175 réponses à ce sujet

[jetfire118]

Sorry..Geth blame Mac

Destroy MASTER RACE!

[iamweaver]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Regardless of what Synthesis does or doesn't do. I do not believe it's right for a single individual to change the life of another without their consent. The Catalyst contradicts this whole idea by saying "it cannot be.. forced"..

Well gee, if Shepard isn't "forcing" it upon the galaxy, then I might have to recheck my definition of force.

All I'm saying, is there'd be a LOT of scarred people from this, and c'mon.. Letting the Reapers live?

If you pick Synthesis, you are a tool.

Perhaps because Shepherd is the first organic who has been able to unite the sentients of the galaxy into one cohesive force able to contest the will of the Reapers. Shepherd's decisions will be more-or-less accepted among all the sentients under you.  Perhaps in the past, attempts to perform piecemeal synthesis (without the power of the Crucible) wouldn't work because of the disunity.

My personal take on the decision process is that you were chosen to stop the reapers "by any means necessary". This means that you will, absolutely, be making decisions that might cause the death of any number of the sentients in the Galaxy, including civilians, non-combatants, etc. You won't gain the personal consent of those in whose names you are working. And every one of the decisions, including refuse, has you changing the lives of billions of sentient beings who haven't given you their personal consent to do anything.

As for choosing Synthesis, I reluctantly decided that the idea of eliminating the remains of quadrillions of sentients in the reapers was an even worse crime than modifying the DNA structures of the current cycle.  For me, Control was not even an option.  I firmly agreed with Shepherd's autodialogue with TIM when talking about "not being ready". And even had I as Shepherd known about refuse, I wouldn't have chosen it.  Shep's job was to stop the reapers by any means necessary, and all of the options left some or all of the sentients in the galaxy alive.  If it were a moral decision that only affectedShepherd or perhaps those on the Normandy, I could justify Shep getting up on a high moral horse and deciding that the choices were icky.  But it was Shepherd's job to make the hard choices.

[Wayning_Star]

iamweaver wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Regardless of what Synthesis does or doesn't do. I do not believe it's right for a single individual to change the life of another without their consent. The Catalyst contradicts this whole idea by saying "it cannot be.. forced"..

Well gee, if Shepard isn't "forcing" it upon the galaxy, then I might have to recheck my definition of force.

All I'm saying, is there'd be a LOT of scarred people from this, and c'mon.. Letting the Reapers live?

If you pick Synthesis, you are a tool.

Perhaps because Shepherd is the first organic who has been able to unite the sentients of the galaxy into one cohesive force able to contest the will of the Reapers. Shepherd's decisions will be more-or-less accepted among all the sentients under you.  Perhaps in the past, attempts to perform piecemeal synthesis (without the power of the Crucible) wouldn't work because of the disunity.

My personal take on the decision process is that you were chosen to stop the reapers "by any means necessary". This means that you will, absolutely, be making decisions that might cause the death of any number of the sentients in the Galaxy, including civilians, non-combatants, etc. You won't gain the personal consent of those in whose names you are working. And every one of the decisions, including refuse, has you changing the lives of billions of sentient beings who haven't given you their personal consent to do anything.

As for choosing Synthesis, I reluctantly decided that the idea of eliminating the remains of quadrillions of sentients in the reapers was an even worse crime than modifying the DNA structures of the current cycle.  For me, Control was not even an option.  I firmly agreed with Shepherd's autodialogue with TIM when talking about "not being ready". And even had I as Shepherd known about refuse, I wouldn't have chosen it.  Shep's job was to stop the reapers by any means necessary, and all of the options left some or all of the sentients in the galaxy alive.  If it were a moral decision that only affectedShepherd or perhaps those on the Normandy, I could justify Shep getting up on a high moral horse and deciding that the choices were icky.  But it was Shepherd's job to make the hard choices.

It really almost seems like users catalog 'the rights' thing, using it like a canon idea to undermine a user canon for the game. Arguing with them about end up with a diversion tactic of 'missing their point' or 'you're misguided etc' but the most famous strawman they use against synthesis in diversion by misapplying the actual game information and to over technifying the issues at hand, thus confusing the issue. I don't think it's always intentional though, it's outside of their ability to actually grasp abstract concepts. Too much too fast too late for no obvious reasoning endings. 

