1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorkan86]

M25105 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Actually I'd love to see Miranda's reaction to Synthesis.

I'm pretty sure she would not be pleased.

I'm pretty sure no one would be pleased, except those that think being a robot is super cool.

So we shoul kill them. And than no one would be pleased.

[Ieldra]

JackumsD wrote...
I have no problem with Synthesis, personally. There's nothing presented in the game or EC that suggests any of this nonsensical brainwashing fanfic occurs. I'm a Control kinda guy, but I do find Synthesis to be the most beneficial outcome for the galaxy as a whole. It doesn't suit me or my Shepard, though I respect it as an option.

People invent bad consequences for Synthesis because they are in denial about the fact that something brought about by morally questionable means may actually have a good outcome. It feels bad, thus it must be bad. It's the same when people complaining that Control!Shepard will go insane and reinstate the cycle.

From the EC onward, I like all three main choices. As I see it, whatever you believe -or rather what your Shepard believes - gives the best future for the galaxy, and is the best way for dealing with the Reapers, that it's the option you must take. If you don't, you are not true to yourself.

The Angry One wrote...

Would YOU stop headcanoning nonsense to make yourself feel better?

QFT.

[Carlthestrange]

Krunjar wrote...

Yeah the rules change when survival is whats on the table all im sayin.

Depends on the mindset of the individual.

Some have the view "It is better to die free, than to live on your knees."

[Forbry]

Carlthestrange wrote...

I see mostly philosophy in the Synthesis debate (The idea of everything we are being changed is of course, very controversial.)

To some extent, yes.

And while I respect the opinions of both sides (We are each entitled to see the endings in our own way) I see Synthesis having to be defended far more often than Destroy or Control.

To some extent, yes.

And in the great debate world, I find if an idea has to be defended so much, there must be a flaw in the idea that many pick up on.

No. just no.

Still remains the fact that synthesis has the best outcome, purely based on the scenes in the game, being the only real facts in this context. Despite all this kicking and screaming to make it not so. You can't win from facts, how hard you may try. Don't waste you time and stop trying!

[Carlthestrange]

Forbry wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

I see mostly philosophy in the Synthesis debate (The idea of everything we are being changed is of course, very controversial.)

To some extent, yes.

And while I respect the opinions of both sides (We are each entitled to see the endings in our own way) I see Synthesis having to be defended far more often than Destroy or Control.

To some extent, yes.

And in the great debate world, I find if an idea has to be defended so much, there must be a flaw in the idea that many pick up on.

No. just no.

Still remains the fact that synthesis has the best outcome, purely based on the scenes in the game, being the only real facts in this context. Despite all this kicking and screaming to make it not so. You can't win from facts, how hard you may try. Don't waste you time and stop trying!

That entire post was just pure rejection based entirely on opinion.

How can I respect your opinion if you utterly reject mine?

[Ryzaki]

Gorkan86 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Actually I'd love to see Miranda's reaction to Synthesis.

I'm pretty sure she would not be pleased.

I'm pretty sure no one would be pleased, except those that think being a robot is super cool.

So we shoul kill them. And than no one would be pleased.

Nah better to avoid making them half breeds in the first place. Let that evolve naturally if it even will as starbrat claims.

[translationninja]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Are the pro-synthesis crowd done patting themselves on the back for an already refuted argument or do you have anything left to say? Just wondering.

The problem is you haven't really refuted anything, not within the true meaning of the word refuted.  You have merely expressed disagreement based on personal opinion and preference.

I've refuted everything you've said at least, while facepalming at how truly disturbing some pro-synthesis arguments are getting. Don't think I'm the only one.

Your statements indicate that you perceive this discourse in some competitive fashion. You are wrong. I have not made any statement as to what I think of synthesis, hell I don't even like it.

All I am doing is pointing out logical fallacies in your assertions. Whenever we get to the bone of this discussion, you revert to saying "and then everyone is a green monster because I said so.....end of story."

