1300 réponses à ce sujet

[weltraumhamster89]

shadey wrote...

I don't think people understand synthesis

it doesn't change them into zombies under reaper control.

it is kind of like having cybernetic implants.

it doesn't alter peoples functions or how they are as individuals.

the ending screens are basically the same as the other choices except the people are now part synthetic, but nothing about their personality or behaviour is changed.

Well then the Catalysts solution did not work to prevent wars between synthetics and organics.
If their nature is not changed, why should synthesis then provide peace between the two?

Whatever way you try to look at synthesis, its nonsensical, pointless and sickening in every regard.

[The Angry One]

IscrewTali wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

YOUR Shep? No, that one wouldn't, I agree.

Without clairvoyance. Nobody's Shepard.
Or does your Shepard readily believe the word of a Reaper with nothing to back it up?

So my Shepard needs clairvoyance now? When will you stop making this stuff up, when there SO much ingame to back it up? Continuing something that has been proven wrong by so many different facts, yet persisting on saying it's possible, is borderline insanity.

I'm sorry, please show me what part of the game backs up the idea that Shepard should trust the word of a Reaper.

[Gorkan86]

Forbry wrote...

Gorkan86 wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Gorkan86 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
 I don't care what Gamble says.

He said that we can refuse of using the crucible.

He said, that according to him, "synthesis" was the best ending:

twitter.com/gamblemike/status/195308506214187008

twitter.com/gamblemike/status/195331064825266176

It's his choise, you have problem with that? You think he should choose Refuse, because you think it's best? 
Everyone should have a choice, you can't pull one size fits all. If I want to Destroy the Reapers, I'll do it. If I want to control them, I choose Control. If someone wants to Refuse, he can do it. There will always be people who will say that their choice is correct and your not.
Anyway, all remain in their beliefs and head-canons.

*pro-synthesizer here*

Defend.

[Bfler]

shadey wrote...

I don't think people understand synthesis

it doesn't change them into zombies under reaper control.
.

Look at the Husk in the ending sequence. Such an individual is perverted.

[shadey]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

Well then the Catalysts solution did not work to prevent wars between synthetics and organics.
If their nature is not changed, why should synthesis then provide peace between the two?

because there isn't any different between synth and organic anymore.

[The Angry One]

Gorkan86 wrote...

It's his choise, you have problem with that? You think he should choose Refuse, because you think it's best? 
Everyone should have a choice, you can't pull one size fits all. If I want to Destroy the Reapers, I'll do it. If I want to control them, I choose Control. If someone wants to Refuse, he can do it. There will always be people who will say that their choice is correct and your not.
Anyway, all remain in their beliefs and head-canons.

His choice was bad and he should feel bad.

[translationninja]

You are aware though that pretty much any and all great advances in the history of civilization were opposed by some ideologues, rite?

I for one am very glad that there were people that had the balls to make the decision and force them through, otherwise we'd be sitting around the campfire wondering if we fall off the rims of a flat rectangular world.

I suppose the good people of the medieval ages would have reacted the very same way had you proposed to them to live in a world where their belief of an almighty allseeing judge was unnecessary.

Surely they would have imagined such a world as Dante's inferno (actually, they did).

And have you ever seen a pacifist preventing a war by sitting in protest? Because that is what reject is, sitting in protest pouting, gambling with the existence of every life being in the galaxy.

That is neither heroic nor wise or prudent.

Modifié par translationninja, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:28 .

[Reptilian Rob]

The Angry One wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

YOUR Shep? No, that one wouldn't, I agree.

Without clairvoyance. Nobody's Shepard.
Or does your Shepard readily believe the word of a Reaper with nothing to back it up?

So my Shepard needs clairvoyance now? When will you stop making this stuff up, when there SO much ingame to back it up? Continuing something that has been proven wrong by so many different facts, yet persisting on saying it's possible, is borderline insanity.

I'm sorry, please show me what part of the game backs up the idea that Shepard should trust the word of a Reaper.

The Catalyst isn't a Reaper, he's an AI proxy who controls the Reapers. Yes, incredibly stupid I know. But you have to take it for what it is and not what you want it to be.

He shouldn't be in the game, but he is. I have to take him for the lame plot device he is, and then destroy him.

[The Angry One]

shadey wrote...

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

Well then the Catalysts solution did not work to prevent wars between synthetics and organics.
If their nature is not changed, why should synthesis then provide peace between the two?

because there isn't any different between synth and organic anymore.

