429 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Argolas wrote...

It makes perfect sense how the Normandy's crew reacted. That doesn't make the body good, neither in its design nor in its background. I would have LOVED to see EDI creating a body for herself the way she wants to look like, a body that reflects her growing personality, a body that she made for herself because she wished to interact with people, especially Joker. A physical reflection of her wish to be a person. Not a meaningless platform that she took over from Cerberus to provide fire support and doesn't mean anything other than "sexy".

This is such stupid logic.

What exactly is so offensive to you about a character being attractive?

Modifié par David7204, 02 mai 2013 - 05:42 .

[Argolas]

Enhanced wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

This is exactly way EDI does things like taking over a body without asking. She's a synthetic that is evolving and wants a body, but organics don't want her to have one.

Who says synthetics organic conflict doesn't exist?

Read my post above. I don't have anything against her having a body. I do have something against what it turned out like.

2nd leading vote is:

"I prefered her just being the ship."

Just as organics, synthetics don't like being held back. It's basically the reason why they turn on their creators.

It's not about ingame perspective. I blame the writers, not EDI.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

It makes perfect sense how the Normandy's crew reacted. That doesn't make the body good, neither in its design nor in its background. I would have LOVED to see EDI creating a body for herself the way she wants to look like, a body that reflects her growing personality, a body that she made for herself because she wished to interact with people, especially Joker. A physical reflection of her wish to be a person. Not a meaningless platform that she took over from Cerberus to provide fire support and doesn't mean anything other than "sexy".

This is such stupid logic.

What exactly is so offensive to you about a character being attractive?

I fail to see how. EDI getting a body the way I explained could have had a purpose and a meaning, the way it happened it just didn't. I call that wasted potential.

I don't have anything against a character being attractive. I hate it when it becomes a major selling point when it shouldn't be though. EDI was interesting because she grew from a machine into a person, and the focus should have stayed there.

Modifié par Argolas, 02 mai 2013 - 05:44 .

[David7204]

You're being completely hypocritical.

If her body is the way you want it, well then golly gee, it's a wonderful meaningful purposeful thing!

But if she has boobs, then suddenly she's a stupid sexbot?

There's a completely moronic implication that characters having sexual traits somehow dumbs them down. And it's ridiculous.

Modifié par David7204, 02 mai 2013 - 05:46 .

[David7204]

EDI's body is not and has never been a selling point, and pretending it is is utterly beyond stupid.

Was EDI present in a single piece of advertising? No, she wasn't.

Was EDI made a love interest, which seems a fairly obvious thing to do if the intent was drawing in basement dwellers to play ME 3 for hot robot sex? No, she wasn't.

Was EDI sexed up during dialogue? No, she wasn't. All of the dialogue surrounding her body and romance is clearly written to be humerous and endearing, not sexually enticing.

Modifié par David7204, 02 mai 2013 - 05:49 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Argolas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

It makes perfect sense how the Normandy's crew reacted. That doesn't make the body good, neither in its design nor in its background. I would have LOVED to see EDI creating a body for herself the way she wants to look like, a body that reflects her growing personality, a body that she made for herself because she wished to interact with people, especially Joker. A physical reflection of her wish to be a person. Not a meaningless platform that she took over from Cerberus to provide fire support and doesn't mean anything other than "sexy".

This is such stupid logic.

What exactly is so offensive to you about a character being attractive?

I fail to see how. EDI getting a body the way I explained could have had a purpose and a meaning, the way it happened it just didn't. I call that wasted potential.

I don't have anything against a character being attractive. I hate it when it becomes a major selling point when it shouldn't be though. EDI was interesting because she grew from a machine into a person, and the focus should have stayed there.

Major selling point huh? That's funny, I don't remember any advertisments proclaiming to buy the game, because you get a sexy female robot companion.

But more to the point, edi saw an oppurtunity to get a physical body independant of the normandy and, rather than waste precious resources on the ship that might be needed for other functions, simply took the already made body that had minimal cost to the normandy crew in terms of hardware and processing power and labor.

I really don't see what the big deal is, espically since they way she did it makes a lot more sense than the way you purposed doing it. Why would she care about the sentimental value in creating her own body? 

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

You're being completely hypocritical.

If her body is the way you want it, well then golly gee, it's a wonderful meaningful purposeful thing!

But if she has boobs, then suddenly she's a stupid sexbot?

There's a completely moronic implication that characters having sexual traits somehow dumbs them down. And it's ridiculous.

It is not about her not being allowed to have boobs. If she makes a body for herself and that has boobs, that even makes sense because she would want Joker to like her body. But it does not mean anything to EDI. It's an expandable tool for fire support, she explains that. It looks the way it does because that's how Cerberus designed it, not because EDI wants it to. It's completely meaningless other than "whoa, boobies" and that adds exactly nothing at all to the EDI character.

[CDR David Shepard]

Argolas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You're being completely hypocritical.

If her body is the way you want it, well then golly gee, it's a wonderful meaningful purposeful thing!

But if she has boobs, then suddenly she's a stupid sexbot?

There's a completely moronic implication that characters having sexual traits somehow dumbs them down. And it's ridiculous.

It is not about her not being allowed to have boobs. If she makes a body for herself and that has boobs, that even makes sense because she would want Joker to like her body. But it does not mean anything to EDI. It's an expandable tool for fire support, she explains that. It looks the way it does because that's how Cerberus designed it, not because EDI wants it to. It's completely meaningless other than "whoa, boobies" and that adds exactly nothing at all to the EDI character.

I honestly think you're just trolling now.

