287 réponses à ce sujet

[djspectre]

Most people believe that the destroy ending was silly for a lot of reasons. One of which was the utter destruction of the Geth and EDI.

While I can't argue that the death of the Geth seemed somewhat senseless, I do believe that EDI should have died. Here's why. 

I usually do a half/half Shepard. He's paragon to his crew, but renegade to any advisary. This causes me to miss out on certain things (for example a full paragon shepard isn't presented with a Paragon interupt to save Oleg in Omega DLC....Aria has an entirely different speech to him and lets him live automatically). 

So I did a full paragon run this time. And upon doing so, I noticed that all my dialogs with EDI changed slightly for each time she 'had an important question that Jeff wouldn't answer'. 

The last one (after the mission on Horizon) she talks about how Reaper captives refused to give intel to the Reapers even if it would save their lives. The upper right response for Shepard didn't change, but EDI's response did. She mentions that she wants to change her programming to allow her to be willing to sacrifice her life for Jeff.

This evolution in EDI fits perfectly with the Destroy ending and her death and I no longer see her death as senseless. It's something I didn't realize before because the game subtely changes dialogues when you go full paragon or full renegade. 

I just thought I'd share this with everyone to open a discussion as to other nuances people have noticed and maybe how it might change their opinion on various endings.  

[Eterna]

EDI would have accepted death if there was no other choice. But the thing is, there are other choices that solve the problem and don't result in her and every other Synthetics beings death.

You can rationalize it all you wish, EDI would not pick Destroy if she knew of the other options.

[Liamv2]

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI would have accepted death if there was no other choice. But the thing is, there are other choices that solve the problem and don't result in her and every other Synthetics beings death.

You can rationalize it all you wish, EDI would not pick Destroy if she knew of the other options.

THIS. I have always belived this

[KiwiQuiche]

She's willing to die to protect the galaxy or to prevent herself from becoming controlled by the Reapers, yes. (One of the reasons I love her nonromanced dialogue)

But yeah, there are other options. Unfortunately the crew can't give their thoughts on the final choices so we don't know what they'll do.

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Well destryoing Geth isnt sensless imo. After their destruction I always encounter less Reaper resistance on Earth finale. Thats why I think the Geth support Reapers if they are spared.

[Renmiri1]

Death of an entire species "somewhat senseless" ? EDI saying she'd be willing to die = so long suck*r ?

What kind of morality do you have ? In a war any soldier is willing to die for their side, including Sheppard. Doesn't mean you just go killing soldiers when there are alternatives to save them

Sheesh!

[Kataphrut94]

Just about everyone in that final fight talks about how prepared they are to die. Garrus and his storming heaven, Kaidan's old soldiers remark, Tali being upset about not having enough time, Liara's goodbye gift, Miranda saying farewell, and a slew of "it has been an honour, Commander". It's perfectly justifiable given the stakes, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to get someone killed if you can avoid it. Not to mention how incredibly callous it is to use talk of death and self-sacrifice before a terrible battle as justification for second-degree murder.

[CosmicGnosis]

If you side with the quarians on Rannoch, EDI isn't very pleased. She thinks it's understandable that Shepard will "side with the familiar" in organic-synthetic situations. I can't help but think of Destroy when she says that.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 17 janvier 2013 - 10:46 .

[AshenShug4r]

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI would have accepted death if there was no other choice. But the thing is, there are other choices that solve the problem and don't result in her and every other Synthetics beings death.

You can rationalize it all you wish, EDI would not pick Destroy if she knew of the other options.

Is anyone qualified to say what EDI would pick were the choice hers?

[KiwiQuiche]

AshenShug4r wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI would have accepted death if there was no other choice. But the thing is, there are other choices that solve the problem and don't result in her and every other Synthetics beings death.

You can rationalize it all you wish, EDI would not pick Destroy if she knew of the other options.

Is anyone qualified to say what EDI would pick were the choice hers?

Depends on if her writer changes.

[BD Manchild]

She does say that she's willing to die if she saw no other option. The trouble is that we can't ask for her opinion on the Destroy choice, whether she's willing to be ritually sacrificed like a lamb to the slaughter. We can't get the Geth's opinion on that either, for that matter. That's what makes the Destroy ending just as repulsive as Control and Synthesis for me; you're deciding their fate for them, and in some ways you're even serving the Catalyst's twisted agenda whether you intend to or not.

