587 réponses à ce sujet

[Hadeedak]

Well, since this thread started out as 'roughly' a "STOP INVALIDATING MY CHOICES, FFS" thread...

I think arguing that destroy isn't the only 'good', 'right' or 'correct' choice is acceptable.

[dreman9999]

Hadeedak wrote...

See, I feel Control (and this is me personally) and synthesis are more true to the 'working together to stop the threat' than destroy. Mostly because destroy requires you to have a Shepard who will sacrifice the geth for the galaxy. In control, the one who gets sacrificed is Shepard. And synthesis has its own confusing thing. I mean, all bets are off in the EC. They said they aren't changing the endings, but any added footage changes interpretations. I mean, look at what a big stink I and my fellow control-supporters have made of the relays failing to explode. And that's less than a second taken away. Or the destroy-crew for Shepard's breath, that can only be reached through multiplayer... Or antisynthesis for the leaves, and prosynthesis for the adorable hugstime between Joker and EDI.

Isaid this befoe many times....'

In control a line pops up....."Yes,you will die. You can control us but you will lose everything you have." The context of the mean of this line to too vast to ignore mostly being that it's vague.We don't know how much you'll lose to gain control of the system. Look at TIM in the scene before. He has so much power and control , yet in the end he let himself becontroled by the reaper....A line "Do you think power like this comes esay...Thereare sacrifices" comes to mind...And that star child told me I had to scarifice evrything I had to control.....Not a good point convince anyone to choose control with.

In Synthesis much of it is simular to what the reapers are doing now except for harvesting....But the problem was never about them havesting alone...It was about them iposing their willon everyone. Synthesis would just be a faster way to do that...And in ME seres we know the reapers can control organics with implants....What is stopping the reapers from doing that with synthesis.....

Added both choices are not what you agree with everyon eon your side to do....The cencuss was to destroy the reapers not to control them or comprimise wit them. You missing that fact that your blantantly ignoring the with of everyone else on this...Even the geth want to destroy the reapers. So does comprimise mean ignore everything said about destroying the reaper on one side. No oneyour defending want to comprimise with the reapers and combine organics with synthetics...Eventhe geth. It too one side to be a comprimise.

Why even trust the starchild?

[dreman9999]

Hadeedak wrote...

Well, since this thread started out as 'roughly' a "STOP INVALIDATING MY CHOICES, FFS" thread...

I think arguing that destroy isn't the only 'good', 'right' or 'correct' choice is acceptable.

You have to ague the pros and cons of the other  desions first ageinst the prosand con of destroy...When you do you'll see destroy have more pros.

[dreman9999]

DJBare wrote...

Some of you do realize that if I.T is true, then none of those choices have any effect on the real world right?, it's all in Shepard's mind, s/he never left earth, never made it to the citadel, s/he is possibly lying unconscious under a pile of rubble in London, Shepard's story is not finished....yet.
Just my opinion you understand.

I already madethat point...But theRE  is 3 versions of IT...

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Thefact that TIM controlShepard with indoctrination means Shepard isin the process of indoctriantion but we are not takingabout that. He is not a ghost,that is all.
2.Yes, you do. Every post you make in the topic makes that clear. Makingit right for you means you want it to be right. You not thinking about any fault in the decistion when they are faults you just want to be free on conserns over those faults. The fact remain that your putting too much trust in a being with a history ofgreat deseption you have no reason to trust....It's like giving your bank card to a crack adict , code and all. If your going to make a decistion , you also have to cousiderthe flauts of the action.You clearly have not.

1. TIM rebuilded Shepard. TIM also used reaper tech on his slaves. He has a very advanced technolygy  Don't you think that it could be possible he learned to control Shepard through his/her implants?

2. No, im not. There is a differece you don't understand between right, and right for you. Right means to be the correct answer. There is one option to make everything better. 

Right for you, means that you have few choices to pick from. It does not have that one is better than the other in general. It just mean that you like this choice better. 

Let's say you are going to a movie. you have several choices to choose from. Though most are going to one movie, you want another. Going to see this movie does not mean it's better than the first. It just mean you want something else. That means right for you.

[Hadeedak]

dreman9999 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Well, since this thread started out as 'roughly' a "STOP INVALIDATING MY CHOICES, FFS" thread...

I think arguing that destroy isn't the only 'good', 'right' or 'correct' choice is acceptable.

