1256 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

Let's see, biotic powers, super strength, enhanced agility? Yeah, sign me up as long as I can keep my mind.

[KeraWildmane]

jtav wrote...

Let's see, biotic powers, super strength, enhanced agility? Yeah, sign me up as long as I can keep my mind.

I think you underestimate the horror of having your body changed like that and the cost of those gifts.

[G Kevin]

Improvement or not, when you chose to play God and rewrite everything at a molecular level, that's taking it too far.

Synthesis is not just augments to people. You are changing the way they ever lived, anyone, ever lived by telling nature to gtfo.

I hate it.

It's one thing to improve on the fundamentals and it's another thing to comepletely change the fundamentals.

Modifié par G Kevin, 12 juin 2012 - 04:03 .

[Bill Casey]

Then get those upgrades through the proper channels. Don't strike a Faustian deal with the Reaper King...

[clennon8]

First, everyone is made healthy, now everyone gets superpowers?

Good grief.

[ediskrad327]

YAY for destroying every Ecosystem in the galaxy!

[JamieCOTC]

jtav wrote...

Let's see, biotic powers, super strength, enhanced agility? Yeah, sign me up as long as I can keep my mind.

Pretty close. In the earlier draft of the script, the Catylist hints that the melding of organics and machines would transform organics into a being much like Shepard. 

[jla0644]

clennon8 wrote...

No, he's using the term correctly. There are so many straw men in this thread, that, um... Well, there's a lot of straw men.

Perhaps he is in other cases.  He's thrown the word out there so often, odds are he's correct at least on some of them. But not in this case. Asking someone to take the logic they used to denigrate one option, and apply it to the other other two options, so that he can realize what he hates about one applies to all three, is not a strawman. It's so far from being one, that I had to assume the person calling it one simply didn't know what it meant.

As an aside, that term might the most overused and misused terms on the interweb. I'm quite frankly sick of seeing it used where it doesn't belong by people trying to sound smart.

Modifié par jla0644, 12 juin 2012 - 05:52 .

[NedPepper]

Here's what I don't understand about people who swear by Destroying. IF you are so dead set on destroy, why go to all to trouble to help Legion. To EMPATHISE with Legion and see the creation of the geth. The Quarians created the synthetics, saw that they were too smart and tried to kill them. This new species suddenly thinks, "We must defend ourselves." Look at the lore. The geth only fight with the Quarians, who want their world back, and any organic who enters their territory. Why? Because all they know is organics want them dead.

Sovereign indoctrinates the heretics and suddenly the geth do what everyone seems to do when indocrinated. Attack everyone else.

Back on point, if you choose to DESTROY, why even save the geth to begin with and create peace with the Quarians? In fact, after you do so, Tali even gives you an example os SYNTHESIS when she explains that the geth are taking over their suits and helping to create a vaccine. They are rebuilding Rannoch together and working in unison. Will the peace last forever? Who knows? But why are the Quarians acceptable to live and the Geth not? Both are guilty in creating violence, but the Quarians show on multiple occasions in Mass Effect 3 that all they really want to do is to kill the synthetics they created, not work with them.

We already see Synthesis before choosing Synthesis. So if you pick DESTROY, my only guess is that you roleplayed your Shepard as someone who sided with the Quarians and had no intention of creating peace. And you probably should not push Joker, your friend, into a relationship with an AI who has proven to be an ally and has "human" traits as part of her awakening.

Picking destroy makes Shepard a hypocrite IF you helped the Geth and were friendly with EDI.

This is my problem with the endings. Why would I commit genocide on allies to kill my enemies. Unless I go along with Garrus' brutal calculus.

I'm not completely sold on Synthesis either. If it works out like the Geth and the Quarians and you maintain aspects of inviduality of your culture...then didn't we just break the cycle of violence against Synthetics and Organics? Or do we take Javik's lead and throw Legion out the airlock because creating syntethics might upset the balance of power in an empire?  Or did we just turn everyone into one species of mindless drones?  I have no idea.

