314 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

D24O wrote...

And so another thread becomes a debate about Synthesis. Such is life on the BSN.

Better to talk about the game than about how awful the people who picked destroy are.

This. Picking destroy says nothing about us. But this thread says quite a bit about the OP. Namely that he thinks he's better than us because of a choice he made in a video game and is prepared to make completely unjustified generalizations about the fanbase from up on his moral high horse.

HOW DARE YOU TRY TO BRING LOGIC INTO THIS THREAD:devil:

[Eterna]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Except it's not ridiculous because the ending is your own interpretation, it relys on your own headcannon. Every ending does. You can say it's ridiculous all you want, you're still not right.

No I don't think the Geth and EDI knew you would arm a weapon that kills them all especially when you have other options that leave them unharmed. Because you know, the Geth were so willing to be shut down by the Quarians for the greater good right? but whatever makes you sleep at night.

There are far worse outcomes than death. Like synthesis and control, for example. I repeat: everyone was ready to die that day. Everyone. And how was getting shut down by the Quarians for the greater good, exactly?

Those other options don't leave you unharmed. But you're free to think what you wish.

 Everything you just said is your own interpretation and is therefore not right or wrong. I used the Geth being shut down by the Quarians as a clear indication they would much rather live then be betrayed an killed by their creators. 

Ok. I don't really feel like discussing headcanon. Let's stop when we still can, ok?

The Geth not wanting to die isn't headcannon.

Modifié par Eterna5, 12 août 2012 - 06:37 .

[essarr71]

Eterna5 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

The problem with the other ending options is that they essentially require you to embrace the unrepentant perpetrators of a genocide that makes the holocaust look like child's play.

Synthesis does not kill diversity.

Then it solves nothing. 

[chuckles471]

Jonata wrote...

The BSN is not a good place to start interesting topics, these days. If you start something nice, funny or even deep, but somewhere in your post the Geth, EDI or the Reapers are mentioned, chances are that 80% of the comments you'll get will be from angry players who chose Destroy and want everyone to know that in their playthough EDI died an horrible and painful death.

Now, what does that say about gamers as a whole? My answer to this question is simple: nothing that we didnt' already know. Gamers have a straight-forward mind, are often incline to violence, and take everything at face value. Oh, sure, they'll love the s*** out of a man in a red coat behaving like a 13 years old while fighting Space Demons, but please don't try to send them a message that isn't "kill the evil basterds".

Gamers knows only one thing: hate. To make a succesful game you just have to give them someone to hate and someone they can relate with, i.e. someone who's the best dude in the Universe because that's how they want to feel when they play a videogame.

I used to love videogames, and I really think that in their own way, games like Mass Effect 3, Heavy Rain and even Skyrim (from a gameplay perspective) are trying to elevate their genre. But guess what? Gamers are not ready. They don't want to understand the psychological deep of a character, they' don't want to question themselves about morality or what does it takes to be alive. They want to f*** bad people up because that's justified violence, glorified hate.

Gamers never creates. They Destroy.

Yuk, in a non hateful way because I wouldn't want to upset you further.

No, some "gamers" (grouping people who are all mostly different, yuk again) want to be entertained by something that they buy to entertain them.  If that is a action game with heavy violence so be it, they are buying it and who are we to judge. Just like the millions who play a Mario game,  I don't think he is the image of best dude in the universe and many don't play it for hate of Bowser.

Also you used examples of games that sold relatively well and were mostly well recieved so gamers are "ready".  To make a point, heavy rain(I like the game, a good whodunit) cannot be one of your arty games because... 1. David Cage is bat**** nuts see indigo prophecy which he toned down and made a better game. 2. the only main character whose actor isn't the voice, is Madison and the reason... she has a amazing body when naked.

[D24O]

Technically no ending will permanently solve the Catalyst's problem.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Eterna5 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Except it's not ridiculous because the ending is your own interpretation, it relys on your own headcannon. Every ending does. You can say it's ridiculous all you want, you're still not right.

No I don't think the Geth and EDI knew you would arm a weapon that kills them all especially when you have other options that leave them unharmed. Because you know, the Geth were so willing to be shut down by the Quarians for the greater good right? but whatever makes you sleep at night.

There are far worse outcomes than death. Like synthesis and control, for example. I repeat: everyone was ready to die that day. Everyone. And how was getting shut down by the Quarians for the greater good, exactly?

Those other options don't leave you unharmed. But you're free to think what you wish.

 Everything you just said is your own interpretation and is therefore not right or wrong. I used the Geth being shut down by the Quarians as a clear indication they would much rather live then be betrayed an killed by their creators. 

Ok. I don't really feel like discussing headcanon. Let's stop when we still can, ok?

The Geth not wanting to die isn't headcannon.

Ok. I really don't see the point in discussing this further. Think what you wish.

