314 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


My point here is that while YES, we have been fighting to destroy the Reapers up this point in the series, we’ve mostly been accomplishing that through methods of control/adaptation of the Reapers’ own tech. So why is it so far-fetched to think that if given the option, Commander Shepard would choose Control or Synthesis? To me, it really isn’t. So let’s get off our “all things Reaper/Reaper tech is t3h eeeevviiiilllzz!” shall we?

Thread disclaimer: posters accusing OP of trolling and/or indoctrination hereby certify their own douchebaggery.

Go!

We used reaper tech to destroy the reapers just the way they convert organics into reaper troops, it is effective like Vega said on Thessia, the purpose of using reaper tech was not for galactic peace, but ending options pertain to galactic peace

[jijeebo]

dreman9999 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...


Headcanon is perfectly fine in a discussion where the other person is stating their own interpretation and passing it off as the only conclusion... Nothing wrong with trying to show people other possibilities.


My Shepard lost everything he had, not everything he was... It's not my problem if you assume that that also means memory loss because I don't.


And it's not about trust... It's about choice. Control for me is the best of the available choices. The only way to not "trust" the Catalyst is to ignore his 3 options and stand there as the reapers destroy the Crucible.

Again, what ever you think up on your own to continue the story can't be used for an arguement to figure out what happen in the end. It's in your head. If has nothing to do with what is in the story. It's just you making stuff up. That does not mean you can choose what the limit of everything is because you don't have a way to define it. You never gien the option. You can keep your head cannon but you can't us it in an arguement about what happened in the end.

You can dismiss it as much as you like but I still feel that in certain discussions people can use their headcanon to show people other possibilities... And since headcanon is another way of presenting an interpretation it's as valid as any other attempt to make sense of story elements that aren't explained. It's a lot more than "just making stuff up".

You read: "You will lose everything you have, including your memories and who you are."

I read: "You will lose everything you have, your old life will be gone but YOU will control the reapers."


Both are valid because the game allows them both to be valid.

[Vigilant111]

^ need to distinguish headcanon from lying to oneself

[jijeebo]

Vigilant111 wrote...

^ need to distinguish headcanon from lying to oneself

Go on then, enlighten me... Tell me how my headcanon is wrong in any way.

[Vigilant111]

jijeebo wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

^ need to distinguish headcanon from lying to oneself

Go on then, enlighten me... Tell me how my headcanon is wrong in any way.

I told u to seperate them, I didn't tell u headcanon is wrong

[Jadebaby]

So because they made lots of ME possible, we should be some kind of Reaper-sympathizer?

I get where you're coming from, but all those events occuring were necessary to ensure our survival. While Synthesis and Control also do this, when you're also presented with destroy. While you you choose to preserve?

Simply put, if you're having an arguement with someone and your presented with the option to just "agree to disagree" but you also have a counter-arguement that would destroy their whole debate. Why would you settle to agree to disagree?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

So because they made lots of ME possible, we should be some kind of Reaper-sympathizer?

You're not fooling anyone trying to take my words wildly out of context like that. Except for maybe other blind Destroy-only sheep.

Face the facts, control/synthesis of Reaper technology has proven to be the most effective way to beat the Reapers. There is no Reaper sympathy along that line of thinking, in fact, it is decidedly anti-Reaper philosophy.

[Taboo]

Just because it is more effective doesn't mean it is ethical.

Stop bull****ting.

[Jadebaby]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

So because they made lots of ME possible, we should be some kind of Reaper-sympathizer?

You're not fooling anyone trying to take my words wildly out of context like that. Except for maybe other blind Destroy-only sheep.

Just to be clear, I was exaggerating a bit, but it's only because I really don't understand your point...

Face the facts, control/synthesis of Reaper technology has proven to be the most effective way to beat the Reapers.

 Proven how and where? Source?

There is no Reaper sympathy along that line of thinking, in fact, it is decidedly anti-Reaper philosophy.

When you compare it to a choice that (at face value) destroys said antagonist it's hardly anti....

The fact you're allowing the Reapers to survive when you clearly have the option to get rid of them once and for all.

And my other points and analogies?

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Just because it is more effective doesn't mean it is ethical.

Stop bull****ting.

Who are you supporting here?

Because the way I see it, destroy is more effective because it is a black and white solution, they're dead, we're alive. While being the less ethical solution because you're commiting genocide against synthetics...

Have you been drinking again Taboo? Or just still hungover from all those 'complimentary drinks'? lol

[Taboo]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Just because it is more effective doesn't mean it is ethical.

Stop bull****ting.

Who are you supporting here?

Because the way I see it, destroy is more effective because it is a black and white solution, they're dead, we're alive. While being the less ethical solution because you're commiting genocide against synthetics...

Have you been drinking again Taboo? Or just still hungover from all those 'complimentary drinks'? lol

I'm so sick of Synthesis people skirting around the issues. It's not about what you want. It's about the people.

Destroy is for the people.

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Just because it is more effective doesn't mean it is ethical.

Stop bull****ting.

Who are you supporting here?

Because the way I see it, destroy is more effective because it is a black and white solution, they're dead, we're alive. While being the less ethical solution because you're commiting genocide against synthetics...

Have you been drinking again Taboo? Or just still hungover from all those 'complimentary drinks'? lol

I'm so sick of Synthesis people skirting around the issues. It's not about what you want. It's about the people.

Destroy is for the people.

Okay so you were clearly supporting destroy as I originally thought, but my analysis on your post had you been supporting synth/control just goes to show you that their evidence all depends on your point of view.

Also HYR2.0, the fact you said "destroy-sheep" makes me wonder whether you really do support snyth/control or whether you just have a habbit of going against the grain..

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Just because it is more effective doesn't mean it is ethical.

Stop bull****ting.

I've repeated it time and time again. I'm choosing the option that I believe saves the greatest number of people, and benefits society the most both right now and in the future.

My ethics are perfectly sound.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Just to be clear, I was exaggerating a bit, but it's only because I really don't understand your point...

So you threw out an opinion based on

Proven how and where? Source?

The 10 different examples in this OP.

When you compare it to a choice that (at face value) destroys said antagonist it's hardly anti....

The fact you're allowing the Reapers to survive when you clearly have the option to get rid of them once and for all.

And my other points and analogies?

If I may, I'd have to just direct you to this post I made: http://social.biowar...5656/4#12607879

Also HYR2.0, the fact you said
"destroy-sheep" makes me wonder whether you really do support
snyth/control or whether you just have a habit of going against the
grain..

I don't think I'm much different than people here other than the usual disagreements and my choice of ending path. I see "sheep" though when people on one side make 1-dimmensional arguments and everybody applauds it blindly.

I liken it to Lois running for office in an episode on Family Guy, she won the election by just spewing out nonsense.

[Jagri]

Synthesis/Control is not a solution in my book by any means. I will not use pretty words or symbolism to support my choice but given my time in military service I would come to the conclusion in order to remove the Reaper threat destroying them is really the only solution.

Civilians can be distracted by other choices but when I started off on this journey five years ago my objective was to stop the Reapers and that conviction was always reaffirmed as Shepard and crew came to learn of the horrors they would inflict on the galaxy. That and come to learn of the horrors they have inflicted on the galaxy for millions of years.

Modifié par Jagri, 16 juin 2012 - 10:49 .