The ultimate problem here is that there is too much speculation and the endings are entirely too vague. There is no right answer. And there is no real evidence, outside of what we learn about the Geth and Quarians living together, about what the endings even MEAN to the galaxy.

Modifié par nedpepper, 12 juin 2012 - 06:40 .

[clennon8]

Why would I commit genocide on allies to kill my enemies. Unless I go along with Garrus' brutal calculus.

Question, meet answer.

[NedPepper]

clennon8 wrote...

Why would I commit genocide on allies to kill my enemies. Unless I go along with Garrus' brutal calculus.

Question, meet answer.

It doesn't make it the "right" answer...truthfully, Garrus has his harsh renegade moments in the way he thinks.  He's pragmatic.  He actually has little things in common with the old Illusive Man.  We all love Garrus, but  he's not always  automatically a wise sage.  It's possible to disagree with him.

[wright1978]

nedpepper wrote...

Here's what I don't understand about people who swear by Destroying. IF you are so dead set on destroy, why go to all to trouble to help Legion. To EMPATHISE with Legion and see the creation of the geth. The Quarians created the synthetics, saw that they were too smart and tried to kill them. This new species suddenly thinks, "We must defend ourselves." Look at the lore. The geth only fight with the Quarians, who want their world back, and any organic who enters their territory. Why? Because all they know is organics want them dead.

Sovereign indoctrinates the heretics and suddenly the geth do what everyone seems to do when indocrinated. Attack everyone else.

Back on point, if you choose to DESTROY, why even save the geth to begin with and create peace with the Quarians? In fact, after you do so, Tali even gives you an example os SYNTHESIS when she explains that the geth are taking over their suits and helping to create a vaccine. They are rebuilding Rannoch together and working in unison. Will the peace last forever? Who knows? But why are the Quarians acceptable to live and the Geth not? Both are guilty in creating violence, but the Quarians show on multiple occasions in Mass Effect 3 that all they really want to do is to kill the synthetics they created, not work with them.

We already see Synthesis before choosing Synthesis. So if you pick DESTROY, my only guess is that you roleplayed your Shepard as someone who sided with the Quarians and had no intention of creating peace. And you probably should not push Joker, your friend, into a relationship with an AI who has proven to be an ally and has "human" traits as part of her awakening.

Picking destroy makes Shepard a hypocrite IF you helped the Geth and were friendly with EDI.

This is my problem with the endings. Why would I commit genocide on allies to kill my enemies. Unless I go along with Garrus' brutal calculus.

I'm not completely sold on Synthesis either. If it works out like the Geth and the Quarians and you maintain aspects of inviduality of your culture...then didn't we just break the cycle of violence against Synthetics and Organics? Or do we take Javik's lead and throw Legion out the airlock because creating syntethics might upset the balance of power in an empire?  Or did we just turn everyone into one species of mindless drones?  I have no idea.

The ultimate problem here is that there is too much speculation and the endings are entirely too vague. There is no right answer. And there is no real evidence, outside of what we learn about the Geth and Quarians living together, about what the endings even MEAN to the galaxy.

No it doesn't. Picking destroy shows Shep accepts the price for the solution. It has nothing to do with it being the Geth. If it was the humans or Turians or Asari my Shep would sacrifice them because that's the only way to get rid of the genocidal mass murder machines called the reapers.

Yes we do see synthesis, they're called husks and collectors. Not something i want to transform every life both organic and synthetic into, while keeping the reapers their to murder anyoen who dares try and evolve out of that evolutionary cul-de-sac.

[Bill Casey]

nedpepper wrote...

Picking destroy makes Shepard a hypocrite IF you helped the Geth and were friendly with EDI.

I have no choice...
Control and Synthesis are not choices; they are ****ing stupid...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 juin 2012 - 08:45 .

