9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ownedbacon]

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

<snip>

<snip>

Do you have anything except buzzwords? "Matrix of life" means nothing. Either come up with real answers or don't sit there and judge what others say.
Once again. The method is different, but the ultimate result is the same, and none of you have yet to prove otherwise.

And really people, taking stuff from other unrelated fictional universes and saying that makes synthesis okay?
Well, if you can do that, so can I.



Synthesis works!

Its exactly what Saren wanted!!! lol

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 06 août 2012 - 11:27 .

[The Angry One]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Uh, no I don't think it's like the Borg. I think it's a lot less...****ty?

It's a proper application of what the Catalyst has tried before. A mix between man and machine...eventually.

In time, the boundaries will no longer exist, but because they have made the improvements themselves.

If you force it, you get husks and the Leviathan.

What Synthesis is, is essentially a galactic fertilizer that allows a new type of life to grow.

At least that's how I see it.

If we're using the fallacy of having other fictional universes justify events in this one, it might as well be.

In any case, it's less overtly invasive than the Borg, sure. And there's some individuality, for now. But how is it not forced? Did anyone give their consent? Were they even informed? No? Then it's forced by definition. It's a forced imposition of a Reaper ideal upon all life, and the assumption that this change will bring about peace.

How? Unless it alters the mind, it will not. If it does, then everything has been changed to suit the Catalyst's vision.
Unacceptable.

[Taboo]

The issue is not suspension of disbelief but the application of something that has no basis in reality at all.

Vitalism has spiritual origins, it's known as Chi in the East. What Bioware is proposing is that Shepard has enough vital energy to enact a galactic wide change. That's audibly laughable.

The Reapers are not mystical, they lost that connotation the moment the Catalyst showed up.

These are simply concepts.

Would it help to let you know that this has a strong resemblance to things Hegel spoke about? And that one very important person at Bioware LOVES Georg Hegel? That you're playing with conflict resolution ideas based upon a man who lived over one hundred years ago?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 06 août 2012 - 11:35 .

[Taboo]

Look, I don't like Synthesis anymore than you do, but resorting to nonsense to justify your opinions isn't helping anyone.

You violate consent in all of the endings. What it boils down to is HOW you wish to resolve the Reaper threat.

Synthesis is saying "Yes", this could be a problem down the road and the benefits are clear. But that doesn't mean you accept the Catalyst's logic.

Destroy on the other hand says "No or I don't care" to the problem and leaves everything up to fate.

[The Angry One]

Yes because if there's one thing I so adore more than bad writing, it's pretentious bad writing.

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Uh, no I don't think it's like the Borg. I think it's a lot less...****ty?

It's a proper application of what the Catalyst has tried before. A mix between man and machine...eventually.

In time, the boundaries will no longer exist, but because they have made the improvements themselves.

If you force it, you get husks and the Leviathan.

What Synthesis is, is essentially a galactic fertilizer that allows a new type of life to grow.

At least that's how I see it.

If we're using the fallacy of having other fictional universes justify events in this one, it might as well be.

In any case, it's less overtly invasive than the Borg, sure. And there's some individuality, for now. But how is it not forced? Did anyone give their consent? Were they even informed? No? Then it's forced by definition. It's a forced imposition of a Reaper ideal upon all life, and the assumption that this change will bring about peace.

How? Unless it alters the mind, it will not. If it does, then everything has been changed to suit the Catalyst's vision.
Unacceptable.

It's not exclusively a Reaper ideal. It could be one of the Shepard you're role-playing.

[Taboo]

The Angry One wrote...

Yes because if there's one thing I so adore more than bad writing, it's pretentious bad writing.

I'm far more pretentious than Ieldra will ever be, whether he'll admit it or not.

He has a difference of opinion, as do I, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it in a manner that is mature.

[The Angry One]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Look, I don't like Synthesis anymore than you do, but resorting to nonsense to justify your opinions isn't helping anyone.

You violate consent in all of the endings. What it boils down to is HOW you wish to resolve the Reaper threat.

Synthesis is saying "Yes", this could be a problem down the road and the benefits are clear. But that doesn't mean you accept the Catalyst's logic.

Destroy on the other hand says "No or I don't care" to the problem and leaves everything up to fate.

Oh here we go again.

For the 500th time.
I am no supporter of destroy, but destroy reflects pre-established agreements to put a stop to the Reapers and while it doesn't do this entirely, you can at least try to follow the spirit of this with it.
Yes, the Geth are screwed over and anybody who knows me knows I refuse to support that, but in the end that's one species being betrayed vs. ALL species being betrayed and violated for the rest of eternity.

