151 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

Yeah, she's willing to risk being killed by Reapers.

 

But by her own commander?

If that means stopping the war? Yes. 

[SporkFu]

Yeah, she's willing to risk being killed by Reapers.

 

But by her own commander?

If that means stopping the war? Yes. 

Agreed. It's no different than Ash/Kaidan on Virmire. Shep makes a decision and the one left behind has no regrets about sacrificing themselves to see the job done.

 

Or any of the crew going through the Omega-IV relay. They know from the start it's a suicide mission; even if it doesn't necessarily end up that way, they dunno that... but they go anyway, and most of them were never soldiers in the first place.

 

I love the way EDI's character evolves as she comes to that realization. It makes the destroy ending a bit difficult for me... but in the end, really, no different than Virmire. 

[Iakus]

Agreed. It's no different than Ash/Kaidan on Virmire. Shep makes a decision and the one left behind has no regrets about sacrificing themselves to see the job done.

 

Or any of the crew going through the Omega-IV relay. They know from the start it's a suicide mission; even if it doesn't necessarily end up that way, they dunno that... but they go anyway, and most of them were never soldiers in the first place.

 

I love the way EDI's character evolves as she comes to that realization. It makes the destroy ending a bit difficult for me... but in the end, really, no different than Virmire. 

Except the one being left behind knows they are being left behind, and why, and even has a chance to say goodbye.

 

Same as the ME2 crew.  they know what they are up against, they know nobody ever came back from such a trip.  They could (in theory) say "This is my stop.  Drop me off on Omega".  and agreed to go anyway.

 

EDI has no choice regarding the red wave.    She gets no warning.  No chance to say goodbye to Joker or anyone else.  It doesn't matter that she chose to fight in the war, if she's willing to die or not.  The red wave would find her regardless. 

 

EDI became nothing but a hostage of the writers: "Pick Red and your squadmate dies"

[SporkFu]

Except the one being left behind knows they are being left behind, and why, and even has a chance to say goodbye.

 

Same as the ME2 crew.  they know what they are up against, they know nobody ever came back from such a trip.  They could (in theory) say "This is my stop.  Drop me off on Omega".  and agreed to go anyway.

 

EDI has no choice regarding the red wave.    She gets no warning.  No chance to say goodbye to Joker or anyone else.  It doesn't matter that she chose to fight in the war, if she's willing to die or not.  The red wave would find her regardless. 

 

EDI became nothing but a hostage of the writers: "Pick Red and your squadmate dies"

Yeah, but EDI is willing to die if that's what it takes. Her whole development throughout the game is about her becoming "part of the crew". Learning what it means to sacrifice oneself for the good of others, that self-preservation isn't the be-all and end-all. Yeah it sucks that she's arbitrarily marked for death, but given her character arc, I have to believe that if she were given the choice, she would have no regrets either. 

[Iakus]

Yeah, but EDI is willing to die if that's what it takes. Her whole development throughout the game is about her becoming "part of the crew". Learning what it means to sacrifice oneself for the good of others, that self-preservation isn't the be-all and end-all. Yeah it sucks that she's arbitrarily marked for death, but given her character arc, I have to believe that if she were given the choice, she would have no regrets either. 

That's just it though, she isn't given that choice.  It's Shepard's and Shepard's alone.  Which renders her entire arc and development pointless.

 

It doesn't matter that she learns about self-sacrifice, because she never gets to apply it.  Heck, Legion got a better ending in that case

[SporkFu]

That's just it though, she isn't given that choice.  It's Shepard's and Shepard's alone.  Which renders her entire arc and development pointless.

 

It doesn't matter that she learns about self-sacrifice, because she never gets to apply it.  Heck, Legion got a better ending in that case

Just the opposite, I'd say. Her arc isn't pointless at all. For some people it's enough to make them not choose the red ending -- or reload and pick a different one. 

