711 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

StreetMagic wrote...

All of the ending slides suck if you pick Destroy. Or rather, the story sucks. I wouldn't invest too much thought to it. They obviously want you to get a better sense of closure from the other endings.

Ugh, they keep shoving Major Coats down my throat. Shepard didn't see the Take Back Earth trailer I still doubt she knows who he is.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:13 .

[The Twilight God]

KaiserShep wrote...

The only "evidence" I see here is the lack of a slide or cutscene specifically showing dead geth. Everything else is hugely speculative. Things like focusing on reaper-derived hardware or code or anything of the sort is purely a fan-made theory, so that doesn't reconcile EDI's demise. If one wishes to believe that the geth survived and the catalyst lied, that's fine, but this should come with acceptance of the fact that this is merely head-canon.

Patricks Weekes said they all didn't want to kill EDI, but they felt they had to because she was made from Reaper parts. As opposed to saying she died simply because she as an AI.

http://social.biowar...ndex/11154234/1

-Why [can't] EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed[...]

Furthermore, head canon involves the addition of information outside the in-game content. My position is based on in-game content.
1.) The Kid never says anything about all synthetics being destroyed (it was retconned out in EC). Such a claim is never made in-game. 
2.) The Kid DOES say all technology will be effected instead, which is stated in-game 
3.) All technology was not effected in any noticeable way as witnessed (or rather not witnessed) in-game. "Effected" could mean anything really so rather or not it lied is debatable.
4.) The only thing we actually see is husks disintegrating and dreadnaughts falling over due to the space magic, which is seen in-game.
5.) EDI is stated to be made of reaper parts in-game (in both ME2 and ME3). 
6.) EDI died along with the Reapers and husks as shown in-game.

So given the fact that we only see life forms with synthesized parts die how can we make the leap to all AI died when there is no indication whatsoever that all AI's would die? There is literally no basis for that train of thought or than pre-EC. Saying all AI perished is in the same line as saying Unicorns exist because you can't prove they didn't.  Of course, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove something I have no reason to believe. I don't have to prove the Geth didn't die. I have no reason to think they died. Just like I don't have to prove the Drell didn't all died. Likewise, I have no reason to believe they died.

So how can it be head canon to state that there is no evidence that the Geth were destroyed? Having no evidence to claim that the Geth all died why would I assert they did? There are no slides of Elcor. So should I assert they died and call it head canon to believe otherwise? You can believe that a lack of slides "proves" the Geth died, but then isn't that head canon? Seeing as it's not actually based on anything explicitly derived from in-game content where as my position is derived from in-game content. I can say the lack of Volus slides "proves" they all died. Or that the lack of slides of Bailey and other Citadel denizens "proves" they all died. But THAT would be head canon and speculation.

The part about how code can't be specifically targeted, albeit logical in the real world could be untrue in the fictional world due to the writers' ignorance or lack of forethought. I mean, we are calling it space MAGIC after all You can call that head canon, sure, but it isn't necessary for my position to stand. I have always held that plain old bad writing is a viable position. However, in my mind, if there is a rational explanation of events that fit the story told I'd rather give the writers the benefit of the doubt first than to immediately assume bad writing.

[The Twilight God]

StreetMagic wrote...

Darks1d3 wrote...

Maybe there is more "closure" with the other endings. However I still prefer destroy. Synthesis brings about a boring "utopia", and control has Shepard become the god emperor. But atleast Leto had the good fortune to die after 3500 years and had the chance to remember his humanity near the end. But forever ever stuck as an AI with the starbrat as your only company? That's a special kind of hell.

Yeah, I still pick it too. I'll just "speculate" as I was originally intended to, I guess. To me, the EC just makes Destroy worse.

The endings sucks period regardless of what you chose. I hate Destroy. Geth alive or dead. Not that I cared anyway.