Because as we all know, no human has ever fought another.

[AsteroidBlues]

The starbrat was acting like a douche so I blew him up along with the reapers.

Better than synthesis.

[Reptilian Rob]

The Angry One wrote...

Gorkan86 wrote...

It's his choise, you have problem with that? You think he should choose Refuse, because you think it's best? 
Everyone should have a choice, you can't pull one size fits all. If I want to Destroy the Reapers, I'll do it. If I want to control them, I choose Control. If someone wants to Refuse, he can do it. There will always be people who will say that their choice is correct and your not.
Anyway, all remain in their beliefs and head-canons.

His choice was bad and he should feel bad.

On that I disagree, no option is right or wrong. It's just what you personally believe in your PTs. I find synthesis an unholy evil, but I'm not going to say it's a bad choice for the other people who choose it that's assumptive and condescending. 

Why worry about other people's PTs anyway, you don't have to pick synthesis so let it go I say. 

[The Angry One]

translationninja wrote...

You are aware though that pretty much any and all great advances in the history of civilization were opposed by some ideologues, rite?

I for one am very glad that there were people that had the balls to make the decision and force them through, otherwise we'd be sitting around the campfire wondering if we fall off the rims of a flat rectangular world.

I suppose the good people of the medieval ages would have reacted the very same way had you proposed to them to live in a world where their believe of an almighty allseeing judge was unnecessary.

Surely they would have imagined such a world as Dante's inferno (actually, they did).

And have you ever seen a pacifist preventing a war by sitting in protest? Because that is what reject is, sitting in protest pouting gambling with the existance of every life being in the galaxy.

That is neither heroic nor wise or prudent.

Synthesis is not advancement. It is forcing everyone into a Reaper ideal of the future. That's not the same thing now, is it?

"Accepting one path blinds you to alternatives."
As a technocrat I resent your comparison of synthesis to actual human advancement. We advance according to our needs. We develop and grow. Synthesis is the antithesis of advancement. Advancement will STOP and we'll just become as the Reapers are. No thanks.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[weltraumhamster89]

shadey wrote...

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

Well then the Catalysts solution did not work to prevent wars between synthetics and organics.
If their nature is not changed, why should synthesis then provide peace between the two?

because there isn't any different between synth and organic anymore.

NO. You just said that it doesnt change their nature, nor would it change the individuals they are.
If there now magically was no difference anymore between organics and synths (just by making the organics partly synthetic), that would mean you did change their nature and they wouldnt be the same individuals anymore.

No difference between organics and synths anymore?? please. then there are no organics anymore nor are there synthetics left. They way you describe it it would be a bunch of hybrids who ceased to be what they were before: living beings, individuals.

[Ageless Face]

The reason I don't like synthesis is because you are forcing the change on people. If people would get it because they actually asked for it, and would not have been synthesised (is that a word?) regardless if they actually want it or not, I think would pick it. The change itself is, I believe, a good thing.

[The Angry One]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Gorkan86 wrote...

It's his choise, you have problem with that? You think he should choose Refuse, because you think it's best? 
Everyone should have a choice, you can't pull one size fits all. If I want to Destroy the Reapers, I'll do it. If I want to control them, I choose Control. If someone wants to Refuse, he can do it. There will always be people who will say that their choice is correct and your not.
Anyway, all remain in their beliefs and head-canons.

His choice was bad and he should feel bad.

On that I disagree, no option is right or wrong. It's just what you personally believe in your PTs. I find synthesis an unholy evil, but I'm not going to say it's a bad choice for the other people who choose it that's assumptive and condescending. 

Why worry about other people's PTs anyway, you don't have to pick synthesis so let it go I say. 

No, it's bad. It counters everything about Mass Effect, and it lets the Reapers win.
Do you think Mass Effect 1 was written to one day promote a Reaper victory? I don't think so.

[Baronesa]

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It's creepy.

Scared of change, sir/miss/mrs?

You don't have the right to FORCE change on sapient beings. Nobody does. Do it to yourself. Leave others alone.
I say that as a transhumanist.

See? this is the thing... if it was a personal choice... I may choose synthesis for MYSELF. But I cannot force that decision on ANYONE else, and I would certainly won't like for someone else making this choice for me.

My body, my decision, MY LIFE.

