285 réponses à ce sujet

[Ztrobos]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Dear OP, you're being an insensitive lummox. EDI was/is a person - a highly intelligent and complex one who was becoming more human than some actual human beings. Certainly more so than, say, you. Because, unlike you, EDI cared deeply about other people and saw the importance and value of each individual. She found meaning in our emotions, our ability to sacrifice, our empathy and caring, and our willingness to fight for others. She didn't go around judging people because of their bodies. Either you're a troll, or you're really a complete...

Best to end that right there before I say something that might get me a 24-hour ban..

Thats irrellevant. OP merely points out (correctly) that she is a single individual.

EDI was, first and formost, a soldier in a war. As such, sacrificing herself for the sake of victory is her job. As a Ruthless Shepard, I would be lothed to ask more from my men than what was absolutely nescessary, and yet I would execute every soldier on the Normandy if it would ensure the galaxy is saved, and I would still call that a victory. Why not EDI?.

I have no doubt we could find 10 000 turians or humans who would gladly take her place to destroy the reapers. But we can´t hurt EDI because she is special, how? If anything, she is the perfect martyr because she has no family to rely on her.

[genocidal villain]

Why should I bother destroying synthetics when there are other available options that doesn't commit genocide?

[EricChase88]

genocidal villain wrote...

Why should I bother destroying synthetics when there are other available options that doesn't commit genocide?

Since when was letting the menace known as the Reapers survive a good option? A synthetic race and a ****** sexbot is hardly a good tradeoff compared to the rest of the galaxy.

[Ztrobos]

D24O wrote...

EricChase88 wrote...

She is no more valid than any other character that can die. Why should she be special enough for people to soften up to the Reapers by choosing the other two endings?

There's also the Geth. The question one has to ask themselves at the end is whether they're willing to sacrafice an entire people for something that will work, when there are other potential solutions. Its a personal question, but one that should be answered taking into accountt that synthetics have as muchright to exist as organics.

That is debatable, you should speak with Javik. :innocent:

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

 I've pondered why EDI's death bothered me, and I think I've figured it out.

It's because her death goes entirely without comment.

Her character has been loyal to Shepard for two games, proven her worth and has been a steadfast companion.  Others like these were given a heroic and/or touching sendoff:  Mordin, Thane, Legion, Anderson, even other characters who can die but their deaths are preventable.  We get to see them dying for the cause.  They get to say a few last words and have a meaningful death scene.

EDI (and, by extension, the geth) get no such scene in the Destroy ending.  They die to firendly fire, offscreen.  Hackett doesn't even mention them in his last speech.  There's no scene of EDI and Joker comforting each other in her last moments.  No final goodbye from the geth fleet as they sacrifice themselves to stop the Old Machines.  The synthetics were just hostages being held by Bioware so you'd choose a different color (green) and once they're dead, their purpose was served.  Very disappointing.  Grunt had a better scene.

That is something I had never articulated but completely agree with.

It is like the writers randomly pointed at her and the geth and said, "Yeah, we need a token sacrifice for the Destroy ending, just get rid of them," and gave it no more thought.

Legion, Anderson, Thane, Mordin -- those were all deaths that I felt like the writers paid respect to.

EDI's, not so much. Just a name on the list. I find this odd because they give her solid attention all throughout the game and do her character justice for the most part. More indication that the ending was a rush job I guess.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 04 août 2012 - 09:57 .

[Deviija]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Tbh, regardless of the OP's thoughts, my main problem with it was the same as I had with the Catalyst segment - it was Mac Walters standing next to me with a neon sign and a baseball bat going: "HERE IS HOW YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO FEEL NOW!!!" whenever EDI had any dialogue. I liked the character but the fact that I felt like I was being hit over the head with her ended up causing the opposite effect - I disliked the character more and more because of the delivery. [resists making the rest of the case on how he feels this ties into the failure of the ending.

I come from a similar pool of thought.  It felt very heavy-handed about how the player *should* feel (and even how Shepard should feel) whenever speaking with her and her entire sentience and Joker-love plot.  Many levels of disturbing within those things, too, imo.  Plus, EDI is overtly sexualized -- and even has modeled 'easter egg' ****** in her outfits.  Seriously.  A robot with ******.  And they want me to take her seriously, and not just as a token piece of robot fetishism and mouthpiece for 'feel bads/feel this way' when it came to non-organics?  EDI could've been much more, in my eyes, but it just never got to that high bar it should have.

[D24O]

Ztrobos wrote...

D24O wrote...

There's also the Geth. The question one has to ask themselves at the end is whether they're willing to sacrafice an entire people for something that will work, when there are other potential solutions. Its a personal question, but one that should be answered taking into accountt that synthetics have as muchright to exist as organics.

That is debatable, you should speak with Javik. :innocent:

I have, and I disagree with him.

[EricChase88]

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus wrote...

 I've pondered why EDI's death bothered me, and I think I've figured it out.

It's because her death goes entirely without comment.