You're not just making a decision for the allied species. You're making a decision for all other life in the galaxy, in perpetuity. A permanent, fundamental change to all life without consent. Synthesis is far, far, far worse than any other choice in that regard.

MegaSovereign wrote...


It's not exclusively a Reaper ideal. It could be one of the Shepard you're role-playing.

So, Shepard coincidentally having the same ideal as the Reapers (in essence, being Saren) makes it okay how?

Modifié par The Angry One, 06 août 2012 - 11:38 .

[AresKeith]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Uh, no I don't think it's like the Borg. I think it's a lot less...****ty?

It's a proper application of what the Catalyst has tried before. A mix between man and machine...eventually.

In time, the boundaries will no longer exist, but because they have made the improvements themselves.

If you force it, you get husks and the Leviathan.

What Synthesis is, is essentially a galactic fertilizer that allows a new type of life to grow.

At least that's how I see it.

If we're using the fallacy of having other fictional universes justify events in this one, it might as well be.

In any case, it's less overtly invasive than the Borg, sure. And there's some individuality, for now. But how is it not forced? Did anyone give their consent? Were they even informed? No? Then it's forced by definition. It's a forced imposition of a Reaper ideal upon all life, and the assumption that this change will bring about peace.

How? Unless it alters the mind, it will not. If it does, then everything has been changed to suit the Catalyst's vision.
Unacceptable.

It's not exclusively a Reaper ideal. It could be one of the Shepard you're role-playing.

no Shepard is being forced to pick one of the Starbrats so called "solutions"

[Taboo]

The Angry One wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Look, I don't like Synthesis anymore than you do, but resorting to nonsense to justify your opinions isn't helping anyone.

You violate consent in all of the endings. What it boils down to is HOW you wish to resolve the Reaper threat.

Synthesis is saying "Yes", this could be a problem down the road and the benefits are clear. But that doesn't mean you accept the Catalyst's logic.

Destroy on the other hand says "No or I don't care" to the problem and leaves everything up to fate.

Oh here we go again.

For the 500th time.
I am no supporter of destroy, but destroy reflects pre-established agreements to put a stop to the Reapers and while it doesn't do this entirely, you can at least try to follow the spirit of this with it.
Yes, the Geth are screwed over and anybody who knows me knows I refuse to support that, but in the end that's one species being betrayed vs. ALL species being betrayed and violated for the rest of eternity.

You're not just making a decision for the allied species. You're making a decision for all other life in the galaxy, in perpetuity. A permanent, fundamental change to all life without consent. Synthesis is far, far, far worse than any other choice in that regard.

No, two choices make that decision. One allows life to continue as it sees fit. 

Resolving the Reaper threat is the issue. The cost however, is what factors into play. Can you justify changing the way things have been since the beginning of time in Synthesis? Some Shepards seem to think so.

I much prefer a galactic restart button. The Reapers are Destroyed, as are other Synthetics, but all life can now self-determinate as it sees fit, without a malevolent or beneveolent dictator in Control, or Synthesis bearing over their heads.

I could care less about an "Us vs Them" Idealogy in regards to Destroy. That's a petty justification for picking it, the only one that's worse is doing it so you can survive.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 06 août 2012 - 11:42 .

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

So, Shepard coincidentally having the same ideal as the Reapers (in essence, being Saren) makes it okay how?

Ideals of peace? Or the betterment of galactic society?

The Reapers see synthesis as a way to prevent tech singularity. Shepard does not have to believe in or even care about tech singularity for him to consider the potential benefits of integrating organic life with synthetic tech (and vice versa).

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 août 2012 - 11:43 .

[MerchantGOL]

The Angry One wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Look, I don't like Synthesis anymore than you do, but resorting to nonsense to justify your opinions isn't helping anyone.

You violate consent in all of the endings. What it boils down to is HOW you wish to resolve the Reaper threat.

Synthesis is saying "Yes", this could be a problem down the road and the benefits are clear. But that doesn't mean you accept the Catalyst's logic.

Destroy on the other hand says "No or I don't care" to the problem and leaves everything up to fate.

Oh here we go again.

For the 500th time.
I am no supporter of destroy, but destroy reflects pre-established agreements to put a stop to the Reapers and while it doesn't do this entirely, you can at least try to follow the spirit of this with it.
Yes, the Geth are screwed over and anybody who knows me knows I refuse to support that, but in the end that's one species being betrayed vs. ALL species being betrayed and violated for the rest of eternity.

You're not just making a decision for the allied species. You're making a decision for all other life in the galaxy, in perpetuity. A permanent, fundamental change to all life without consent. Synthesis is far, far, far worse than any other choice in that regard.

