204 réponses à ce sujet

[DGMockingJay]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

there are limits to how far you can and should stretch your imagination for the sake of a story.  Obviously, even if you love the endings, the Crucible is pushing it.  And I say this as someone who loves the endings: the Crucible is damn near as far as I can suspend my disbelief.

I am willing to suspend the disbelief even furthur if a good backstory was given to the Crucible on how it was able to perform technological feats equivalent to what only Reapers can do.

Or a proper explanation was given to how Synthesis would actually work, by Catalyst or a new Codex update. But the game or EC itself doesn't do anything as such...

Anything that asks for player to stretch the imagination shouldn;t be introduced ever so casually. Imagine if Harry Potter found a magical wand in his backyard, and it was able to kill Vody in 1 spell. Sure it is possible in the world created around magic, but to me, it looks cheap and an easy buff to the protagonist, clearly indicating the lack of imagination in the writer.

Modifié par DGMockingJay, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:28 .

[DGMockingJay]

adneate wrote...

Also just as a fan Synthesis changes literally everything about the setting we spent 5 years falling in love with, why in God's name would I want that unless I hated the setting? I don't want this to be Synth Effect I want it to be Mass Effect, the same old Mass Effect. That's the biggest overarching reason I reject both Synthesis and Control as endings, they radically change the setting to where it's unrecognizable and I don't want that.

Beautiful

[XXIceColdXX]

Is OP trolling?

[Enthalpy]

Good for you, OP.

[savionen]

adneate wrote...

Also just as a fan Synthesis changes literally everything about the setting we spent 5 years falling in love with, why in God's name would I want that unless I hated the setting? I don't want this to be Synth Effect I want it to be Mass Effect, the same old Mass Effect. That's the biggest overarching reason I reject both Synthesis and Control as endings, they radically change the setting to where it's unrecognizable and I don't want that.

+1

[DGMockingJay]

DGMockingJay wrote...

adneate wrote...

Also just as a fan Synthesis changes literally everything about the setting we spent 5 years falling in love with, why in God's name would I want that unless I hated the setting? I don't want this to be Synth Effect I want it to be Mass Effect, the same old Mass Effect. That's the biggest overarching reason I reject both Synthesis and Control as endings, they radically change the setting to where it's unrecognizable and I don't want that.

Beautiful

I want the advocates of Synthesis to see this!!! :innocent:

[Ieldra]

adneate wrote...
Also just as a fan Synthesis changes literally everything about the setting we spent 5 years falling in love with, why in God's name would I want that unless I hated the setting? I don't want this to be Synth Effect I want it to be Mass Effect, the same old Mass Effect. That's the biggest overarching reason I reject both Synthesis and Control as endings, they radically change the setting to where it's unrecognizable and I don't want that.

Last I watched the epilogue, the species, locations and characters of the ME universe were still themselves. Granted, it's more difficult no to write stories in the setting, but that's not because the universe is not recognizeable, but because you need to take the effects of Synthesis into account. I have no problem imagining post-Synthesis civilization with all the locations and characters I like intact and create stories about them.

Read Siduri's Epilogues (now outdated after the EC but I believe they may have inspired it) if you don't believe me.

Edit:
Come to think of it, my very first Mass Effect fanfic from more than two years back was a post-Reapers scene featuring a mindlink like those I've envisioned Synthesis to make possible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[DamonD7]

Run! Run, you fool! Before it's too late! Ruuuun!

[Argable]

http://social.biowar...ndex/12938401/1

Just peruse that for a while OP.

TLDR version: Synthesis does nothing to stop conflict unless it completely rewrites the motivations, thoughts, and personalities of individuals. If it does so, it's tantamount to eugenics or multi-species genocide applied to every sentient species in the galaxy, without any acknowledgement of their wishes, so its been compared to rape as well.

I like adding this note:
We see synthesis applied to plants and non-sentient life as well. So is it considered conflict for a predator, lets say a varren, to still want to eat a prey animal, let's say a pyjak? If yes, then everything higher on the food chain than herbivores starves to death. If no, then why on earth would it do anything to stop any of the reasons humans conflict with each other?

[LTKerr]

Modifié par LTKerr, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:42 .

[TrollDemon]

I wouldn't mind Synthesis were it not for the fact that I'm rewriting all life in the Milky Way Galaxy

I'm also not letting the Reapers live. I'm not having my people sit and down and make awkward peace between Sentient Starships that killed trillions upon trillions of people every 50,000 years and that killed billions of people in my cycle.

