579 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. So it's also Joker's fanstay then why was he hesitent to even start the romance when it was offered?

Nerves, and they were both hesitant. 

2.What do you mean so? That means EDI is always arracted to Joker.It matters not what Shepard says.

Not denying that, I'm just not sure why it matters. 

3.Nope, EDI was attrated to Joker before taking with to Shepard about it. Shepard is the only reason it's successful or fails. The only reason any romance start is primaily base on physical and/or emotioal attraction.
If EDI was not attracted to Joker, nothing would ever happen no matter what Shepard said.

Yeah sure, what's your point? Shepard is still the instigator of the whole thing. 

Also, the topic is about the romance not just Joker's perspective....And even then Joker was hesitent to even start the romance.

The thread is about EDI's body, the topic I was talking about before you jumped in responding to posts not directed at you, mid-way through the discussion, was about Joker's perspective on the whole thing. 

1.It was not only nerves and EDI only want to know  how to start it and was never relutent to even start it. Only Joker was hesitant.

EDI had to be encouraged. They were both hesitant. 

2.What? Do understand that the basics of romance is that both partied have to have attration first. Shepard has no control over that. Any romance can't start with outi it.

I understand the idea of romantic attraction, I'm just trying to figure out what your point is by talking about it. 

3.Nope. It was not. You only brought that up when I stated you need to look at thing in EDI's persepective.And even then Joker was hesitant to start it. Looking at his perspective is mute because of that. He was invited into the relationship and he was reluntent to even start it.

I was talking about this for several pages before you jumped in, I know it for a fact, so I don't really care what you think the discussion was about because you weren't part of it, and frankly, this whole argument is pointless. EDI's perspective is a separate issue and one I don't want to talk about. End of discussion. 

1. Edi only ask you how. You did not convince her. She was alrady attracted. You can only retard her attempts.
2.The fact she is attracted  to Joker beforetaking the Shepard about means it genuien.

3.Joker's perpesective about the romace would of never happen it EDI  did not make the first move. How are you not getting this.

[Kel Riever]

 Again,....

VREEP!!!




Wake..BEEP...me...BOOP..next century when your grandkids are still having the same arguement.

BOOP BOOP!

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

People do look past the body, the problem is that miranda catsuit she has that gives her a giant rack and a ****** for no real reason other than to make her a sex symbol

You make it sound that she was the one who design her body and picked that suit. If you don't like the cat suit, don't have her wear it. 
Added, it was TIM/cerberus who made the body.

Trying to blame a fictional character for something Bioware did is you missing the point

Its the fact that its there that shows it was about sex appeal than her actual character

Blaming BW for EDI'S sexy body islike blaming BWfor Miranda's sexy body.

They can design their chatacterbody in any way they want, but in the end the havea stroy related reason for the look. 
EDI is not differnt  in this reguard.

Added, there is way more to EDI'S character then her looks.

[dreamgazer]

Kel Riever wrote...

 Again,....

VREEP!!!




Wake..BEEP...me...BOOP..next century when your grandkids are still having the same arguement.

BOOP BOOP!

Yeah, I tried the same thing further back in the thread. C'est la vie.

No reason to stop the discussion at-hand, though. 

[Clayless]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

No we're not.

Did we talk to the same glowing figure? He won't shut up about how the cycles are the only solution, till now at least.

How is that being told we didn't do anything worth anything regarding EDI, or heck, regarding anything? That doesn't contradict EDI's character arc and just shows us that we did something the other cycles never managed.

Opinions.

Poor rebuttal.

That's not a rebuttal, I don't argue with peoples opinions, especially not on an optional ending, because it's pointless.

Deliberately misleading or innacurate information, like "EDI wasn't alive before Synthesis" or "EDI's nothing but a sexbot"? Yes, I point out that's misleading and argue against it's flaws. "I don't like Synthesis because of opinion" or "I dislike EDI's body"? No, I don't argue against that.

Modifié par Robosexual, 09 février 2013 - 03:48 .

[fainmaca]

dreman9999 wrote...
How/ does it cheapen her story? In what way?

This allows herto see aperspective she never had a chance to see if she stayed just an AI on a ship, which is expanding her virew of things and some how it cheapens her character?

You forgeting she grow greating as a being in ME3. That doesnot means cheapened.

For one, the story loses some of its originality. As I said, her and Joker had a unique and beautifully done relationship already. That was lost.