You have to ague the pros and cons of the other  desions first ageinst the prosand con of destroy...When you do you'll see destroy have more pros.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. I just don't feel the cons of destroy: broken citadel, broken relays, broken geth, maybe broken EDI, maybe even worse the way starkid puts it, and Earth buried in reaper corpses are worth the pro for my idealistic but shouty and angry paragade vanguard. And the pro is this: the Reapers are dead. Forever. And yeah, I don't think that's worth the sacrifice for her, especially when there's other ways to stop them.

Now, I am going to pick destroy on my pragmatic ruthless girl with a heavy renegade streak. That Shepard isn't messing around and she always doubletaps. Reapers will be no different. She'll get the job done, go home, and live with the consquences. Though the former is my canon, that has a lot to do with her being a vanguard because they're stupidly fun.

And I'm going to pick synthesis on my idealist.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 19 mai 2012 - 08:38 .

[dreman9999]

Hadeedak wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Well, since this thread started out as 'roughly' a "STOP INVALIDATING MY CHOICES, FFS" thread...

I think arguing that destroy isn't the only 'good', 'right' or 'correct' choice is acceptable.

You have to ague the pros and cons of the other  desions first ageinst the prosand con of destroy...When you do you'll see destroy have more pros.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. I just don't feel the cons of destroy: broken citadel, broken relays, broken geth, maybe broken EDI, maybe even worse the way starkid puts it, and Earth buried in reaper corpses are worth the pro for my idealistic but shouty and angry paragade vanguard. And the pro is this: the Reapers are dead. Forever.

And yeah, I don't think that's worth the sacrifice, especially when there's other ways to stop them. Now, I am going to pick destroy on my pragmatic ruthless girl with a heavy renegade streak. That Shepard isn't messing around and she always doubletaps.

So your saying the cons of Synthesis, being that our mind are subjugated to control by the starchild and every waking moment and idea is controled by a race of machines, is less of a con of having to rebuild everything?
Or having Shepards mind be wiped and reeduacted by the reapers system and do what ever the systme wants, continuing the cycle again is less then a con then destroy?

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 mai 2012 - 08:44 .

[dreman9999]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Thefact that TIM controlShepard with indoctrination means Shepard isin the process of indoctriantion but we are not takingabout that. He is not a ghost,that is all.
2.Yes, you do. Every post you make in the topic makes that clear. Makingit right for you means you want it to be right. You not thinking about any fault in the decistion when they are faults you just want to be free on conserns over those faults. The fact remain that your putting too much trust in a being with a history ofgreat deseption you have no reason to trust....It's like giving your bank card to a crack adict , code and all. If your going to make a decistion , you also have to cousiderthe flauts of the action.You clearly have not.

1. TIM rebuilded Shepard. TIM also used reaper tech on his slaves. He has a very advanced technolygy  Don't you think that it could be possible he learned to control Shepard through his/her implants?

2. No, im not. There is a differece you don't understand between right, and right for you. Right means to be the correct answer. There is one option to make everything better. 

Right for you, means that you have few choices to pick from. It does not have that one is better than the other in general. It just mean that you like this choice better. 

Let's say you are going to a movie. you have several choices to choose from. Though most are going to one movie, you want another. Going to see this movie does not mean it's better than the first. It just mean you want something else. That means right for you.

1. How is he controling Anderson?:whistle:That's the key indicator that he is not using Sheps implants to control Shepard..
2.No, you not understanding the consept of denial. You not even considering that fact your "Righ choice for you' has flaults. Untill you do, you have no ground for your agruement.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 mai 2012 - 08:45 .

[Hadeedak]

Also, there's no fun in arguing for Destroy on the forums. There's enough people doing that, and it stagnates fast.

Uh... Interesting headcanons you got there on Control and Synthesis. I like my headcanon a bit more literal and a little less speculative and grimdark, but... ok?

[kookie28]

dreman9999 wrote...


In Synthesis much of it is simular to what the reapers are doing now except for harvesting....But the problem was never about them havesting alone...It was about them iposing their willon everyone. Synthesis would just be a faster way to do that...And in ME seres we know the reapers can control organics with implants....What is stopping the reapers from doing that with synthesis.....

I'm pretty sure it was about them killing off entire galactic civilizations.  The way they did it was irrelevant.

