252 réponses à ce sujet

[mrbthq]

"Deserves got nothing to do with it."

[thijs166]

Nah edi and the geth did not deserve death, but still their loss is rather small compared to all the other races the reapers killed. I wont let them get away with it...

Also, their sacrifice will be honered in the coming empire.

[wright1978]

BlueSandBristow wrote...

Does anyone think EDI deserved her death in Destroy? I'm a bit glad she dies, honestly. Without the Reapers around, if she was alive, she might be the next AI threat we must deal with. She has Reaper tech and stuff, so I don't think it would be safe if she survived Destroy.

No she doesn't deserve to do but she must die to kill the reapers and free the galaxy. She will be the mother of new AI's built in her image.

[Creston918]

No, EDI doesn't deserve to die. In essence, you are sacrificing her so that Shepard can live. (if we ignore the Geth conundrum.)

That's the whole point of a moral quandary. If there was an easy choice in which everything is all moonbeams and sunshine, everyone except a few die-hard roleplayers would always pick that ending.

I kind of like how they made EDI sorta Data-like in that she's trying to explore being human, and she actively grows as a person during the course of the game (as opposed to every other character who are just static), and then SHE is the one that bites the bucket at the end. That makes it difficult to choose Destroy.

I have several Shepards who wouldn't choose that because they wouldn't casually condemn EDI and the Geth to obliteration, even if it finally terminates the Reapers. And, of course, I have two who are like "So I get rid of the Reapers and the cost is the damn Geth and one crew member?" *shoots power relay 0.0001 seconds later.*

Modifié par Creston918, 13 août 2012 - 03:01 .

[Zardoc]

No.

[Apple Lantern]

You agree with the Catalyst then, because you're killing EDI while thinking "She will probably eventually become a problem." That's exactly what the Catalyst says will happen.

No, she doesn't deserve to die until she actually does something wrong.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

No, but 'she' was a necessary sacrifice.

[eye basher]

Edi the Geth the whole galaxy they are assets and all assets are expendable.

[Mavqt]

PanzerGr3nadier wrote...

No, but She's partly reaper tech... Case closed.

This.

Also wasn't it said that EDI didn't die in the destroy ending?
Or was that a Troll tweet or something.

[D24O]

No she doesn't deserve to die because of her race. Its a tacked on caveat so that we'll choose synthesis.

[fchopin]

Does John MacGyver deserve to die on planet Thor? He died on the 3rd day.

[Anthadlas]

Yes for turning into an Austin Powers fembot

[JesseLee202]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

JesseLee202 wrote...

EDI doesn't deserve to die, but that doesn't change the fact I will blow it up along with the Geth. In the end, they are just machines... unless you pick synthesis...

if you are self aware then you are alive just because they are not flesh and blood dose not mean they are not beings of a diffrent sort , you dont need synthesis for that

I'm only gonna say this once...

It is a matter of your personal views. 

And in my view, synthetics aren't truly alive, they only emulate life.

They don't feel any emotion. What is the point of life if you don't feel anything for others in this world?

[Yakko77]

No, She and the Geth did not deserve to die but the Reapers had to be destroyed IMO. Collateral damage but given the countless trillions the Reapers have killed, there was NO way I was going to allow their existence to continue.

Besides, having Destroy kill the Geth and EDI was just cheap and lazy writing to shoehorn in Synthesis as being "preferred" in the last 10 minutes and I wasn't about to let bad writing throw off what was the goal and mission since the opening moments of the ME1.

[Jayleia]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Yes they are. Explain me why not.

You made that claim. That means that you have to prove it.

You can't just go around making absurd claims, and ask others to accept them as true unless they can prove them wrong...

[You've heard of Russel's teapot, right?]

They're sentient, they've proven that repeatedly, in every game.  In the Mass Effect universe, claiming they are NOT sentient seems to be the absurd claim, which means you would have the burden of proof.

[Yakko77]

Jayleia wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Yes they are. Explain me why not.

You made that claim. That means that you have to prove it.

You can't just go around making absurd claims, and ask others to accept them as true unless they can prove them wrong...

[You've heard of Russel's teapot, right?]

They're sentient, they've proven that repeatedly, in every game.  In the Mass Effect universe, claiming they are NOT sentient seems to be the absurd claim, which means you would have the burden of proof.

But is being sentient morally equivalent to being "alive"?

I... honestly don't know but I generally lean towards no, the Geth and EDI are not "alive" but they are beings of intelligence that are self aware.

[D24O]

Yakko77 wrote...

But is being sentient morally equivalent to being "alive"?

I... honestly don't know but I generally lean towards no, the Geth and EDI are not "alive" but they are beings of intelligence that are self aware.

I don't think the question should be are they "alive" so much as whether they are as valid a form of existance as we are. They technichally aren't alive, but I think they are a valid form of existance, and have just as much right to be as any living creature.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Yakko77 wrote...

But is being sentient morally equivalent to being "alive"?

Does it matter?

The sentience is the important part, no?

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 13 août 2012 - 05:31 .

[Yakko77]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

But is being sentient morally equivalent to being "alive"?

Does it matter?

The sentience is the important part, no?

In the Mass Effect series, it seems a lot of the distrust stems from not whether or not the Geth and EDI are self aware but rather a conflict between being born and being built.

[Yakko77]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

But is being sentient morally equivalent to being "alive"?

Does it matter?

The sentience is the important part, no?

It probably should be but if the internet suddenly aquired enough processing power or whatever and declared itself "sentient" would you regard it as alive?  A being with Rights and entitled to the same liberties as you and I?

[Uncle Jo]

Dear Catalyst,
Just wanted to answer your question and say:

[Iakus]

Yakko77 wrote...

But is being sentient morally equivalent to being "alive"?

I... honestly don't know but I generally lean towards no, the Geth and EDI are not "alive" but they are beings of intelligence that are self aware.

I say if it's sentient enough to ponder if it has a soul or not, then that's close enough.

And yes, holding EDI and the geth hostage is just a cheap artificial way to add more tragedy to a game already overloaded with it.

[sg1fan75]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Nor do the Geth:ph34r:

Modifié par sg1fan75, 13 août 2012 - 05:59 .

[Baronesa]

Yakko77 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

But is being sentient morally equivalent to being "alive"?

Does it matter?

The sentience is the important part, no?

It probably should be but if the internet suddenly aquired enough processing power or whatever and declared itself "sentient" would you regard it as alive?  A being with Rights and entitled to the same liberties as you and I?

If it became self aware, intelligent and concious... it would be considered sentient... then yes I would give the internet rights and entitled to the same liberties, etc.

Measure of a man

Of course it is easier to think like this if the synthetic has a relatable form, such as a humanoid body.