[Vazgen]

That's just it though, she isn't given that choice.  It's Shepard's and Shepard's alone.  Which renders her entire arc and development pointless.

 

It doesn't matter that she learns about self-sacrifice, because she never gets to apply it.  Heck, Legion got a better ending in that case

So? It's war, not everyone gets a chance to say goodbye before death takes them. Doesn't mean her character development was pointless. She's dead? Sucks to be Joker. Will my Shepard feel guilt over that choice? Yes. Will he make that choice again? Definitely. And EDI with her character development during ME3 would've approved. ME2 EDI might not. 

[Iakus]

So? It's war, not everyone gets a chance to say goodbye before death takes them. Doesn't mean her character development was pointless. She's dead? Sucks to be Joker. Will my Shepard feel guilt over that choice? Yes. Will he make that choice again? Definitely. And EDI with her character development during ME3 would've approved. ME2 EDI might not. 

No, it's not war, it's a game.  And a story.  And a poorly told one.

[Vazgen]

No, it's not war, it's a game.  And a story.  And a poorly told one.

You play a game about war. Close depiction is required to create immersion. If you view it as merely a game I find it weird that you care about feels of a bunch pixels.

[Iakus]

You play a game about war. Close depiction is required to create immersion. If you view it as merely a game I find it weird that you care about feels of a bunch pixels.

I care about the story.  And a story has to make sense.  Building up a character to be an independent entity, to throw off her shackles and embraces free will, then take her life, her fate out of her hands, makes no sense.

[Vazgen]

I care about the story.  And a story has to make sense.  Building up a character to be an independent entity, to throw off her shackles and embraces free will, then take her life, her fate out of her hands, makes no sense.

Story-wise EDI is a support character. Her inclusion in the story and her character development are there to explore organic/synthetic relationships. It makes you hesitate when choosing Destroy. That's successful storytelling. 

[Iakus]

Story-wise EDI is a support character. Her inclusion in the story and her character development are there to explore organic/synthetic relationships. It makes you hesitate when choosing Destroy. That's successful storytelling. 

And if it makes me walk away in disgust?  Is that still a success?

[Vazgen]

And if it makes me walk away in disgust? Is that still a success?

Yes. Because you were interested enough to play the game to the end and it generated as strong emotional response as disgust.

[Iakus]

Yes. Because you were interested enough to play the game to the end and it generated as strong emotional response as disgust.

Not a good long-term business plan.

[SilJeff]

That's just it though, she isn't given that choice.  It's Shepard's and Shepard's alone.  Which renders her entire arc and development pointless.

 

It doesn't matter that she learns about self-sacrifice, because she never gets to apply it.  Heck, Legion got a better ending in that case

 

And Ashley/Kaiden isn't given the choice on Virmire either. Shepard chooses who dies then too.

 

EDI chooses to accept that she could die and that she'd be okay with it, just like Ash and Kaiden did on Virmire. I am sorry, Iakus, but I simply do not understand why you are upset at EDI's death but okay with Kaiden/Ashley's on Virmire, because I see absolutely zero difference in those sacrifices. EDI not only learns about self-sacrifice, but just like Ash/Kaiden on Virmire, she says she would be okay with it.

[Revan Reborn]

Um, he's only expressing an opinion. He's just stating it as a fact.

Bioware never made any official statements as to how to interpret the ending(s).

Everything is still as much up in the air as it was before.

I gave an explanation based on what is commonly the most practical understanding of the ending. I also stated that BioWare has never publicly acknowledged the endings in the same post. I don't believe I ever stated this was fact nor did I indicate this is what BioWare stated. Thanks for trying though.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I'm just wondering if any of this has been clarified

 

Nope.

 

is it still being debated

 

Yep.

 

or have people just moved on?

 

Nope.

 

 

I should probably add to the last two, "but to very different degrees than two years ago."