Shepard always made decsions that would effect entire spcies and the galaxy at large, i don't see why its only a  problem in the  last 10 minutes

[Taboo]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Shepard always made decsions that would effect entire spcies and the galaxy at large, i don't see why its only a  problem in the  last 10 minutes

Because the effect is immediate. That's the issue.

The Rachni are not the same as Synthesis. Stop comparing the two.

[MerchantGOL]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Shepard always made decsions that would effect entire spcies and the galaxy at large, i don't see why its only a  problem in the  last 10 minutes

Because the effect is immediate. That's the issue.

The Rachni are not the same as Synthesis. Stop comparing the two.

but they are, its still a decison that  affects an entire species, witht he rachni it is  imdeiate


did you have a big moral problem when shepard chose then?

[The Angry One]

Sigh. Commander Shepard does not have the right to rewrite all life in the Reaper's image, no matter what kind of decision they've made before. They do not speak for all life, everywhere, that they have never encountered.

Moreover, Shepard's mandate is to stop the Reapers. NOT give them what they want.
Yes, that will stop them attacking, much the same way as unconditional surrender will prevent a country from invading you. But that's not exactly *stopping* them overall, is it?

Modifié par The Angry One, 06 août 2012 - 11:49 .

[Taboo]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Shepard always made decsions that would effect entire spcies and the galaxy at large, i don't see why its only a  problem in the  last 10 minutes

Because the effect is immediate. That's the issue.

The Rachni are not the same as Synthesis. Stop comparing the two.

but they are, its still a decison that  affects an entire species, witht he rachni it is  imdeiate


did you have a big moral problem when shepard chose then?

Yes I do. That's who my canon Shepard is.

You take a risk based upon your choices. In this case the Rachnii were deemed trustworthy, and I turned out to be right.

Weighing the options at the end, the least amount of interference came from Destroy.

My Shepard would never try to justify his actions because he can't. That's the point.

All life is equal here, and the decision is made for them at large. Every man, woman and child is taken into consideration. Every unborn child is thought of.

In the end responsiblity falls on one man. No one else has to suffer from overbearing AI's or a path of life that has been dictated for them. All life is free to do as they wish. I would never lie and say that the path to doing this wasn't monstrous though. That would be a far worse crime.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 06 août 2012 - 11:53 .

[MerchantGOL]

The Angry One wrote...

Sigh. Commander Shepard does not have the right to rewrite all life in the Reaper's image, no matter what kind of decision they've made before. They do not speak for all life, everywhere, that they have never encountered.

Moreover, Shepard's mandate is to stop the Reapers. NOT give them what they want.
Yes, that will stop them attacking, much the same way as unconditional surrender will prevent a country from invading you. But that's not exactly *stopping* them overall, is it?

Shepard also dosent have the right to decide the fate of the rachni, descide if the krogan can be trusted,decide if the Geth ahve a right to Exist, he still dose it.


I don't liken it to surrender, its morelike a  peace treaty,  comprimises are made but were nto giving up are freedoms to the reapers

Modifié par MerchantGOL, 06 août 2012 - 11:54 .

[MerchantGOL]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Shepard always made decsions that would effect entire spcies and the galaxy at large, i don't see why its only a  problem in the  last 10 minutes

Because the effect is immediate. That's the issue.

The Rachni are not the same as Synthesis. Stop comparing the two.

but they are, its still a decison that  affects an entire species, witht he rachni it is  imdeiate


did you have a big moral problem when shepard chose then?

Yes I do. That's who my canon Shepard is.

You take a risk based upon your choices. In this case the Rachnii were deemed trustworthy, and I turned out to be right.

Weighing the options at the end, the least amount of interference came from Destroy.

My Shepard would never try to justify his actions because he can't. That's the point.

All life is equal here, and the decision is made for them at large. Every man, woman and child is taken into consideration. Every unborn child is thought of.

In the end responsiblity falls on one man. No one else has to suffer from overbearing AI's or a path of life that has been dictated for them. All life is free to do as they wish. I would never lie and say that the path to doing this wasn't monstrous though. That would be a far worse crime.

then why arent you complaing mass effect made you make thes decisons in the first place, why is this the one you feel moraly appled at when you can commit genocide in three seprate occasions befor this?

[Ownedbacon]

MerchantGOL wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sigh. Commander Shepard does not have the right to rewrite all life in the Reaper's image, no matter what kind of decision they've made before. They do not speak for all life, everywhere, that they have never encountered.

Moreover, Shepard's mandate is to stop the Reapers. NOT give them what they want.
Yes, that will stop them attacking, much the same way as unconditional surrender will prevent a country from invading you. But that's not exactly *stopping* them overall, is it?

Shepard also dosent have the right to decide the fate of the rachni, descide if the krogan can be trusted,decide if the Geth ahve a right to Exist, he still dose it.


