55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Arian Dynas]

Also, NO one has anything to say to the idea that a lack of a third choice in dialogue options throughout the game is a stylistic choice to set you up for Synthesis, while also illustrating Shepard's extreme feelings about the Reapers?

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Wrong. I am disagreeing that Synthesis is apathy. Saren chose Synthesis BECAUSE he cared, because he did not want to die, ans you end up choosing Synthesis for similar reasons, you want to save everyone, it is the INTENTION behind the action that is important, not the action itself.

Apathy is mostly referring to the general attitude Shepard takes when picking the middle option of any given dialog wheel. Neutrality is another way of looking at it, but really in ME1/2 context that is just a more PC way of saying apathy. But in this case neutrality is a much more valid word for Synthesis. You want to find the harmonious middle ground solution where you dont have to take an active role in ending the Reaper threat (ironic since youre making a sweeping decision for all life in the galaxy) rather than trying to stick to employing a method of defeating the Reapers. 

Saren never had nearly as much single-minded commitment to a purpose compared to TIM, so he was indoctrinated via the neutral/synthesis method. The Reapers convinced him to see things their way. TIM was steadfast in his desire to actively advance humanity and specifically to oppose the Reapers, so convincing him that control would actively end the Reaper threat was the better way of indoctrinating him. 

I think we simply disagree on the reasons why "Shepard" would be inclined to choose Synthesis. You think he would choose it for a noble purpose, I think he would choose it because he's no longer actively interested in ending the Reaper threat specifically, or doing what's best for Humanity, he just wants to find a solution that works. And that's exploitable. 

In the end, it's up to our own personal interpretation regardless of why our "Shepard" would pick it, since he/she is just our avatar at that point. It's even irrelevant why the Reapers would expect you to pick it. If you would pick it due to it appealing to your noble principles, who am I to argue with that? I just dont think you can dismiss my logic because it doesnt agree with yours. There is no right or wrong with this. And thats why I said "Many different approaches, same concept in the end. " Doesnt matter how you arrived at that conclusion. Thats where you are now. Whatever rationalization you used to get there, it has been exploited by the Reapers. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 15 juin 2012 - 05:37 .

[deltacypresss]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, NO one has anything to say to the idea that a lack of a third choice in dialogue options throughout the game is a stylistic choice to set you up for Synthesis, while also illustrating Shepard's extreme feelings about the Reapers?

I'll probably check it out on my second play through. Which may not be for a while. While it does sound intriguing, I'd like some more examples to really get into it. preferably ones that arn't strictly about the reapers. i would agree that the game as a whole feels more hardline paragon/renegade than the 2nd. havn't played the first.

btw. trying to follow this thread while playing multi isn't the easiest thing to do. origin (shudder) name is NanomanGT fyi.

[HellishFiend]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...



Impracticality and unknown effects? Neither of those things are true, though. Its not difficult at all to add in a hum at a certain frequency. Hardly takes any work at all. And most consumer grade audio equipment cannot even reproduce infrasound, let along create enough pressure with it to cause adverse effects. 

And yes, the infrasound has been discovered in the dream sound effects files too. It's starting to look very compelling. It cant be written off. 

The difficulty would not be production, but maintaining consistancy; especially considering the considerable amount of other tasks bound to a design team. And while low-grade sub-20hz pitches are generally no big deal, when dealing in an age of lawyers that live off of ambulance chasing, intentionally altering several hours of audio files is just begging for trouble. In certain provinces that I am aware of, there are anti-Subliminal Message laws that are open enough to include it.

Admittedly, I'm no specialist on ISF exposure, but I do know some of the symptoms are akin to EMF exposure which can be maddening. If you have extensive professional experience in the matter, then please forgive my caution and assertion regarding the matter. I will yield that ground; EMF is more of my specialty.

Implications aside, it's there, and it's intentional. That's what really matters at this point. 

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, NO one has anything to say to the idea that a lack of a third choice in dialogue options throughout the game is a stylistic choice to set you up for Synthesis, while also illustrating Shepard's extreme feelings about the Reapers?

I could have sworn I commented on that... Did I not?

[lex0r11]

Proof.

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Wrong. I am disagreeing that Synthesis is apathy. Saren chose Synthesis BECAUSE he cared, because he did not want to die, ans you end up choosing Synthesis for similar reasons, you want to save everyone, it is the INTENTION behind the action that is important, not the action itself.

Apathy is mostly referring to the general attitude Shepard takes when picking the middle option of any given dialog wheel. Neutrality is another way of looking at it, but really in ME1/2 context that is just a more PC way of saying apathy. But in this case neutrality is a much more valid word for Synthesis. You want to find the harmonious middle ground solution where you dont have to take an active role in ending the Reaper threat (ironic since youre making a sweeping decision for all life in the galaxy) rather than trying to stick to employing a method of defeating the Reapers. 