[BananaDePijama]

Curves are Better than the Normandy's Hull :3

[Argolas]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Why would she care about the sentimental value in creating her own body? 

Because that would mean something for EDI. Because that would mean something for Joker. Because it would be a major step forward in the process of becoming a person.

[David7204]

So why can't she find meaning in Joker finding her sexually attractive? Why is she not allowed to think that being attractive is a good thing?

Modifié par David7204, 02 mai 2013 - 05:58 .

[Felya87]

I liked much more EDI in ME2. even in the dialogue, and not only with the sexy body, she is too much...human.
I liked much more the "Learning" glowing EDI, than the ME3 EDI, who seem to cry "hey! I'm here!!! I'm almost as human as you!!! I have sentiments!!! and boobs!!! And I'm the only loved one left to Joker!!! how can you kill me in destroy???"

bang. bang. BANG!!!

Before the EC I quite liked her. now I think I'll skip her dialogue. she is too much just a way to choose to not pick Destroy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

It makes perfect sense how the Normandy's crew reacted. That doesn't make the body good, neither in its design nor in its background. I would have LOVED to see EDI creating a body for herself the way she wants to look like, a body that reflects her growing personality, a body that she made for herself because she wished to interact with people, especially Joker. A physical reflection of her wish to be a person. Not a meaningless platform that she took over from Cerberus to provide fire support and doesn't mean anything other than "sexy".

This is such stupid logic.

What exactly is so offensive to you about a character being attractive?

For me, it sort of highlights where the developers were taking the game in regards to the synthetics. They were trying to humanize EDI and make her more... sympathetic to players as well as giving her a physical avatar with which she could interract with other characters on a more personal level. It went along with the humanization that the writers were giving to the characters in general. It's possible that it was made to be a lead-up to the end of the game. I personally did not like this approach to the synnthetics, especially EDI, as compared to the previous game.

As for her being made to be attractive, it's in the artbook. The writers wanted her to be attractive, less of a foil for Joker and more of an interest for him. I argue that they could have done this without giving her a body. Make him more compassionate and dedicated to the Normandy.

Also, being a jackass is unproductive. You need to stop thinking your smarter than everyone else just because they don't agree with you.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 mai 2013 - 06:07 .

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

So why can't she find meaning in Joker finding her sexually attractive? Why is she not allowed to think that being attractive is a good thing?

That's not the point. That body is not part of herself the way a body she made for herself would be.

[conjmk]

F*ck you Argolas, I loved the body.

Modifié par conjmk, 02 mai 2013 - 06:07 .

[David7204]

It boils down to this incredibly simple premise:

Beauty is a good thing. And it isn't wrong to want it. And yes, there are some implications that branch off from that. But those are absolutely a price worth paying.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

You're being completely hypocritical.

If her body is the way you want it, well then golly gee, it's a wonderful meaningful purposeful thing!

But if she has boobs, then suddenly she's a stupid sexbot?

There's a completely moronic implication that characters having sexual traits somehow dumbs them down. And it's ridiculous.

Reductio ad Absurdum

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

So what's the problem with her body?

. Because it detracts from her charcater.

Is that right?

So is that just EDI, or is it any attractive character?

. She was fine as the Ship's AI.  She gets a body and everyone is drooling over her body.  It's on par with Ashley's make over, it's just sex appeal for sex appeal's sake.

[David7204]

Like literally every single attractive character in the game, except for maybe Miranda? They don't need to be attractive. The characters and story could function perfectly well if they weren't. So why are they?

Modifié par David7204, 02 mai 2013 - 06:21 .

[KaiserShep]

David7204 wrote...

Like literally every single attractive character in the game, except for maybe Miranda? They don't need to be attractive. The characters and story could function perfectly well if they weren't. So why are they?

Technically, Miranda's attractiveness is part of her backstory, being genetically engineered and all. As for Liara, it was mainly her face that really stood out, made more obvious when playing ME2 and going to the LotSB mission. All Tali gets is a bit more refinement in her suit design. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 mai 2013 - 06:26 .

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

It boils down to this incredibly simple premise:

Beauty is a good thing. And it isn't wrong to want it. And yes, there are some implications that branch off from that. But those are absolutely a price worth paying.

You can make beauty without unnecessarily oversexualizing the character. Beauty can have meaning. For example, it does in Miranda's case because being beautiful is part of her character and she would dress rather sexy because she considers it an advantage.  It could have had meaning for Jack if they included a scene where Jack deliberately shows us her tatoos, let us talk to her about them for a little, and those tatoos would suddenly have a meaning beyond making Jack look badass. It could have had meaning in EDI if she made herself a body because she wished to be attractive to Joker. Those are more than excuses for beauty, those are reasons.

[SpamBot2000]

EDI is a robot. Why should she have a sexuality, considering robots don't procreate sexually? She will "simulate" it to please Joker? Or, as the case would likely be, crush his frail bones...

Encouraging Joker to go for it is one of the things I regret in my one and only playthrough. Such thoughtlessness, rushing through.

[David7204]

Liara has those big beautiful blue eye, cute freckles, flawless skin, slender and buxom. She doesn't need to have any of that. Is that not 'attractiveness for attractiveness' sake?'

Modifié par David7204, 02 mai 2013 - 06:27 .

[Argolas]

Ashley is beautiful even in ME1 with her military hairstyle. Liara never shows unnecessarily much skin yet she still is beautiful, same goes for Samantha. You can create sexy characters without oversexualizing their character models. I'd never find Asari attractive just for being space babes with blue skin. I played the game and learned more about them, found them an interesting fictional race and grew to like a few Asari that I could get to know, so now they work for me.