Her character has been loyal to Shepard for two games, proven her worth and has been a steadfast companion.  Others like these were given a heroic and/or touching sendoff:  Mordin, Thane, Legion, Anderson, even other characters who can die but their deaths are preventable.  We get to see them dying for the cause.  They get to say a few last words and have a meaningful death scene.

EDI (and, by extension, the geth) get no such scene in the Destroy ending.  They die to firendly fire, offscreen.  Hackett doesn't even mention them in his last speech.  There's no scene of EDI and Joker comforting each other in her last moments.  No final goodbye from the geth fleet as they sacrifice themselves to stop the Old Machines.  The synthetics were just hostages being held by Bioware so you'd choose a different color (green) and once they're dead, their purpose was served.  Very disappointing.  Grunt had a better scene.

That is something I had never articulated but completely agree with.

It is like the writers randomly pointed at her and the geth and said, "Yeah, we need a token sacrifice for the Destroy ending, just get rid of them," and gave it no more thought.

Legion, Anderson, Thane, Mordin -- those were all deaths that I felt like the writers paid respect to.

EDI's, not so much. Just a name on the list. I find this odd because they give her solid attention all throughout the game and do her character justice for the most part. More indication that the ending was a rush job I guess.

EDI didn't get it any worse than billions of other victims. Lots of people on Earth suffered far worse. I don't think that being some AI deserves some kind of death scene. She has enough screen time as it is.

And what about the Mass Effect 2 squadmates that are neglected in this game? Thane is one of the most awesome characters, yet he got so little screen time. Considering how deep Mass Effect 2 squadmates are, they deserve an awesome scene more than anyone else.

[Iakus]

EricChase88 wrote...

EDI didn't get it any worse than billions of other victims. Lots of people on Earth suffered far worse. I don't think that being some AI deserves some kind of death scene. She has enough screen time as it is.

Being some AI?  No.

Being the AI for the Normandy, and a squadmate in ME3, yes.  Part of ME3 is about whether you encourage her to become "more human" and letting her death pass without comment in Destroy does that whole arc a disservice.

And what about the Mass Effect 2 squadmates that are neglected in this game? Thane is one of the most awesome characters, yet he got so little screen time. Considering how deep Mass Effect 2 squadmates are, they deserve an awesome scene more than anyone else.

Anyone who served with Shepard in any of the three games deserves an awesome sendoff if they die.

[DirtyPhoenix]

EricChase88 wrote...

genocidal villain wrote...

Why should I bother destroying synthetics when there are other available options that doesn't commit genocide?

Since when was letting the menace known as the Reapers survive a good option? A synthetic race and a ****** sexbot is hardly a good tradeoff compared to the rest of the galaxy.

What is good and what is bad is entirely subjective. He is right in "letting the reapers survive", as are you, in killing them. He just voiced his opinion, like you did with this thread. And I agree with him.

Modifié par pirate1802, 05 août 2012 - 03:10 .

[Mello]

THATS why people aren't choosing the destroy ending?
Haha. Don't get me wrong it's sad that EDI doesn't get to live her AI " life " i actually got really attached to her and didn't think of her as an AI. But not everybody is going to live of course and if it helps you EDI fans sleep at night, i'm sure EDI would have been happy sacrificing herself for Shepard and destroying the reapers.  

"I chose Destory. We destory them, or they destory us."  

[Iakus]

iPoohCupCakes wrote...

THATS why people aren't choosing the destroy ending?
Haha. Don't get me wrong it's sad that EDI doesn't get to live her AI " life " i actually got really attached to her and didn't think of her as an AI. But not everybody is going to live of course and if it helps you EDI fans sleep at night, i'm sure EDI would have been happy sacrificing herself for Shepard and destroying the reapers.  

"I chose Destory. We destory them, or they destory us."  

I chose Destroy too.

That doesn't mean EDI's death wasn't handled horribly though

[genocidal villain]

EricChase88 wrote...

genocidal villain wrote...

Why should I bother destroying synthetics when there are other available options that doesn't commit genocide?

Since when was letting the menace known as the Reapers survive a good option? A synthetic race and a ****** sexbot is hardly a good tradeoff compared to the rest of the galaxy.

You tell me. If Reapers stop harvesting in the control ending because they are given a new function that does not involve harvesing organics that's fine by me. If synthesizing organics and synthetics will stop the Reapers from harvesting organics that's fine by me. I don't see the point of commiting genocide when it can be avoided, but then again it's your opinion.

[BerzerkGene]

Probably when she became a person. But i generally don't like destroy not because of her, but because it kills the Geth. I like the geth.

[DirtyPhoenix]

iPoohCupCakes wrote...

THATS why people aren't choosing the destroy ending?
Haha. Don't get me wrong it's sad that EDI doesn't get to live her AI " life " i actually got really attached to her and didn't think of her as an AI. But not everybody is going to live of course and if it helps you EDI fans sleep at night, i'm sure EDI would have been happy sacrificing herself for Shepard and destroying the reapers.  

"I chose Destory. We destory them, or they destory us."  