[Sisterofshane]

nedpepper wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Why would I commit genocide on allies to kill my enemies. Unless I go along with Garrus' brutal calculus.

Question, meet answer.

It doesn't make it the "right" answer...truthfully, Garrus has his harsh renegade moments in the way he thinks.  He's pragmatic.  He actually has little things in common with the old Illusive Man.  We all love Garrus, but  he's not always  automatically a wise sage.  It's possible to disagree with him.

Actually, if you talk to him a little bit more, part of what you consider his "renegade" side comes from Turian culture itself.  He talks about how turians are taught from birth that if even one person survives, the price was worth it - and the turians just happen to be considered the strongest (pre-genophage cure) military force in the galaxy. 

Yes, you can disagree with him, but only if you are willing to pay the price for your ideals.

[NedPepper]

wright1978 wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

Here's what I don't understand about people who swear by Destroying. IF you are so dead set on destroy, why go to all to trouble to help Legion. To EMPATHISE with Legion and see the creation of the geth. The Quarians created the synthetics, saw that they were too smart and tried to kill them. This new species suddenly thinks, "We must defend ourselves." Look at the lore. The geth only fight with the Quarians, who want their world back, and any organic who enters their territory. Why? Because all they know is organics want them dead.

Sovereign indoctrinates the heretics and suddenly the geth do what everyone seems to do when indocrinated. Attack everyone else.

Back on point, if you choose to DESTROY, why even save the geth to begin with and create peace with the Quarians? In fact, after you do so, Tali even gives you an example os SYNTHESIS when she explains that the geth are taking over their suits and helping to create a vaccine. They are rebuilding Rannoch together and working in unison. Will the peace last forever? Who knows? But why are the Quarians acceptable to live and the Geth not? Both are guilty in creating violence, but the Quarians show on multiple occasions in Mass Effect 3 that all they really want to do is to kill the synthetics they created, not work with them.

We already see Synthesis before choosing Synthesis. So if you pick DESTROY, my only guess is that you roleplayed your Shepard as someone who sided with the Quarians and had no intention of creating peace. And you probably should not push Joker, your friend, into a relationship with an AI who has proven to be an ally and has "human" traits as part of her awakening.

Picking destroy makes Shepard a hypocrite IF you helped the Geth and were friendly with EDI.

This is my problem with the endings. Why would I commit genocide on allies to kill my enemies. Unless I go along with Garrus' brutal calculus.

I'm not completely sold on Synthesis either. If it works out like the Geth and the Quarians and you maintain aspects of inviduality of your culture...then didn't we just break the cycle of violence against Synthetics and Organics? Or do we take Javik's lead and throw Legion out the airlock because creating syntethics might upset the balance of power in an empire?  Or did we just turn everyone into one species of mindless drones?  I have no idea.

The ultimate problem here is that there is too much speculation and the endings are entirely too vague. There is no right answer. And there is no real evidence, outside of what we learn about the Geth and Quarians living together, about what the endings even MEAN to the galaxy.

No it doesn't. Picking destroy shows Shep accepts the price for the solution. It has nothing to do with it being the Geth. If it was the humans or Turians or Asari my Shep would sacrifice them because that's the only way to get rid of the genocidal mass murder machines called the reapers.

Yes we do see synthesis, they're called husks and collectors. Not something i want to transform every life both organic and synthetic into, while keeping the reapers their to murder anyoen who dares try and evolve out of that evolutionary cul-de-sac.

I understand the Synthesis/Husk argument.  But it's still unclear.  How are Geth taking control of Quarian suits and rebuilding Rannoch at a rapid pace not also an example of Synthesis.  Husk and Collectors are zombies with no mental capacity, and the little they have says SERVE THE REAPERS.  The question we don't have an answer to is if that is what Synthesis really does.  Do you know for sure outside of fan theories not acknowledged by Bioware?  I like parts of the Indoctrination Theory, but why would BIoware go to such lengths to HUMANIZE synethics for Destroy to be the only option?  It just doesn't fit.  And if Control and Synthesis (as vague and admittedly flawed as they are) are poison apples, what's the point of only including Synthesis if you ascertain the most War Efforts?  To mind#### people? 

