Okay, whenever it comes up how the death of the geth and EDI seems pointless and arbitrary in the Destruction ending, it inevitably comes up that "You just want ::pick one:: unicorns and rainbows/a Disney ending/no consequences" So I thought I'd explain it in depth.
First: Destrution is already the ending where you asacrifice the most. You give up any possibility of gaining the power of the Reapers. You cannot gain their aid in putting the galaxy back together if they are dad. Nor can you gian their knowledge (Synthesis) nor strength (Control) to carry the galaxy forward. In Destruction, the galactic civilizations literally have ot find their own way. At best, they can glean stuff from the Reaper corpses. You have spurned the power of the gods, chose not to take shortcuts to get ahead. Why is the player being punished for that choice?
Second, and actually the greater part, is that the geth and EDI die like punks.
Consider some of the other deaths we see in the game:
Thane: At this port virtually incapacitated by his illnes, he faces Kai Leng knowing th exertion will likely kill him even if Kai Leng doesn't. Yet he chooses to help Shepard save teh salarian Councilor and foil Cerberus' coup
Mordin (assuming you don't shoot him in the back): knows he will not be coming down from that elevator at the Shroud. He could have backed out; it's unlikely anyone but Shepard would realize the truth for some time. But he chooses to complete teh genophage dispersal, to do his part to save the galaxy and the krogan. And he dies singing, knowing he succeeded. Any wonder this is one of the most powerful moments inthe game?
Legion: While I'm still kinda fuzzy on why he dies, the what is quite clear. He sacrifices himself to give the geth true individuality, to become true AI. He could have chosen not to do so, no one would have thought less of him, but he did so anyway. He chose to sacrifice himself.
Even Anderson, while his death was basically a way for the Illusive Man to torment Shepard, had a moving final dialogue where he shows approval of Shepard's actions 'You did good, son, you did good"
Now look at the geth and EDI. Did the geth die "holding the line" against a Reaper advance, or covering Sword's retreat? Did EDI rescue Shepard and shoot the pipe herself? Did any of them sacrifice themselves to ensure teh Destruction ending takes place? No, they die to friendly fire, delivered by Shepard. They likely died literally never knowing what hit them. This wasn't sacrifice. This wasn't heroic. This was just death for the sake of death.
Now I know that some will compare this to the incident in Arrival. And yes, there are certain parallels. But there's also a big difference: A paragon Shepard can at least attempt to warn the colony. Shep fails, of course, but the attempt can be made. As it is, Shepard can't even say "I'm sorry, EDI, I had to make a choice"
And thus, why i'm doubly disappointed with EC's handling of the Destruction ending. Not only was none of this addressed, but by putting EDI's name on the memorial wall, I cannot even headcanon that the Catalyst was lying or mistaken that all synthetic life would be targeted by the blast. And thus why I find the whole matter to be a punishment for not choosing a different ending ("Why didn't you pick Synthesis?")
tl;dr: Not only were the deaths unncessary, but they aren't even given the decency of a heroic death.
Why I hate the death of Synthetics in Destroy
Débuté par
Iakus
, juil. 06 2012 05:18
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 05:26
Seryl
-
- Members
- 141 messages
I never thought those deaths were unnecessary. I figured that the crucible's destroy pulse was going to destroy Reaper tech. The Geth had incorporated Reaper code into themselves at that point (not sure why software would be targeted by a beam destroying hardware, but Synthesis is presented as plausible so ....) while EDI had salvaged bits of Sovereign incorporated into her design. So the destroy wave fried that tech as well.
What struck me as odd was that Legion decided to use the Reaper code at all. He made the point a few times that the Heretics decided to take a shortcut, accepting technological "uplifting" from the Reapers while the True Geth wanted to get there on their own. If that was the case, it seemed out of character for him to suddenly use Reaper upgrades. Granted, he was trying to save his people at the time, but it was still odd. The sad point, if my theory is right, is that had he stuck to his "We'll do it ourselves", the Geth would have had no Reaper tech integrated into themselves and might have survived.