That is what OP assumes. For me its more like killing off an entire race of sentient beings, destroying an unspecified amount of tech and killing an unknown number of people. If it was only EDI that needed to be sacrificed I'd have gladly done that even though I like her.

[Katinka]

genocidal villain wrote...

Why should I bother destroying synthetics when there are other available options that doesn't commit genocide?

Because you are "genocidal villain"?

On a more serious note, all the endings are designed to be grey.  The writers didn't want people to think there was a 'best', 'perfect', 'ideal' or 'obvious' choice for the ending.  We should see each one as an imperfect situation and decide for ourselves which of these is the lesser evil.  I've played 4 Sheperds through ME3 and each one has had their own choice to make and they have made different choices.

PS:  I'm surprised nobody here has suggested that EDI might be repairable.  Sure, the Catalyst said all synthetic life would be destroyed but he also insinuated that Sheperd would die from this and it's commonly thought (s)he doesn't.  Admiral Hackett told me everything that had been destroyed could be repaired, it'll just take time.  She's already been repaired once after I took her out on the moon in ME1.

[corkey sweet]

EricChase88 wrote...

Seriously, why does her death even matter? I can't believe people will not choose destroy just because of a sexbot. Lots of people die, so why should people even care about her in particular? She is just one individual. The entire galaxy is at stake. Many sacrifices were made, such as Mordin, Legion, and potentially lots of Mass Effect 2 squadmates. Why should her death be special enough to soften people up about the Reapers by choosing Control and Synthesis?

EDI should have stayed that little blue orb on the normandy. putting her in a body was as pointless as she was useless. could have had an ME2 squad member instead of her, and that would have been great

[EricChase88]

corkey sweet wrote...

EricChase88 wrote...

Seriously, why does her death even matter? I can't believe people will not choose destroy just because of a sexbot. Lots of people die, so why should people even care about her in particular? She is just one individual. The entire galaxy is at stake. Many sacrifices were made, such as Mordin, Legion, and potentially lots of Mass Effect 2 squadmates. Why should her death be special enough to soften people up about the Reapers by choosing Control and Synthesis?

EDI should have stayed that little blue orb on the normandy. putting her in a body was as pointless as she was useless. could have had an ME2 squad member instead of her, and that would have been great

Very true. All that time in Mass Effect 2 to gather the best squad in the galaxy, and they're replaced by a sexbot. They just neglected the crew we worked so hard to bring together and form relationships with and gave precious screentime for a shallow robot with ******...

[mjboldy]

BerzerkGene wrote...

Probably when she became a person. But i generally don't like destroy not because of her, but because it kills the Geth. I like the geth.

I didn't care for them but I figured that as the starkid said, we would rebuild synthetics again and the cycle would repeat. So I figured, eh sure.

[o Ventus]

genocidal villain wrote...

Why should I bother destroying synthetics when there are other available options that doesn't commit genocide?

Synthetics can be rebuilt in a matter of weeks/months, as opposed to the organics years/millions of years of evolution?

[Paradox6006]

Because she's important to Joker, that's why she's important to me

[JeffZero]

Because she's a great character.

Also, what Paradox said.

[Mello]

Paradox6006 wrote...

Because she's important to Joker, that's why she's important to me

I feel the same way, but still chose destory. 

[Fraevar]

Deviija wrote...

I come from a similar pool of thought.  It felt very heavy-handed about how the player *should* feel (and even how Shepard should feel) whenever speaking with her and her entire sentience and Joker-love plot.  Many levels of disturbing within those things, too, imo.  Plus, EDI is overtly sexualized -- and even has modeled 'easter egg' ****** in her outfits.  Seriously.  A robot with ******.  And they want me to take her seriously, and not just as a token piece of robot fetishism and mouthpiece for 'feel bads/feel this way' when it came to non-organics?  EDI could've been much more, in my eyes, but it just never got to that high bar it should have.

Those issues have come up at times. And in my view it seems to have been a consistant thing with BioWare since they released Mass Effect 2 - they try to set up these high concept ideas but then they give them an incredibly shallow/non-existant execution (Shepard's death/working for Cerberus, anyone?). I actually liked the bond we saw forming between Joker and EDI after he unshackles her in ME2 but the body, the very stunted sense of progression and simple lack of depth in many areas of how she was handled in ME3 just makes it feel flat. Ok, as far as the lore goes TIM designed that body to be "appealing" but why don't we get the option to give EDI an Alliance uniform, instead of reskins of Miranda's ME2 catsuits? Personally I think giving her an actual uniform would have been a great symbolic gesture. But again - BioWare doesn't do subtle anymore. It's a shame because I personally thought there was a good theme going with EDI, but it just becomes stunted by the rushed execution. Like the other 85% of ME3...

[DEATHSCOPE]

BerzerkGene wrote...

Probably when she became a person. But i generally don't like destroy not because of her, but because it kills the Geth. I like the geth.

You mean you liked Legion. He's the only Geth that you've ever interacted with anyway.

For me, I don't really care for the Geth after Legion died. Toasters have been shooting at me for three games straight.