You may very well perceive it that way, that is your prerogative and the writers have left enough room for you to see it that way if you so desire.

However, my repeated responses to you are not intended to "defend" or even "elevate" synthesis, I am merely pointing out that you are trying to sell a rather petty and primitive emotional response (kill em all!!!!!! whatever they say is wrong!!!!!) as something morally righteous because you wish to see the path you have chosen ingame in such a manner.

But it simply isn't. In the vaguest of manners you pull out a 5-line dialog with Harbinger as "evidence" that everyone will be green mindless husks in synthesis. Whether one likes or hates synthesis, with the amount of information given by the writers this isn't a fact, but merely some headcanon.

And as for all them people facepalming....do I really appear to care?

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

People invent bad consequences for Synthesis because they are in denial about the fact that something brought about by morally questionable means may actually have a good outcome. It feels bad, thus it must be bad. It's the same when people complaining that Control!Shepard will go insane and reinstate the cycle.

Or because we see beyond the veneer of false happiness you want to promote.

From the EC onward, I like all three main choices. As I see it, whatever you believe -or rather what your Shepard believes - gives the best future for the galaxy, and is the best way for dealing with the Reapers, that it's the option you must take. If you don't, you are not true to yourself.

Sure, you can surrender, surrender or surrender. Have fun with that, Saren.

QFT.

If you have an issue with what I say, take it up with me and don't me too onto a pic spammer that I ignore due to his harassment issues. It makes it appear like you have no argument.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'll go with 'because the means make no sense.' Destroy can be rationalized as a super-science EMP of sorts, and Control is a blue-colored carrier signal, but physically altering all sentient life is a bit out of the loop.

In an abstract way, I actually wish they had kept the depiction of Synthesis as it was in the leaks: becoming One With The Reapers. Except, rather than rewrite all life, the ones being re-written are the Reapers and Shepard: Shepard becomes the Catalyst-Avatar for the Reapers, understanding them, but Shepard changes the Reapers as well giving them, for lack of a better word, humanity and a value for organic life. Shepard becomes more like a Reaper, the Reapers become more like Shepard, and the Reapers offer rather than force their technology for the organics who want it, allowing them to join in the Consensus that the Reapers have with eachother.

A bit of Control, a bit of Synthesis, with Avatar Shepard walking around. Control could be distinguished by making it clear that Shepard is replacing the Catalyst, and dominating the Reapers as his or herself.


Obvious opposition is obvious: it's voluntary indoctrination, it isn't punishing the Reapers, Shepard will just succumb, people who accept the post-unity Reaper consensus being little more than husks, etc.


But it would be more plausible to just change Shepard, who already goes on AI head-trips from game to game, and Unity could have a theme of gradual acceptance over time, rather than enforced subjugation. The idea of that if you don't like or trust it, you don't have to do it, but that it could offer a bridge of understanding between organics and synthetics that also eliminates the technological disparity.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:44 .

[Forbry]

M25105 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Actually I'd love to see Miranda's reaction to Synthesis.

I'm pretty sure she would not be pleased.

I'm pretty sure no one would be pleased, except those that think being a robot is super cool.

Based on everything we've experienced in ME, I am more than sure, that most of them will be pleased with this decision (given the 4 options of course!). Surely not all, but definitely most of them!

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

I don't know who I find scarier, the people who think synthesis is good, or the people who recognise it as the violation it is but promote it's use anyway "for the greater good" and "tough decisions that must be made."

Again, it's sad that Mass Effect of all things is what people can now use to promote these... views.

I don't know what I find sadder. The people who find Refuse intelligent, or the people who recognise it as a total failure but try to justify it with morals and by headcanoning the other endings as something worse.

Ieldra2 wrote...

People invent bad consequences for Synthesis because they are in denial about the fact that something brought about by morally questionable means may actually have a good outcome. It feels bad, thus it must be bad. It's the same when people complaining that Control!Shepard will go insane and reinstate the cycle.