But to digress some, the game mechanics and the story line do have an emmence amount of 'head room', probably too much. Players cannot help but end up seeing ghost images of stuff not mentioned in the game, but only there from the confusion of actual facts in the game it's self. With unintuitive 'miricles',misaligned rationalization hitherto the antics of the catalyst to the unanswered questions of the end game, all reflect back on the game when players 'search' for answers that plain are not there. If this is intentional by the game devs/writers..their bad. imho If not, then the game was developed for specific players or under developed for general audiences and aching for user discomfort. Probably too late to patch it though. I'm even doubtful for any SP dlc's. Bioware will probably just want it all to go away. EA, for sure...

[alienatedflea]

Bill Casey wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

No, the indoctrination theory is far-fetched and not a reasonable explanation.

No, "The Decision chamber is real" is far fetched and unreasonable...
Nothing past that point resembles reality...

I didnt know Mass Effect was reality...
https://encrypted-tb...P43kBToz9MwHbMw

[Y3Y00]

Implants.

[Sir MOI]

elegolas1 wrote...

No one disputes that the eyes resemble TIM's or Saren's eyes right?

Why would Bioware do this, if not to suggest to the player that by picking control or synthesis is surcoming to Reaper influence?

Because we are using reaper technology. It doesn't mean that we are necessarly indoctrinated.

[DirtyPhoenix]

alienatedflea wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

No, the indoctrination theory is far-fetched and not a reasonable explanation.

No, "The Decision chamber is real" is far fetched and unreasonable...
Nothing past that point resembles reality...

I didnt know Mass Effect was reality...
https://encrypted-tb...P43kBToz9MwHbMw

LOL!

[th3warr1or]

RenegonSQ wrote...

IT is real

Right by god.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Sir MOI wrote...

elegolas1 wrote...

No one disputes that the eyes resemble TIM's or Saren's eyes right?

Why would Bioware do this, if not to suggest to the player that by picking control or synthesis is surcoming to Reaper influence?

Because we are using reaper technology. It doesn't mean that we are necessarly indoctrinated.

All this TIM-eyes-means-indoctrination hinges heavily on whether the endgame features indoctrination. I believe IT was once intended but later scrapped. The endings we got are the end. So for me they are just implants/lazy/rushed bioware/scrapped Indoc hints.

Modifié par pirate1802, 30 juillet 2012 - 01:10 .

[Jadebaby]

pirate1802 wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

elegolas1 wrote...

No one disputes that the eyes resemble TIM's or Saren's eyes right?

Why would Bioware do this, if not to suggest to the player that by picking control or synthesis is surcoming to Reaper influence?

Because we are using reaper technology. It doesn't mean that we are necessarly indoctrinated.

All this TIM-eyes-means-indoctrination hinges heavily on whether the endgame features indoctrination. I believe IT was once intended but later scrapped. The endings we got are the end. So for me they are just implants/lazy/rushed bioware/scrapped Indoc hints.

Synthesis still stinks..

[DirtyPhoenix]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

elegolas1 wrote...

No one disputes that the eyes resemble TIM's or Saren's eyes right?

Why would Bioware do this, if not to suggest to the player that by picking control or synthesis is surcoming to Reaper influence?

Because we are using reaper technology. It doesn't mean that we are necessarly indoctrinated.

All this TIM-eyes-means-indoctrination hinges heavily on whether the endgame features indoctrination. I believe IT was once intended but later scrapped. The endings we got are the end. So for me they are just implants/lazy/rushed bioware/scrapped Indoc hints.

Synthesis still stinks..

In your opinion. Like Refusal stinks for me.

Modifié par pirate1802, 30 juillet 2012 - 01:41 .

[DravenShep]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

For the last time, they are not Indoc eyes, they are synthetic eyes.

So yes it was just coincidence that TIM´s eyes - i mean - implants start glowing after the contact with Reaper tech..

Actually no, TIM had his eyes like that since ME2, and that before he implanted himself with Reaper tech.

