279 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Amioran wrote...

crazyrabbits wrote...
If a singular work doesn't give the viewer/player enough information to understand what is going on/what is at stake, that is objectively bad writing.

Sorry but no, it isn't.

Many books during a lapse base the momentum in this uncertanity and there are entire genres created appositedly on this.

And in the end they DO give you the answers you have been seeking all the time while reading.

[Artemis_Entrari]

The green ending made the least sense of the three endings.  Destroy made the most sense, followed by maybe a Shepard who was power hungry and chose Control.  But Synthesis?  It goes against every reason for even fighting the Reapers in the first place.  Individuality, choice, freedom, everything against being alive.  Might as well have let the Reapers harvest everyone, in that case.

[Farbautisonn]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

 plagiarism has nothing to do with "bad writing",[/quote]
HAhahhahah..... And you are a writer....? AHAHAHHAHAHHAH!!!!!

[quote] it's not specifical because you are not providing examples of the "plagiarism"[/quote]
-Do you really need the Deux ex: HR story rehashed? Christ... its not like it hasnt been vomited all over this discussion board since realease? 

[quote]nor you probably have a background to understand of what plagiarism is like in the specific of the discussion. [/quote]
-I think my background would surprise you. On the other hand you're omniscient, so maybe not...

[quote]Even more, even admitting "plagiarism", this alone doesn't indicate "bad writing" per se for various motives[/quote]
-Really? Name me some "motives"? and what the hell does motives have to do with this anyway? Are you suggesting somehow that if the motivativation was different that it would be ok to plagiate the material of another work... a pisspoor one at that?

[quote]one of which is that if this was the case the "plagiarized" work would be "bad writing" too and that would be a logical non-sequitur (naturally even assuming you can comprehend why).[/quote]
-Erm... Trust me. I know precisely what that means. I minored in Rhetoric. You however seem to have some problems with the concept. You are stating that for a work of plagerism to be "bad writing" the original work de facto has to be bad too. THAT, buddy boy, is a logical fallacy.... in laymans terms "affirming the consequent". Christ... what kind of educational background do you have since you have the balls to tote it, presume to lecture others on logical fallacies only to employ them ad nauseam? 

[quote]Have I ever said that the endings are art (in the way you put it because in a large sense every form of writing it is)?[/quote]
-This is where I pick up the word you used falsely and employ it correctly. You implied it by using this defense when I attacked the endings.
[quote]Sure, let's all forbid "artistic aspirations" in the name of mediocrity
and mass acceptance. What good freedom does to this world?[/quote]
-Aside from the fact that I never stated any such thing and your the entire thing basically boils down to a strawman combined with an ad hominem, its a pisspoor defense of plagiarism and unoriginality.

[quote]
I just said that you put them down without explaining nothing, and that's easy to do, but it just tells that you don't know anything at all of what you are babbling about and you just want to have a point because you say so.[/quote]
-You started our entire discussion by employing strawman rhetoric, ad homienems, and a metric ****ton of other logical fallacies, and you presume to judge me? Thats grand. I have explained my position quite sufficiantly.

[quote]As for my paintings, I am sorry for you but I studied art at the accademy and I am a well known writer in my country. I believe I know a "little" more than you about those two topics. Until you don't back up what you say with something of concrete I will surely not take you seriously either. [/quote]
-Great. Another pseudo artist who built his career on technique rather than passion and talent. I avoid you people like the plague when I shop for art. You are dead before you even leave your ivory towers and marble halls. You try to structure passion and dumb it down for the masses, whilst trading your initial energy and drive for some feeble prison of technique. A prison forced upon you by people who couldnt do, so they were left to teach.

I dont care if you are a well known writer, artist or sculptur in your nation. You are inane, unable to conduct a discussion without employing logical fallacies left right and center and you actively attribute false statements to anyone who does not agree with you. And you are either too stupid or too arrogant to admit to it. I would prefer to belive the latter, but given your hypocrisy Id say its the former.

[quote]It is funny to talk this way, but nothing more.[/quote]
-Sure is. Especially when people reveil more about themselves through discourse than they really should.

[quote]Just a little hint: if you will ever talk with somebody that has a little experience on an argument you should be ready to backup what you say with something, not just hot air, because elsewhere it will be very difficult that s/he will take you seriously otherwise.[/quote]
-This comming from the guy who employed defamation of character, (implied) ad hominems, fallacies galore and then have the phariseeic gall to presume to pass judgement on the discourse and rhetoric of others.

Christ you have zero Idea how inane you look, and that makes me fear for the people you supposedly write for... I fear its the "barbera cartland crowd" where any kind of literary quality is ignored for cheap thrills and dumb drama. It would also explain your need to defend the pile of crap that is the ME3 endings.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 07 avril 2012 - 04:26 .