 

If I had to guess, I'd say ME 3's ending will probably be the most debated and discussed element of BioWare's history for a very long time to come. Personally, I just like to pretend it was all Indoctrination Theory, and try not to think about it (because doing so hurts.)

[Revan Reborn]

And Ashley/Kaiden isn't given the choice on Virmire either. Shepard chooses who dies then too.

 

EDI chooses to accept that she could die and that she'd be okay with it, just like Ash and Kaiden did on Virmire. I am sorry, Iakus, but I simply do not understand why you are upset at EDI's death but okay with Kaiden/Ashley's on Virmire, because I see absolutely zero difference in those sacrifices. EDI not only learns about self-sacrifice, but just like Ash/Kaiden on Virmire, she says she would be okay with it.

His rationale is that BioWare forced an arbitrary death in order to give the illusion of a "moral dilemma" and he considers it to be poor and cheap writing. I think that's a very simplistic way of examining ME3's ending as one of the major points of the game is synthetics were programmed to choose self-preservation over everything else. That's why the Geth sided with the reapers in ME3 and even EDI brings this up to Shepard when posing the question of why humans would deliberately sacrifice themselves in reaper camps knowing success was not likely. The fact that Legion was willing to sacrifice himself and EDI was willing to die for her crew showed their evolution and completed their arcs. Destroy was a necessary evil and one the synthetics understood and approved of.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The bottom line is this: if there were no consequence to destroy, no one would consider the other two. So they put the "you will destroy all synthetic life including the Geth" and EDI as the consequence. Without the Geth it is only EDI - the only known synthetic left in the galaxy. Don't bother bringing up the virtual aliens because hardly anyone read the Cerberus Daily News or even remembered that when they were making their choices. I didn't. The writers didn't otherwise Starbrat would have mentioned them. And certainly Shepard didn't.

[Revan Reborn]

The bottom line is this: if there were no consequence to destroy, no one would consider the other two. So they put the "you will destroy all synthetic life including the Geth" and EDI as the consequence. Without the Geth it is only EDI - the only known synthetic left in the galaxy. Don't bother bringing up the virtual aliens because hardly anyone read the Cerberus Daily News or even remembered that when they were making their choices. I didn't. The writers didn't otherwise Starbrat would have mentioned them. And certainly Shepard didn't.

Exactly. Destroy was the most practical solution, and BioWare threw in the destruction of Synthetics as a way to make players question their choice. If not for there being collateral damage, nobody would have ever chose Synthesis, Control, or Refuse because none of them are rationale. The point is sometimes you have to sacrifice in order to move forward, and the endings would have been heavily compromised if Shepard wasn't sacrificing something with Destroy.

[themikefest]

Story-wise EDI is a support character. Her inclusion in the story and her character development are there to explore organic/synthetic relationships. It makes you hesitate when choosing Destroy. That's successful storytelling. 

Not for me. The hologram was given a platform to promote the green crap ending and to give Joker a smile. 

 

When it comes to picking destroy, I don't care about the platform called edi. If someone wants the thing bad enough, rebuild it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The bottom line is this: if there were no consequence to destroy, no one would consider the other two. So they put the "you will destroy all synthetic life including the Geth" and EDI as the consequence. Without the Geth it is only EDI - the only known synthetic left in the galaxy. Don't bother bringing up the virtual aliens because hardly anyone read the Cerberus Daily News or even remembered that when they were making their choices. I didn't. The writers didn't otherwise Starbrat would have mentioned them. And certainly Shepard didn't.

 

I don't think that is the case. Other posters have given plenty of other reasons why they choose the other endings, such as controlling the Reapers to maintain peace and rebuild or tap into whatever benefits Synthesis holds. I'm certain it has had an effect but I'm sure the other options would have still been chosen if the Crucible only specifically targeted the Reapers.

 

In a way I think the other synthetics being included was necessary for thematic reasons. If the ending is a question on how we deal with AI technology, Destroy is more than just blowing up the Reapers but rejecting AI altogether.