Does any part of the Mass Effect games state what kind of cybernetics are implanted in Shepard? My guess is it was Reaper Tech and TIM's eyes looked like that after he touched the Reaper device, but doesn't mean he was Indoctrinated. TIM's will was also weak compared to Shep's, and only those with weak will are indoctrinated ala: TIM. Shep's will was just too strong for indoctrination to work.

[Applepie_Svk]

Actualy TIM eyes has changed after events on Shianxi ... Mass Effect Evolution comics ... so one way or another it has somtheting to do with Reapers - It´s either indoctrination or Reaper technology which cause also idnoctrination.

Saren eyes has changed after what he get implants from Sovereign...

[FTGShaun]

Eterna5 wrote...

Illusive man wasn't indoctrinated in Mass Effect 2, but he had the Glowy blue eyes.

Indoctrination is not something that just 'happens' - Indoctrination is a process, that can happen at different speeds (the slower the better to not frazzle the brain). TIM was under the influence of indoctrination before Mass Effect 2 even started.

[Oransel]

Synthesis = Project Overlord. Nice job, players.

[memorysquid]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Regardless of what Synthesis does or doesn't do. I do not believe it's right for a single individual to change the life of another without their consent. The Catalyst contradicts this whole idea by saying "it cannot be.. forced"..

Well gee, if Shepard isn't "forcing" it upon the galaxy, then I might have to recheck my definition of force.

All I'm saying, is there'd be a LOT of scarred people from this, and c'mon.. Letting the Reapers live?

If you pick Synthesis, you are a tool.

Then you must have hated when Shepard nuked 300k+ Batarians in Arrival, right?  Or every other decision he made throughout the game that had galaxy spanning implications and with which he had no further input from anyone and didn't care if he did or didn't?  [Like when he outright tells Hackett it's too late for anyone to change what he did with the Genophage, so it doesn't matter?]

Practically, you change the lives of others without consent CONTINUALLY, both in this game and even in reality.  This whole issue is laughable nonsense.  Just admit it, you just wanted to nuke the Reapers as an act of vengeance and since you didn't get to BSN gets to enjoy this giant load of petulant, sour grapes horse ****.

If you pick Destroy you prefer mass murder and if you pick Control you are a tyrant loving, statist thug.  Being a tool isn't so bad then.

[Krunjar]

I hear your semi literate diatribe about the apparent horrors of synthesis and choose not to give a damn. Next topic please.

[Jadebaby]

memorysquid wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Regardless of what Synthesis does or doesn't do. I do not believe it's right for a single individual to change the life of another without their consent. The Catalyst contradicts this whole idea by saying "it cannot be.. forced"..

Well gee, if Shepard isn't "forcing" it upon the galaxy, then I might have to recheck my definition of force.

All I'm saying, is there'd be a LOT of scarred people from this, and c'mon.. Letting the Reapers live?

If you pick Synthesis, you are a tool.

Then you must have hated when Shepard nuked 300k+ Batarians in Arrival, right?  Or every other decision he made throughout the game that had galaxy spanning implications and with which he had no further input from anyone and didn't care if he did or didn't?  [Like when he outright tells Hackett it's too late for anyone to change what he did with the Genophage, so it doesn't matter?]

Practically, you change the lives of others without consent CONTINUALLY, both in this game and even in reality.  This whole issue is laughable nonsense.  Just admit it, you just wanted to nuke the Reapers as an act of vengeance and since you didn't get to BSN gets to enjoy this giant load of petulant, sour grapes horse ****.

If you pick Destroy you prefer mass murder and if you pick Control you are a tyrant loving, statist thug.  Being a tool isn't so bad then.

No, you aren't just a tool for what it does, you are a tool because you're accepting to change the fate of the entire galaxy forever, because something told you to in the final minutes. The only choice with any foreshadowing at all is Destroy, control to a lesser extent with TIM but he never made that leap until the final game and we were taught through Shepard's dialogue that control=bad and some little handwave comment like "he couldn't control us because we already controlled him" doesn't persuade me in the slightest. But even in destroy you are still a monster because you're commiting genocide. I've never tried to paint a perfect ending, just illustrate that some carry more consequences than others.

[Jadebaby]

Krunjar wrote...

I hear your semi literate diatribe about the apparent horrors of synthesis and choose not to give a damn. Next topic please.