[ghost9191]

Eterna5 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

The problem with the other ending options is that they essentially require you to embrace the unrepentant perpetrators of a genocide that makes the holocaust look like child's play.

Synthesis does not kill diversity.

doesn't it?  doesn't it?

it says that synthetics and organics cannot coexist without all becoming part synthetic and organic. it might not destroy diversity but it sh*ts on the idea of ppl coming together despite their differences, including synthetics

[Eterna]

essarr71 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

The problem with the other ending options is that they essentially require you to embrace the unrepentant perpetrators of a genocide that makes the holocaust look like child's play.

Synthesis does not kill diversity.

Then it solves nothing. 

It brings and end to the Synthetic and Organic conflict and uplifts all organic life.

[ghost9191]

Eterna5 wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

The problem with the other ending options is that they essentially require you to embrace the unrepentant perpetrators of a genocide that makes the holocaust look like child's play.

Synthesis does not kill diversity.

Then it solves nothing. 

It brings and end to the Synthetic and Organic conflict and uplifts all organic life.

what conflict.? the only conflicts were caused by the reapers. Or just between geth and quarians. guess what there are organics fighting organics, hell geth fighting geth. there is more conflict then just synthetic vs organic

i mean great yeah it ends the whole organic and synthetic conflict because there are no longer organics or synthetics , jsut some organic/synthetic hybrid that was created by some bath*t insane being that believed s/he had the right to choose that choice which made no sense

in short whatever your choice is just don't force it on others

[ghost9191]

Filament wrote...

People have a different opinion than me, they must not think as much as I do.

or they think more. think about it

[Bill Casey]

Jonata wrote...

The BSN is not a good place to start interesting topics, these days. If you start something nice, funny or even deep, but somewhere in your post the Geth, EDI or the Reapers are mentioned, chances are that 80% of the comments you'll get will be from angry players who chose Destroy and want everyone to know that in their playthough EDI died an horrible and painful death.

Now, what does that say about gamers as a whole? My answer to this question is simple: nothing that we didnt' already know. Gamers have a straight-forward mind, are often incline to violence, and take everything at face value. Oh, sure, they'll love the s*** out of a man in a red coat behaving like a 13 years old while fighting Space Demons, but please don't try to send them a message that isn't "kill the evil basterds".

Gamers knows only one thing: hate. To make a succesful game you just have to give them someone to hate and someone they can relate with, i.e. someone who's the best dude in the Universe because that's how they want to feel when they play a videogame.

I used to love videogames, and I really think that in their own way, games like Mass Effect 3, Heavy Rain and even Skyrim (from a gameplay perspective) are trying to elevate their genre. But guess what? Gamers are not ready. They don't want to understand the psychological deep of a character, they' don't want to question themselves about morality or what does it takes to be alive. They want to f*** bad people up because that's justified violence, glorified hate.

Gamers never creates. They Destroy.

You picked Synthesis...
You raped and killed everyone and made a utopian puppet show with their corpses...
You don't have a high horse to stand on...

You're the lowest of the low...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 août 2012 - 06:52 .

[essarr71]

Eterna5 wrote...

It brings and end to the Synthetic and Organic conflict and uplifts all organic life.

If it doesn't create a unified point of view, it changes nothing to avoid conflict.  Just because there are no longer "synthetics" and "organics", it doesn't mean one race won't eventually kill everyone else.  For it to establish any sort of permanent peace, all races must adhere to the same adjenda for eternity (ie: brainwashing).  Combine that with a sudden and unrequest physical change and you've essentially destroyed all life in the galaxy, replacing it with a facade.  A new organism in the shape of old forms.

Destroy might not solve everyones issues with each other, but the status quo is maintained, for better or worse.  But at least it's honest.

[AlanC9]

ohupthis wrote...

This is obviously not the proper arena for a philosophical debate, but I'll try to enlighten thee.

I thought any place would be good for a philosphical debate.

Blue: Utterly ridiculous to think, We can control machines by means of one persons 'input'.

Wait... I thought we were doing philosophy here.

Green: Egregious beyond belief, to take every living being, plant, or animal and rewrite their fundamental structure, at the molecular level, is not only impossible, but down right inane/idiotic.
It's a good thing Shepard dies during that transformation, because I'd sure as hell find that idiot, and execute him/her myself!!!

This is confused. Shepard's an idiot for succeeding at doing something impossible?

That only leaves Red: the obvious choice, because machines can be broken, and subsequently rebuilt. Oh OP, EDI does not 'die' in some horrific fashion, 'it' only loses power to the circuitry controlling bodily movements, nothing more. Seeing as how EDI, is part of the Normandy, wouldn't that mean 'It' has a 50/50 chance of rebooting?
The Normandy lifted off the planet, so where's the proof EDI isn't functional?
Yeah Yeah, Startwit said so, whatever.

