9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Samtheman63]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Thane feels terribly enough for all the killing he's done, so I see him trying to do what saves the most people. And kill himself for the cause.

yeah.. destroy...

He feels no guilt whatsoever.

What Thane did you have?

Did you even hear his entire speech in ME2 about how he was just the gun in his employers hands. He absolves himself through his prayers, yeah, but he's still pretty callous about the deaths of those who deserve it.

so.. what are you saying? he wouldnt pick destroy?

No he would pick destroy. Thane is a bit of a mystery to me. He doesn't hate, as far as I can tell. He's too professional. That said, I believe he would destroy.

eh, i read the guys post wrong lol

but i agree, thane would destroy

[mass perfection]

Steelcan wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

What does it mean by "The organics were not ready"?

. It mans that the leviathans did not want to be turned into a reaper for some unfathomable reason

That's garbage.

. How? The catalyst's solution is turning organics into reapers.  The leviathans weren't keen on this.  Analyst didnt care and turned them into reapers.  Reapers are a synthesis of organic and inorganic.

I'm talking about them not being ready for Synthesis.

. "They resisted but there was no choice". Doesn't sound like they embraced it to me.

That's the same case in Synthesis.

[His Name was HYR!!]

fiendishchicken wrote...


He feels no guilt whatsoever.

What Thane did you have?

Actions and words, hombre.

If he felt no guilt about killing, why does the thought of his son following in his example terrify him?

Did you even hear his entire speech in ME2 about how he was just the gun in his employers hands. He absolves himself through his prayers, yeah, but he's still pretty callous about the deaths of those who deserve it.

Except there's more going on than the deaths of those who deserve it in Destroy. Others will die, too.

This is not a contract hit, either. It's entirely his choice.

[Steelcan]

mass perfection wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

What does it mean by "The organics were not ready"?

. It mans that the leviathans did not want to be turned into a reaper for some unfathomable reason

That's garbage.

. How? The catalyst's solution is turning organics into reapers.  The leviathans weren't keen on this.  Analyst didnt care and turned them into reapers.  Reapers are a synthesis of organic and inorganic.

I'm talking about them not being ready for Synthesis.

. "They resisted but there was no choice". Doesn't sound like they embraced it to me.

That's the same case in Synthesis.

. You lost me

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.

But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Steelcan wrote...

Synthesis seems to occur pretty rapidly.  Why do they look different? Husks and their ilk are dead when they are synthesized.

It's rapid, but that's where the similarities stop and end.

Again, you're beggining the question.

Funny thing, though. I don't deny that nanides may have a part in bringing about Synthesis, I could actually believe it being the catalyst behind the change. I don't, however, think they're working as they did before.

As for the geth, my point was I don't care about them, I don't care if they die over Rannoch or over earth.  

... which doesn't make it less of a betrayal.

What is the difference between uniqueness and diversity?

Diversity is the existence of different traits. Unqiueness is having/not having those traits.

Not having a trait is not a trait in itself.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.
But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

. Well there isn't a destroy support thread, well there probably is but I've never seen it.  Besides the people here are actually capable of defending their points of view.  It's no fun to argue with people who have no idea what they are talking about

[Eterna]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.

But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

InB4 someone calls you indoctrinated. 

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
It's rapid, but that's where the similarities stop and end.
Again, you're beggining the question.
Funny thing, though. I don't deny that nanides may have a part in bringing about Synthesis, I could actually believe it being the catalyst behind the change. I don't, however, think they're working as they did before.

As for the geth, my point was I don't care about them, I don't care if they die over Rannoch or over earth.  

... which doesn't make it less of a betrayal.

What is the difference between uniqueness and diversity?

Diversity is the existence of different traits. Unqiueness is having/not having those traits.
Not having a trait is not a trait in itself.

. The geth are a tool.  If I break a hammer I am not betraying it.  Not having a trait makes you different just as much as having a trait.  Diversity and uniqueness are functionally identical, diversity works on a larger scale, uniqueness on a smaller one.  Getting rid of distinctions eliminates both

[Samtheman63]

Eterna5 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.

But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

InB4 someone calls you indoctrinated. 

Reaper "indoctrination"is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.


Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.