But this talk of "imposing will" and "genetic molestation" is mind numbing.  It's an argument based entirely on fear of the unknown.  It actually reminds me of what TIM said about humanity first discovering the relays. 

Of course, you'll say that because he was indoctrinated when he said that so it means it was evil of him to say.  Even though he was not the first one to think that going through the relays was a good idea. 

All of these crazy arguments about not trusting the Catalyst are about fear of the unknown.  Consider the fact that the Catalyst legitimately wants to end chaos.  He has ridiculous methods, but he believes they'll work.  When the Crucible changes him, he has better options available, and he explicitly needs you to carry them out.  There is zero reason for him to go to all these lengths to trick Shepard.

Moral of the story is that an idea isn't bad because a bad person supports it.

Modifié par kookie28, 19 mai 2012 - 09:00 .

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. How is he controling Anderson?:whistle:That's the key indicator that he is not using Sheps implants to control Shepard..
2.No, you not understanding the consept of denial. You not even considering that fact your "Righ choice for you' has flaults. Untill you do, you have no ground for your agruement.

1. Well, hoe DOES he control Anderson? Was Anderson incdoctrinated too? He may not control implants, but his technolygy is still advanced enough to find other ways to be able to control Shepard

2. Excuse me? I AM IN DENIAL?! The end is giving me the facts I need to know. I am making my choice by what i am giving. I'm not spacualting anything. Your IT is based speculations. Just because I don't believe IT does not mean my statements have no ground. 

How is right for you has faults?  Why is me making a choice that i think is the best without trying to force my opinion on why the other two choices are not good as mine (by pure assumption, btw) is worse than you trying to make others to do the exact same path you are doing? Because you feel like it? 

Modifié par HagarIshay, 19 mai 2012 - 09:07 .

[Vox Draco]

Hadeedak wrote...

Also, there's no fun in arguing for Destroy on the forums. There's enough people doing that, and it stagnates fast.

Uh... Interesting headcanons you got there on Control and Synthesis. I like my headcanon a bit more literal and a little less speculative and grimdark, but... ok?

Yes, the fun is gone by now. At first it was fun to point out why choosing control/synthesis is the worst option to choose, simply because it means you are playing a game, with your life and the galaxy at stake, with the devil dealing the cards and only he knows the rules...

But by now, I try to just sit back and amuse myself with all the funny headcanons people come up with to justify the fact they are okay to side with the idea of the Reaper-King...as long as it makes you happy its okay...at least I do not have to live in the same galaxy as them...oh wait...damn...well...

"fear of the unknown" *chuckles* yeah...that's the whole point of not choosing synthesis or control...and my moral to the story: If a bad person tells you that you can either kill him to save the galaxy or kill yourself and spare him to save the galaxy...don't think too long and aim for the head (or tubes)

[Abreu Road]

Destroy would wake up Shepard. That's it.

After that, Bioware can be creative in any way they want. Harbinger conversation, Harbinger battle, whatever. Choosing destroy would only implicate's that Shep wake up and the game continues to proper final battle. Then they can present us with 3 last choices as equally fantastic as the original ones. Or maybe 16 choices. They still can make you choose between synthesis and control after that.

I don't like IT that much, but I believe that its the only way they can make things right. Is IT or retcon. But I don't think they will do any of that.

It will be good old Star Brat all over again, but extended.

[T-Raks]

Talking in general: Asking Bioware to change the story so your choice becomes right is wrong. That is true for people that want their one choice (no matter which one) to become canon, as it is for people who want every choice to be the right one so one can't make a wrong choice.

I prefer to have to think about choices not only in real life but even in games, otherwise, what's the challenge? If there are no wrong choices, what's the point? I mean, if it was about your favorite color, I have to agree, I can't argue that, for that question every answer of yours is right.

But, I thought that this game and its end sequence asked a question of a bit greater magnitude: are we able to find a way to stop the Reapers and live our lives on without the threat of them coming for us every 50 thousand years?

So I expected the answer to this question to be somewhat difficult and not in the "choose your favorite color, everything works great" category. Finding just one way to stop them, would do the trick.

The game itself, your companions and you (your Shepard) hint heavily at destroying the reapers as the goal, even asking the sub question, "but are you willing to do what it takes?" on multiple occasions. So that it wouldn't come without sacrifices was clear the whole time.

