587 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...
I understanf the everyone doesn't want the same path of out come.But you not understanding that every othe path leads to working with the reapers......How can anyone agree with that? Look at everything they done. It be with them on anything is wrong.

Actually, that's not true. Should the Reapers have a good idea, it stays a good idea even if it's the Reapers who come up with it. To say anything else is to succumb to the association fallacy lately so common on BSN.

The harvesting is horrific, no doubt about that, and we play to stop it from continuing for three games. That's as it should be. But apart from that, I find the Reapers interesting. And once the danger of harvesting is a thing of the past, I'd like to talk to one. 

2.Simple...One clear statement makeit clear..."Yesmyou willdie. You can control use but lose everything you have"
That put Shepardin a blank state in the reapers system....Andin the system, they can reeducate Shepard to having the reapers morality. It 's not a question that Shepard will do what is moraly right but if Shepards morals are different. If Shepards moral arethe reapers morals, what do you think he will do?

Again 100% invention. All we actually know - or can infer - is that Shepard's mind will be uploaded and they will be in control of the Reapers. What happens after that is 100% invention and what happens in others' games is, THRICE DAMN IT, NOT FOR YOU TO SAY.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2012 - 05:31 .

[Mcfly616]

Don't you mean "egotistical"?

I like the IT....it'd be better than what we currently have....but I highly doubt its going to become a reality.....

On that note, I disagree with the OP.....I come to the forums mostly to read through the topics and discussions, sometimes commenting when I'm bored enough....

From a pretty neutral perspective, everytime I see an IT thread pop up, just for the intention of having a friendly discussion or peoples interpretation, a Pro-Ender will come in 100% of the time, at some point and begin to say how "ridiculous" the IT is.....

All I ever see is Pro-Enders instigating IT believers, with threads like "Why the IT is false", "The IT was never intended", "Debunking the IT once and for all"

Like, damn....why don't they just make threads about how much they like the ending, or a thread discussing what Pro-Enders like about the ending.....why don't they just have their own thread, and let the IT people discuss their theory....


Personally, from my perspective its quite obvious that the Pro-Enders are a little more "egoist", as you so eloquently put it.....

However, this is just in response to the OP....



I could really care less if Pro Enders and Indoctrination Theorists go at it until the end of time.....it makes for a good read atleast

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I understanf the everyone doesn't want the same path of out come.But you not understanding that every othe path leads to working with the reapers......How can anyone agree with that? Look at everything they done. It be with them on anything is wrong.

Actually, that's not true. Should the Reapers have a good idea, it stays a good idea even if it's the Reapers who come up with it. To say anything else is to succumb to the association fallacy lately so common on BSN.

The harvesting is horrific, no doubt about that, and we play to stop it from continuing for three games. That's as it should be. But apart from that, I find the Reapers interesting. And once the danger of harvesting is a thing of the past, I'd like to talk to one. 

2.Simple...One clear statement makeit clear..."Yesmyou willdie. You can control use but lose everything you have"
That put Shepardin a blank state in the reapers system....Andin the system, they can reeducate Shepard to having the reapers morality. It 's not a question that Shepard will do what is moraly right but if Shepards morals are different. If Shepards moral arethe reapers morals, what do you think he will do?

Again 100% invention. All we actually know - or can infer - is that Shepard's mind will be uploaded and they will be in control of the Reapers. What happens after that is 100% invention and what happens in others' games is, THRICE DAMN IT, NOT FOR YOU TO SAY.

1.You not understanding the problem then. It's not the harvesting it's the forced evolution. The imposing of ideals.
2.Sorry, what does "
Yes you willdie. You can control use but lose everything you have" mean?

[jtav]

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

Because that isn't what they mean, any more than rewriting the heretics means you agree with them? In Control, you are exerting your will on the Reapers, replacing the Catalyst's thoughts with your own. Synthesis tacitly agrees with the underly problem, but rejects Reaper methods.

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...
But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

So.....I like the prospect of replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. I have liked the idea for a long time. And now.....because some antagonist in a story has the same idea only with strings attached, that idea suddenly turns bad?

Don't make me laugh. A good idea doesn't turn bad if it comes to be supported by bad people. As opposed to quite a few people here on BSN, I have the ability to consider the merit of ideas independently from the morality of those who support them.