Really aren't a lot of Outkast fans on these forums....

Maybe BioWare got rid of them when they screwed over Jacob and Thane.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Krunjar wrote...

I hear your semi literate diatribe about the apparent horrors of synthesis and choose not to give a damn. Next topic please.

This. :happy:

[Apple Lantern]

Does this prove IT?

Probably not, but whatever. It doesn't help that we don't see Shepard's eyes at the end of destroy either.

Did anyone ever think it was because he made a choice that was the same as one of the two biggest indoctrinated fellows in the series, so the writers decided to do that eye thing to show it?

[Mr.House]

There was going to be something like indoctrination, but not as big as IT makes it., It simply had to do with Anderson and Shepard pulling their guns on eachother and both try to break their hold before Reaper TIM shows up and talks to them via Harbinger(Harbinger has taken control of TIM)

It was in the first leak that has a bunch of stuff that was cut.

Modifié par Mr.House, 01 août 2012 - 04:12 .

[Wayning_Star]

it could be the color of the eyes change during indoctrination, but isn't indoctrination induced with sonics and subliminal messages that taylor the mind to agree with voices that are part of the sonics. It wears a persons nervous system down to where they give up the majority of their will through suggestion?

How would that physically change the retina? I'd say to make that change you have to have direct control from implants of the proper kind,it would seem, even some sort of nanites or orther invasive form of control to do that.

edit: As for the eyes of shepard during the catalyst conversation, I'd say that was part of the communication of organic to synthetic. It's probably, in my view, that shepard was changed when he entered the beam(if he entered the beam, I suspect he never left the ground,his concience was all that was permitted up there as the form of communication between him and the catalyst, thats why we see the body at some point. but is headcanon and while in the close proximity of the higly energetic catalyst program, merely reflected the image.(even more headcanon)

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 01 août 2012 - 04:39 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

Applepie_Svk wrote...



Actualy TIM eyes has changed after events on Shianxi ... Mass Effect Evolution comics ... so one way or another it has somtheting to do with Reapers - It´s either indoctrination or Reaper technology which cause also idnoctrination.

Saren eyes has changed after what he get implants from Sovereign...

Ugh...

And what about Matriarch Benezia? Shiala? Amanda Kenson?

[memorysquid]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Regardless of what Synthesis does or doesn't do. I do not believe it's right for a single individual to change the life of another without their consent. The Catalyst contradicts this whole idea by saying "it cannot be.. forced"..

Well gee, if Shepard isn't "forcing" it upon the galaxy, then I might have to recheck my definition of force.

All I'm saying, is there'd be a LOT of scarred people from this, and c'mon.. Letting the Reapers live?

If you pick Synthesis, you are a tool.

Then you must have hated when Shepard nuked 300k+ Batarians in Arrival, right?  Or every other decision he made throughout the game that had galaxy spanning implications and with which he had no further input from anyone and didn't care if he did or didn't?  [Like when he outright tells Hackett it's too late for anyone to change what he did with the Genophage, so it doesn't matter?]

Practically, you change the lives of others without consent CONTINUALLY, both in this game and even in reality.  This whole issue is laughable nonsense.  Just admit it, you just wanted to nuke the Reapers as an act of vengeance and since you didn't get to BSN gets to enjoy this giant load of petulant, sour grapes horse ****.

If you pick Destroy you prefer mass murder and if you pick Control you are a tyrant loving, statist thug.  Being a tool isn't so bad then.

No, you aren't just a tool for what it does, you are a tool because you're accepting to change the fate of the entire galaxy forever, because something told you to in the final minutes. The only choice with any foreshadowing at all is Destroy, control to a lesser extent with TIM but he never made that leap until the final game and we were taught through Shepard's dialogue that control=bad and some little handwave comment like "he couldn't control us because we already controlled him" doesn't persuade me in the slightest. But even in destroy you are still a monster because you're commiting genocide. I've never tried to paint a perfect ending, just illustrate that some carry more consequences than others.

I don't get it.  Do you generally stick to choices in life that have foreshadowing?  You go into the whole Crucible thing without even a clue of what it does.  How many times throughout the game does someone say "..but we still don't know what it does?"  is it truly a surprise that it has unexpected functions?