This is why I cannot agree with synthesis, it is a violation on self determination on a scale so big that it is inexcusable.

Now, something I should make clear:

After the EC, I think Synthesis and Control were rounded up pretty well as endings... endings that I cannot agree with for several reasons. The endings would be better without the Catalyst, for sure, but if we have to keep the catalyst the way these 2 endings were done, at least for me conveys the right message. And I have a problem with those 2 messages because run against everything I hold dear. On the cases of destroy and Reject, yes I do have problems witht hose 2, because something is lacking there.

Modifié par Baronesa, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:34 .

[Lord Goose]

game backs up
the idea that Shepard should trust the word of a Reaper.

You don't really have option to not trust Catalyst. Even in Refuse, you simply reject usage of the Crucible in favor of conventional fighting, because you options do not suit you. You are either losing your freedom, or freedom of other sentient species.

Back to the topic, I think it could be explain by simple desire to feel better. Usually people bash all options except their own, just for sake of feeling better.

[Forbry]

Bfler wrote...

shadey wrote...

I don't think people understand synthesis

it doesn't change them into zombies under reaper control.
.

Look at the Husk in the ending sequence. Such an individual is perverted.

Why, because it's ugly or because you don't have an open mind? I have no problem believing it could be/become friendly.

[Anti-killer]

I actually wonder if people would rather be a Cyberman.

become a Cyberman, you become bullet proof and can survive on planets without an atmosphere. become a Cyberman, you become Super human.

only downfall is that you'll be weak against Gold and have no emotions...wouldn't you rather be this?

[Forbry]

Baronesa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It's creepy.

Scared of change, sir/miss/mrs?

You don't have the right to FORCE change on sapient beings. Nobody does. Do it to yourself. Leave others alone.
I say that as a transhumanist.

See? this is the thing... if it was a personal choice... I may choose synthesis for MYSELF. But I cannot force that decision on ANYNOE else, and I would certainly won't like for someone else making this choice for me.

My body, my decision, MY LIFE.

This is why I cannot agree with synthesis, it is a violation on self determination on a scale so big that it is inexcusable.

Now, something I should make clear:

After the EC, I think Synthesis and Control were rounded up pretty well as endings... endings that I cannot agree with for several reasons. The endings would be better without the Catalyst, for sure, but if we have to keep the catalyst the way these 2 endings were done, at least for me conveys the right message. And I have a problem with those 2 messages because run against everything I hold dear. On the cases of destroy and Reject, yes I do have problems witht hose 2, because something is lacking there.

All other endings force something on others too. Really not that hard to see if you wánt to see it.

[Ownedbacon]

The Angry One wrote...

shadey wrote...

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

Well then the Catalysts solution did not work to prevent wars between synthetics and organics.
If their nature is not changed, why should synthesis then provide peace between the two?

because there isn't any different between synth and organic anymore.

Because as we all know, no human has ever fought another.

Of course not, chaos comes only from organics creating synthetics. There is no chaos among organics. Obviously when Sovereign was talking about the chaos of organic evolution he was talking about them creating synthetics.

[v TricKy v]

Forbry wrote...

Bfler wrote...

shadey wrote...

I don't think people understand synthesis

it doesn't change them into zombies under reaper control.
.

Look at the Husk in the ending sequence. Such an individual is perverted.

Why, because it's ugly or because you don't have an open mind? I have no problem believing it could be/become friendly.

Would you still think that if it would have mauled your mom to death?

[Escocido]

So if Synthesis does not brainwash anyone, this means the races are the same only more capable?

Well, then good luck when your new, hypercompetent, overachieving Krogan rebel again. So much for "eternal peace".

[shadey]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

NO. You just said that it doesnt change their nature, nor would it change the individuals they are.
If there now magically was no difference anymore between organics and synths (just by making the organics partly synthetic), that would mean you did change their nature and they wouldnt be the same individuals anymore.

No difference between organics and synths anymore?? please. then there are no organics anymore nor are there synthetics left. They way you describe it it would be a bunch of hybrids who ceased to be what they were before: living beings, individuals.

implanting cybernetic infrastructure into an organism would not change it's personality or who it is as an individual

[The Angry One]

Forbry wrote...

All other endings force something on others too. Really not that hard to see if you wánt to see it.

Reject and destroy follow on from pre-established agreements to fight and destroy the Reapers.
Control is an arrogant power-grab, but still leaves people unchanged.

It is not the same and you know it.