9089 réponses à ce sujet

[I Am Robot]

lillitheris wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

back to mass effect. synthesis is a natural evolution that happens in an instant.

Oh, so what you’re saying is that Synthesis is completely unnecessary and doesn’t actually do anything? Then your previous argument about a smaller change (Deus Ex) being actually larger makes sense. I guess.

Seriously, people.

If you want to come up with this magic unicorn Synthesis, by all means, do so! But don’t try to claim that the game presents it anything like this. It doesn’t.

I’m just going to assume that you’re acknowledging that Synthesis in ME3 is actually a bad thing, and you wouldn’t select it.

 

how does evolution not do anything? and in the context of the Mass effect universe it seems that synthesis is something that must happen in order for the chaos between organics and synthetics to end . We're talking about the ME universe not the real world.

No, it is claimed that it’s necessary. We can accept that claim for the purposes of this discussion, but my problem with your statement is that the way you’re describing Synthesis

1. is not in line with what the game tells us; and

2. effects so little change that it’s completely pointless.

When did I say that the changes in Dues Ex seem smaller but are actually bigger? I said that I think what was being done in that game is wrong.

You said “Don't get me wrong I'm strongly against radical movements to augmentate
humans such as those shown in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but there is a
huge diffrence between something like that and synthesis.”

The changes in Synthesis should be much more vast and invasive than DEx, if you go by the game and what it’s actually supposed to achieve.

(I admit I was highly amused that you found it dangerous to accept augments from ‘companies’ — but you think it’s perfectly fine to accept augments from someone who has actively been trying to kill all sapient life.)

Now, as I said, if you truly believe that the changes in Synthesis are smaller and less invasive than Deus Ex, then that means that Synthesis is pointless. It’s unnecessary. That level of augmentation can be done as it is.

So you’d be violating the basic rights of every being in existence — and those not yet born! — to perform an unnecessary act whose consequences you really have only the faintest idea about.

In the EC  it is clearly shown that after synthesis individuals can still think in the same way, the war has ended, people are not indoctrinated and that there is no kind of collective thought.

No, it isn’t. You don’t know any of that to be true.

But, again, that does not matter. Like I keep saying, we can well stipulate that Synthesis actually turns out well. The problem is that you don’t — can’t — know this at the time when you need to make the decision. You’re throwing away the lives of all sentient creatures in the universe because you think it might turn out to be good. In kindest possible terms, that’s horrifyingly irresponsible.

I said earlier that I chose synthesis as my ending and I chose it without a drop of doubt. It's not perfect, but in my view it is certainly better than the other three actions.

It’s better because the epilogue is better? You’re metagaming, and that has no place in a discussion abut the morality of the action.

(If you want to just admit that you aren’t actually RPing it properly, that’s fine. Just don’t try to argue that Synthesis is better.)

1. About Deus Ex you seem to be saying the same thing regardless of what I'm saying. I never said anything about the magnitude of changes in Deus Ex. I said the methods that where being used in Deus Ex where wrong.
2. The game is not clear about the origin of the three possibilities but  Synthesis is a possibility created by the crucible not by the catalyst. 
3. I said synthesis sets the reapers free, it improves our intellectual capabilities and it may give some new physical abilities. How is that a small change?
4. You claim that other peoples arguments are based on assumptions but infact among the posts I have read your posts contain the least amount of evidence from the game and the largest number of assumptions. For example you assume that the catalyst is lying (which is quit an unreasonable assumptions taking in to account that the EC had a huge emphasize that the endings where infact the real reaper war endings and that shepard was not being made to imagine them) but there is no indication that the catalyst is lying in the game. You also assume that the people of the galaxy would approve of the other actions and would only condemn synthesis. Also you fail to consider that the ending leaves a lot of questions unanswered pressuring people to make some assumptions. 
5. Destroy will destroy an entire life form, control will put thousands (or millions) of sentient beings under direct control and synthesis would mix organics and synthetics toghether so that they could both live toghther in peace without destroying the reapers. Now you might have a completely diffrent opinion about each one however, (except what happens to the reapers after synthesis) what will happen in each of the 3 actions is made clear. 

I used the term "enslaved" for the control ending. that was quite a harsh term. I apologize for using it. 

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 17 juillet 2012 - 07:36 .

[I Am Robot]

Ieldra2 wrote...


@Farid-Yoda-N7, dbkkk:
How do you interpret the Catalyst's statement: "The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."