[Vazgen]

Not a good long-term business plan.

That remains to be seen. The game is still being talked about both in retrospective and in comparison to ME:Next. I'm pretty sure ME:Next will sell more copies than ME3. If that's the case, it's successful. And consider that ending does not evoke disgust in everyone. IIRC polls after EC release showed roughly equal split.

[Revan Reborn]

I don't think that is the case. Other posters have given plenty of other reasons why they choose the other endings, such as controlling the Reapers to maintain peace and rebuild or tap into whatever benefits Synthesis holds. I'm certain it has had an effect but I'm sure the other options would have still been chosen if the Crucible only specifically targeted the Reapers.

 

In a way I think the other synthetics being included was necessary for thematic reasons. If the ending is a question on how we deal with AI technology, Destroy is more than just blowing up the Reapers but rejecting AI altogether.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Destroy is about freedom and the ability to decide a future for the galaxy outside the grasp of the Reapers. It has nothing to do with "rejecting AI altogether." Paragon Shepard had no problem with AI. On the contrary, he supported synthetic independence and being treated as equals amongst organics. What he could not allow was a galaxy in constant fear of annihilation by an advanced species of organic-machine hybrids dictating who is allowed to live and who must die.

 

Control is nothing more than a power fantasy that "Shepard knows best" and has the capacity and will to not abuse his power over controlling the reapers. Synthesis is nothing more than a hopelessly idealistic and naive approach that peace can come through forced evolution and "understanding" between organics and synthetics. I'd hardly call those choices viable if one actually considers the potential negative ramifications for failing to destroy the reapers, of which are the threat all along.

[Iakus]

And Ashley/Kaiden isn't given the choice on Virmire either. Shepard chooses who dies then too.

 

EDI chooses to accept that she could die and that she'd be okay with it, just like Ash and Kaiden did on Virmire. I am sorry, Iakus, but I simply do not understand why you are upset at EDI's death but okay with Kaiden/Ashley's on Virmire, because I see absolutely zero difference in those sacrifices. EDI not only learns about self-sacrifice, but just like Ash/Kaiden on Virmire, she says she would be okay with it.

Except on Virmire Ashley and Kaidan both urge you to save the other.  They face their death knowing what is happening.  Facing their enemy.  And knowing they chose this.

 

Plus the added bonus that we get to have people reacting to their death, including with survivor's guilt.

His rationale is that BioWare forced an arbitrary death in order to give the illusion of a "moral dilemma" and he considers it to be poor and cheap writing. I think that's a very simplistic way of examining ME3's ending as one of the major points of the game is synthetics were programmed to choose self-preservation over everything else. That's why the Geth sided with the reapers in ME3 and even EDI brings this up to Shepard when posing the question of why humans would deliberately sacrifice themselves in reaper camps knowing success was not likely. The fact that Legion was willing to sacrifice himself and EDI was willing to die for her crew showed their evolution and completed their arcs. Destroy was a necessary evil and one the synthetics understood and approved of.

And if it was EDI who shot the tube, or the geth sacrificing themselves to save the Crucible, that would have been awesome.  And heartbreaking.

 

But neither of those happened

 

The bottom line is this: if there were no consequence to destroy, no one would consider the other two. So they put the "you will destroy all synthetic life including the Geth" and EDI as the consequence. Without the Geth it is only EDI - the only known synthetic left in the galaxy. Don't bother bringing up the virtual aliens because hardly anyone read the Cerberus Daily News or even remembered that when they were making their choices. I didn't. The writers didn't otherwise Starbrat would have mentioned them. And certainly Shepard didn't.

 

The consequences of Destroy should have been:  a future filled with uncertainty.  Without the security of Control or the knowledge of Synthesis, the galaxy is now well and truly on its own, with no predictable cycle to hold them in check.  You have destroyed the Bhaalspawn essence.