It all feels so unfinished.  That's why I can't jump on one team or another.  SYNTHESIS is right. DESTROY is right.  It's almost taken on a cult like following.  As far as we know, none of them or all of them are right and wrong.  But until there is clarification, all this theorizing means nothing and actually goes against the narrative of the game....

[NedPepper]

Sisterofshane wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Why would I commit genocide on allies to kill my enemies. Unless I go along with Garrus' brutal calculus.

Question, meet answer.

It doesn't make it the "right" answer...truthfully, Garrus has his harsh renegade moments in the way he thinks.  He's pragmatic.  He actually has little things in common with the old Illusive Man.  We all love Garrus, but  he's not always  automatically a wise sage.  It's possible to disagree with him.

Actually, if you talk to him a little bit more, part of what you consider his "renegade" side comes from Turian culture itself.  He talks about how turians are taught from birth that if even one person survives, the price was worth it - and the turians just happen to be considered the strongest (pre-genophage cure) military force in the galaxy. 

Yes, you can disagree with him, but only if you are willing to pay the price for your ideals.

Oh yeah, it's definitely part of his Turian upbringing and culture.  I like that he has that side of him.  Doesn't mean his culture is right, though.  In fact, part of Garrus' character is the war between himself and his Turian upbringing. Has been from Game 1.

[lillitheris]

jtav wrote...

Let's see, biotic powers, super strength, enhanced agility? Yeah, sign me up as long as I can keep my mind.

You don’t get to keep your mind.

[Sisterofshane]

@nedpepper. he doesn't really fight all of it - mostly the sense of "duty first" and following orders and chain of command. Like I said, you can feel free to disagree with his brutal calculus, but then you must be willing to face the consequences of following a set of ideals instead of of harsh reality...

Unless you play paragon, and then forget everything about pragmatism, because you know the devs won't "punish" you for your morality.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

jtav wrote...
Let's see, biotic powers, super strength, enhanced agility? Yeah, sign me up as long as I can keep my mind.

You don’t get to keep your mind.

Says who? There is not a shred of evidence that you'll be mind-controlled or mentally reprogrammed or anything of the kind. That's just another one of those baseless assumptions people make up to justify their visceral aversion.

[NedPepper]

Sisterofshane wrote...

@nedpepper. he doesn't really fight all of it - mostly the sense of "duty first" and following orders and chain of command. Like I said, you can feel free to disagree with his brutal calculus, but then you must be willing to face the consequences of following a set of ideals instead of of harsh reality...

Unless you play paragon, and then forget everything about pragmatism, because you know the devs won't "punish" you for your morality.

No, I've played it twice.  My orignal "canon"  Paragon/Renage split Shepard agrees with Garrus on brutal caluculus.  My female Paragon does not.  This is still an RPG, right?

My own PERSONAL feelings watching objectively are different.  And even my evenly split Paragon/Renegade Shepard chose Synthesis?. Why?  He saw that it worked on Rannoch.  Although, making that final decision took me forever.  The second choice was of course, Destroy.  Control just seems...faulty no matter how you play your Shepard. Now with my Paragon female...I'm going green again.  Because killing or destroying the Geth and her friend EDI don't fit her at all.  I honestly wish they would add another option or two with the EC.  They NEED a couple more options...

Although, I may just stop playing once I get hit with the beam this time....I died, Reapers won. Head canon.

[Sisterofshane]

nedpepper wrote...

No, I've played it twice.  My orignal "canon"  Paragon/Renage split Shepard agrees with Garrus on brutal caluculus.  My female Paragon does not.  This is still an RPG, right?