I hate the endings because the endings should have been more about the individual races and characters based on your choices throughout the series. Not how you used the Crucible. The EC slides were an afterthought and didn't really feel personal at all. Most were based solely on ME3 events. ME was very character driven, especially from 2 onward. To just abruptly stop - The End - did not do the characters justice. Because let's face it, the reaper plot was just an excuse for the character stories to play out.

And If you are going to make an ending focus of how the Reapers die at least make it gratifying. They completely took any joy out of it. You didn't get to gloat, see the fleets shred them, nothing. It was like the Reapers all drank cyanide Kool-Aid and went to sleep peacefully without a care in the world to await the mothership. I'd have loved to hear Harbinger beg for its life

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

All of the ending slides suck if you pick Destroy. Or rather, the story sucks. I wouldn't invest too much thought to it. They obviously want you to get a better sense of closure from the other endings.

Ugh, they keep shoving Major Coats down my throat. Shepard didn't see the Take Back Earth trailer I still doubt she knows who he is.

If you've finished the game Shepard met Coates. It is not avoidable.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Not necessarily. They originally released the game with Destroy being the one that required the most dedication to building up War Assets. Anything less and the galaxy Shepard goes down the toilet.

Fixed. Synthesis always needed more EMS than Destroy -- it was only the breath clip that needed more than Synth.

What happens to the galaxy right below that threshold? I've seen low EMS and high EMS, but not that.

Which threshold? Shepard living? Right below that level it's standard high-EMS endings, just no breath clip. Further down synthesis becomes unavailable, though everything else is the same. The low EMS endings come below that.

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

All of the ending slides suck if you pick Destroy. Or rather, the story sucks. I wouldn't invest too much thought to it. They obviously want you to get a better sense of closure from the other endings.

Ugh, they keep shoving Major Coats down my throat. Shepard didn't see the Take Back Earth trailer I still doubt she knows who he is.

If you've finished the game Shepard met Coates. It is not avoidable.

Oh sorry, I meant that as a joke. The first time I played ME3 I hadn't seen the trailer yet, so when he started speaking I was thinking to myself who's this guy that Shepard is paying so much attention to? This could probably be said about a few more characters but he was completely unnecessary, he was basically a cameo from the trailer.

[David7204]

Considering the Catalyst offers Shepard Destroy in the first place, it's hardly 'beyond his imagination.'

[David7204]

I should also point out that making your decisions in an effort to 'prove your enemy wrong' is generally not very wise. Disagreeing with your enemy just because he's your enemy makes you a fool.

[David7204]

You're right. I'm honest enough to have the same tolerance for foolishness, regardless of who it comes from.

[David7204]

This is not what I would call 'socializing.' And I don't expect others to have put the kind of thought into such things that I have.

[TigusVidiks]

The Twilight God wrote...

TigusVidiks wrote...

Necanor wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Don't bother engaging The Twilight God on the point. Read his sig. This is the guy behind IT-Con.

Oh...oh god...thanks Alan, you just saved me a lot of trouble:mellow:

 so what? even if it's the guy behind IT-Con, it's just another guy so unhappy with the actual endings he got, he needs to make up something in his mind to make sense of it all.

I haven't made anything up.

The Kid says nothing about synthetics being destroyed. If you claim otherwise YOU are making things up. Now you're welcome to believe whatever you wish and interpret what you see however you'd like. But it is just your belief. Just like my views are my beliefs. However, I can back my belief with evidence.

at 07:32

See it again.

" It is now in your power to destroy us. But be warned, others will be destroyed as well. The crucible will not descriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. "

Modifié par TigusVidiks, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:35 .

[Hazegurl]

Yeah he says all synthetics will be destroyed, then alludes to Shepard meeting the same fate cause he is partly synthetic. Yet the only synthetics who meet an end that we know of are those sitting around with Reaper tech inside of them.

[Iakus]

The Twilight God wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The only "evidence" I see here is the lack of a slide or cutscene specifically showing dead geth. Everything else is hugely speculative. Things like focusing on reaper-derived hardware or code or anything of the sort is purely a fan-made theory, so that doesn't reconcile EDI's demise. If one wishes to believe that the geth survived and the catalyst lied, that's fine, but this should come with acceptance of the fact that this is merely head-canon.