Also, that comment about what EDI says about "siding with the familiar" does seem very reminiscent of the Destroy ending; in the end, you decide to side with the familiarty of organics rather than take a chance on the unity between organics and synthetics that's being displayed as the Catalyst lays down his frankly bigoted mantra.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 12:53 .

[jfeth713]

Having just spent the entire game helping Shepard stop the Illusive Man from controlling the Reapers and watching the Reapers kill millions I don't think EDI would think giving absolute control of the to one man, including Shepard, or forcing everyone to become part synthetic would be great ideas either.

Garrus had it right. Humans want to save everyone.

[GreyLycanTrope]

For the record OP I find all the choices silly(if not down right offensive) not just destroy.

Here's the thing though OP, EDI's sacrifice would have been fine(tragically beautiful even) if it was a choice she made not one made for her. People like to reference Spock saying "the needs of the many out way the few" to justify their use selection of Destroy. However they seem to forget that Kirk didn't push Spock into Warp Drive to fix it.

Give me an ending where EDI voluntarily interfaces with the Catalyst and Crucible, further refining the Crucibles targeting so that it only targets full fledged Reaper AIs (including herself since she'd made from parts of Sovereign), so that when the beam fires only she and the Reapers die. But remember to make it her choice, because thanks to you she's learned to appreciate life and the meaning of sacrifice and not because you just want to win.

[Clayless]

jfeth713 wrote...

Having just spent the entire game helping Shepard stop the Illusive Man from controlling the Reapers and watching the Reapers kill millions I don't think EDI would think giving absolute control of the to one man, including Shepard, or forcing everyone to become part synthetic would be great ideas either.

Garrus had it right. Humans want to save everyone.

Why not synthesis?

[jfeth713]

Robosexual wrote...

jfeth713 wrote...

Having just spent the entire game helping Shepard stop the Illusive Man from controlling the Reapers and watching the Reapers kill millions I don't think EDI would think giving absolute control of the to one man, including Shepard, or forcing everyone to become part synthetic would be great ideas either.

Garrus had it right. Humans want to save everyone.

Why not synthesis?

All most people know is that there worlds are being slaughtered by sentient machines. Do you honestly think most people will be fine fight The Reapers and their forces one minute to be partially synthetic the next especially if they saw loved ones kill by said forces? I woul also that by the end of the game most people are aware that the Reapers are using humans/turians/etc to build up their ground forces. Why would anyone  be okay suddenly being forced to become part machine?

[Clayless]

jfeth713 wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

jfeth713 wrote...

Having just spent the entire game helping Shepard stop the Illusive Man from controlling the Reapers and watching the Reapers kill millions I don't think EDI would think giving absolute control of the to one man, including Shepard, or forcing everyone to become part synthetic would be great ideas either.

Garrus had it right. Humans want to save everyone.

Why not synthesis?

All most people know is that there worlds are being slaughtered by sentient machines. Do you honestly think most people will be fine fight The Reapers and their forces one minute to be partially synthetic the next especially if they saw loved ones kill by said forces? I woul also that by the end of the game most people are aware that the Reapers are using humans/turians/etc to build up their ground forces. Why would anyone  be okay suddenly being forced to become part machine?

She is a machine.

[Argolas]

Robosexual wrote...

jfeth713 wrote...

Having just spent the entire game helping Shepard stop the Illusive Man from controlling the Reapers and watching the Reapers kill millions I don't think EDI would think giving absolute control of the to one man, including Shepard, or forcing everyone to become part synthetic would be great ideas either.

Garrus had it right. Humans want to save everyone.

Why not synthesis?

Because this invalidates EDI's journey.

Look at EDI right in the beginning of ME2. This is a machine there, not a person. A Defence Intelligence and nothing more than that. And now look what she learned: Humor, Preferences, Emotions, the capability to act irrationally, even Love. That is how a synthetic should become alive and not by a reaper-developed process.

In Synthesis, DNA is broken down and then integrated into a synthetic part in order to make someone alive. Well, that is exactly how reaper pods like the ones the collectors use in ME2 work as well. Synthesis turns us all into nice little Reapers and to me, that is disgusting and spits on EDI's struggle to become alive. In Destroy, at least the people can learn from her example.

Modifié par Argolas, 17 janvier 2013 - 01:25 .

[Clayless]

Argolas wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

jfeth713 wrote...

Having just spent the entire game helping Shepard stop the Illusive Man from controlling the Reapers and watching the Reapers kill millions I don't think EDI would think giving absolute control of the to one man, including Shepard, or forcing everyone to become part synthetic would be great ideas either.

