I don't like EDI's monologue that much. "I am alive." Yes, I know EDI is alive, she told me so back in London. The monologue seems to claim that undergoing synthesis caused her to become alive and give her to ability to understand organics, but she already had those qualities before, so what the fuck did she gain from synthesis? Nothing. So why is she doing the narration? Because it was a cheap, cynical attempt to create a feel-good ending for Casey Hudson's (alleged) favoured ending after it was mercilessly, and rightfully, criticised by fans who put more than 11 seconds of thought into the concept.I prefer the (even creepier) Synthesis. There are a lot of arguments against it that I don't really have the energy to deflect, but in the end I just can't get enough of the EDI monologue.
I don't like EDI's monologue that much. "I am alive." Yes, I know EDI is alive, she told me so back in London. The monologue seems to claim that undergoing synthesis caused her to become alive and give her to ability to understand organics, but she already had those qualities before, so what the fuck did she gain from synthesis? Nothing. So why is she doing the narration? Because it was a cheap, cynical attempt to create a feel-good ending for Casey Hudson's (alleged) favoured ending after it was mercilessly, and rightfully, criticised by fans who put more than 11 seconds of thought into the concept.I prefer the (even creepier) Synthesis. There are a lot of arguments against it that I don't really have the energy to deflect, but in the end I just can't get enough of the EDI monologue.
It had some cool music though, very reminiscent of Uncharted Worlds.
Hardly surprising considering the source of the leak, but still looking forward to it.Before I get to that...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-10-mass-effect-3-leviathan-dlc-confirmed-by-voice-actor
The rumored Leviathan DLC was just confirmed by a VA who popped up on IMDB for it last night.
I don't like EDI's monologue that much. "I am alive." Yes, I know EDI is alive, she told me so back in London. The monologue seems to claim that undergoing synthesis caused her to become alive and give her to ability to understand organics, but she already had those qualities before, so what the fuck did she gain from synthesis? Nothing. So why is she doing the narration? Because it was a cheap, cynical attempt to create a feel-good ending for Casey Hudson's (alleged) favoured ending after it was mercilessly, and rightfully, criticised by fans who put more than 11 seconds of thought into the concept.I prefer the (even creepier) Synthesis. There are a lot of arguments against it that I don't really have the energy to deflect, but in the end I just can't get enough of the EDI monologue.
It had some cool music though, very reminiscent of Uncharted Worlds.
Welp!
I did say it was even creepier, so I even admit it's got major issues. And I really don't appreciate how the dialogue tries to shove you toward it a little, and that's coming from someone who prefers it over the endings all the same. (I also really dislike how Shepard automatically responds to the Destroy summary with, "there has to be another way." In general, I love ME3, but it took some of its auto-dialogue too far, it really did.)
As for the EDI speech being redundant... valid point, man. Still does it for me.
I kinda felt like Control would work too, if they play their cards just right, really. Shepard as the new Catalyst is clearly already feeling a distanced relationship toward the mere mortals they knew in life, and over time the Reaper fleet under his/her command could venture far, far away in order to allow the races a kind of breathing room from an evolutionary standpoint.
I don't know, it sounds hokey, but I envisioned it the other day and it sort of worked in my head. If there's an ME4-ME6 trilogy in the future (absolutely no guarantees, of course) it'd be sort of neat if the new protagonist had to go seek out the Catalyst, and they get either Meer or Hale or both (synced up like they are when the Catalyst speaks at the end of ME3, layered on in the background, except this time there's no child VA) and the protagonist has this really bizarre conversation with the franchise's former hero in their new form.
Like I said, it'd be tough, but I could see it.
Destroy's far more likely, though, I'd say, especially with the poll results I've been seeing on preferred endings.
The way I see it, having the reapers around as guardians completely eliminates any chance of conflict because as we've seen, there's no force in the galaxy that can oppose them head on and live. That doesn't leave a lot of room for conflict on any scale conducive to drama. Not that I'd want the next story to be yet another massive epic war, but just having them there puts too many limits on what can be done.
I suppose they could set up that the reapers have mysteriously disappeared, but in that case it may as well be the destroy ending.
A thought I had back before ME3 came out was that it'd be an interesting twist if when the reapers were finally defeated, it turns out their purpose was to preserve organic life in this galaxy from an external threat. Something even worse than they were. The thinking being that they weren't hibernating in dark space, but fighting a constant battle across the aeons and the harvesting cycles were the only way they could keep their numbers up against the sheer attrition of a billion year war. So by destroying the reapers, you open the milky-way up to be sterilized by whatever nightmarish force that had just barely been held in check by a hundred thousand reapers. Bit of a cheep "there's always a bigger fish" ending I know, but I liked the irony that the reapers really were actually acting in the interest of all life as they claimed.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.