When decision time came and the leader/creator of your enemy presents you three choices that stand 1) for them (synthesis, Saren), 2) for TIM (control) and 3) for yourself and the rest of the galaxy (destroy) to interpret the scenery at face value as an attempt of the catalyst to talk you into an option you don't wanna take is the challenge expected. Thinking your enemy would present you three out of three options where you win (differently) and they lose is a bit naive to me, especially when you consider that you hadn't backed the enemy into a corner.

The IT is just an interpretation of how Bioware presented their story to us and would be a brilliant way to achieve people believing in a wrong choice as the right one, just like indoctrination does. But don't worry: if that wasn't their intention, they won't do it. I don't believe for a second that they will change their story and they have stated as much.

What will change with the EC is their presentation.

So right now it's not about being for IT or not, but about "was that what Bioware intended or not?". There are many hints that it was their intention, so to interpret it that way is not egotistical, though asking for it to be right is. Like I said at the beginning. Just as asking for it not to be true is...

[Joccaren]

dreman9999 wrote...

So your saying the cons of Synthesis, being that our mind are subjugated to control by the starchild and every waking moment and idea is controled by a race of machines, is less of a con of having to rebuild everything?

Evidence that the Star Child is controlling us every second? I don't think you'll find any. Synthesis is displayed as us retining our free will, but becoming partially organic and partially synthetic.

Or having Shepards mind be wiped and reeduacted by the reapers system and do what ever the systme wants, continuing the cycle again is less then a con then destroy?

And where does it say Shepard's mind will be wiped, and the system will control him? Control is based around the idea that Shepard now controls the system, not the other way around. Hell, what even is this system you talk about? The Catalyst?

Do not put your speculations as fact. They are not. IT is not. The majority of your points have been blind delusion, putting forward your opinions as the only ones that are valid. Quite frankly, that is stupid, arrogant and childish.

You accuse others of being in denial, and I'm pretty sure earlier in this thread you said someone was likely just blinded by their hatred of IT that they couldn't see the truth [But I CBF looking through 13 pages to find that quote].

Have you ever thought of this: Maybe its you who is in denial. Maybe its you who is so blinded by your love of IT that you can't see the writting on the wall.

This is what the thread is about to me. The arrogance of the egotistical IT supporters who will constantly push forward only their idea as being valid or correct.

I don't hate IT. It would be a massive Copout if Bioware rolled with the fan's ideas now, but I don't hate it. When IT people display their points in a reasonable manner [On the rare occasion that this happens], I will look over them, review how likely that is compared to other evidence, and form my opinion on the matter.

However, when they make arrogant statements implying or even stating that their opinion is the only one that can be correct - I lose all respect for them, and the theory. Put forward your ideas, but don't put them forward as the only correct ones. In this instance, Control or Synthesis can easily be viewed as ideal situations if your reasoning is not used, and you know what? You're reasoning doesn't have to be used. That poster's view on the issue was different to yours, and no less valid. Your statement only served to make you look arrogant and egotistical, not influence anyone's opinion.

Case in Point: Don't put forward your ideas as being the only correct ones. They are not. To imply otherwise is arrogant and more than a little stupid.

[Meatus]

 First of all, many "Pro-IT" people perceived the events that transpired that way in their first playthrough, before IT was even called IT. Do you think just one person came up with it, and everyone else just decided to completely change the way they perceived the ending?

And are you seriously saying that people perceiving it this way takes away your happy ending? If you're that afraid of EC confirming IT, just don't download it. It's a DLC; it's optional. Keep the ending as-is, if you're happy with it. Who gives a **** how other people perceive the ending? Just because Bioware made one ending where Shepard lives, does that ruin the way you perceived your ending? Apparently not; so your complaint is pretty arbitrary.

[Ageless Face]

Meatus wrote...

 First of all, many "Pro-IT" people perceived the events that transpired that way in their first playthrough, before IT was even called IT. Do you think just one person came up with it, and everyone else just decided to completely change the way they perceived the ending?

And are you seriously saying that people perceiving it this way takes away your happy ending? If you're that afraid of EC confirming IT, just don't download it. It's a DLC; it's optional. Keep the ending as-is, if you're happy with it. Who gives a **** how other people perceive the ending? Just because Bioware made one ending where Shepard lives, does that ruin the way you perceived your ending? Apparently not; so your complaint is pretty arbitrary.

Did I say only one person thought of the indoctrination theory? I don't believe I did. If so than I apologize. Anyway, that is not the purpuse of this thread.