From the EC onward, I like all three main choices. As I see it, whatever you believe -or rather what your Shepard believes - gives the best future for the galaxy, and is the best way for dealing with the Reapers, that it's the option you must take. If you don't, you are not true to yourself.

My thoughts are exactly the same. It's refreshing to meet an objectively thinking member amidst the zealous anti-enders and people headcanoning everything they don't like as bad out of some petulant denial.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

Because even if you willfully ignore all the many, many moral, political and scientific implications like Bioware totally wants you to, it still goddamn sucks as an ending.

Shepard jumped into a pit and everyone became happy and green. 100+hours of gameplay justified.

And that's the bottom line, cause Joe said so

[The Angry One]

translationninja wrote...

Your statements indicate that you perceive this discourse in some competitive fashion. You are wrong. I have not made any statement as to what I think of synthesis, hell I don't even like it.

All I am doing is pointing out logical fallacies in your assertions. Whenever we get to the bone of this discussion, you revert to saying "and then everyone is a green monster because I said so.....end of story."

I have said no such thing. Do not strawman my arguments.

You may very well perceive it that way, that is your prerogative and the writers have left enough room for you to see it that way if you so desire.

Everything I have said is shown in the game, you simply want to interpret it differently.

However, my repeated responses to you are not intended to "defend" or even "elevate" synthesis, I am merely pointing out that you are trying to sell a rather petty and primitive emotional response (kill em all!!!!!! whatever they say is wrong!!!!!) as something morally righteous because you wish to see the path you have chosen ingame in such a manner.

No, gee. I say the Reapers, the main antagonist of all 3 games, who's main tactic is deception and corruption are wrong?
How dare I point this out! Clearly they are misunderstood.

But it simply isn't. In the vaguest of manners you pull out a 5-line dialog with Harbinger as "evidence" that everyone will be green mindless husks in synthesis. Whether one likes or hates synthesis, with the amount of information given by the writers this isn't a fact, but merely some headcanon.

And as for all them people facepalming....do I really appear to care?

I was pulling Harbinger quotes for a very specific counter argument. You're the one who thought I was doing it to apply to the entirety of synthesis. It is not my fault if you connected the dots on your own.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:46 .

[Carlthestrange]

Jeez, I'm all up for a debate, but people really do get far too aggressive over such trivial matters.

[IscrewTali]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Krunjar wrote...

Yeah the rules change when survival is whats on the table all im sayin.

Depends on the mindset of the individual.

Some have the view "It is better to die free, than to live on your knees."

Then it is a vast minority. If most thought this way, there would have never been large scale slavery. As an ideal it is great, but ideals dont win wars, or in this case, defeat the Reapers.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

If you have an issue with what I say, take it up with me and don't me too onto a pic spammer that I ignore due to his harassment issues. It makes it appear like you have no argument.

Harassment issues? I constantly respond to your arguments with valid points. You respond until I question where your evidence is, then you stop replying. Ad hominem some more.

[Zelto]

IscrewTali wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

What is good for the species as a whole takes precedence over individual rights.

Terrifying that you actually believe that.

But it's true. If all humans are taken away the right to own anything using fossil materials, so that Earth would survive, it takes precedence. The only reason this hasnt already happened is due to corrupt governments, and greed. And this is only 1 example of endless examples.

If we took away the right of people to breed because they are pre-disposed to cancers through genetics, because it is the best thing for the species, then we become monsters.

if it becomes a pandemic, YES.

And welcome to the argument for **** steralisation of any undesirables. You do realise thats what you just said right. Extend your argument and disabled people, steralised, people with undesirable physical trates (i.e not Arian) steralised, people with undesirable religion (i.e Jew's) steralised. Congradualions, in the name of humanity you just repeated every atroccity the ****'s ever commited. IMO synsysis is little better than the **** purges.

[DungeonHoek]

The Angry One wrote...

