579 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Why does Liara dress properly unlike her mother?

[Clayless]

Greylycantrope wrote...


I think the best retort to the above is actually what you said before:

So if he's just showing us something our cycle did that the others didn't, why is the quote you're using him reaffirming something that has occured in previous cycles and according to him is the outcome that will always occur? What you've presented is a contradiction.

You said  "now we're told we didn't do anything worth nothing" and I said we weren't. You questioned if we met the same Catalyst who "wont shut up about how the cycles are the only solution, till now at least".

Till now. AKA until the Crucible.

I questioned what this had to do with EDI and pointed out that we did do something, contradicting your earlier statement, and agreed with you on the "till now" part by pointing out it's something the other cycles never managed. AKA building the Crucible.

Misremembering your argument doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself.

Regardless the example you gave doesn't reflect EDI's interaction with us(Shepard) but with Cerberus, Shepard didn't build her, focus please, we're talking character development here. What I've been saying, repeatedly, is that EDI's interaction with Shepard and the Normandy crew has given her an understanding of the organic view of what constitutes life. She now feels alive thanks to that influnce, synthesis making her alive is redundant in terms of character progression. I can't make this any clearer so if you're having trouble grasping that I'll call it a night

EDI's first interaction with her creators, and Shepard, was to kill them, so I'm referencing the argment before about the Catalyst not addressing this by pointing out he does. Twice.

The argument about "Synthesis making her alive is redundant" isn't an argument I'm making. I'm saying the complete opposite, that Synthesis didn't make her alive, she already was, Synthesis didn't change that. We're effectively just agreeing here.

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

EDI's body does do anything for her character but makes her a sex symbol

I disagree, despite her execution being flawed, but I know better than to offer much of a rebuttal in a thread labeling her a "sex bot".

Don't get me wrong I don't hate EDI's body and I expected it to happen, but the catsuits, the giant rack, and the ****** is just too much for no reason regarding EDI

[Mr.House]

AresKeith wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

EDI's body does do anything for her character but makes her a sex symbol

I disagree, despite her execution being flawed, but I know better than to offer much of a rebuttal in a thread labeling her a "sex bot".

Don't get me wrong I don't hate EDI's body and I expected it to happen, but the catsuits, the giant rack, and the ****** is just too much for no reason regarding EDI

Pretty much this. As I said before. Had the body looked just like Eva Core I would not care as it works well and the hwoel inflitration unit thing makes more sense. How does EDI inflitrate when you can tell she is a robot right away?

[Dark_Caduceus]

LineHolder wrote...

It wasn't really silly. They gave her a face that was meant to make Shepard connect with her and I really liked that.

It was incredibly sweet that they developed Joker's and her relationship gradually throughout the game instead of making her romanceable. Admit it, there are plenty of Sheldon wannabes who would want that.

As far as the sexy robot body goes, it was worth it just for Donnelly's convos with the female engineer. Just dress her up in the alt costume if it bothers you so much.

It doesn't necessarily bother me (at least no more than any of the other dumb stuff in this game), it's just something to be critical of. I'm not disturbed or upset by it, but I do think it's rather stupid.

Most people are likely past the stage of this game "bothering" them, it's just critical review now because well, there's not much to do.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Robosexual wrote...

You said  "now we're told we didn't do anything worth nothing" and I said we weren't. You questioned if we met the same Catalyst who "wont shut up about how the cycles are the only solution, till now at least".

Till now. AKA until the Crucible.

I questioned what this had to do with EDI and pointed out that we did do something, contradicting your earlier statement, and agreed with you on the "till now" part by pointing out it's something the other cycles never managed. AKA building the Crucible.

Misremembering your argument doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself.

I'm not misremembering you're just not understanding what I wrote originally. What you're quoting was in reference to EDI's characer, not us being a peculiar cycle in general.

EDI's first interaction with her creators, and Shepard, was to kill them, so I'm referencing the argment before about the Catalyst not addressing this by pointing out he does. Twice.

Again that has no bearing on her character development, let me be clear: At no point does he acknowldege the fact that Shepard an organic has struck up a friendship with a Synthetics despite him saying such things are impossible

The argument about "Synthesis making her alive is redundant" isn't an argument I'm making. I'm saying the complete opposite, that Synthesis didn't make her alive, she already was, Synthesis didn't change that. We're effectively just agreeing here.

Synthesis making her alive is redundant in terms of EDI's characer development is the argument I've been making, it's also the part you've been missing this whole time.

Calling it a night.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 09 février 2013 - 05:56 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

"EDI's body" wasn't specifically designed for EDI, therefore none of this is relevant. It is Dr. Eva's body, who was a spy and used her body as a tool (as spies are wont to do).

A frumpy spy has considerably less options than a desirable one.

[Seboist]

Edit: Post removed

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 09 février 2013 - 05:35 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

Edit: Post removed

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 09 février 2013 - 05:35 .