What struck me as odd was that Legion decided to use the Reaper code at all. He made the point a few times that the Heretics decided to take a shortcut, accepting technological "uplifting" from the Reapers while the True Geth wanted to get there on their own. If that was the case, it seemed out of character for him to suddenly use Reaper upgrades. Granted, he was trying to save his people at the time, but it was still odd. The sad point, if my theory is right, is that had he stuck to his "We'll do it ourselves", the Geth would have had no Reaper tech integrated into themselves and might have survived.
#3
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 05:28
txgoldrush
-
- Members
- 4 249 messages
They die because it fits the notion of the "ruthless calculus of war" Garrus brings up.
#4
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 05:44
teh DRUMPf!!
-
- Members
- 9 142 messages
This one falls under the category of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." As is, people hate having to sacrifice their allies. Otherwise, you'd have this pretty significant plothole as to what Destroy would do to synthetics created with Reaper tech, and fans would complain, "oh look, more speculation!"
They actually messed it up the first time by letting EDI live through Destroy - it only brought even more negative response because it was a huge contradiction, not good feelings that she lived and that the geth may have survived as well.
And save the "but Control didn't affect all synthetics" argument. There's a difference between purging a unique type of tech, and assuming control of that tech which is already under control.
They actually messed it up the first time by letting EDI live through Destroy - it only brought even more negative response because it was a huge contradiction, not good feelings that she lived and that the geth may have survived as well.
And save the "but Control didn't affect all synthetics" argument. There's a difference between purging a unique type of tech, and assuming control of that tech which is already under control.
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:47 .
#5
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 05:46
Sisterofshane
-
- Members
- 1 756 messages
My honest opinion has always been that the devs wanted the audience to come into the ending choice viewing the Reapers as sympathetic enemies, but they forgot to work it into the plot (instead using nearly the entire narrative wrapping up other, secondary story arcs).
Assuming that ME1 and 2 remained the same, ME3 should have been about challenging our preconceptions of the Reapers. Ultimately their reason would be flawed and we would HAVE to stop them, but we should have been able to relate to it.
Instead, we don't even realize that the Reapers may not even be in control of themselves until just before we start the last priority mission. We come back to Earth and we continue to be pummeled with images and stories of the Reapers atrocities (making them even LESS likable, if you can believe it).
At this point whoever wrote the ending realized that most of us just wanted to destroy the Reapers, but they had included two other thought-provoking endings (one in particular that they clearly see as superior to the others). They had to create a harsh consequence, one that most people would find abhorrent, in order to get us to even consider the other two options.
EDI and the Geth die because of (what is essentially) poor writing.
Assuming that ME1 and 2 remained the same, ME3 should have been about challenging our preconceptions of the Reapers. Ultimately their reason would be flawed and we would HAVE to stop them, but we should have been able to relate to it.
Instead, we don't even realize that the Reapers may not even be in control of themselves until just before we start the last priority mission. We come back to Earth and we continue to be pummeled with images and stories of the Reapers atrocities (making them even LESS likable, if you can believe it).
At this point whoever wrote the ending realized that most of us just wanted to destroy the Reapers, but they had included two other thought-provoking endings (one in particular that they clearly see as superior to the others). They had to create a harsh consequence, one that most people would find abhorrent, in order to get us to even consider the other two options.
EDI and the Geth die because of (what is essentially) poor writing.
#6
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 05:54
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
"Pointless, pointless waste of life"
Basically sums up the death of EDI/Geth in the Destroy ending.
And I agree 100% OP. They could have handled the destroy ending so much better. I understand they were trying to balance the Destroy ending out, but seriously the costs were too high. Why not just say it targets all Reaper tech? The Geth lose their individuality, and maybe EDI gets destroyed, but it makes more sense than "lawl all synthetics targetted lawl."
Basically sums up the death of EDI/Geth in the Destroy ending.
And I agree 100% OP. They could have handled the destroy ending so much better. I understand they were trying to balance the Destroy ending out, but seriously the costs were too high. Why not just say it targets all Reaper tech? The Geth lose their individuality, and maybe EDI gets destroyed, but it makes more sense than "lawl all synthetics targetted lawl."
Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:57 .
#7
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 05:56
RenegonSQ
-
- Members
- 755 messages
No sympathy for machines, they can't show true sympathy for us.
Destroy wins again.
Destroy wins again.
#8
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 05:57
Casticus
-
- Members
- 155 messages
I'd kill the Geth and EDI off anyway when I choose Control. Why should I care if they die in Destroy?