I play the games to stop the Reapers from harvesting civilizations. That's what the story is about, and all endings let me do that. If I can do that and implement ideas I like at the same time, why the hell would I not want that?

I am not working with the Reapers or agreeing with their methods when I choose Synthesis or Control.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2012 - 05:40 .

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

Because that isn't what they mean, any more than rewriting the heretics means you agree with them? In Control, you are exerting your will on the Reapers, replacing the Catalyst's thoughts with your own. Synthesis tacitly agrees with the underly problem, but rejects Reaper methods.

I'm sorry but untill you can provethat the reapers can't control orgainc in synthises or warp SHepard morality, you can't say it's not nor can you my interpretation is not....I have the entire history and action of the reaper backing me on my  statements while you have just somestar child you just met.

You have to prove that they can be trusted.

[Raiil]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...
But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

So.....I like the prospect of replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. I have liked the idea for a long time. And now.....because some antagonist in a story has the same idea only with strings attached, that idea suddenly turns bad?

Don't make me laugh. A good idea doesn't turn bad if it comes to be supported by bad people. As opposed to quite a few people here on BSN, I have the ability to consider the merit of ideas independently from the morality of those who support them.

I play the games to stop the Reapers from harvesting civilizations. That's what the story is about, and all endings let me do that. If I can do that and implement ideas I like at the same time, why the hell would I not want that?

Absolutely this. Although my interpretation of Synthesis is very different from 
Ieldra2's, I find this to be a very important point that people don't take into account.

Context.


The reasons why you're doing something are often as important as the very thing you're doing yourself. If Ieldra2's version of synthesis is correct (or rather if it was the conclusion that I had come to as well), I'd find it more palatable, partially because the reasoning behind it isn't inherently flawed, but rather goes from good intentions. The same goes for control. Choosing that doesn't mean you think the Illusive Man was 'right' for the same reasons, and choosing Synthesis doesn't mean you agree with all of Saren's thinking or his personal moral views (like blowing up a refinery). If you continue to view these decisions within a vacumn, your thinking will be incomplete and flawed because you're not considering the circumstances and moral dictation behind them.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...
But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

So.....I like the prospect of replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. I have liked the idea for a long time. And now.....because some antagonist in a story has the same idea only with strings attached, that idea suddenly turns bad?

Don't make me laugh. A good idea doesn't turn bad if it comes to be supported by bad people. As opposed to quite a few people here on BSN, I have the ability to consider the merit of ideas independently from the morality of those who support them.

I play the games to stop the Reapers from harvesting civilizations. That's what the story is about, and all endings let me do that. If I can do that and implement ideas I like at the same time, why the hell would I not want that?

You mising that fact that not evenone, that being mostly everyone agrees with it. That's why it's bad. It's forced on everyone. Even the geth see it as a flawed action. You may agree with it but it doesn't mean it has to be forced on everyone. You can do it on yourself. There other means to use to  evolve.

[jtav]

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

[dreman9999]

Valentia X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...
But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

So.....I like the prospect of replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. I have liked the idea for a long time. And now.....because some antagonist in a story has the same idea only with strings attached, that idea suddenly turns bad?

Don't make me laugh. A good idea doesn't turn bad if it comes to be supported by bad people. As opposed to quite a few people here on BSN, I have the ability to consider the merit of ideas independently from the morality of those who support them.

I play the games to stop the Reapers from harvesting civilizations. That's what the story is about, and all endings let me do that. If I can do that and implement ideas I like at the same time, why the hell would I not want that?

Absolutely this. Although my interpretation of Synthesis is very different from 
Ieldra2's, I find this to be a very important point that people don't take into account.

Context.


The reasons why you're doing something are often as important as the very thing you're doing yourself. If Ieldra2's version of synthesis is correct (or rather if it was the conclusion that I had come to as well), I'd find it more palatable, partially because the reasoning behind it isn't inherently flawed, but rather goes from good intentions. The same goes for control. Choosing that doesn't mean you think the Illusive Man was 'right' for the same reasons, and choosing Synthesis doesn't mean you agree with all of Saren's thinking or his personal moral views (like blowing up a refinery). If you continue to view these decisions within a vacumn, your thinking will be incomplete and flawed because you're not considering the circumstances and moral dictation behind them.