Saren never had nearly as much single-minded commitment to a purpose compared to TIM, so he was indoctrinated via the neutral/synthesis method. The Reapers convinced him to see things their way. TIM was steadfast in his desire to actively advance humanity and specifically to oppose the Reapers, so convincing him that control would actively end the Reaper threat was the better way of indoctrinating him. 

I think we simply disagree on the reasons why "Shepard" would be inclined to choose Synthesis. You think he would choose it for a noble purpose, I think he would choose it because he's no longer actively interested in ending the Reaper threat specifically, or doing what's best for Humanity, he just wants to find a solution that works. And that's exploitable. 

In the end, it's up to our own personal interpretation regardless of why our "Shepard" would pick it, since he/she is just our avatar at that point. It's even irrelevant why the Reapers would expect you to pick it. If you would pick it due to it appealing to your noble principles, who am I to argue with that? I just dont think you can dismiss my logic because it doesnt agree with yours. There is no right or wrong with this. And thats why I said "Many different approaches, same concept in the end. " Doesnt matter how you arrived at that conclusion. Thats where you are now. Whatever rationalization you used to get there, it has been exploited by the Reapers. 

I would argue the point that neutrality is not apathy, but well, the Shepard is a Jerk meme arose because of this.

The point I AM making is that, take out the precedent and look at this one situation. Why would Shepard as a character, not a player, choose Synthesis? He does it out of naivete, just like you illustrate in your signature, he chooses it because he believes that it is genuinely good and moral and that it is a method of saving everyone that lives right now, and "more lives than have ever existed", that it is the moral ground. He chooses it out of EMPATHY, not APATHY.

If he were apathetic, the Star Child's pitch wouldn't be "oh yeah, this is for sure the way to save everyone forever and ever and no wars and stuff cause everyone shares their DNA and ****." it would be; "Hey you wanna just make the Reapers go away and not have to spend the rest of eternity controlling them or destroying the Geth and ****ing over humanity? You should choose Synthesis. For sure."

And I never said there was a right or wrong, this is a moral debate, not an argument. We are debating the morality and motivations of why and how someone could be seduced to Synthesis.

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, NO one has anything to say to the idea that a lack of a third choice in dialogue options throughout the game is a stylistic choice to set you up for Synthesis, while also illustrating Shepard's extreme feelings about the Reapers?

I could have sworn I commented on that... Did I not?

The extent of your statement; "Maybe..."

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

I would argue the point that neutrality is not apathy, but well, the Shepard is a Jerk meme arose because of this.

The point I AM making is that, take out the precedent and look at this one situation. Why would Shepard as a character, not a player, choose Synthesis? He does it out of naivete, just like you illustrate in your signature, he chooses it because he believes that it is genuinely good and moral and that it is a method of saving everyone that lives right now, and "more lives than have ever existed", that it is the moral ground. He chooses it out of EMPATHY, not APATHY.

If he were apathetic, the Star Child's pitch wouldn't be "oh yeah, this is for sure the way to save everyone forever and ever and no wars and stuff cause everyone shares their DNA and ****." it would be; "Hey you wanna just make the Reapers go away and not have to spend the rest of eternity controlling them or destroying the Geth and ****ing over humanity? You should choose Synthesis. For sure."

And I never said there was a right or wrong, this is a moral debate, not an argument. We are debating the morality and motivations of why and how someone could be seduced to Synthesis.

I could easily write a compelling argument about how naivety could apply to any reason for picking Synthesis, including apathy, but it doesnt really matter at this point. We both raise valid reasons for our opinion on the issue, and I'll stick by saying that at this stage it doesnt matter why our "Shepard" the character would pick it, so I wont address that. IT states that the entire shebang is basically a metagaming experience at that point. 

In the words of your "Shepard" the character:  "I .... dont know"

Modifié par HellishFiend, 15 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, NO one has anything to say to the idea that a lack of a third choice in dialogue options throughout the game is a stylistic choice to set you up for Synthesis, while also illustrating Shepard's extreme feelings about the Reapers?

I could have sworn I commented on that... Did I not?

The extent of your statement; "Maybe..."

I was sure I said more than that, but I'm tired and my short term memory isnt the best right now, so I dunno. I definitely have thoughts on the matter, but you seem to have high standards and requirements for accepting speculations right now so I think I'll save that topic for later. 

[Auralius Carolus]

HellishFiend wrote...

Implications aside, it's there, and it's intentional. That's what really matters at this point. 

Hmm. And odds are against an ultrasonic frequency yield being in there, I would suspect.

Odd, however, that they'd put something like that in there. Especially considering the relative lack of "overt" signs of indoctrination.

[plfranke]

Hellish you used to be such a nice guy on this thread you seem to have hardened in your responses as of late.