In taking on a humanoid shape, she began to blend in more with the rest of the cast, removing some of what made her unique.

In short, she becomes a more bland character, and her storyline loses the intelligent originality it had before.

On a constructive note, one way her story could have been improved was if, rather than her stepping out into the 'Human' perspective, hers and Joker's roles were reversed. it would have been interesting if Joker had found some way to rise to her digital level of existance, bridging the gap that way instead. Think of it as a 'reverse pinocchio'.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.No,I did not. You forgetting the fact here that the catalyst is only doing this because it's programed to. It was forced to bring everythng to this point because of bad programing and the solution on hand are only there because of the ignorance of the beings who made the crucible.

The only choice we have is to save this cycle or watch it die. The choices in the end is only an awnser to how.

Which basically proves the point I was making, either one of the choices presented is forced but each also end the Reaper threat at the moment we know the Reapers will be stopped with either option they stop being the problem because they've been effectively disarmed. So the only dilemma left is how our decision impacts the rest of the galaxy and resolves the newly presented conflict.

2.You forgetting the fact here that organics defination of alive is also destroyed in synthesis.

Both organics and synthetic defination of alive is destroyed in synthesis.

Synthetics get full understanding of organics, this means they understand the concept of being alive from the organic perspective, something EDI and Legion struggled with along the way, no one gets a new definition just a new perspective on the existing one.

[Auld Wulf]

Samtheman63 wrote...

[...] but what is silly is EDI and Joker having a relationship

Why? She's a sapient being, he's a sapient being.

I'm curious as to what else is on your 'not okay' list in regards to relationships.

I knew this thread would bring up opinions like these. :I

[dreman9999]

fainmaca wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How/ does it cheapen her story? In what way?

This allows herto see aperspective she never had a chance to see if she stayed just an AI on a ship, which is expanding her virew of things and some how it cheapens her character?

You forgeting she grow greating as a being in ME3. That doesnot means cheapened.

For one, the story loses some of its originality. As I said, her and Joker had a unique and beautifully done relationship already. That was lost.

In taking on a humanoid shape, she began to blend in more with the rest of the cast, removing some of what made her unique.

In short, she becomes a more bland character, and her storyline loses the intelligent originality it had before.

On a constructive note, one way her story could have been improved was if, rather than her stepping out into the 'Human' perspective, hers and Joker's roles were reversed. it would have been interesting if Joker had found some way to rise to her digital level of existance, bridging the gap that way instead. Think of it as a 'reverse pinocchio'.

Originality? ME lost that the second we fought the geth on Eden prime in ME1. The seris has it's unique feel to it, but it is in no way original.
ME bread a butter is it character development. 

And sheis not more bland being that their is no character like her in the series.

Your point begins and end in her looks...Whic is the problem. To gether character you need to look past her looks.

Modifié par dreman9999, 09 février 2013 - 03:58 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Robosexual wrote...
How is that being told we didn't do anything worth anything regarding EDI, or heck, regarding anything? That doesn't contradict EDI's character arc and just shows us that we did something the other cycles never managed.

The fact that the Catalyst never even acknowledges this interaction and keeps spouting his rational for the cycles existance undermines your assessment.

That's not a rebuttal, I don't argue with peoples opinions, especially not on an optional ending, because it's pointless.

Deliberately misleading or innacurate information, like "EDI wasn't alive before Synthesis" or "EDI's nothing but a sexbot"? Yes, I point out that's misleading and argue against it's flaws. "I don't like Synthesis because of opinion" or "I dislike EDI's body"? No, I don't argue against that.

Statements which I didn't make in my post. I explained how a character's development is undermined by the in game  narrative structure, you want to explain how that isn't the case you'll need to back it up with more than hand waving. So if you can do that we might actually have a discussion on the issue of EDI's character.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.No,I did not. You forgetting the fact here that the catalyst is only doing this because it's programed to. It was forced to bring everythng to this point because of bad programing and the solution on hand are only there because of the ignorance of the beings who made the crucible.

The only choice we have is to save this cycle or watch it die. The choices in the end is only an awnser to how.

Which basically proves the point I was making, either one of the choices presented is forced but each also end the Reaper threat at the moment we know the Reapers will be stopped with either option they stop being the problem because they've been effectively disarmed. So the only dilemma left is how our decision impacts the rest of the galaxy and resolves the newly presented conflict.