I don't liken it to surrender, its morelike a  peace treaty,  comprimises are made but were nto giving up are freedoms to the reapers

Homogenization of all races, I would consider loss of individuality a loss of freedom.

[Taboo]

MerchantGOL wrote...

then why arent you complaing mass effect made you make thes decisons in the first place, why is this the one you feel moraly appled at when you can commit genocide in three seprate occasions befor this?

Because it's art that's why. We're supposed to ask questions that have plagued man kind since the beginning of time. The only difference is that Bioware has allowed you to Role Play these situations yourself.

It's morally grey. Things are only black and white until they involve you.

The endings do not function on emotional responses, they function on an intellectual one. Anyone trying to apply emotion here is going to suffer immensly.

[MerchantGOL]

Ownedbacon wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sigh. Commander Shepard does not have the right to rewrite all life in the Reaper's image, no matter what kind of decision they've made before. They do not speak for all life, everywhere, that they have never encountered.

Moreover, Shepard's mandate is to stop the Reapers. NOT give them what they want.
Yes, that will stop them attacking, much the same way as unconditional surrender will prevent a country from invading you. But that's not exactly *stopping* them overall, is it?

Shepard also dosent have the right to decide the fate of the rachni, descide if the krogan can be trusted,decide if the Geth ahve a right to Exist, he still dose it.


I don't liken it to surrender, its morelike a  peace treaty,  comprimises are made but were nto giving up are freedoms to the reapers

Homogenization of all races, I would consider loss of individuality a loss of freedom.

except Krogans are still krogans, Tali is still stuck in her suit, and Joker still has brittle bones so i don't belive for a second thats what happend. unless your talking about mental indviduality which its even clearer that isn't the case

[Endorlf]

The Angry One wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Uh, no I don't think it's like the Borg. I think it's a lot less...****ty?

It's a proper application of what the Catalyst has tried before. A mix between man and machine...eventually.

In time, the boundaries will no longer exist, but because they have made the improvements themselves.

If you force it, you get husks and the Leviathan.

What Synthesis is, is essentially a galactic fertilizer that allows a new type of life to grow.

At least that's how I see it.

If we're using the fallacy of having other fictional universes justify events in this one, it might as well be.

In any case, it's less overtly invasive than the Borg, sure. And there's some individuality, for now. But how is it not forced? Did anyone give their consent? Were they even informed? No? Then it's forced by definition. It's a forced imposition of a Reaper ideal upon all life, and the assumption that this change will bring about peace.

How? Unless it alters the mind, it will not. If it does, then everything has been changed to suit the Catalyst's vision.
Unacceptable.

Please do explicate. Things get sticky if you argue in absolutes.

Modifié par Endorlf, 07 août 2012 - 01:43 .

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The issue is not suspension of disbelief but the application of something that has no basis in reality at all.

Vitalism has spiritual origins, it's known as Chi in the East. What Bioware is proposing is that Shepard has enough vital energy to enact a galactic wide change. That's audibly laughable.

It isn't just Shep's energy, it's his energy mixed with the Crucible's so no more far-fetched than homeopathy...

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The issue is not suspension of disbelief but the application of something that has no basis in reality at all.

Vitalism has spiritual origins, it's known as Chi in the East. What Bioware is proposing is that Shepard has enough vital energy to enact a galactic wide change. That's audibly laughable.

It isn't just Shep's energy, it's his energy mixed with the Crucible's so no more far-fetched than homeopathy...

Oh come onnnnn.

At some point you just have to believe it happens regardless of how silly it is. It just happens. Does the Crucible really need Shepard to disintegrate into the damn beam?

I'm sure even Ieldra would agree with me here. I've seen some fun things in surrealism, my favorite being a man refusing to be killed by an abstraction. He disappears when he is hung as the police cannot define what a state is.

The difference is one made a point. One just seems forced.

But homeopathy is about as amazing as crystal healing. Any sort of benefit is via placebo. Antibiotics will always heal you better than herbal tea.

[Versus Omnibus]

The Angry One wrote...

Sigh. Commander Shepard does not have the right to rewrite all life in the Reaper's image, no matter what kind of decision they've made before. They do not speak for all life, everywhere, that they have never encountered.

And what right do those who Refused have to doom everyone to be harvested? You keep talking about how wrong it is to force change on people, and it is, but nothing is worse then condemning trillions to die because you choose to do nothing.

Moreover, Shepard's mandate is to stop the Reapers. NOT give them what they want.
Yes, that will stop them attacking, much the same way as unconditional surrender will prevent a country from invading you. But that's not exactly *stopping* them overall, is it?

Funny. Last I checked, Refuse is giving in to the Reapers. I believe the Catalyst's exact words were "the cycle continues."