 Maybe he is reffering to the reapers being set free. 

[Ieldra]

Dr. Doctor wrote...
I get the feeling that Synthesis isn't so much about turning organics into Deus Ex-style transhumans as it is introducing the ability for organics and synthetics to communicate with one another. Think David Archer in Overlord.

When Legion tells Shepard that the Geth communicate using a language based off of mathematics Shepard has a hard time comprehending how math could be used as a means of communication. Meanwhile, synthetics have a hard time grasping organic concepts such as hope and spirituality. Conflict usually comes from misunderstanding so by giving synthetics the ability to grasp organic concepts and organics the ability to communicate with synthetics the chance of coexistence increases.

Either that or the Catalyst just altered organics and synthetics enough so that they wouldn't register as either form of life in his programming and called it a day.

Deus Ex-style transhumans is not what I envision post-Synthesis. Much too crude. As I see it, "Integration with technology" will be much more seamless and subtle. That's why Synthesis was needed instead of just "better biotechnology". A better analogy would be the nanocyborg bodies of Orion Arm's transapients.

I also agree that improved communication should be one of the core elements, in form of a technology already integrated by Synthesis, as opposed to everything else which is optional. That's one reason why I proposed that mental networking.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juillet 2012 - 08:51 .

[Ieldra]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Farid-Yoda-N7, dbkkk:
How do you interpret the Catalyst's statement: "The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."

Maybe he is reffering to the reapers being set free.

I meant the bolded part specifically. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Farid-Yoda-N7, dbkkk:
How do you interpret the Catalyst's statement: "The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."

Maybe he is reffering to the reapers being set free.

I meant the bolded part specifically. 

I hear you're working on a Shepard survival in Synthesis? Cool. I down with that. I'd like to see one for Control as well.

[DirtyPhoenix]

lillitheris wrote...
That’s out of your hands, and therefore not a factor. And it’s equally likely that the Catalyst would
misjudge Synthesis or Control. Those all cancel eachother out, as far as your decision is concerned.

How so? If you assume the catalyst to be trustworthy but misinformed, like you seem to be, then there is
a real possibility of something like that happening. More so, because he himself states something close
to this. Its our responsibility to consider it, Shepard simply can't say that oh well.. catalyst was a
stupid VI hence scorched galaxy. But I'm not responsible because how on earth would I know that he was
such stupid! If we are taking the worst-case scenarios then we have to consider it. There's no
escaping it. just like there's no escaping brainwashing being one of several possibilities in synthesis.

In short, no. There’s a very long answer to this, but it boils down to two things:

1. Freedom of thought is of ultimate importance.
2. So long as you are yourself, there is hope. You’ve had a little respite, you have new information, and

you can fight back.

By things worse that brainwashing i meant for example, turned into husks. Surely being brainwashed into
seeing the synthesized reapers as friendly is better than being huskified?

Secondly, it does not actually definitively stop the cycle of destruction—neither for the Reapers, who
still exist, unlike in Destroy, nor for the synthetic/organic conflict that just becomes synthetic/hybrid
conflict instead.

And in destroy synthetics could be accidentally be created again, who upon learning the fate of their
previous brethren, conclude that organics would always consider synthetics expendable and can never be
trusted. Another, and this time, true.. galactic organic-synthetic war rises, the cycle repeats itself,
the catalyst is proven right and everyone lives miserably ever after. There will be conflict in whichever
ending you choose.

flemm wrote...
I understand that you do not like it. But that, in itself, doesn't make it more morally reprehensible than the other endings.

QFT

Aurora313 wrote...

Synthesis has a sh!t load of problems with its ending, I feel the same about Control and Destroy. No
matter what you do, Shepard plays god and his/her actions permanently alter the status quo.

Hell, I expect people to hate Shepard for all time for synthesis, I expect that there would be some would even try to reverse the process entirely and re-establish the line between sythentic and organic, who would try to blow the sh!t out of the Reapers despite no longer being supposedly hostile. Some who might be so disgusted they would take their own lives rather than live like that. Some people who thought Shepard sold them out in a mass indoctrination.

Hell, I expect tensions to rise between supporters and haters to the point of a goddamned civil war.
Please don't think I've glossed it over completely.