Modifié par Samtheman63, 21 octobre 2012 - 07:26 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Oh boy it actually happened

[Samtheman63]

derps

[Bill Casey]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

Wait...
The head synthesizer thinks the ending is bad writing?
I thought you were supposed to be pro-enders...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 21 octobre 2012 - 07:32 .

[Jake Boone]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.

But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

I think that the group might actually be useful then. Argue with Destroyers/ ITers here, discuss post-synthesis galaxy there where you can't be interrupted

[Eterna]

Bill Casey wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

Wait...
The head synthesizer thinks the ending is bad writing?
I thought you were supposed to be pro-enders...

I can't speak for everyone, but I think the general consensus is that Shepards sacrifice at the end for Synthesis is completely unecessary. Aside from that Sythesis is great.

[Bill Casey]

Who gives a **** about Shepard?

[Steelcan]

Bill Casey wrote...

Who gives a **** about Shepard?

. Not BioWare

[Eterna]

Bill Casey wrote...

Who gives a **** about Shepard?

It's not that, it's just the sacrifice is there for a contrived and forced reason. There is no real reason that Shepards sacrifice is needed for Synthesis to be activated at the crucibe. 

[jtav]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.
But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

. Well there isn't a destroy support thread, well there probably is but I've never seen it.  Besides the people here are actually capable of defending their points of view.  It's no fun to argue with people who have no idea what they are talking about

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12264531

There you go.

[Ieldra]

Bill Casey wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

Wait...
The head synthesizer thinks the ending is bad writing?
I thought you were supposed to be pro-enders...

As I said, I like the outcome and the concept. How it comes about leaves some unanswered questions, and Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense, but admitting such flaws doesn't change that I consider Synthesis a very good outcome for the galaxy.

You see, you can be pro--ending in a general sense while not being blind to the flaws in the writing.

[Eterna]

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.
But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

. Well there isn't a destroy support thread, well there probably is but I've never seen it.  Besides the people here are actually capable of defending their points of view.  It's no fun to argue with people who have no idea what they are talking about

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12264531

There you go.

It's weird how the Destroy support threads identity seems to be "We're better than Synthesis and Control, we're the only right choice!"

Modifié par Eterna5, 21 octobre 2012 - 07:47 .

[Samtheman63]

Eterna5 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, yeah, Shepard's sacrifice makes no sense in the context of the Synthesis and that's why I have compunction in making him come back. And yeah, Vitalism sucks. So what? It's bad writing using comic book-logic, that doesn't make the concept - and the ultimate outcome as shown in the epilogue - any less interesting.

. Vitalism is bad, but that isn't what makes synthesis bad to me.  I have other reasons for not liking it.

I get that. Don't think I'm exactly comfortable with it. I just think the outcome is worth it.
But you see - I don't like Destroy. Yet you won't see me in a Destroy support thread obsessively spamming how terrible a choice that is. What the hell is so important about it that people keep this up half a year after the EC came out? We disagree about it, neither of us will convince the other so why not just agree to disagree and go our ways? At this point, I'm rather more interested in discussing the details of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

. Well there isn't a destroy support thread, well there probably is but I've never seen it.  Besides the people here are actually capable of defending their points of view.  It's no fun to argue with people who have no idea what they are talking about

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12264531

There you go.

It's weird how the Destroy support threads identity seems to be "We're better than Synthesis and Control, we're the only right choice!"

Reaper "indoctrination"is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.


Organicsundergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences.Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.

Modifié par Samtheman63, 21 octobre 2012 - 07:49 .

[Steelcan]

And you missed the point entirely. Yes there is a destroy support thread, but there's no debate or anything, it's just "We are better than everyone else". Note no one posts in it, like I said

[Eterna]

Synthesis quote of the day.

"No, I think the more important personality trait is you have to hate yourself.. Then synthesis will look more appealing. Or control because you can take all that anger out on the rest of the galaxy." -Jaded8abby88

[ATiBotka]

Eterna5 wrote...

Synthesis quote of the day.

"No, I think the more important personality trait is you have to hate yourself.. Then synthesis will look more appealing. Or control because you can take all that anger out on the rest of the galaxy." -Jaded8abby88

wut?