2.You forgetting the fact here that organics defination of alive is also destroyed in synthesis.

Both organics and synthetic defination of alive is destroyed in synthesis.

Synthetics get full understanding of organics, this means they understand the concept of being alive from the organic perspective, something EDI and Legion struggled with along the way, no one gets a new definition just a new perspective on the existing one.

1. Your missing the fact here that is a case of morals. The ending is just like the hertic geth choice in ME2. Morals of the person is the last guide in this final choice. And even then tha does not mean living with synthetics is impossible. It just means what weare willing to do to save who we can in reguard to our ethics.
2. That just means they understand organics feel about it. What about the organics concept of understanding how synthetics feel about being alive?
It not only the synthetic perspective thatis destroyed. Organic perspective on life is also gone as well.

[Clayless]

fainmaca wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
No she doesn't, that's just an assumption, all she says is she's alive. Not "because of Synthesis I am alive" or "now I'm truly alive", she just says "I am alive".

AKA I am not dead.

Jumping to the conclusions based off her voice actor, or that it just happened "moments ago" (not backed up by anything) is just that, an assumption.

"EDI's character arc was pointless because she's not alive until Synthesis because she says she's not dead and Tricia Helfer voiced her" really is just a massive leap in logic to make from "Because Shepard activated the Crucible and stopped the war, she's not dead, and everyone is united and also not dead".

One of them is based off dialogue from the game, the other is based off metagaming and ignoring her entire character arc.

Honestly I think I lose brain cells every time I try this.

Bioware put a lot of thought into how the epilogue was constructed. They chose EDI to voice the Synthesis one for a reason, because she is the foremost individual the player has interacted with that embodies synthetics and the divide between them and organics. Her use here is a symbol of how this divide has been bridged- she endeavoured to bridge the gap herself, and Synthesis was the way *Shepard helped the Galaxy (including her) to do so.

The epilogue is showing you the consequence of your choice on the Crucible. EDI only says she's alive during this epilogue.

*The Crucible would be more accurate. They know Shepard activated it, not that they chose Synthesis.

Anyway that paragraph is true.

This is a consequence of Synthesis. Not an assumption.

Anyone with a shred of ability to analyse the narrative structure of the epilogue can see that the intent behind the phrasing here is to reference Synthetics becoming alive, not the fact that they didn't get destroyed.

And that's where you jump to assumptions. EDI actually says she's alive before Synthesis, so her saying she's alive clearly isn't a consequence of Synthesis like you assume.

She doesn't say because of Synthesis she's alive. She doesn't say now she's alive. She doesn't say she wasn't alive before. She just says "I am alive" and "Because of Shepard I am alive and I am not alone"

AKA

"I am not dead" and "Because of Shepard (activating the Crucible and stopping the war) I am not dead and everyone is united and also not dead".

She coudn't be any more clear if she tried. Saying you need to analyse the narrative structure to see the intent is just showing you can't see the forest for the trees.

[fainmaca]

dreman9999 wrote...

fainmaca wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How/ does it cheapen her story? In what way?

This allows herto see aperspective she never had a chance to see if she stayed just an AI on a ship, which is expanding her virew of things and some how it cheapens her character?

You forgeting she grow greating as a being in ME3. That doesnot means cheapened.

For one, the story loses some of its originality. As I said, her and Joker had a unique and beautifully done relationship already. That was lost.

In taking on a humanoid shape, she began to blend in more with the rest of the cast, removing some of what made her unique.

In short, she becomes a more bland character, and her storyline loses the intelligent originality it had before.

On a constructive note, one way her story could have been improved was if, rather than her stepping out into the 'Human' perspective, hers and Joker's roles were reversed. it would have been interesting if Joker had found some way to rise to her digital level of existance, bridging the gap that way instead. Think of it as a 'reverse pinocchio'.

Originality? ME lost thatthe second we fought the geth on Eden prime in ME1. The seris has it's unique feel to it, but it is in no way original.
ME bread a butter is it character development. 

And sheis not more bland being that their is no character like her in the series.

Your point begins and end in her looks...Whic is the problem. To gether character you need to look past her looks.

Just because an overarching plot lacks originality doesn't mean that the characters/points contained within can't aspire to it.