That would make for a very interesting future storywise don't you think? Galactic civil war with
hybrids on each side. And yes, as a synthesis supporter I don't for a moment think it doesnt have any
problems, I dont think anyone thinks like that, but just there are similar problems no matter what you
choose, except refusal which has 1000 times more problems xD

Aurora313 wrote...
Equality and understanding are things that she's always strived for. She realises the moral implications and accepts it. 

The exact way my canon Shep behaves and why she picked synthesis too

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Dr. Doctor wrote...

    I get the feeling that Synthesis isn't so much about turning organics into Deus Ex-style transhumans
as it is introducing the ability for organics and synthetics to communicate with one another. Think David
Archer in Overlord.

    When Legion tells Shepard that the Geth communicate using a language based off of mathematics Shepard
has a hard time comprehending how math could be used as a means of communication. Meanwhile, synthetics
have a hard time grasping organic concepts such as hope and spirituality. Conflict usually comes from
misunderstanding so by giving synthetics the ability to grasp organic concepts and organics the ability
to communicate with synthetics the chance of coexistence increases.

    Either that or the Catalyst just altered organics and synthetics enough so that they wouldn't register as either form of life in his programming and called it a day.

I'm not sure if thats what definitly happened, but I feel like thats definitly in the spirit of synthesis.

Agreed. Conflict, in most cases, arises from an inability to understand things from the other man's perspective.

Modifié par pirate1802, 17 juillet 2012 - 10:51 .

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...

Aurora313 wrote...
Synthesis has a sh!t load of problems with its ending, I feel the same about Control and Destroy. [...]

Hell, I expect people to hate Shepard for all time for synthesis, I expect that there would be some would even try to reverse the process entirely and re-establish the line between sythentic and organic, who would try to blow the sh!t out of the Reapers despite no longer being supposedly hostile. Some who might be so disgusted they would take their own lives rather than live like that. Some people who thought Shepard sold them out in a mass indoctrination.

Hell, I expect tensions to rise between supporters and haters to the point of a goddamned civil war.
Please don't think I've glossed it over completely.

That would make for a very interesting future storywise don't you think? Galactic civil war with hybrids on each side. And yes, as a synthesis supporter I don't for a moment think it doesnt have any problems, I dont think anyone thinks like that, but just there are similar problems no matter what you choose, except refusal which has 1000 times more problems xD

I can imagine all kinds of conflicts post-Synthesis. There will be people resentful of what they've become, trying to reverse the changes - some, ironically, without giving anyone a choice in the matter. The resentment of the Reapers will take some time to lessen, and for some it never will. There will be all the problems associated with fast technological development. I think we can conclude that the dissenters will be a minority based on the epilogue, but they will exist.

On the other hand, it will be a golden age for those willing and able to adapt. Old knowledge and new will clash and result in unprecedented advancement. Societies will experiment with different paths to transapience. New wonders and new horrors both. That makes for a very interesting storytelling background. The post-Synthesis galaxy will be the most fascinating place. 

Agreed. Conflict, in most cases, arises from an inability to understand things from the other man's perspective

Well....no. In many cases there's just a giant conflict of interests and neither side is willing to compromise. I don't think such mindsets will be gone post-Synthesis. I can imagine that a lot of the more irrational causes for conflict will much mitigated, but there will always be conflicts of interest.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juillet 2012 - 01:48 .

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Farid-Yoda-N7, dbkkk:
How do you interpret the Catalyst's statement: "The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."

Maybe he is reffering to the reapers being set free.

I meant the bolded part specifically. 

Well, combined with the idea that organics will now be able to fully integrate synthetic technology, I guess that means the ancient civilisations represented by the Reapers will be part of that.

Question: do you think synthesis would involve/establish a sort of... neural network? Like a wireless internet you access with your mind? It seems that synthetic life can basically do this, so... woud organics have access to this in synthesis?

Edit: Nevermind, I see that something like that is in your description in the OP.

Modifié par flemm, 17 juillet 2012 - 02:04 .

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Farid-Yoda-N7, dbkkk:
How do you interpret the Catalyst's statement: "The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."

Maybe he is reffering to the reapers being set free.

I meant the bolded part specifically. 

Well, combined with the idea that organics will now be able to fully integrate synthetic technology, I guess that means the ancient civilisations represented by the Reapers will be part of that.

Question: do you think synthesis would involve/establish a sort of... neural network? Like a wireless internet you access with your mind? It seems that synthetic life can basically do this, so... woud organics have access to this in synthesis?

Edit: Nevermind, I see that something like that is in your description in the OP.