Your missing the fact that the problem is that it's forced on people, not that synthesis of organic and synthetic is a bad thing.

[Raiil]

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

Because that isn't what they mean, any more than rewriting the heretics means you agree with them? In Control, you are exerting your will on the Reapers, replacing the Catalyst's thoughts with your own. Synthesis tacitly agrees with the underly problem, but rejects Reaper methods.

I'm sorry but untill you can provethat the reapers can't control orgainc in synthises or warp SHepard morality, you can't say it's not nor can you my interpretation is not....I have the entire history and action of the reaper backing me on my  statements while you have just somestar child you just met.

You have to prove that they can be trusted.

The Reapers have, at no point, shown any consideration towards 'ascending' organics through indirect... whatever the hell it is Synthesis does. They kill the vast majority of species entirely and 'upload' a select few. It's not nearly the same thing as Synthesis.

I'm sorry, but until you can prove that Destroy has some sort of moral upper hand, Control and Synthesis are just as valid, even if you don't agree with them. 'But the Reapers' is a weak argument considering we still have relatively little knowledge about their motivations.

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.I understanf the everyone doesn't want the same path of out come.But you not understanding that every othe path leads to working with the reapers......How can anyone agree with that? Look at everything they done. It be with them on anything is wrong.

2.Simple...One clear statement makeit clear..."Yesmyou willdie. You can control use but lose everything you have"
That put Shepardin a blank state in the reapers system....Andin the system, they can reeducate Shepard to having the reapers morality. It 's not a question that Shepard will do what is moraly right but if Shepards morals are different. If Shepards moral arethe reapers morals, what do you think he will do?

1. I don't believe the other paths are the means to work with the reapers more than control because EVERY CHOICE WE ARE GIVEN IS GIVEN US BY THE CATALYST. Destroy is not different than the others at this. If Synthesis and control is working with the reapers, it means that if destroy is  a choice given by the catalyst, it means it a sure sign the catalyst had a plan B, or is sure someone else will continue his work. You don't want that, do you? But there it is! Why else will he give you the options? 

Either that, or maybe none of those choices are working with the reapers. So thats leaves me again saying that destroy has no reason to be better than the other options.

2. But we know Shepard doesn't have reaper morality. Shepard believes that s/he can control the reapers, tell them to go away or be the right hand of the galaxy. Shepard, by taking control option, is trying to make everyone live. Synthetics as well as organics. The reapers's moral is killing organics to save them.
And again i will say, Shepard is organic. Even if Shepard will become the new catalyst, the memories and mind will, i'm assuming, will still be there, and will keep Shepard in control of him/herself. The catalyst didn't have that. 

Modifié par HagarIshay, 17 mai 2012 - 05:46 .

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

[TSA_383]

StElmo wrote...

Just replay the ending and choose destroy, problem solved. We will all be replaying it anyway when the EC comes out.

No need to over analyze anything.

Not quite. The "LegendSave" that your game creates when you make the choice the first time is not overwritten when you make any subsequent choice. This is entirely distinct from Newsave+, so it's logical that your original choice may impact on how your character plays in the extended cut and you may have to start another one...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The game tells you that all choices end the Reaper threat. END OF STORY

Because
bioware has never used the game mechanic of tricking players and then
not revealing that they've been tricked if they do fall for it...

Except in Baldur's gate.... and Neverwinter nights... and apparently also DA:O but I'm not familiar with that.

OdanUrr wrote...

poundoffleshaa wrote...

Because
I can see absolutly no reason why making Shepard think him his/her
enemy would advantage him, so I am putting it down to general reaper
hubris.

You see it as the Catalyst making himself
to be the enemy. I see it as the Catalyst trying to appear powerful and
in control in front of Shepard. For all we know, he's just bluffing and
doesn't really control the Reapers.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

It's a bit of both I guess.
By telling you that he controls the reapers whilst using the form of the child, it makes the reapers seem less threatening, particularly given a familiar and innocent face.
In addition, if such a character were trying to trick shepard they need the player to believe that they have the power to enact the decision they're giving you...

tMc Tallgeese wrote...
Destroy - Shepard releases the energy from the Crucible
causing the Reapers to be wiped out and the relay network to be
destroyed. This will set organics on their own path, but will require
them to overcome several obstacles in order to re-establish the galactic
civilization as they knew it. Shepard can survive based on EMS level and galactic readiness.