Garrus had it right. Humans want to save everyone.

Why not synthesis?

Because this invalidates EDI's journey.

Look at EDI right in the beginning of ME2. This is a machine there, not a person. A Defence Intelligence and nothing more than that. And now look what she learned: Humor, Preferences, Emotions, the capability to act irrationally, even Love. That is how a synthetic should become alive and not by a reaper-developed process.

In Synthesis, DNA is broken down and then integrated into a synthetic part in order to make someone alive. Well, that is exactly how reaper pods like the ones the collectors use in ME2 work as well. Synthesis turns us all into nice little Reapers and to me, that is disgusting and spits on EDI's struggle to become alive. In Destroy, at least the people can learn from her example.

Wait, you think she would choose dying pointlessly over being alive + peace + a better chance at understanding organics (what she's been trying to learn) and for synthetics and organics to have their differences removed?

That doesn't sound very likely for an intelligent being like EDI. If there's one thing that would invalidate her journey it's dying pointlessly when there's an option that fits in line with what she's been trying to achieve.

Modifié par Robosexual, 17 janvier 2013 - 01:31 .

[Reorte]

BD Manchild wrote...

Also, that comment about what EDI says about "siding with the familiar" does seem very reminiscent of the Destroy ending; in the end, you decide to side with the familiarty of organics rather than take a chance on the unity between organics and synthetics that's being displayed as the Catalyst lays down his frankly bigoted mantra.

No, you don't. The Destroy ending is the only one that gives a non-coerced chance at every getting along without being bullied or mutated into it, even if it'll need some more being built first (although all the Destroy being being able to float around and delete specific software is a completely idiotic idea). Most people who chose it do so not because it's siding with the familiar but because it removes the one big threat to everyone; the other options leave it there without providing remotely convincing proof that the problem won't continue, and one of them has a massively more unethical "solution" thrown in to boot.

Only in Destroy do you remove the confines that allow the galaxy to strike out on its own terms. That's hardly siding with familiarity.

[BleedingUranium]

The only other options are Reaper options, so really, there are no other options.

[Reorte]

simfamSP wrote...

Because the war stopped. Sure there would be protests, maybe even riots. But the war is done. How many people would be grateful that it's over? Many.

How confident are you that it won't start up again, whether it's next year or in ten  thousand years as long as the Reapers are still around?

[Argolas]

Robosexual wrote...

Wait, you think she would choose dying pointlessly over being alive + peace + a better chance at understanding organics (what she's been trying to learn) and for synthetics and organics to have their differences removed?

That doesn't sound very likely for an intelligent being like EDI. If there's one thing that would invalidate her journey it's dying pointlessly when there's an option that fits in line with what she's been trying to achieve.

EDIs dialogue suggests more than once that Destroy would be her choice as well. There seems to be no thought that is more disguisting to her than cooperating with the Reapers. I'm not saying "EDI would choose Destroy and everyone who claims something else is stupid", it's just that there are reasons to believe that.

Second, "understanding of organics" is not something you can download, especially not if the source is the reapers. You remember how the Catalyst could not tell the difference between letting someone live or uploading its DNA into a reaper? That is some understanding.

EDI's best bet on understanding organics is spending time and interact with them, she does do that in Mass Effect and she is successful until she tells Shepard that she now feels "alive". There is no short way around that. Synthesis does not help understanding differences, it removes differences at best. Although the result of both can be called "understanding", this is hardly the same- but just the kind of mistake an AI like the catalyst would make when thinking of "solutions".

Yes, I do realize that her death is more than just tragic (I'll just leave the other Synthetics out at this point because it would be OT). I feel especially bad for Joker since he is just the kind of guy that always gets screwed by life: First his glass bones, then the bullying during his studies, then the alliance betraying him, after that possibly losing the whole crew while being left behind completely alone (it may turn out well in the end, but it's still a nightmare of an experience), then EDI's death and he's still to notice what happened to his family yet. But this is the kind of hard decision that everyone told us over and over again we have to be prepared to make. So after all that happened, everything the reapers have done and everything we know about them, there is no way for me to allow them to continue their existence when you get the possibly only chance there will ever be to destroy them. There can be no compromise with the reapers.

By the way, EDI's death in Destroy is the Catalyst's fault, not Shepard's. Just saying.

Modifié par Argolas, 17 janvier 2013 - 01:53 .