I don't know who I find scarier, the people who think synthesis is good, or the people who recognise it as the violation it is but promote it's use anyway "for the greater good" and "tough decisions that must be made."

Again, it's sad that Mass Effect of all things is what people can now use to promote these... views.

And my friends who don't play the game, or the others who just didn't bother to watch the craptastic endings thought "I" was over-thinking Synthesis when I recognized it for the sheer level of nightmare inducing horror that it represents.

Funny how that works. Even more so that people promote it.

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

If you have an issue with what I say, take it up with me and don't me too onto a pic spammer that I ignore due to his harassment issues. It makes it appear like you have no argument.

Harassment issues? I constantly respond to your arguments with valid points. You respond until I question where your evidence is, then you stop replying. Ad hominem some more.

This is the only time I will respond to you.
In this entire topic, you have responded with nothing but insults and pic spams, and have done so in several others after your arguments were defeated. You have been suitably reported. Good day, continue if you want but I won't respond to your provocations again.

[Xilizhra]

Everything I have said is shown in the game, you simply want to interpret it differently.

You directly contradict what the narrative implies because of your preference for mass murder and love of the status quo.

Sure, you can surrender, surrender or surrender. Have fun with that, Saren.

So what you're saying is that Saren was right and surrender was the only way for anyone to survive? Except, wait, his means were completely different and doomed to failure.

[ghost9191]

well can't we just agree that all endings are bad in there own way, if you want to do the least dmg go with control , but it is the only one that doesn't talk about a better future.

In both destroy and synthesis hacket and edi both say that we can achieve a future far greater then anyone can imagine. i see destroy as hope for the future, our own future. whereas synthesis is a future that the catalyst feels is the best, and i mean by that that teh reaper believe synthesis to be the peak of evolution. But the problem for me is it blinds ppl to alternative paths.

control seems like a keep it the way it is, no advancing really just reapers playing daddy for all the galaxy, and well refusal is for those who wish not to sacrifice their ideals.

in short they are all crappy options, none can be justified , not really. all have a sacrifice that comes with it, well besides control but again that is iffy

[Zelto]

repost sorry

Modifié par Zelto, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:50 .

[Forbry]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

I see mostly philosophy in the Synthesis debate (The idea of everything we are being changed is of course, very controversial.)

To some extent, yes.

And while I respect the opinions of both sides (We are each entitled to see the endings in our own way) I see Synthesis having to be defended far more often than Destroy or Control.

To some extent, yes.

And in the great debate world, I find if an idea has to be defended so much, there must be a flaw in the idea that many pick up on.

No. just no.

Still remains the fact that synthesis has the best outcome, purely based on the scenes in the game, being the only real facts in this context. Despite all this kicking and screaming to make it not so. You can't win from facts, how hard you may try. Don't waste you time and stop trying!

That entire post was just pure rejection based entirely on opinion.

How can I respect your opinion if you utterly reject mine?

My reaction was meant in general, not really in particular towards you and rejecting your opinion wasn't my goal, just giving my opinion was.

[KingZayd]

Forbry wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

I see mostly philosophy in the Synthesis debate (The idea of everything we are being changed is of course, very controversial.)

To some extent, yes.

And while I respect the opinions of both sides (We are each entitled to see the endings in our own way) I see Synthesis having to be defended far more often than Destroy or Control.

To some extent, yes.

And in the great debate world, I find if an idea has to be defended so much, there must be a flaw in the idea that many pick up on.

No. just no.

Still remains the fact that synthesis has the best outcome, purely based on the scenes in the game, being the only real facts in this context. Despite all this kicking and screaming to make it not so. You can't win from facts, how hard you may try. Don't waste you time and stop trying!

In Refusal, we get to ascend and achieve that realm of existence that we couldn't comprehend. The Reapers are our genetic destiny. They are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Free of all weaknesses. Before them, we are nothing.

Synthesis is a poor upgrade in comparison.

Modifié par KingZayd, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:57 .