My own PERSONAL feelings watching objectively are different.  And even my evenly split Paragon/Renegade Shepard chose Synthesis?. Why?  He saw that it worked on Rannoch.  Although, making that final decision took me forever.  The second choice was of course, Destroy.  Control just seems...faulty no matter how you play your Shepard. Now with my Paragon female...I'm going green again.  Because killing or destroying the Geth and her friend EDI don't fit her at all.  I honestly wish they would add another option or two with the EC.  They NEED a couple more options...

Although, I may just stop playing once I get hit with the beam this time....I died, Reapers won. Head canon.

Lol, you have more willpower than I do (IRL).  I can't ever do a renegade/renegon playthrough because it feels so wrong to me - I resort to watching the differences on youtube instead of playing through them.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

jtav wrote...
Let's see, biotic powers, super strength, enhanced agility? Yeah, sign me up as long as I can keep my mind.

You don’t get to keep your mind.

Says who? There is not a shred of evidence that you'll be mind-controlled or mentally reprogrammed or anything of the kind. That's just another one of those baseless assumptions people make up to justify their visceral aversion.

Well there's no evidence for anything. It's all just one person's logical assumptions versus another person's.

[Ieldra]

nedpepper wrote...
It all feels so unfinished.  That's why I can't jump on one team or another.  SYNTHESIS is right. DESTROY is right.  It's almost taken on a cult like following.  As far as we know, none of them or all of them are right and wrong.  But until there is clarification, all this theorizing means nothing and actually goes against the narrative of the game....

I maintain that all endings are intended to be good endings - at least as good as the explicitly told consequences let us make them. That's why I am so adamantly opposed to trying to force a negative interpretation on any ending you don't like. Justifying your preferred choice by painting others' in darker colors is dishonest and undermines the spirit of the whole trilogy, which is meant to be heroic, not villainous. With the exception of a few ultra-cynics who'll tell you how they'll oppress the galaxy using the Reapers, all Shepards in all endings are heroes, even though some are more and some are less competent.

There's also this: the endings are bleak enough as they are. Why must people add more bleakness to any of them? I'd rather go, take each option and interpret the hell out of it to get the brightest future I find plausible within the constraints of the explicitly told consequences.

So, no, Synthesis doesn't huskify anyone and mentally reprograms no one. That would not be in the spirit of the story.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 juin 2012 - 09:55 .

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
It all feels so unfinished.  That's why I can't jump on one team or another.  SYNTHESIS is right. DESTROY is right.  It's almost taken on a cult like following.  As far as we know, none of them or all of them are right and wrong.  But until there is clarification, all this theorizing means nothing and actually goes against the narrative of the game....

I maintain that all endings are intended to be good endings - at least as good as the explicitly told consequences let us make them. That's why I am so adamantly opposed to trying to force a negative interpretation on any ending you don't like. Justifying your preferred choice by painting others' in darker colors is dishonest and undermines the spirit of the whole trilogy, which is meant to be heroic, not villainous. With the exception of a few ultra-cynics who'll tell you how they'll oppress the galaxy using the Reapers, all Shepards in all endings are heroes, even though some are more and some are less competent.

There's also this: the endings are bleak enough as they are. Why must people add more bleakness to any of them? I'd rather go, take each option and interpret the hell out of it to get the brightest future I find plausible within the constraints of the explicitly told consequences.

So, no, Synthesis doesn't huskify anyone and mentally reprograms no one. That would not be in the spirit of the story.

It isn't about justifying a preferred choice by painting others darker. It is about our interpretation of the choices that shapes our decisions.

Also i don't think they put any thought into developing any ending consequences. They just threw them out there to generate speculation, which is what has occurred. No doubt they will try and explain a positive interpretation in EC but unless they can explain away dichotomy of good interpretation of synthesis not stopping the generation of new AI's they will be pushing a boulder uphill as far as i'm concerned.