[HellishFiend]

plfranke wrote...

Hellish you used to be such a nice guy on this thread you seem to have hardened in your responses as of late.

How so? Earlier I was one of the only people here to warmly welcome 2 new posters to the thread. Plus, there is only one person employing sarcasm or caps on this page and its not me. So I dont see how I'm being "hard" on anybody. How would you suggest I get my points across in a more polite fashion without failing to state my opinion?

Modifié par HellishFiend, 15 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[Auralius Carolus]

plfranke wrote...

Hellish you used to be such a nice guy on this thread you seem to have hardened in your responses as of late.

Prolonged exposure to Arian Frequencies have that effect on people.

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I would argue the point that neutrality is not apathy, but well, the Shepard is a Jerk meme arose because of this.

The point I AM making is that, take out the precedent and look at this one situation. Why would Shepard as a character, not a player, choose Synthesis? He does it out of naivete, just like you illustrate in your signature, he chooses it because he believes that it is genuinely good and moral and that it is a method of saving everyone that lives right now, and "more lives than have ever existed", that it is the moral ground. He chooses it out of EMPATHY, not APATHY.

If he were apathetic, the Star Child's pitch wouldn't be "oh yeah, this is for sure the way to save everyone forever and ever and no wars and stuff cause everyone shares their DNA and ****." it would be; "Hey you wanna just make the Reapers go away and not have to spend the rest of eternity controlling them or destroying the Geth and ****ing over humanity? You should choose Synthesis. For sure."

And I never said there was a right or wrong, this is a moral debate, not an argument. We are debating the morality and motivations of why and how someone could be seduced to Synthesis.

I could easily write a compelling argument about how naivety could apply to any reason for picking Synthesis, including apathy, but it doesnt really matter at this point. We both raise valid reasons for our opinion on the issue, and I'll stick by saying that at this stage it doesnt matter why our "Shepard" the character would pick it, so I wont address that. IT states that the entire shebang is basically a metagaming experience at that point. 

In the words of your "Shepard" the character:  "I .... dont know"

Dude, my own personal Shepard doesn't even enter into the equation here, he would have told Harbinger to kindly go **** himself before going Jacki Chan on the Destroy tube, while giving a pretty speech about how we aren't going to sacrifice the soul of our species.

The "Shepard the Character" I am talking about is that basic line of what is Shepard running through all Shepards, that part that Bioware wrote in of a certain type of personality that we see exemplified no matter what the choice made is, the reason why the dialogue choices are so extreme in ME3 as far as I am concerned. Every Shepard is different, but there are traits they all share. Shepard is dedicated to the protection and preservation of humanity, Shepard is a hero, always, even if there are times his methods are questionable, and Shepard always remains a well spoken and intelligent bad ass, capable of crushing frankness or clever subtlety.

Even though "our" Shepard is our Shepard, Bioware still "owns" the character, if that makes sense.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 15 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, NO one has anything to say to the idea that a lack of a third choice in dialogue options throughout the game is a stylistic choice to set you up for Synthesis, while also illustrating Shepard's extreme feelings about the Reapers?

I could have sworn I commented on that... Did I not?

The extent of your statement; "Maybe..."

I was sure I said more than that, but I'm tired and my short term memory isnt the best right now, so I dunno. I definitely have thoughts on the matter, but you seem to have high standards and requirements for accepting speculations right now so I think I'll save that topic for later. 

I just want more than one word and 3 dots. If you can pass that, I'm happy.

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Hellish you used to be such a nice guy on this thread you seem to have hardened in your responses as of late.

How so? Earlier I one of the only people here to warmly welcome 2 new posters to the thread. Plus, there is only one person employing sarcasm or caps on this page and its not me. So I dont see how I'm being "hard" on anybody. How would you suggest I get my points across in a more polite fashion without failing to state my opinion?

Hellish, I'm not trying to be an ass any more than you are, yet some of your posts come across that way. It's the same thing with me.

Peace?

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...
Dude, my own personal Shepard doesn't even enter into the equation here, he would have told Harbinger to kindly go **** himself before going Jacki Chan on the Destroy tube, while giving a pretty speech about how we aren't going to sacrifice the soul of our species.

The "Shepard the Character" I am talking about is that basic line of what is Shepard running through all Shepards, that part that Bioware wrote in of a certain type of personality that we see exemplified no matter what the choice made is, the reason why the dialogue choices are so extreme in ME3 as far as I am concerned. Every Shepard is different, but there are traits they all share. Shepard is dedicated to the protection and preservation of humanity, Shepard is a hero, always, even if there are times his methods are questionable, and Shepard always remains a well spoken and intelligent bad ass, capable of crushing frankness or clever subtlety.