Ultimately, the Catalyst, having lived for billions(trillions?) of years has seen synthetics rise up and wipe out organics countless times. They should never be given such a chance ever again, and I would do everything in my power to prevent it.
Ultimately, the Catalyst, having lived for billions(trillions?) of years has seen synthetics rise up and wipe out organics countless times. They should never be given such a chance ever again, and I would do everything in my power to prevent it.
#9
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:00
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
RenegonSQ wrote...
No sympathy for machines, they can't show true sympathy for us.
Destroy wins again.
The Geth defended the Quarians who opposed martial law. The Geth chose isolation over the genocide of their creators. The Geth were the first to offer the Quarians a chance to come back to Rannoch and live peace.
#10
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:05
Casticus
-
- Members
- 155 messages
The Geth killed over 99% of the Quarian population in their rebellion, such that a colonial spacefaring race with billions of people with innumerable cities across several planets were reduced to the population of New York State.MegaSovereign wrote...
RenegonSQ wrote...
No sympathy for machines, they can't show true sympathy for us.
Destroy wins again.
The Geth defended the Quarians who opposed martial law. The Geth chose isolation over the genocide of their creators. The Geth were the first to offer the Quarians a chance to come back to Rannoch and live peace.
I wonder what happened to all of those Geth sympathizers as well, since there were no Quarians left on Rannoch.
Modifié par Casticus, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:06 .
#11
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:05
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 285 messages
MegaSovereign wrote...
"Pointless, pointless waste of life"
Basically sums up the death of EDI/Geth in the Destroy ending.
And I agree 100% OP. They could have handled the destroy ending so much better. I understand they were trying to balance the Destroy ending out, but seriously the costs were too high. Why not just say it targets all Reaper tech? The Geth lose their individuality, and maybe EDI gets destroyed, but it makes more sense than "lawl all synthetics targetted lawl."
Indeed. We have an EMS score, it should be used!
But again, the worst part is that their deaths aren't really addressed at all. The examples I cited were all "good" deaths in that they died facing their enemies, or improving the galaxy, or just living long enough to approve of what's going on. The synthetics die in Destroy mainly to punish the player.
#12
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:06
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 285 messages
RenegonSQ wrote...
No sympathy for machines, they can't show true sympathy for us.
Destroy wins again.
FYI I do choose destroy. But that doesn't mean I don't find the price unecessarilly high, compared to the other endings.
#13
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:09
JRod
-
- Members
- 35 messages
Personally that's why i like the choice. Destroy is the only choice that really feels like it has consequences. I feel that in a perfect ending each choice would have some negative and you would be forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
#14
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:14
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
JRod wrote...
Personally that's why i like the choice. Destroy is the only choice that really feels like it has consequences. I feel that in a perfect ending each choice would have some negative and you would be forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
You have a very strange definition of perfect.
There is a difference between sacrifice with purpose and sacrifice just for the sake of game balance.
#15
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:15
X50Pence777
-
- Members
- 118 messages
Sisterofshane wrote...
My honest opinion has always been that the devs wanted the audience to come into the ending choice viewing the Reapers as sympathetic enemies, but they forgot to work it into the plot (instead using nearly the entire narrative wrapping up other, secondary story arcs).
Assuming that ME1 and 2 remained the same, ME3 should have been about challenging our preconceptions of the Reapers. Ultimately their reason would be flawed and we would HAVE to stop them, but we should have been able to relate to it.
Instead, we don't even realize that the Reapers may not even be in control of themselves until just before we start the last priority mission. We come back to Earth and we continue to be pummeled with images and stories of the Reapers atrocities (making them even LESS likable, if you can believe it).
At this point whoever wrote the ending realized that most of us just wanted to destroy the Reapers, but they had included two other thought-provoking endings (one in particular that they clearly see as superior to the others). They had to create a harsh consequence, one that most people would find abhorrent, in order to get us to even consider the other two options.
EDI and the Geth die because of (what is essentially) poor writing.
^this right here..well said
#16
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:20
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 285 messages
JRod wrote...