Yes, mental networking is part of how I envision Synthesis. It can be of any depth depending on how people want it to be - between simple communication and entering something akin to the geth consensus.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, mental networking is part of how I envision Synthesis. It can be of any depth depending on how people want it to be - between simple communication and entering something akin to the geth consensus.

That makes sense. Sounds good

[JeffZero]

Reading this thread over the past several days has been a delight for me. It has also firmly entrenched me as a supporter of Synthesis. One of my Shepards will be selecting Control, and one of them will be selecting Destroy, but the rest are jumping into the beam, and if I were tasked with that decision, so would I.

[Ieldra]

Nice to hear, JeffZero. I'm glad we're finally getting to discuss the effects of Synthesis instead of having to defend ourselves against the steady stream of assertions that Synthesis is evil.

This brings me to something I wanted to bring up for some time: the contradictions in the description of Synthesis. Here's what we got again:

"The chain reaction will combine all organic and synthetic life into a new framework. A new....DNA"
"The energy of the Crucible, released in this way, will alter the matrix of all organic life in the galaxy"
"Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology. Synthetics, in turn, will finally have full understanding of organics".
"The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."
"Synthesis is the final evolution of all life"

Note how the italicized parts contradict things said elsewhere?

The "new framework" still makes no sense if it's to be interpreted as hybridization on the biochemical level, only now it also contradicts the second and third line which says organics and synthetics will be affected in different ways. There is no biochemical hybridization any more and organics and synthetics will be changed but keep their basic nature. The epilogue leaves the disappearance of the dividing line between the two in the future and doesn't describe how that will be achieved, which leaves the scenario open for interpretations that make sense.

The "final evolution" is as nonsensical as it ever was, but now it also contradicts the epilogue where EDI states that life will still change in ways she can't imagine now.

I wonder why the ME3 writers didn't take this chance to do away with the clearly nonsensical concepts of a "biochemical hybridization" (especially of synthetics) and the "final evolution of life", especially since they're now contradicted by the new exposition. I'd speculate they left that in for those who like the original endings (also I guess if you play action mode the new investigate options won't appear) but there are unavoidable changes in other parts of the ending sequence. Also, I hesitate to put this off as bad writing since I can't imagine that they didn't pay attention to every word after the ending disaster. The new stuff is carefully phrased. So....why did they leave that in? I admit to some confusion.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juillet 2012 - 08:15 .

[JamieCOTC]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nice to hear, JeffZero. I'm glad we're finally getting to discuss the effects of Synthesis instead of having to defend ourselves against the steady stream of assertions that Synthesis is evil.

This brings me to something I wanted to bring up for some time: the contradictions in the description of Synthesis. Here's what we got again:

"The chain reaction will combine all organic and synthetic life into a new framework. A new....DNA"
"The energy of the Crucible, released in this way, will alter the matrix of all organic life in the galaxy"
"Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology. Synthetics, in turn, will finally have full understanding of organics".
"The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."
"Synthesis is the final evolution of all life"

Note how the italicized parts contradict things said elsewhere?

The "new framework" still makes no sense if it's to be interpreted as hybridization on the biochemical level, only now it also contradicts the second and third line which says organics and synthetics will be affected in different ways. There is no biochemical hybridization any more and organics and synthetics will be changed but keep their basic nature. The epilogue leaves the disappearance of the dividing line between the two in the future and doesn't describe how that will be achieved, which leaves the scenario open for interpretations that make sense.

The "final evolution" is as nonsensical as it ever was, but now it also contradicts the epilogue where EDI states that life will still change in ways she can't imagine now.

I wonder why the ME3 writers didn't take this chance to do away with the clearly nonsensical concepts of a "biochemical hybridization" (especially of synthetics) and the "final evolution of life", especially since they're now contradicted by the new exposition. I'd speculate they left that in for those who like the original endings (also I guess if you play action mode the new investigate options won't appear) but there are unavoidable changes in other parts of the ending sequence. Also, I hesitate to put this off as bad writing since I can't imagine that they didn't pay attention to every word after the ending disaster. The new stuff is carefully phrased. So....why did they leave that in? I admit to some confusion.

My guess is the answer is more mundane than we think. Perhaps BW didn't want to (or couldn't due to resources or disc space) completely rewrite the Catalyst scene and therefore left certain parts in.  IMO, the Catalyst scene (if they had to keep it) should have been completely rewritten, but most likely couldn't due to the 2 gig limit for X-Box otherwise something else from the EC would have to be cut.