My point has nothing to do with her looks. My point is wrapped up in states of being. She didn't need to become like us to be a valid character. Gaining empathy for organics, yes, becoming them, no. Her story seemed to be heading towards her discovering and defining her own form of life, not adopting ours. ME3 changed that. For the worse, in my opinion, and her choosing to become humanoid, to take on this mobile platform form of interaction is at the core of it. Not looks- states of being. Please do not accuse me of such shallow judgements.

[AresKeith]

@Dreman this is people don't like arguments or debates with you because you start to repeat the things we've already countered

EDI's body doesn't have a story-related reason compared to Miranda.who uses her looks as an edge

[dreman9999]

fainmaca wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

fainmaca wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How/ does it cheapen her story? In what way?

This allows herto see aperspective she never had a chance to see if she stayed just an AI on a ship, which is expanding her virew of things and some how it cheapens her character?

You forgeting she grow greating as a being in ME3. That doesnot means cheapened.

For one, the story loses some of its originality. As I said, her and Joker had a unique and beautifully done relationship already. That was lost.

In taking on a humanoid shape, she began to blend in more with the rest of the cast, removing some of what made her unique.

In short, she becomes a more bland character, and her storyline loses the intelligent originality it had before.

On a constructive note, one way her story could have been improved was if, rather than her stepping out into the 'Human' perspective, hers and Joker's roles were reversed. it would have been interesting if Joker had found some way to rise to her digital level of existance, bridging the gap that way instead. Think of it as a 'reverse pinocchio'.

Originality? ME lost thatthe second we fought the geth on Eden prime in ME1. The seris has it's unique feel to it, but it is in no way original.
ME bread a butter is it character development. 

And sheis not more bland being that their is no character like her in the series.

Your point begins and end in her looks...Whic is the problem. To gether character you need to look past her looks.

Just because an overarching plot lacks originality doesn't mean that the characters/points contained within can't aspire to it.

My point has nothing to do with her looks. My point is wrapped up in states of being. She didn't need to become like us to be a valid character. Gaining empathy for organics, yes, becoming them, no. Her story seemed to be heading towards her discovering and defining her own form of life, not adopting ours. ME3 changed that. For the worse, in my opinion, and her choosing to become humanoid, to take on this mobile platform form of interaction is at the core of it. Not looks- states of being. Please do not accuse me of such shallow judgements.

It not about the fact that she has to be like us to develop, it the fact that she as a being want to develop that way. It her choice and she a a characteris not lesser for it.
Apoint your missing.
Added, in the end she does not full become organic any way. This is just her way of learnig to understand us.

It's like a person studying how to speak french goes to live in france to understand the language more.

[fainmaca]

Robosexual wrote...
And that's where you jump to assumptions. EDI actually says she's alive before Synthesis, so her saying she's alive clearly isn't a consequence of Synthesis like you assume.

She doesn't say because of Synthesis she's alive. She doesn't say now she's alive. She doesn't say she wasn't alive before. She just says "I am alive" and "Because of Shepard I am alive and I am not alone"

AKA

"I am not dead" and "Because of Shepard (activating the Crucible and stopping the war) I am not dead and everyone is united and also not dead".

She coudn't be any more clear if she tried. Saying you need to analyse the narrative structure to see the intent is just showing you can't see the forest for the trees.

EDI saying this before and after is a by-product of writing the two parts months apart.

If you don't like the words 'narrative structure', then 'context' will do just as well. Author intent is clear, but you seem set on ignoring that. The whole context of what Synthesis does and what the epilogue shows screams out what EDI means by this phrase.

She is representative of Synthetics in the story, more specifically of the divide between them and organics and the philosophical debates spawned thereof, a staple of which is the question of whether they are alive or not.

EDI is saying that Synthesis made her alive. You're just refusing to accept it.

[Hazegurl]

I didn't mind her getting into a robot body but I did mind her cliche storyline about teaching her how to be a real person.

[Clayless]

Greylycantrope wrote...

The fact that the Catalyst never even acknowledges this interaction and keeps spouting his rational for the cycles existance undermines your assessment.

He acknowledges the interaction between all Synthetics and Organics, which applies to EDI. For example the created will always rebel against their creators (EDI did this twice) and the peace wont last.

Two acknoledgements.

Statements which I didn't make in my post. I explained how a character's development is undermined by the in game  narrative structure, you want to explain how that isn't the case you'll need to back it up with more than hand waving. So if you can do that we might actually have a discussion on the issue of EDI's character.