[EHondaMashButton]

Synthesis makes no damn sense. Say you merge someone like TiM or Xen or a scientist with synthetics. Are they all of a sudden going to stop trying to create A.I.'s to serve them? No. This just delays the cycle.

[Wolf]

Amioran wrote...
*snip*

Do you even know how the ending was written? How everything came to be as it is now? If you did you would understand what drives our non-comprehension of the ending. 

I don't know if you have played the game, or the series at all, because if you had you would understand what the issue here is. 

The series has always been about a particular topic, they changed it at the last minute because of indeciciveness and time constraints. 

[Tirigon]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

The green ending made the least sense of the three endings.  Destroy made the most sense, followed by maybe a Shepard who was power hungry and chose Control.  But Synthesis?  It goes against every reason for even fighting the Reapers in the first place.  Individuality, choice, freedom, everything against being alive.  Might as well have let the Reapers harvest everyone, in that case.

I really wonder where the idea comes from that Synthesis takes away free will and individuality.

The crew in the Normandy scene seemed pretty normal.

[Farbautisonn]

Tirigon wrote...

Amioran wrote...

I don't write by pseudonym, I use my real name that I have no intention of divulgating here.

So you publish novels under your real name, but you do not dare to tell us who you are - even though that would be free advertisement?

Yea attention-wh*ring suspicion confirmed.

-its either attentionwhoring or its because his own literary body is so commercialized and weak that he doesnt even regard his own work as that of a skilled craftsman but rather with shame because he aspired to be something he never  had the passion or the skill for.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 07 avril 2012 - 04:36 .

[metawanderer]

Tirigon wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

The green ending made the least sense of the three endings.  Destroy made the most sense, followed by maybe a Shepard who was power hungry and chose Control.  But Synthesis?  It goes against every reason for even fighting the Reapers in the first place.  Individuality, choice, freedom, everything against being alive.  Might as well have let the Reapers harvest everyone, in that case.

I really wonder where the idea comes from that Synthesis takes away free will and individuality.

The crew in the Normandy scene seemed pretty normal.

I have wondered the same thing also.  It's not like they are all controlled by one machine who is telling them what to do.  They still seem to have their personality, and characteristics, and hopefully their beliefs/philosophy the same. 

[syllogi]

Tirigon wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

The green ending made the least sense of the three endings.  Destroy made the most sense, followed by maybe a Shepard who was power hungry and chose Control.  But Synthesis?  It goes against every reason for even fighting the Reapers in the first place.  Individuality, choice, freedom, everything against being alive.  Might as well have let the Reapers harvest everyone, in that case.

I really wonder where the idea comes from that Synthesis takes away free will and individuality.

The crew in the Normandy scene seemed pretty normal.

I would not want to be a organic/synthetic hybrid.  It would be grossly unfair to be made so by some random dude who took the word of some Starchild that this was best for every living being in the galaxy.

I don't think individuality is taken away by the Synthesis ending, but free will is definitely removed from any creature, anywhere, that liked being what it was.

[Slackjaw10]

In many ways, the Synthesis ending is the worst one. What it comes down to is that one person has not only re-written the nature of life in the galaxy (and possibly beyond), they did it without giving the galaxy any CHOICE in the matter. That kind of use of power makes the Illusive Man look like a saint.

[Farbautisonn]

Slackjaw10 wrote...

In many ways, the Synthesis ending is the worst one. What it comes down to is that one person has not only re-written the nature of life in the galaxy (and possibly beyond), they did it without giving the galaxy any CHOICE in the matter. That kind of use of power makes the Illusive Man look like a saint.

-It pretty much violates everything Shephard has stood for during the entire franchise.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Tirigon wrote...

I really wonder where the idea comes from that Synthesis takes away free will and individuality.

The crew in the Normandy scene seemed pretty normal.

Well right off the bat, the free will for everyone to CHOOSE whether they want to be transformed into a sort of cyborg.  Shepard pretty much decides for everyone that they have to become part synthetic.  That in itself means every single being in the galaxy loses the right to decide for themselves.

Perhaps no loss of individuality, but forcing individuals to become part synthetic whether they want to or not is definitely infringing on their own free will and choice.

Modifié par Artemis_Entrari, 07 avril 2012 - 04:55 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Thesis: Destroying the Reapers
Wrong synthesis: Saren's Idea (actually Antithesis)

Proper synthesis: T.I.M's Control

Troll synthesis: Replacing T.I.M's Idea with Saren's Idea as synthesis by Bioware!

[Arcadian Legend]

Because red and blue are too mainstream.

[Lotion Soronarr]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

But I thought they push Blue Ending ... "So the illusive man was right"

This line made me the most angry out of th entire game.