But I respect your opinion. Though personally. if I was a random citizen at the time,  I think I would rather remain who I am than let someone impose their idea of ascension on me. It even sounds like Saren's and Harbinger's way of thinking when the Catalyst talked about Synthesis.

Modifié par TrollDemon, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:44 .

[Forbry]

DGMockingJay wrote...

DGMockingJay wrote...

adneate wrote...

Also just as a fan Synthesis changes literally everything about the setting we spent 5 years falling in love with, why in God's name would I want that unless I hated the setting? I don't want this to be Synth Effect I want it to be Mass Effect, the same old Mass Effect. That's the biggest overarching reason I reject both Synthesis and Control as endings, they radically change the setting to where it's unrecognizable and I don't want that.

Beautiful

I want the advocates of Synthesis to see this!!! :innocent:

Well, what can I say... I don't see or feel about it that way, so.....

[Argable]

Forbry wrote...

DGMockingJay wrote...

DGMockingJay wrote...

adneate wrote...

Also just as a fan Synthesis changes literally everything about the setting we spent 5 years falling in love with, why in God's name would I want that unless I hated the setting? I don't want this to be Synth Effect I want it to be Mass Effect, the same old Mass Effect. That's the biggest overarching reason I reject both Synthesis and Control as endings, they radically change the setting to where it's unrecognizable and I don't want that.

Beautiful

I want the advocates of Synthesis to see this!!! :innocent:

Well, what can I say... I don't see or feel about it that way, so.....

THANK YOU adneate! It might not be my biggest reason for choosing destroy, but it sure as hell factors in. Why on earth would I want to scrap the atmosphere and setting I loved for 2 and 9/10ths games for happy magic funtime!?

[Forbry]

@Argable, I meant that I do not see or feel about it the way DGMockingJay does I chose synthesis

[Kamfrenchie]

The problem wit these endings is that all of them are presented in a way too ideal kind of way.

In Deus ex, you know that destroying the net will cause a major worlwide economic crisis and bring back the nations as real sovereign entities.
Yo know that by joining th illuminaty you apprve of a conspiracy that made the whole mess possible in the first place, and i both case, miht hapen agan given time.

Whereas merging with helios only affect your chrater's mind and body, and you don't really know how it will rule the world. Besides, you accept that humans are too flawed, ambitious and egoistic to govern themselves efficiently.
And all 3 endings are left open



In ME3 all 3 choices are happy and presented as the right ones with rainbows and unicorns

Also, synthesis reminds me of the plan of the master in fallout 1
Any thoughts on this ?

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:58 .

[Forbry]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

The problem wit these endings is that all of them are presented in a way too ideal kind of way.

In Deus ex, you know that destroying the net will cause a major worlwide economic crisis and bring back the nations as real sovereign entities.
Yo know that by joining th illuminaty you apprve of a conspiracy that made the whole mess possible in the first place, and i both case, miht hapen agan given time.

Whereas merging with helios only affect your chrater's mind and body, and you don't really know how it will rule the world. Besides, you accept that humans are too flawed, ambitious and egoistic to govern themselves efficiently.
And all 3 endings are left open




Also, synthesis reminds me of the plan of the master in fallout 1
Any thoughts on this ?

In DE:HR, I had problems lying, shoving the blame on someone else, those choices were all a no-go for me.

[Ieldra]

Argable wrote...
http://social.biowar...ndex/12938401/1

Just peruse that for a while OP.

TLDR version: Synthesis does nothing to stop conflict unless it completely rewrites the motivations, thoughts, and personalities of individuals. If it does so, it's tantamount to eugenics or multi-species genocide applied to every sentient species in the galaxy, without any acknowledgement of their wishes, so its been compared to rape as well.

I like adding this note:
We see synthesis applied to plants and non-sentient life as well. So is it considered conflict for a predator, lets say a varren, to still want to eat a prey animal, let's say a pyjak? If yes, then everything higher on the food chain than herbivores starves to death. If no, then why on earth would it do anything to stop any of the reasons humans conflict with each other?

I suggest you read my Synthesis thread (link in my sig) to find out why Synthesis (a) is a solution to the problem, ( doesn't have any adverse effects on non-sentient life even though it does change it, © doesn't need to brainwash anyone. That's just some people's crazy theories who can't accept that Synthesis has a good outcome and would do everything to make it appear as bad as possible.