Because taking a multi-megaton blast to the face in low-earth orbit and surviving totally seems a likely outcome.

HagarIshay wrote...

1. I don't believe the other paths are
the means to work with the reapers more than control because EVERY
CHOICE WE ARE GIVEN IS GIVEN US BY THE CATALYST. Destroy is not
different than the others at this. If Synthesis and control is working
with the reapers, it means that if destroy is  a choice given by the
catalyst, it means it a sure sign the catalyst had a plan B, or is sure
someone else will continue his work. You don't want that, do you? But
there it is! Why else will he give you the options?

Game design rule 1:
Make sure it's possible for the player to win [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Modifié par TSA_383, 17 mai 2012 - 05:50 .

[Raiil]

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...
But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

So.....I like the prospect of replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. I have liked the idea for a long time. And now.....because some antagonist in a story has the same idea only with strings attached, that idea suddenly turns bad?

Don't make me laugh. A good idea doesn't turn bad if it comes to be supported by bad people. As opposed to quite a few people here on BSN, I have the ability to consider the merit of ideas independently from the morality of those who support them.

I play the games to stop the Reapers from harvesting civilizations. That's what the story is about, and all endings let me do that. If I can do that and implement ideas I like at the same time, why the hell would I not want that?

Absolutely this. Although my interpretation of Synthesis is very different from 
Ieldra2's, I find this to be a very important point that people don't take into account.

Context.


The reasons why you're doing something are often as important as the very thing you're doing yourself. If Ieldra2's version of synthesis is correct (or rather if it was the conclusion that I had come to as well), I'd find it more palatable, partially because the reasoning behind it isn't inherently flawed, but rather goes from good intentions. The same goes for control. Choosing that doesn't mean you think the Illusive Man was 'right' for the same reasons, and choosing Synthesis doesn't mean you agree with all of Saren's thinking or his personal moral views (like blowing up a refinery). If you continue to view these decisions within a vacumn, your thinking will be incomplete and flawed because you're not considering the circumstances and moral dictation behind them.

Your missing the fact that the problem is that it's forced on people, not that synthesis of organic and synthetic is a bad thing.

You're glossing over the fact that Destroy forces the physical and cultural genocide on an entire race of sapient, synthetic beings. How in the hell is that any more correct that forcing the bad guys to go away or removing the problem that the unknowable Space Squids have come for in the first place?

You continue to make assertions based in a vacumn and abstract what-ifs, not based on what we actually have in game. Why is the destruction of all AI-based races better than Control and Synthesis, when neither accomplishes what the Reapers set out to do, which was to wipe out all intelligent life in the galaxy?

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

Because that isn't what they mean, any more than rewriting the heretics means you agree with them? In Control, you are exerting your will on the Reapers, replacing the Catalyst's thoughts with your own. Synthesis tacitly agrees with the underly problem, but rejects Reaper methods.

I'm sorry but untill you can provethat the reapers can't control orgainc in synthises or warp SHepard morality, you can't say it's not nor can you my interpretation is not....I have the entire history and action of the reaper backing me on my  statements while you have just somestar child you just met.

You have to prove that they can be trusted.

No. If you want *your* choice enshrined as canonical, YOU have to prove - and REALLY prove, not just indicate - that your interpretation is correct. And you won't be able to to that. Your whole "history of the reapers backing you up" is nothing more than a smokescreen based on your interpretation of things. It does not invalidate the merit of the ideas presented, and in fact, the presentation of the ending sequence highly suggests that it is, in fact, not true at all. Synthesis doesn't Reaperize anyone, it doesn't take anyone's individuality away. Unless you *presupposed* something like IT.  

So it's all interpretation, and ff you can't accept that it is not for you to say what happens in others' games based on your interpretations, then I'm done talking. Everything I accused you of is true.

[dreman9999]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.I understanf the everyone doesn't want the same path of out come.But you not understanding that every othe path leads to working with the reapers......How can anyone agree with that? Look at everything they done. It be with them on anything is wrong.

2.Simple...One clear statement makeit clear..."Yesmyou willdie. You can control use but lose everything you have"
That put Shepardin a blank state in the reapers system....Andin the system, they can reeducate Shepard to having the reapers morality. It 's not a question that Shepard will do what is moraly right but if Shepards morals are different. If Shepards moral arethe reapers morals, what do you think he will do?