You know this is weapons-grade headcanon, right? Also, the rebooted being won't be EDI. Scrub the blue box and you'll get a new similar being. Bio went out of their way to make AIs permanently killable in their universe. Bio hates resurrection, and always has.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 août 2012 - 06:58 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

This post was hilarious, I almost fell off my chair.

OP, you're about as full of wind as a horse with cholera.

[Hydralysk]

Eterna5 wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

The problem with the other ending options is that they essentially require you to embrace the unrepentant perpetrators of a genocide that makes the holocaust look like child's play.

Synthesis does not kill diversity.

Then it solves nothing. 

It brings and end to the Synthetic and Organic conflict and uplifts all organic life.

Oh right like when aggressive synthetics attacked us in ME1 under...the orders of a Reaper....hrmmmm. 

Oh wait! The Zha'til turned on their creators and killed them.....after the Reapers indoctrinated them into doing it......

Face it, the only evidence we have of unreasonable aggressive synthetic races are examples which can be traced directly back to Reaper interference. The same Reapers who say they are trying to stop synthetics from killing organics. The only argument the Starbrat is able to make to justify that an inherent conflict between synthetic and organic life exists at all is "We're old, we know what we're doing, trust us".

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

Jonata wrote...

The BSN is not a good place to start interesting topics, these days. If you start something nice, funny or even deep, but somewhere in your post the Geth, EDI or the Reapers are mentioned, chances are that 80% of the comments you'll get will be from angry players who chose Destroy and want everyone to know that in their playthough EDI died an horrible and painful death.

Now, what does that say about gamers as a whole? My answer to this question is simple: nothing that we didnt' already know. Gamers have a straight-forward mind, are often incline to violence, and take everything at face value. Oh, sure, they'll love the s*** out of a man in a red coat behaving like a 13 years old while fighting Space Demons, but please don't try to send them a message that isn't "kill the evil basterds".

Gamers knows only one thing: hate. To make a succesful game you just have to give them someone to hate and someone they can relate with, i.e. someone who's the best dude in the Universe because that's how they want to feel when they play a videogame.

I used to love videogames, and I really think that in their own way, games like Mass Effect 3, Heavy Rain and even Skyrim (from a gameplay perspective) are trying to elevate their genre. But guess what? Gamers are not ready. They don't want to understand the psychological deep of a character, they' don't want to question themselves about morality or what does it takes to be alive. They want to f*** bad people up because that's justified violence, glorified hate.

Gamers never creates. They Destroy.

You picked Synthesis...
You raped and killed everyone and made a utopian puppet show with their corpses...
You don't have a high horse to stand on...

You're the lowest of the low...

So, Jonata... this is pretty much the sort of response you expected, right?

[Legendary Chop Chop]

Both Synthesis and Destroy make very good sense to do.

Synthesis shows that nobody really changes even after the merge, and if you ask me, the weird green glow isn't necessarily supposed to be visible to those within the canon and is more for the player to see, which makes the emotional impact of it a lot less worth arguing about. Life prospers and "transcends morality", which is a good thing for everyone.

Destroy is the theme of the entire series, in that each game you're told to "destroy the Reapers at any cost" and based on what they did to the galaxy, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Destroy the bastard that destroyed you. Some things blow up, but "they can be repaired".

All of this debate and discussion make me pretty proud of the ending post-EC.

Modifié par Legendary Chop Chop, 12 août 2012 - 07:01 .

[Jassu1979]

Eterna5 wrote...
Synthesis does not kill diversity.

How does that relate to my post? Does Synthesis unmake the countless lives the Reapers have already taken? Does it change the fact that the Reapers would be more than willing to carry on with their harvest if Shepard refused their offer?

What synthesis does or does not do is irrelevant in this context. The only thing that matters here is that it does not even remotely penalize the Reapers for their unspeakable crimes.
(And no, they are not mindless automatons or a non-sentient force like fire: if anything, their consciousness is superior to ours, and they are perfectly capable of choice. They just chooce to follow their insane "solution".)

[Bill Casey]

New EDI says they can "eliminate" overpopulation...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 août 2012 - 07:10 .

[frostajulie]

Hey OP your hate speech is showing

So **** off

[Jassu1979]

Basically, synthesis is the equivalent of ending WW2 by leaving the entire Third Reich administration untouched, allowing death squads to go free; letting the authors of the "final solution" carry on as allies; and ultimately agreeing with their line of reasoning (even if you do not agree with their methods).

It's beyond distasteful to follow this line of thought, but it's virtually unavoidable, given that the Bioware writers describe how the Reapers erect death camps on Earth and play cruel games with the prisoners by encouraging the inmates to turn on each other in return for a chance to live a little longer.

There is NO way to turn them into allies in the last scene, none whatsoever.

Modifié par Jassu1979, 12 août 2012 - 07:15 .