Why won't I download the EC if I believe the end need the expansion? Should the ending only be for IT suporters? If the ending will be for the IT, shouldn't the people who don't like destroy and didn't like the ending at least will get a good end for their Shepard as much as people who have chosen destroy? Maybe not the same end, but also not worse. Or better, for that matter. 

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


In Synthesis much of it is simular to what the reapers are doing now except for harvesting....But the problem was never about them havesting alone...It was about them iposing their willon everyone. Synthesis would just be a faster way to do that...And in ME seres we know the reapers can control organics with implants....What is stopping the reapers from doing that with synthesis.....

I'm pretty sure it was about them killing off entire galactic civilizations.  The way they did it was irrelevant.

But this talk of "imposing will" and "genetic molestation" is mind numbing.  It's an argument based entirely on fear of the unknown.  It actually reminds me of what TIM said about humanity first discovering the relays. 

Of course, you'll say that because he was indoctrinated when he said that so it means it was evil of him to say.  Even though he was not the first one to think that going through the relays was a good idea. 

All of these crazy arguments about not trusting the Catalyst are about fear of the unknown.  Consider the fact that the Catalyst legitimately wants to end chaos.  He has ridiculous methods, but he believes they'll work.  When the Crucible changes him, he has better options available, and he explicitly needs you to carry them out.  There is zero reason for him to go to all these lengths to trick Shepard.

Moral of the story is that an idea isn't bad because a bad person supports it.

No, it's perserving. The race stays a live but the indovisuality of the race dies. It about forcing and imposing order and evolution. You look too much at the "how they do that " of the process.

And the "impose will"arguement is not base of fearof the unnone. It's based on understand of the enemy we face. What have you seen from ME1? It'sthe reapertrying to impose there will with indoctrination and implantation. And you think I'm going to let them do it now with synthesis. I understand the enemy more then you do. Because I undeerstandthe enemy I can clearly state they needto be destroyed. Because I understand they will never stop till they impose their will over us all. This is understanding not fear. They nevercame here to debate, the came hear to force their will on us.
And the catalyst is part of them....So no, I have no reason to trust the star child...If you do, your using flawed judgement.

[dreman9999]

Joccaren wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So your saying the cons of Synthesis, being that our mind are subjugated to control by the starchild and every waking moment and idea is controled by a race of machines, is less of a con of having to rebuild everything?

Evidence that the Star Child is controlling us every second? I don't think you'll find any. Synthesis is displayed as us retining our free will, but becoming partially organic and partially synthetic.

Or having Shepards mind be wiped and reeduacted by the reapers system and do what ever the systme wants, continuing the cycle again is less then a con then destroy?

And where does it say Shepard's mind will be wiped, and the system will control him? Control is based around the idea that Shepard now controls the system, not the other way around. Hell, what even is this system you talk about? The Catalyst?

Do not put your speculations as fact. They are not. IT is not. The majority of your points have been blind delusion, putting forward your opinions as the only ones that are valid. Quite frankly, that is stupid, arrogant and childish.

You accuse others of being in denial, and I'm pretty sure earlier in this thread you said someone was likely just blinded by their hatred of IT that they couldn't see the truth [But I CBF looking through 13 pages to find that quote].

Have you ever thought of this: Maybe its you who is in denial. Maybe its you who is so blinded by your love of IT that you can't see the writting on the wall.

This is what the thread is about to me. The arrogance of the egotistical IT supporters who will constantly push forward only their idea as being valid or correct.

I don't hate IT. It would be a massive Copout if Bioware rolled with the fan's ideas now, but I don't hate it. When IT people display their points in a reasonable manner [On the rare occasion that this happens], I will look over them, review how likely that is compared to other evidence, and form my opinion on the matter.

However, when they make arrogant statements implying or even stating that their opinion is the only one that can be correct - I lose all respect for them, and the theory. Put forward your ideas, but don't put them forward as the only correct ones. In this instance, Control or Synthesis can easily be viewed as ideal situations if your reasoning is not used, and you know what? You're reasoning doesn't have to be used. That poster's view on the issue was different to yours, and no less valid. Your statement only served to make you look arrogant and egotistical, not influence anyone's opinion.

Case in Point: Don't put forward your ideas as being the only correct ones. They are not. To imply otherwise is arrogant and more than a little stupid.