Patricks Weekes said they all didn't want to kill EDI, but they felt they had to because she was made from Reaper parts. As opposed to saying she died simply because she as an AI.

http://social.biowar...ndex/11154234/1 

-Why [can't] EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed[...]

Which completely ignores that EDI was sentient before her Reaper upgrades (as were the geth).  Proving her death was simply an arbitrary consequence dreamed up to add yet more tragedy.

::facepalm::

Modifié par iakus, 19 décembre 2013 - 07:09 .

[KaiserShep]

TigusVidiks wrote...

See it again.

" It is now in your power to destroy us. But be warned, others will be destroyed as well. The crucible will not descriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. "

Theres not much one can do when it comes to deception/indoctrination theory 

[Hazegurl]

iakus wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The only "evidence" I see here is the lack of a slide or cutscene specifically showing dead geth. Everything else is hugely speculative. Things like focusing on reaper-derived hardware or code or anything of the sort is purely a fan-made theory, so that doesn't reconcile EDI's demise. If one wishes to believe that the geth survived and the catalyst lied, that's fine, but this should come with acceptance of the fact that this is merely head-canon.

Patricks Weekes said they all didn't want to kill EDI, but they felt they had to because she was made from Reaper parts. As opposed to saying she died simply because she as an AI.

http://social.biowar...ndex/11154234/1 

-Why [can't] EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed[...]

Which completely ignores that EDI was sentient before her Reaper upgrades (as were the geth).  Proving her death was simply an arbitrary consequence dreamed up to add yet more tragedy.

::facepalm::

True. I honestly can't see how EDI could have died. She could have left Eva's body as she was the Normady AI and  was simply controlling Eva.  

[dreamgazer]

EDI also gains access to "Anti-Reaper Algorithms" and states that she devotes significant processing power to analyzing them. When pressed on this subject by Shepard as to how she could hope to combat beings millions of years more advanced, she reveals that she was in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself.

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Oh sorry, I meant that as a joke. The first time I played ME3 I hadn't seen the trailer yet, so when he started speaking I was thinking to myself who's this guy that Shepard is paying so much attention to? This could probably be said about a few more characters but he was completely unnecessary, he was basically a cameo from the trailer.

Gotcha. Yeah, that's pretty much true. OTOH, nothing wrong with some guys on Earth having actual faces and names.

[Hazegurl]

dreamgazer wrote...

EDI also gains access to "Anti-Reaper Algorithms" and states that she devotes significant processing power to analyzing them. When pressed on this subject by Shepard as to how she could hope to combat beings millions of years more advanced, she reveals that she was in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself.[/b]

Ah, that makes more sense. Oh well, poor EDI. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Twilight God wrote...

But it is just your belief. Just like my views are my beliefs. However, I can back my belief with evidence.

The absense of evidence is not evidence.

iakus wrote...

Which completely ignores that EDI was sentient before her Reaper upgrades (as were the geth).  Proving her death was simply an arbitrary consequence dreamed up to add yet more tragedy.

::facepalm::

She was (apparently) a sentient VI before the Reaper parts.

She did not become EDI as we know her, though, until after them.

*edit* -- see the quote by dreamgazer.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 19 décembre 2013 - 07:31 .

[AlanC9]

Hazegurl wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

EDI also gains access to "Anti-Reaper Algorithms" and states that she devotes significant processing power to analyzing them. When pressed on this subject by Shepard as to how she could hope to combat beings millions of years more advanced, she reveals that she was in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself.[/b]

Ah, that makes more sense. Oh well, poor EDI. 

If it's any consolation, there's no real reason to think that the Crucible did target Reaper code, Reaper tech, or any other such thing. So EDI was doomed anyway if you shot the tube.

(Well, except for that Weekes quote.)

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 décembre 2013 - 07:41 .