Right lets see the quote I dismissed then:

and the two groups are two different to coexist without resorting to extreme measures such as forcibly removing the barriers and eliminating the diversity. We don't embrace differnces we embrace changing everyone
to be more the same. And with EDI's character development up until than it appears to be a huge step backwards to what we've already done along the way.

You talk about Synthesis and then you say "with EDI's character development up until then it appears to be a huge step backwards to what we've already done along the way". 

AKA, an opinion.

I never argued against it and then I explained why. You want me to argue against that but I'm not going to, and I've already explained why. If you want to discuss how you feel the Catalyst revealing the conflict to you undermines EDI's story for you then I'm sure there are many other people who will be willing to continue that.

Modifié par Robosexual, 09 février 2013 - 04:08 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

@Dreman this is people don't like arguments or debates with you because you start to repeat the things we've already countered

EDI's body doesn't have a story-related reason compared to Miranda.who uses her looks as an edge

When has Miranda ever use her body as an "edge"

Hech, her story arc is mostly cover her consers about it.

And with EDI there is a story related reason why  her body looks the way it does any way.

[dreman9999]

laecraft wrote...

Joker would've never fallen for her if she didn't look sexy. Imagine EDI never coming across a female robot and trying to seduce Joker with an Atlas. It would be much more fun.

The same thoughts must be running through EDI's mind, that must be why she seized that sexbot with such hurry and desperation.

Although, even if she were Atlas, he could still get inside her.

Come to think of it, he's already inside her, just like the rest of the crew. It makes no sense to try and achieve more closeness by engaging that sexbot. It would be more meaningful for him to approach the blue box.

Come to think of it, that already happened. They already bonded before the whole sexbot appearance. Surely they could look past the lack of proper body for her. Such a great chance to prove that appearance doesn't matter and it's the inside that's most important.

People who says this forgetthe fact the Joker was hesitant to even starting the romance inthe first play and EDI wasthe one who made the first attempt.

[Indy_S]

Given that every new character design looks horribly exaggerated since ME2, EDI unfortunately fits right in. The fact that there have been only two squadmates with a cup-size below D strains credulity, especially when compared to the frankly conservative first game. Tali and Jack's designers, I thank you.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Your missing the fact here that is a case of morals. The ending is just like the hertic geth choice in ME2. Morals of the person is the last guide in this final choice. And even then tha does not mean living with synthetics is impossible. It just means what weare willing to do to save who we can in reguard to our ethics.

The morality of the situation is largely framed by the synthetics organic conflict, the moral implications of destroy are nonesitant if one doesn't see synthetics as a valid form of life. If this is the case nothing's been sacrificed and morality has no bearing at all.

2. That just means they understand organics feel about it. What about the organics concept of understanding how synthetics feel about being alive?
It not only the synthetic perspective thatis destroyed. Organic perspective on life is also gone as well.

Understanding how synthetics feel was never the issue, it was accepting them as life. Recall Adam's arguing with Chakwas over their views of the synthetics. Chakwas saw them as machines because they weren't flesh and blood, now everyone has microchips or whatever imbedded into their bodies right down to the DNA strands, so now those who didn't see machines as alive before might need to re-evaluate their stance seeing as they are now part machine.

[Indy_S]

dreman9999 wrote...

laecraft wrote...

Joker would've never fallen for her if she didn't look sexy. Imagine EDI never coming across a female robot and trying to seduce Joker with an Atlas. It would be much more fun.

The same thoughts must be running through EDI's mind, that must be why she seized that sexbot with such hurry and desperation.

Although, even if she were Atlas, he could still get inside her.

Come to think of it, he's already inside her, just like the rest of the crew. It makes no sense to try and achieve more closeness by engaging that sexbot. It would be more meaningful for him to approach the blue box.

Come to think of it, that already happened. They already bonded before the whole sexbot appearance. Surely they could look past the lack of proper body for her. Such a great chance to prove that appearance doesn't matter and it's the inside that's most important.

People who says this forgetthe fact the Joker was hesitant to even starting the romance inthe first play and EDI wasthe one who made the first attempt.

I thought it was a platonic relationship in the second game. Soul mates, no sex appeal involved. Then it was changed.

[Mr.House]

AresKeith wrote...

@Dreman this is people don't like arguments or debates with you because you start to repeat the things we've already countered

EDI's body doesn't have a story-related reason compared to Miranda.who uses her looks as an edge

Ares I love you buddy but Miranda never does what you say. What she says and what we see in game speaks two tales.