That line is the only good thing about the entire game.

[NKKKK]

Synthesis is my favorite form of poison that these endings are. It was poorly executed, but it was a good concept.

Maybe they'll make Synthesis better with the fixed ending they're doing.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

It seems most of the game (before ending) is pro-paragon, but the ending is completely pro-renegade (Destroyer/Saren/TIM). The point is the ending makes paragons angry, and renegades cannot be satisfied by just the short ending.

This conclusion is without considering, space-lad's logic, post-catalyst moments and other weak points of ME3.

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...
I really wonder where the idea comes from that Synthesis takes away free will and individuality.

The crew in the Normandy scene seemed pretty normal.

Well, it does involve a pretty big transformation of every intelligent being in the galaxy whether or not they wanted it. But you're obviously right that after the transformation they would still have free will and individuality.

[AlanC9]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

But I thought they push Blue Ending ... "So the illusive man was right"

This line made me the most angry out of th entire game.

That line is the only good thing about the entire game.

I'm hoping for a line in the DLC for the green ending: "So Saren was right all along."

Yep, I'm a big fan of irony.

[Mykel54]

The synthesis option is the ultragood option because it has no flaws, and is a paragon option. Basically shepard uses space magic to solve the million year old problem, not killing anyone (not even the reapers), making each organic a cyborg (so they´re free of weakness like Saren said) and AI are treated as equals not like toasters.

Everyone is better and shepard just solved the problem that countless other civilizations could not, while preserving and improving all forms of life.

This ending takes the best from the reapers ("we are your genetic destiny, prepare for ascension") and make it a reality for everyone, for free, and causing no damage. Every organic is a cyborg and every AI is now cyborg too. So now they are fully equal and can hold their hands and stare at the sunset.

[ladyshara]

In theory it solves the problem without killing anyone and prevents the Starchild's stated need for the reapers, thus ensuring the cycle won't ever start again. In theory. And Shepard sacrifices themself so I guess it's... Poetic. Or something.

To me, it felt like doing the reaper's job for them. What are husks if not an organic/synthetic hybrid? I know it's different because they can't think for themselves where the new hybrids can, but that's the comparison that came to my mind and it made me uneasy. What did synthesis do to the current husks/indoctrinated people anyway? Are they magically better now? I don't think that was addressed.

Also, I didn't like making that choice for everyone myself. You just know Javik would never have agreed to that, and who knows how many other people. Just didn't feel right or "Paragon" to me.

Modifié par ladyshara, 07 avril 2012 - 05:35 .

[AtlasMickey]

Jamie9 wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...

Just saw this thread.

Green ending FTW. Hold the lime!

You 'saw' it, but you didn't read it obviously.

What? Green ending is peace, happiness, and love. :happy:

[AtlasMickey]

Tirigon wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

The green ending made the least sense of the three endings.  Destroy made the most sense, followed by maybe a Shepard who was power hungry and chose Control.  But Synthesis?  It goes against every reason for even fighting the Reapers in the first place.  Individuality, choice, freedom, everything against being alive.  Might as well have let the Reapers harvest everyone, in that case.

I really wonder where the idea comes from that Synthesis takes away free will and individuality.

The crew in the Normandy scene seemed pretty normal.

Me too! Where do people get that idea???

[Fawx9]

So can anyone tell me why synthesis prevents us from creating stuff that cannot destroy us?

Somehow we are now at the peak of evolution and as such nothing can overcome us? Is that the deal? Cause that just sounds like the brat turned us into some weird immortal god people.

If I can make something that makes my life easier (aka its better at doing the job than I am) than why would making a new AI not result in the same creator - created conflict? Hell it doesn't even need to be an AI, why not let it be a new race of genetically engineered dinosaurs with lasers on their heads than can fly through space. See not an AI, but clearly supperior to humans/current life.

The fact that we combined DNA doesn't negate the possibility that we may make something that overcomes us.

Modifié par Fawx9, 07 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[Alex_SM]

metawanderer wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

The green ending made the least sense of the three endings.  Destroy made the most sense, followed by maybe a Shepard who was power hungry and chose Control.  But Synthesis?  It goes against every reason for even fighting the Reapers in the first place.  Individuality, choice, freedom, everything against being alive.  Might as well have let the Reapers harvest everyone, in that case.

I really wonder where the idea comes from that Synthesis takes away free will and individuality.

The crew in the Normandy scene seemed pretty normal.

I have wondered the same thing also.  It's not like they are all controlled by one machine who is telling them what to do.  They still seem to have their personality, and characteristics, and hopefully their beliefs/philosophy the same. 

So forcing you to become a semi-ciborg doesn't go against your free will? 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 07 avril 2012 - 06:01 .