That or whoever wrote the Catalyst scene was trying to preserve the ego of the orinial writter.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 17 juillet 2012 - 08:27 .

[CrazyRah]

Reading this thread is quite interesting and even though i personally despise Synthesis it's fun to see different PoV's and in some cases use them to challenge my own views. Synthesis is something very new and it's awesome that some people are willing to discuss it instead of bashing it. The best way to understand and reach new levels of understanding is through discussion.

Keep up the really interesting discussions and who knows, maybe one day i will not despise Synthesis anymore

[JamieCOTC]

CrazyRah wrote...

Reading this thread is quite interesting and even though i personally despise Synthesis it's fun to see different PoV's and in some cases use them to challenge my own views. Synthesis is something very new and it's awesome that some people are willing to discuss it instead of bashing it. The best way to understand and reach new levels of understanding is through discussion.

Keep up the really interesting discussions and who knows, maybe one day i will not despise Synthesis anymore

I've been back and forth on it and finally came to the conclusion that there are so many contridictions and nonsense surrounding synthesis in the game that it is litterally whatever you want it to be. If you think it's bad (Reaper indoctrination, forced on the galaxy, or whatever) then it is bad.  If you think it's good (Shepard's always playing gods anyway, uplifts the galaxy to a state which peace can be attained, etc) then it is good. If you think it is something inbetween, then it is that too.

[CrazyRah]

JamieCOTC wrote...

CrazyRah wrote...

Reading this thread is quite interesting and even though i personally despise Synthesis it's fun to see different PoV's and in some cases use them to challenge my own views. Synthesis is something very new and it's awesome that some people are willing to discuss it instead of bashing it. The best way to understand and reach new levels of understanding is through discussion.

Keep up the really interesting discussions and who knows, maybe one day i will not despise Synthesis anymore

I've been back and forth on it and finally came to the conclusion that there are so many contridictions and nonsense surrounding synthesis in the game that it is litterally whatever you want it to be. If you think it's bad (Reaper indoctrination, forced on the galaxy, or whatever) then it is bad.  If you think it's good (Shepard's always playing gods anyway, uplifts the galaxy to a state which peace can be attained, etc) then it is good. If you think it is something inbetween, then it is that too.

I agree, i've done the same. Thinking back and forth about Synthesis for so long that i keep up ending where i dislike it greatly. But since i'm one person i can't imagine all sorts of things and come up with all possible views to see Synthesis. That's mostly why i come here and read. If anything i see new ideas which is quite fun to read. As i've said i'm in the Synthesis is bad camp but i'm interested in other views of Synthesis and if this thread can make me think differently about it then awesome!

[JamieCOTC]

CrazyRah wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

CrazyRah wrote...

Reading this thread is quite interesting and even though i personally despise Synthesis it's fun to see different PoV's and in some cases use them to challenge my own views. Synthesis is something very new and it's awesome that some people are willing to discuss it instead of bashing it. The best way to understand and reach new levels of understanding is through discussion.

Keep up the really interesting discussions and who knows, maybe one day i will not despise Synthesis anymore

I've been back and forth on it and finally came to the conclusion that there are so many contridictions and nonsense surrounding synthesis in the game that it is litterally whatever you want it to be. If you think it's bad (Reaper indoctrination, forced on the galaxy, or whatever) then it is bad.  If you think it's good (Shepard's always playing gods anyway, uplifts the galaxy to a state which peace can be attained, etc) then it is good. If you think it is something inbetween, then it is that too.

I agree, i've done the same. Thinking back and forth about Synthesis for so long that i keep up ending where i dislike it greatly. But since i'm one person i can't imagine all sorts of things and come up with all possible views to see Synthesis. That's mostly why i come here and read. If anything i see new ideas which is quite fun to read. As i've said i'm in the Synthesis is bad camp but i'm interested in other views of Synthesis and if this thread can make me think differently about it then awesome!

I get why people despise it, though after thinking on it, I'm in the in-between group. There is both good and bad w/ synthesis. If it were to really happen I highly doubt everyone's eyes would start glowing green and have code snaking around their face. In fact, except for any interaction w/ synthetics or technology, I doubt people would really change all that much. The individual would still be the individual.  BW really dumbed it down when illustrating synthesis. I put it right up there w/ water going backwards in the old Superman movie after he turns back time by spinning around the earth. What could they have done instead?  I don't know. 

