference between MAY and WILL. The point is that because the possibility doesn't come true proves he is not omniscient. So it is not unreasonable to think that he could be wrong about other things as well.

The point is that Star Child tries to dissuade Shepard from picking destroy with this revelation (incidentally, I don't think he even mentions EDI). The fact is I can't assert EDI lives no more than you can assert she dies. We do not have visual confirmation. Without that, we speculate.

Again you're speculating, this isn't what this thread is about, it's about proof of EDI walking out the Normandy in the destroy ending.

While you can speculate that, despite everything else he said coming true, because we don't see EDI's lifeless body maybe she actually survived the "destroy all synthetics" ending, but that's all it would be, speculation, and weak speculation at that.

So yes, I can assert that a synthetic dies in the destroy all synthetic ending, you can speculate to your hearts desire against it but until there's actual proof of her surviving, like some people have claimed is a fact; she dies.

And again, you're speculating by saying she dies.  You do not have proof.

All you have is the words of HAL 9000 in the halographic form of a young Eminem and Haley Joel Osment.

[PsyrenY]

Master Che wrote...

And again, you're speculating by saying she dies.  You do not have proof.

Since the positive assertion is that "all synthetics die" you are the one that needs to prove that doesn't happen. Absence of EDI in Destroy is support for the Catalyst's claim.

[Verit]

Master Che wrote...
Regading impartiality: How could he be considered impartial when he tells you that he created the Reapers and this whole reaping business was his idea that he's been implementing for millions and millions of years? If he was truly impartial, he would just let you do what you came to do without trying to show you more options and persuading you not to pick one over the other.

That's definitely a valid point.  But I disagree with people stating the Catalyst is trying to mislead Shepard, because if it wanted to do so it could simply not tell you about Destroy or Control altogether. Since it told you about it, it doesn't have a reason to lie about the consequences. That said, that doesn't mean it actually fully comprehends the consequences either. It doesn't tell you for example that organics are killed by Destroy in a low EMS ending.  So there's no guarantee it really knows what happens in a high EMS ending either. 

As many have pointed out, the thread title is wrong however. I've done my own research and also concluded that EDI really doesn't exit the Normandy in the Destroy ending. But that still doesn't mean anything regarding whether or not she dies. Only the EC will really give us confirmation either way, and I'm very much hoping Bioware does let the geth and EDI survive in a high EMS ending, so that Destroy remains an actual option for people that invested their time into saving the geth. It's the exact same situation as with the Citadel: they show it blowing up, so people end up asking Bioware if they really just killed all the people they helped during the entire game.  They're clearly backtracking on that, saying most people did in fact survive. So following that reasoning, I hope they do the same for the implied geth genocide and death of EDI in the Destroy ending.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 03 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[Clayless]

Master Che wrote...

And again, you're speculating by saying she dies.  You do not have proof.

All you have is the words of HAL 9000 in the halographic form of a young Eminem and Haley Joel Osment.

What you're saying is "Despite everything else he said being true, I believe that this part here was a lie". And I'm saying that's fine, but this is the wrong thread, as it's for the people that said "Despite everything else he said being true, he was lying about this part because I saw a synthetic survive the destroy all synthetics ending."

Literally you are going to achieve nothing by speculating here, as this thread is for proof. Lack of proof of her surviving the destroy all synthetics ending is not proof of her surviving.

[NM_Che56]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Master Che wrote...

And again, you're speculating by saying she dies.  You do not have proof.

Since the positive assertion is that "all synthetics die" you are the one that needs to prove that doesn't happen. Absence of EDI in Destroy is support for the Catalyst's claim.

How do you figure?

I think of law.  I assert a crime happened.  I have to prove it.

[NM_Che56]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Master Che wrote...

And again, you're speculating by saying she dies.  You do not have proof.

All you have is the words of HAL 9000 in the halographic form of a young Eminem and Haley Joel Osment.

What you're saying is "Despite everything else he said being true, I believe that this part here was a lie". And I'm saying that's fine, but this is the wrong thread, as it's for the people that said "Despite everything else he said being true, he was lying about this part because I saw a synthetic survive the destroy all synthetics ending."

Literally you are going to achieve nothing by speculating here, as this thread is for proof. Lack of proof of her surviving the destroy all synthetics ending is not proof of her surviving.

I never said I believe anything he said.  So your quotation is not accurate.

Lack of proof of her surviving in the destroy all synthetics ending is not proof of her dying.

[NM_Che56]

-Draikin- wrote...

Master Che wrote...
Regading impartiality: How could he be considered impartial when he tells you that he created the Reapers and this whole reaping business was his idea that he's been implementing for millions and millions of years? If he was truly impartial, he would just let you do what you came to do without trying to show you more options and persuading you not to pick one over the other.

That's definitely a valid point.  But I disagree with people stating the Catalyst is trying to mislead Shepard, because if it wanted to do so it could simply not tell you about Destroy or Control altogether. Since it told you about it, it doesn't have a reason to lie about the consequences. That said, that doesn't mean it actually fully comprehends the consequences either. It doesn't tell you for example that organics are killed by Destroy in a low EMS ending.  So there's no guarantee it really knows what happens in a high EMS ending either. 

As many have pointed out, the thread title is wrong however. I've done my own research and also concluded that EDI really doesn't exit the Normandy in the Destroy ending. But that still doesn't mean anything regarding whether or not she dies. Only the EC will really give us confirmation either way, and I'm very much hoping Bioware does let the geth and EDI survive in a high EMS ending, so that Destroy remains an actual option for people that invested their time into saving the geth. It's the exact same situation as with the Citadel: they show it blowing up, so people end up asking Bioware if they really just killed all the people they helped during the entire game.  They're clearly backtracking on that, saying most people did in fact survive. So following that reasoning, I hope they do the same for the implied geth genocide and death of EDI in the Destroy ending.

Clarification: The Star Ass knows that Shepard knows about the destroy option.  It was the whole basis for putting together the crucible.  To try and act like it's not an option would probably sound too suspect.  Instead, I think Star Jerk tries taking Shepard down the Primrose Path.

Modifié par Master Che, 03 mai 2012 - 06:47 .