1. I don't believe the other paths are the means to work with the reapers more than control because EVERY CHOICE WE ARE GIVEN IS GIVEN US BY THE CATALYST. Destroy is not different than the others at this. If Synthesis and control is working with the reapers, it means that if destroy is  a choice given by the catalyst, it means it a sure sign the catalyst had a plan B, or is sure someone else will continue his work. You don't want that, do you? But there it is! Why else will he give you the options? 

Either that, or maybe none of those choices are working with the reapers. So thats leaves me again saying that destroy has no reason to be better than the other options.

2. But we know Shepard doesn't have reaper morality. Shepard believes that s/he can control the reapers, tell them to go away or be the right hand of the galaxy. Shepard, by taking control option, is trying to make everyone live. Synthetics as well as organics. The reapers's moral is killing organics to save them.
And again i will say, Shepard is organic. Even if Shepard will become the new catalyst, the memories and mind will, i'm assuming, will still be there, and will keep Shepard in control of him/herself. The catalyst didn't have that. 

1. The problem is that youhave yet to see the the star child dod not offer us destroy...He just brought up the fact that he know we are think of destroying the reapers..
2.It matter not what he has before. As I said before, it will change when he is up loaded. If he is a blank slate once up loaded in the reaper system and is retaught by the reapers.. His morality will change.

[BatmanTurian]

Here's the problem I see with people who choose control or Synthesis and it honestly has nothing to do with IT. I'm going to argue this at face value.

A lot of people who choose Control believe their Shepard will choose to send the Reapers into the Sun or turn them into some ultra-cyborg police force. First, it's wrong to mind-control others, whether they are evil or not. You become no better than the Reapers themselves. Secondly, you're going to believe a (supposed) A.I. who argues the case for Reapers who have slaughtered trillions over the billion years they have existed with his faulty logic? Thirdly, (this is where it becomes completely illogical) what you believe outside of the game in your mind will not affect your Shepard. Whatever Bioware chooses to do with Shepard, you can't enforce your will on your Shepard character. So you want your Shepard to send the Reapers into the Sun or leave organics alone? Who says Shepard will do that regardless of what your headcanon is? There is no evidence in the game that Shepard has direct control other than the Reapers leaving. It is never implied that they will not be back, nor that Shepard will not become reprogrammed once absorbed into the Reaper "consensus". Shepard is dead, you can't argue once you become code that can be reprogrammed easier than by using Indoctrination.

Synthesis is quite possibly more ridiculous. What are Reapers? A fusion of organic and synthetic already. They believe they are the pinnacle of evolution. They wish to bring the worthy up to their immortal existence. You become absorbed but who says what you believe or your Shepard believes will come true, that organics and synthetics will get along since they are the "same" now? I haven't even touched Eugenics or the matter-rape of the choice of forcing the Singularity on everyone rather than the species of the galaxy researching and earning it for themselves, or the fact that people like Javik would rather kill themselves than not be mostly organic.

My entire point is that when people choose control or synthesis, they come to an illogical conclusion that their meta-will-opinion-and-values will be transferred to a video game character rather than what would more likely happen in a universe not controlled by your will as a player beyond the actions you force Shepard to make. Destroy is the only option that fits the in-game Shepard's values, whether Paragon or Renegade: The Reapers must be destroyed whatever the cost. Losing friends and innocents along the way is horrible, but Shepard always sucks it up and keeps on trucking to do what he set out to do. Also both Legion and EDI claim they would rather have non-functionality than serve the Reapers, so dying would be preferable to them than a control or synthesis ending.

Two out of three of the choices betray Shepard's friends and his own values. Two out of three of the choices are the beliefs of former antagonists who served the Reapers. Two out of three of the choices involve massive head-canon and appeal-to-transhumanism (which by the way could be completely awesome or completely horrific; We don't know what the Technological Singularity will be like, which is why it's called a Singularity) to make them justifiable because your Shepard is not controlled thereafter by your meta-will-opinion-and-values.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 06:00 .