Yes, there is the moral argument of should Shepard make this decision for the galaxy and it is very valid, but Shepard plays god w/ someone's life on a daily basis. As to what the galaxy will think of synthesis, I'm a firm believer that the human condition is both universal and constant. There will be some who will embrace synthesis and others who will oppose it. Maybe Cerberus will rise from the ashes as a pro organic group? And what of the Reaper troops?  It is truly horrifying to think they would regain their minds. Would they be in constant pain?  Would the act of synthesis relieve them of all physical maladies but keep their form? What of the Reapers themselves?  Is their natural state benevolent? If not, the outcome could be even worse than before. Would the individual ultimately be lost over the eons of evolution?  And what of Shepard?  Can she come back?  Will she be revered as a saint or a devil?  Or both?

If I had the time, I would try to write a fic in which Shewpard returns several years after a synthesis ending. What would the galaxy look like?  What kind of reception would she get?  How could she come back at all?  Interesting questions, I guess.  Maybe, if I have the time. 

[Aurora313]

Flog61 wrote...

I thought people stopped believing in synthesis the moment someone pointed out that it is what saren wanted?

Shame, it would have saved some electricity from the computers constantly contributing to this thread

Saren wanted to submit and hope that somehow his own cowardly life would be spared.

I always saw the Sythensis Ending as the same as Legion's Sacrifice but on a much, much larger scale. Legions gives everything of him to upgrade the Geth with true sentience. Shepard sacrifices themselves to help the rest of the galaxy reach a higher state of being and co-exist peacefully. Not that peace will always last, as long as people contiune to have ideas, there will be conflict.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

You know after seeing what BioWare did to the story, I have no moral stand on the issue any more.

Who cares if it was what Saren wanted? If I'd know then what awaited at the end of the series maybe we could have negotiated this better, you know, maybe we could have all gotten along. I could have thrown Conrad or Ashley into the beam. No one else had to die.

[Taboo]

alienatedflea wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Not sure how that relates, I was just arguing a plot point, catalyst still controls the Reapers.

"ARRRRT"
*takes shot*

huh? catalyst ceases to be in both control and synthesis...what are you talking about?

Unfortunately my insistance on ARRRRRT has created a drinking game.

It's art.

But shall I sing for you?

[Shaigunjoe]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You know after seeing what BioWare did to the story, I have no moral stand on the issue any more.

Who cares if it was what Saren wanted? If I'd know then what awaited at the end of the series maybe we could have negotiated this better, you know, maybe we could have all gotten along. I could have thrown Conrad or Ashley into the beam. No one else had to die.

Whoa whoa whoa, while most people would agree that Conrad in the beam would have produced superior results, but Ashley? Seriously?

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You know after seeing what BioWare did to the story, I have no moral stand on the issue any more.

Who cares if it was what Saren wanted? If I'd know then what awaited at the end of the series maybe we could have negotiated this better, you know, maybe we could have all gotten along. I could have thrown Conrad or Ashley into the beam. No one else had to die.

Whoa whoa whoa, while most people would agree that Conrad in the beam would have produced superior results, but Ashley? Seriously?

We'd all have shrines to Shepard in our closets.

But Ashley?

wat

Have a dash of racism!

[Aurora313]

@Ashley,

Funny how all her concerned turn out to be proven Correct. Tali copied Normandy Stealth-tech for Quarian diplomat ship, The Council pretty much up and abandoned humanity when they tried to apeal for help against the Reapers on Earth. Hence why Shepard had to go over their heads and appeal directly to the Race leaders in the first place.

And it amazed me how Tali calls for systematic slaughter of the Geth and gets called 'cute' for it?
Ashley expresses realistic views based on her upbringing and family history - but she's called 'racist' for it?

Modifié par Aurora313, 18 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .

[Taboo]

Tali's cuteness does not appeal to me. It never has.

But she gets away with **** because people think she's cute.

But yeah, Ashley is racist.

And Tali supports genocide. Actually the Quarian fleet wipes out the Geth, not Tali or Shepard.

It's a moral failing for my Shepard either way though. Seeing both scenarios play out now it really adds a nasty dark vibe to it. I like it and detest it at the same time.

But it isn't justifiable. Such destruction never is.

But I support nihilism/fatalism/skepticism in art whole heartidly. 

You WILL suffer Shepard, alive or not. 

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 18 juillet 2012 - 12:45 .