1. Reaperscan cotrol organic with implant....Andin synthesis we are letting the star child implanting everything..... Do the math.
2. What does"You will die. You will control us but you'll lose everything you have "mean? Is there alimit to everything?

[dreman9999]

Vox Draco wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Also, there's no fun in arguing for Destroy on the forums. There's enough people doing that, and it stagnates fast.

Uh... Interesting headcanons you got there on Control and Synthesis. I like my headcanon a bit more literal and a little less speculative and grimdark, but... ok?

Yes, the fun is gone by now. At first it was fun to point out why choosing control/synthesis is the worst option to choose, simply because it means you are playing a game, with your life and the galaxy at stake, with the devil dealing the cards and only he knows the rules...

But by now, I try to just sit back and amuse myself with all the funny headcanons people come up with to justify the fact they are okay to side with the idea of the Reaper-King...as long as it makes you happy its okay...at least I do not have to live in the same galaxy as them...oh wait...damn...well...

"fear of the unknown" *chuckles* yeah...that's the whole point of not choosing synthesis or control...and my moral to the story: If a bad person tells you that you can either kill him to save the galaxy or kill yourself and spare him to save the galaxy...don't think too long and aim for the head (or tubes)

*claps slowly.....
This one gets it.

[dreman9999]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. How is he controling Anderson?:whistle:That's the key indicator that he is not using Sheps implants to control Shepard..
2.No, you not understanding the consept of denial. You not even considering that fact your "Righ choice for you' has flaults. Untill you do, you have no ground for your agruement.

1. Well, hoe DOES he control Anderson? Was Anderson incdoctrinated too? He may not control implants, but his technolygy is still advanced enough to find other ways to be able to control Shepard

2. Excuse me? I AM IN DENIAL?! The end is giving me the facts I need to know. I am making my choice by what i am giving. I'm not spacualting anything. Your IT is based speculations. Just because I don't believe IT does not mean my statements have no ground. 

How is right for you has faults?  Why is me making a choice that i think is the best without trying to force my opinion on why the other two choices are not good as mine (by pure assumption, btw) is worse than you trying to make others to do the exact same path you are doing? Because you feel like it? 

1. Please us some occam's razorr. We never seen Anderson implanted with any tech. He's pure organic...But for the entirity of ME3 he's on earth and has lotsof contact with reapers and reaper forces as he commands armies to fight them....It's very clear that it's indoctrination.
2. Yes, You are in denial. Untill you think of the flaws of yourc hoice, you in denial. I'm not even arguing IT with this. And even then I still see the flaw of control and Synthesis to choose if the ending is literal. If you can't see the flaws of the choice, you in denial. The entire games showed how those choices are flawed.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[FatalX7.0]

I remember Mr. Gamble posted on Twitter that he finds Synthesis to be the best ending.

Which is blasphemy as well as madness.

And people need to shut their pieholes about denial.

Also, TIM's indoctrination breast control implants.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 19 mai 2012 - 02:26 .

[dreman9999]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I remember Mr. Gamble posted on Twitter that he finds Synthesis to be the best ending.

Which is blasphemy as well as madness.

Can you tell me what thecontext of the message mean? Best over all for Shepards end or best over all for dramatic effect. Remeber, People think leeting chararters dies is best becuase of the  dramatic efect.

[FatalX7.0]

dreman9999 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I remember Mr. Gamble posted on Twitter that he finds Synthesis to be the best ending.

Which is blasphemy as well as madness.

Can you tell me what thecontext of the message mean? Best over all for Shepards end or best over all for dramatic effect. Remeber, People think leeting chararters dies is best becuase of the  dramatic efect.

Uh, his opinion?

He liked Synthesis more.

Seriously, everything doesn't need to be analyzed, poked and prodded to such a high extent.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 19 mai 2012 - 02:30 .

[dreman9999]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I remember Mr. Gamble posted on Twitter that he finds Synthesis to be the best ending.

Which is blasphemy as well as madness.

Can you tell me what thecontext of the message mean? Best over all for Shepards end or best over all for dramatic effect. Remeber, People think leeting chararters dies is best becuase of the  dramatic efect.

Uh, his opinion?

He liked Synthesis more.

And He knows what's going on in the plot more then we. Remeber, people do like thing other people don't like because of Dramatic effect.
The comment is too nuetral to base anything on.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 mai 2012 - 02:31 .