@kamfrenchie:
I don't see Synthesis as an utopia. Utopias are stagnant, and as by EDI the post-Synthesis civilization isn't that. There will, of course be conflicts, but I don't usually like to discuss them because the anti-Synthesis fanatics will inevitably blow those conflicts out of proportion to show how bad it all is. It is outright impossible to discuss a nuanced scenario here.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:03 .

[Krunjar]

Considering that the moral ambiguity of the endings produces this much disagreement and contention I can only call the EC a resounding success. And yes synthesis is my ending of choice.

Modifié par Krunjar, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:00 .

[shurryy]

Synthesis is basically the same ideology that Hitler followed... Congrats.

[Forbry]

shurryy wrote...

Synthesis is basically the same ideology that Hitler followed... Congrats.

Yeh, yeh... we are all little Hitlers in the making... If that is what you want to believe, go ahead!

[Xandurpein]

With the extended cut we can more or less rule out Synthesis turning everyone into husks. It's still open for your interpretation if EDI's words represent a from of Utopia or just a Lotus-eater nightmare.

Personally I can see the beauty of transhumanism, but I simply can't get past the ridiculous way it's implemented in the game, even with the Extended Cut; with green lazor space magic, circuit glowing plants (transvegetabilism?) and what not. If anything it belittles the transhumanism instead of glorifying it.

[Carlthestrange]

Sadly it looks like this thread is experiencing the same looping frequency of debate. Moralistic philosophy, downright hate posts (delightfully irrational) And even some random picspam.

A real shame.

[Krunjar]

shurryy wrote...

Synthesis is basically the same ideology that Hitler followed... Congrats.

By Godwin's law I declare this debate OVER!

Comparing things to ****'s/Hitler is an idiots way to try and win an argument. And everyone knows it Gz you just made a fool of yourself.

Modifié par Krunjar, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:17 .

[Argable]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Argable wrote...
http://social.biowar...ndex/12938401/1

Just peruse that for a while OP.

TLDR version: Synthesis does nothing to stop conflict unless it completely rewrites the motivations, thoughts, and personalities of individuals. If it does so, it's tantamount to eugenics or multi-species genocide applied to every sentient species in the galaxy, without any acknowledgement of their wishes, so its been compared to rape as well.

I like adding this note:
We see synthesis applied to plants and non-sentient life as well. So is it considered conflict for a predator, lets say a varren, to still want to eat a prey animal, let's say a pyjak? If yes, then everything higher on the food chain than herbivores starves to death. If no, then why on earth would it do anything to stop any of the reasons humans conflict with each other?

I suggest you read my Synthesis thread (link in my sig) to find out why Synthesis (a) is a solution to the problem, ( doesn't have any adverse effects on non-sentient life even though it does change it, © doesn't need to brainwash anyone. That's just some people's crazy theories who can't accept that Synthesis has a good outcome and would do everything to make it appear as bad as possible.

@kamfrenchie:
I don't see Synthesis as an utopia. Utopias are stagnant, and as by EDI the post-Synthesis civilization isn't that. There will, of course be conflicts, but I don't usually like to discuss them because the anti-Synthesis fanatics will inevitably blow those conflicts out of proportion to show how bad it all is. It is outright impossible to discuss a nuanced scenario here.

I'm afraid I don't see the issue synthesis is solving, because our only indication that there is an issue is from the starchild, who I consider unreliable. And considering that there's frankly no information from an official source on how synthesis works, I'm going to rely on human psychology as a basis for why people don't change their minds that suddenly. I'm one of those people who can't accept that synthesis is a good outcome. I think it is the worst possible outcome for the ME galaxy from both a literary an social standpoint. I just don't put that statement in my sig.

Is it possible that bioware could iron out all the ethical implications by showing how two rabidly opposing forces radically changed their minds about their opponents, or canonically explain how any of synthesis makes sense? Sure. But they haven't and I oppose that choice because of the awful quality of exposition as much as because I find that end repugnant.

[Xandurpein]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Sadly it looks like this thread is experiencing the same looping frequency of debate. Moralistic philosophy, downright hate posts (delightfully irrational) And even some random picspam.

A real shame.

Unless you prefer to have all debates about the relative merit of one choice over the other banned, I don't see how you could possibly debate this in a meaningful way except in terms of morality? That's not to say that I strongly dislike it when people are overly dismissive or rude to each other.