[jtav]

It's forced on people. And? We force people to be vaccinated as infants. Parents "force" their children to be born in a particular time in place (including crushing poverty). We force them to wear seatbelts or evacuate their homes in the wake of natural disasters. Evolution forces me to have opposable thumbs. So, it's always a matter of what is being forced.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

Because that isn't what they mean, any more than rewriting the heretics means you agree with them? In Control, you are exerting your will on the Reapers, replacing the Catalyst's thoughts with your own. Synthesis tacitly agrees with the underly problem, but rejects Reaper methods.

I'm sorry but untill you can provethat the reapers can't control orgainc in synthises or warp SHepard morality, you can't say it's not nor can you my interpretation is not....I have the entire history and action of the reaper backing me on my  statements while you have just somestar child you just met.

You have to prove that they can be trusted.

No. If you want *your* choice enshrined as canonical, YOU have to prove - and REALLY prove, not just indicate - that your interpretation is correct. And you won't be able to to that. Your whole "history of the reapers backing you up" is nothing more than a smokescreen based on your interpretation of things. It does not invalidate the merit of the ideas presented, and in fact, the presentation of the ending sequence highly suggests that it is, in fact, not true at all. Synthesis doesn't Reaperize anyone, it doesn't take anyone's individuality away. Unless you *presupposed* something like IT.  

So it's all interpretation, and ff you can't accept that it is not for you to say what happens in others' games based on your interpretations, then I'm done talking. Everything I accused you of is true.

I have...It that entire lore of ME. I already proven that the reaper can't be trusted. You have to prove they can.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

But all ending cutscenes are presented from a neutral standpoint.

[dreman9999]

Valentia X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...
But we don't want to choose Destroy. As utterly inconceivable as it might be to some of you, some of us LIKE the ideas presented by Synthesis and Control. How DARE you yake that away from us by turning them into losing options!

But those option are about agreeing and working with the reapers...How can they be good choices?

So.....I like the prospect of replacing natural evolution by deliberate change. I have liked the idea for a long time. And now.....because some antagonist in a story has the same idea only with strings attached, that idea suddenly turns bad?

Don't make me laugh. A good idea doesn't turn bad if it comes to be supported by bad people. As opposed to quite a few people here on BSN, I have the ability to consider the merit of ideas independently from the morality of those who support them.

I play the games to stop the Reapers from harvesting civilizations. That's what the story is about, and all endings let me do that. If I can do that and implement ideas I like at the same time, why the hell would I not want that?

Absolutely this. Although my interpretation of Synthesis is very different from 
Ieldra2's, I find this to be a very important point that people don't take into account.

Context.


The reasons why you're doing something are often as important as the very thing you're doing yourself. If Ieldra2's version of synthesis is correct (or rather if it was the conclusion that I had come to as well), I'd find it more palatable, partially because the reasoning behind it isn't inherently flawed, but rather goes from good intentions. The same goes for control. Choosing that doesn't mean you think the Illusive Man was 'right' for the same reasons, and choosing Synthesis doesn't mean you agree with all of Saren's thinking or his personal moral views (like blowing up a refinery). If you continue to view these decisions within a vacumn, your thinking will be incomplete and flawed because you're not considering the circumstances and moral dictation behind them.

Your missing the fact that the problem is that it's forced on people, not that synthesis of organic and synthetic is a bad thing.

You're glossing over the fact that Destroy forces the physical and cultural genocide on an entire race of sapient, synthetic beings. How in the hell is that any more correct that forcing the bad guys to go away or removing the problem that the unknowable Space Squids have come for in the first place?

You continue to make assertions based in a vacumn and abstract what-ifs, not based on what we actually have in game. Why is the destruction of all AI-based races better than Control and Synthesis, when neither accomplishes what the Reapers set out to do, which was to wipe out all intelligent life in the galaxy?

You also missing the fact that these sapient synthetic being reather die then be slaves again. Which is what control and synthises will do to them. 
http://www.youtube.c...nxvzvZU#t=1208s

http://www.youtube.c...nxvzvZU#t=1148s

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 mai 2012 - 05:56 .

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

But all ending cutscenes are presented from a neutral standpoint.

Are taking about Jokers final fight? The one the is sapposed to be a song of hope?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

But all ending cutscenes are presented from a neutral standpoint.

Are taking about Jokers final fight? The one the is sapposed to be a song of hope?

That and the battle in London when the energy wave hits the Reapers and soldiers.