[Col.Aurion]

yes, why even give her a body in the first place. It just stupid

[Dabrikishaw]

I was extremely glad for the new body, as It meant I had a new squad mate instead of another returning Mass Effect 1 member.

[LandoN7]

I really liked EDI in ME2. She was cool with a nice voice and never got on my nerves. Kind of gave the Normandy itself a personality in a way.

And then ME3 came and destroyed all that. EDI herself is still great, but the body and romance with Joker is so......bad.

[Wompoo]

Hey her voice matches her body ( Jeri Ryan I would give her more then 7 out of 9 ) so I was happy. Should be more of it, I'm all for well curved desirable females.

[Luigitornado]

No. I loved the idea, and I still love it.

[humes spork]

Wompoo wrote...

Hey her voice matches her body ( Jeri Ryan I would give her more then 7 out of 9 ) so I was happy. Should be more of it, I'm all for well curved desirable females.

Tricia Helfer is the voice of EDI, not Jeri Ryan, who by the way redeemed herself for being Seven of Nine by bringing us Barack Obama.

[Eterna]

fainmaca wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
No I'm saying he wouldn't consider her a rommantic option until she has a hummanistic form which is capable of having a fulfilling human relationship. It's not really shallow, humans seek human companionship, EDI is unable to provide the full extent of human companionship without a physical body. 

And by physical I don't just mean sex. 

Eterna5 wrote...
You may not like it, but for a healthy romantic relationship to be fulfilling there has to be more than just a liking for someones personality.

Sorry, but this is a very narrow outlook on life.

There are people in the world with no sensation whatsoever due to physical illness or injuries, and there are others who remain separated by political, cultural or simple economic divides, and yet they maintain a healthy and fulfilling relationship based entirely on the strength of expressing themselves, verbally or in written form. You mean to say to me that their relationships are unhealthy or invalid?

If the entity you're interacting with has an established personality and acts of its own free will, it is a sentient (if not living) being. The car you mention is not.

If you really cannot consider a relationship as viable just because you can't physically interact (not sex, necessarily), then I really do pity you. Character matters, not the haerdware that's stored in.

Your injury part is irrelevant. The only people who stay with paralyzed people or people with diseases that makes physical interaction impossible are people who have memories of what they were like before. For example, A woman marries a man and from some event he becomes paralyzed from the neck down. She stays with him because she loves him. 

Tell me, how many people are just dying to date paralyzed people on the basis of their personalities? You may not like it, but people first choose their mates based on their physical attributes. Such a thing as paralysis is a clear turn off. 

As much as you don't like it the Hardware does matter, not as much as the character, but it does. Someone can have the greatest personality on earth, but you'll never approach them or think of them as a romantic interest unless you feel some form of physical attraction to them. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 09 février 2013 - 07:41 .

[Indy_S]

Why was a romantic relationship needed here? Platonic was working fine. The two were already soul mates.

[thebigbad1013]

arial wrote...

I much preferred EDI when she was a holographic bubble

This is true for me as well. EDI always ends up getting parked on the ship for me anyway.

[mauro2222]

I have no problem with EDI's mobile platform. After all it's an infiltration unit, if it looks attractive, then it helps to persuade and adds charm. The cameltoe was unnecesary (I guess that yes, sex can help in the spionage part, but why is it visible with clothes and whe she's naked it dissappears), that I agree. And the "haircut", the visor are just personality traits, it adds a touch of elegance and it also adds a futuristic look.

Her body is almost perfect, but I wasn't watching her boobs or her ass, so I didn't really see a problem with the oversexualization.

[Indy_S]

LineHolder wrote...
Yeah but the criticism in the thread is bordering on puritanism. Don't you think?

Why cant EDI have an 'over-sexualized' body? You do get to see her intellectual development regardless. And for some strange reason you are also given control over her relationship withJoker.

Is it that we're reacting badly to every female character has an 'over-sexualised' body that you find puritanical? Maybe if it was only a few characters, it wouldn't get so many complaints. Instead we only have two female characters that aren't over-sexualised: Tali and Jack. It doesn't seem like a mature design decision.

[mauro2222]

I wouldn't say that, Indy. Not even Jack was safe, she covers herself with a very tight fabric and still she manages to have hard nipples haha.

[Sundance31us]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...
Did anyone else feel the same way?

No. Having explored quite a bit of her dialogue I like the character and don't give a pyjaks tail what she looks like.

[Clayless]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Again that has no bearing on her character development, let me be clear: At no point does he acknowldege the fact that Shepard an organic has struck up a friendship with a Synthetics despite him saying such things are impossible

Incorrect, he says the peace wont last, not that peace is impossible.

Synthesis making her alive is redundant in terms of EDI's characer development is the argument I've been making, it's also the part you've been missing this whole time.

Calling it a night.

That's ok, because Synthesis doesn't make her anymore alive, she already was.