Personally that's why i like the choice. Destroy is the only choice that really feels like it has consequences. I feel that in a perfect ending each choice would have some negative and you would be forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
And as I wrote in the original post, there's already a negative consequence: the galaxy has to find its own path. Yeah the Relays will be repaired...eventually. But there is no Reaper knowledge to advance the galaxy, no fleet of space-Cthulhus to help rebuild, or to guard what has been rebuilt. They are alone in the galaxy, and they have to make their own way.
Why should there be such terrible consequences for choosing to stay mortal when the other endings let the galaxy harness the power of the gods?
#17
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:21
Bfler
-
- Members
- 2 991 messages
Yes, their dead is only to justify the two other solutions. You can see it in responses of players who say, that without their dead,nobody would choose the other options. It shows that the other two options aren't good enough to compete with destroy. Even synthesis, which wants you to believe that it creates a perfect world.
For destroy:
They could at least have given EDI some last lines. Something like that she understands Shepard's decision. And in case of the Geth they recognize that they will die, short hold and then they push forward again and maybe a scene where one sacrifices himself to rescue an allied soldier.
For destroy:
They could at least have given EDI some last lines. Something like that she understands Shepard's decision. And in case of the Geth they recognize that they will die, short hold and then they push forward again and maybe a scene where one sacrifices himself to rescue an allied soldier.
#18
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:21
KotorEffect3
-
- Members
- 9 415 messages
You don't always get to choose to die heroicaly. Sure it was a brutal sacrifice but it had to be done to end the reaper threat for good. The geth and edi are not the first synthetic civilization to fall to the reapers. But they will be the last. Everyone that participated in that battle was willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the galaxy, even the synthetics. And you know what Shepard let them go out as individuals when he could have wiped them out on Rannoch. It isn't perfect but war never is.
#19
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:22
cipherknight
-
- Members
- 198 messages
I pick Destroy only because it ends the galaxy of the Reapers pertinently an ending that still has the Reapers still standing really doesn't feel like a victory to me IMO. I feel really bad about EDI(who hooked up with Joker) and the Geth(who became true individuals and achieved peace with their creators) but they died so they could rid the galaxy of a threat that has wiped out all organic and synthetic life countless times over . Never forget the fallen.
#20
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:28
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
Instead of your love interest, I recommend taking EDI and a lesser used squad member with you on the beam run...
Shepard tries to save EDI - Evac Farewell
Renegade version
Shepard tries to save EDI - Evac Farewell
Renegade version
Modifié par Bill Casey, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:32 .
#21
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:39
Priss Blackburne
-
- Members
- 590 messages
Uh just had a crazy thought..Geth are software...if you make peace they even started uploading into Quarian suits to mimic diseases to help them build up their immunity. Doesn't that imply that some Geth will survive since they are software. The biggest thing is the beam will destroy synthetic life, supposedly targeting reaper tech in Edi and the geth. So the Geth in the Quarian suits would still survive since they are nothing more then software?
#23
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:45
RadicalDisconnect
-
- Members
- 1 895 messages
Bill Casey wrote...
Instead of your love interest, I recommend taking EDI and a lesser used squad member with you on the beam run...
Shepard tries to save EDI - Evac Farewell
Renegade version
I like the renegade version. It shows her determination for defeating the reapers. Although both versions make Shepard look like an imbecile.
Synthetics are doomed by poor writing. Catalyst stomped the whole thing synthetics/organics coexistence into the dirt. I completely agree with you, OP.
#24
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:49
Sisterofshane
-
- Members
- 1 756 messages
Priss Blackburne wrote...
Uh just had a crazy thought..Geth are software...if you make peace they even started uploading into Quarian suits to mimic diseases to help them build up their immunity. Doesn't that imply that some Geth will survive since they are software. The biggest thing is the beam will destroy synthetic life, supposedly targeting reaper tech in Edi and the geth. So the Geth in the Quarian suits would still survive since they are nothing more then software?
No, because Legion's reaper upgrade makes each singular Geth program "alive".
If they had never recieved this Reaper upgrade, it would be reasonable enough to assume that Geth that were not connected to the net might have passed through the destroy option alive, being no more alive than a VI system. Alas, it is not the case.
#25
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 06:49
Torrible
-
- Members
- 1 224 messages
Utilitarians who advocate Destroy have no right to criticise the 'lack of consent' aspect of Synthesis. After all, the consent of the Geth were not sought when they were destroyed.