That seems like a fairly tangential subject to me. That Shepard is out of the equation in the decision chamber. He's likely laying in rubble somewhere in London. I happen to agree with your description of Shepard the character, but I dont think it applies to the topic we're discussing, is all. 

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...
Dude, my own personal Shepard doesn't even enter into the equation here, he would have told Harbinger to kindly go **** himself before going Jacki Chan on the Destroy tube, while giving a pretty speech about how we aren't going to sacrifice the soul of our species.

The "Shepard the Character" I am talking about is that basic line of what is Shepard running through all Shepards, that part that Bioware wrote in of a certain type of personality that we see exemplified no matter what the choice made is, the reason why the dialogue choices are so extreme in ME3 as far as I am concerned. Every Shepard is different, but there are traits they all share. Shepard is dedicated to the protection and preservation of humanity, Shepard is a hero, always, even if there are times his methods are questionable, and Shepard always remains a well spoken and intelligent bad ass, capable of crushing frankness or clever subtlety.

That seems like a fairly tangential subject to me. That Shepard is out of the equation in the decision chamber. He's likely laying in rubble somewhere in London. I happen to agree with your description of Shepard the character, but I dont think it applies to the topic we're discussing, is all. 

And that's the point where we disagree. And to be honest, I don't think we will, so let's let this one rest, shall we?

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Hellish you used to be such a nice guy on this thread you seem to have hardened in your responses as of late.

How so? Earlier I one of the only people here to warmly welcome 2 new posters to the thread. Plus, there is only one person employing sarcasm or caps on this page and its not me. So I dont see how I'm being "hard" on anybody. How would you suggest I get my points across in a more polite fashion without failing to state my opinion?

Hellish, I'm not trying to be an ass any more than you are, yet some of your posts come across that way. It's the same thing with me.

Peace?

Granted for some reason you have a second opinion to back you up, but honestly I dont see how my posts are being construed as me being an ass or as being "hard". Maybe I should use more smilies? Is it my verbage?

I dont use caps or sarcasm to make points unless I'm being jovial about something and not directing it at anybody in particular, so how am I an ass? I seriously dont get it. Is this because I got upset about the thread invasion yesterday? That was an extenuating circumstance....

[AchesOfDoom]

Regarding the ending and the IT....'God help as all'.

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Hellish you used to be such a nice guy on this thread you seem to have hardened in your responses as of late.

How so? Earlier I one of the only people here to warmly welcome 2 new posters to the thread. Plus, there is only one person employing sarcasm or caps on this page and its not me. So I dont see how I'm being "hard" on anybody. How would you suggest I get my points across in a more polite fashion without failing to state my opinion?

Hellish, I'm not trying to be an ass any more than you are, yet some of your posts come across that way. It's the same thing with me.

Peace?

Granted for some reason you have a second opinion to back you up, but honestly I dont see how my posts are being construed as me being an ass or as being "hard". Maybe I should use more smilies? Is it my verbage?

I dont use caps or sarcasm to make points unless I'm being jovial about something and not directing it at anybody in particular, so how am I an ass? I seriously dont get it. Is this because I got upset about the thread invasion yesterday? That was an extenuating circumstance....

No I think it's more your method of phrasing things, your posts (mine as well) have a certain tone that, if read the wrong (or right, depending on your interpretation) way makes you sound harsher than you intend.

[Auralius Carolus]

So yeah, I found this image earlier so I'm gonna get my mileage out of it and just drop it off here... I figure the epic seriousness going on right now could use an icebreaker.

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

No I think it's more your method of phrasing things, your posts (mine as well) have a certain tone that, if read the wrong (or right, depending on your interpretation) way makes you sound harsher than you intend.

Well, thank you for the honest observation. I'll keep an eye out for that on my posts if you do the same on yours. My opinion on yours is that *sigh*ing, employing sarcasm, or the use of caps, or prefaces like "dude...", are very poor ways to impress a point upon somebody... 

Smileys added to reduce harshness. :happy:

But yeah, peace.

[plfranke]

HellishFiend wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Hellish you used to be such a nice guy on this thread you seem to have hardened in your responses as of late.

How so? Earlier I one of the only people here to warmly welcome 2 new posters to the thread. Plus, there is only one person employing sarcasm or caps on this page and its not me. So I dont see how I'm being "hard" on anybody. How would you suggest I get my points across in a more polite fashion without failing to state my opinion?

I think the way you write for some reason is coming off condescending to me. I remember when I first came to the thread I really enjoyed your posts and when I started posting it was good dialogue with you. It seems like you're less tolerant of other people's ideas now. Before it would be an even discussion but now it's "It's my way or the highway so we'll agree to disagree." Whenever I read Arian's posts it seems like humor to me but then I read yours  I'm saying to myself what happened to hellish. My suggestion would be to read a post before you submit it and try to picture what someone who doesn't know you might think, because it seems like something about your posts has changed recently.