6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Part of ME theme is about advancement from day one. It's not something that popped out in the last second.

Go ahead, name such an instance. (Hint: It doesn't exist.)

There's nothing wrong with the idea, but it was never an Mass Effect theme. Artificial intelligence being "alive" was, but not advancement.

Because it's been very clear from other threads you lack an understanding of what you're talking about, this may help.

Ok...

Shepard:What does it matter how we get a peice of technology?

Legion:Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting anothers path blinds you to alternatives.
That one is from ME2.

That was the question synthesis brings up.

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 septembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ok...

Shepard:What does it matter how we get a peice of technology?

Legion:Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting anothers path blinds you to alternatives.
That one is from ME2.

That was the question synthesis brings up.

Yeah, you know I guess you think people have never played the game before or something. 

The fact is ME2 and Legion's story explains why you don't want synthesis.  That and it's about not wanting control.  It's totally anti-anything shown in the ending.

Synthesis in the end does to synthetics exactly what Legion and the true geth did not want, so sure yay choose that.  Mordin talks about what attempts at synthesis have done to the collectors, but the story of the collectors and of TIM is all about the refutation of control as well as synthesis.

TIM wants Shepard to be Shepard and not some controlled or cloned pseudo Shepard.  ME2 is about autonomy, diversity, redemption, and evolving.  It's about learning and finding a better way and not about doing something under some past that controls you or under some external force that controls you.

The whole darn thing is just smashed ot bits by the ending and ME2 as well as ME1 and parts of ME3 are just totally ignored. 

It isn't about the tech at all.  It's about the people.  It's even about tech that wants to have the freedom that people have-tech that doesn't want to be just tech. 

ME3 turns it into succumbing to tech or having to smash it completely, rather than letting tech as synthetic life be what it wants to be, or letting other tech be what you want it to be, there to help you, not take you completely over.

[3DandBeyond]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And a part of ME from day one is interspecies romance. Might as well have that as the big finale.

Sounds good to me LIs fight to save the galaxy. 

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ok...

Shepard:What does it matter how we get a peice of technology?

Legion:Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting anothers path blinds you to alternatives.
That one is from ME2.

That was the question synthesis brings up.

Yeah, you know I guess you think people have never played the game before or something. 

The fact is ME2 and Legion's story explains why you don't want synthesis.  That and it's about not wanting control.  It's totally anti-anything shown in the ending.

Synthesis in the end does to synthetics exactly what Legion and the true geth did not want, so sure yay choose that.  Mordin talks about what attempts at synthesis have done to the collectors, but the story of the collectors and of TIM is all about the refutation of control as well as synthesis.

TIM wants Shepard to be Shepard and not some controlled or cloned pseudo Shepard.  ME2 is about autonomy, diversity, redemption, and evolving.  It's about learning and finding a better way and not about doing something under some past that controls you or under some external force that controls you.

The whole darn thing is just smashed ot bits by the ending and ME2 as well as ME1 and parts of ME3 are just totally ignored. 

It isn't about the tech at all.  It's about the people.  It's even about tech that wants to have the freedom that people have-tech that doesn't want to be just tech. 

ME3 turns it into succumbing to tech or having to smash it completely, rather than letting tech as synthetic life be what it wants to be, or letting other tech be what you want it to be, there to help you, not take you completely over.

Who ever said I'm pro synthesis. I'm just say the quetion of advancement it brings up is not something that comes out of the blue. The quetion of the morality of advancement has always been a part of ME and not only in a negative way. The only time anything is shown to be negative when it's shown to it's extremes.

My point is the ME leasves it to the player to choose if it's moraly right or wrong to pick synthesis. I'm not say you wrong for not liking. I'm saying you wrong to think it goes ageints the theme's of ME and the it inheritly wrong and shouldbeviewed as such by all. It ok for you to see it as a bad choice.

Advancement is an issues and theme of ME as well as issuea of Control, organic/synthetic relations and conflict, and what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force.

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 septembre 2012 - 08:13 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ok...

Shepard:What does it matter how we get a peice of technology?

Legion:Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting anothers path blinds you to alternatives.
That one is from ME2.

That was the question synthesis brings up.

Yeah, you know I guess you think people have never played the game before or something. 

The fact is ME2 and Legion's story explains why you don't want synthesis.  That and it's about not wanting control.  It's totally anti-anything shown in the ending.

Synthesis in the end does to synthetics exactly what Legion and the true geth did not want, so sure yay choose that.  Mordin talks about what attempts at synthesis have done to the collectors, but the story of the collectors and of TIM is all about the refutation of control as well as synthesis.

TIM wants Shepard to be Shepard and not some controlled or cloned pseudo Shepard.  ME2 is about autonomy, diversity, redemption, and evolving.  It's about learning and finding a better way and not about doing something under some past that controls you or under some external force that controls you.

The whole darn thing is just smashed ot bits by the ending and ME2 as well as ME1 and parts of ME3 are just totally ignored. 

It isn't about the tech at all.  It's about the people.  It's even about tech that wants to have the freedom that people have-tech that doesn't want to be just tech. 

ME3 turns it into succumbing to tech or having to smash it completely, rather than letting tech as synthetic life be what it wants to be, or letting other tech be what you want it to be, there to help you, not take you completely over.

Who ever said I'm pro synthesis. I'm just say the quetion of advancement it brings up is not something that comes out of the blue. The quetion of the morality of advancement has always been a part of ME and not only in a negative way. The only time anything is shown to be negative when it's shown to it's extremes.

My point is the ME leasves it to the player to choose if it's moraly right or wrong to pick synthesis. I'm not say you wrong for not liking. I'm saying you wrong to think it goes ageints the theme's of ME and the it inheritly wrong and shouldbeviewed as such by all. It ok for you to see it as a bad choice.

Advancement is an issues and theme of ME as well as issuea of Control, organic/synthetic relations and conflict, and what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force.

Who ever said I said you were pro-synthesis?  I didn't say you were. I said you could choose it if you think it makes sense to do to all synthetics something that invalidates Legion's loyalty mission in ME2.  That doesn't mean I think you like it. 

No, I'm not wrong that it goes against the theme because it is counter to everything that was part of the main theme.  In choosing it you invalidate the main themes. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 septembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ok...

Shepard:What does it matter how we get a peice of technology?

Legion:Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting anothers path blinds you to alternatives.
That one is from ME2.

That was the question synthesis brings up.

Yeah, you know I guess you think people have never played the game before or something. 

The fact is ME2 and Legion's story explains why you don't want synthesis.  That and it's about not wanting control.  It's totally anti-anything shown in the ending.

Synthesis in the end does to synthetics exactly what Legion and the true geth did not want, so sure yay choose that.  Mordin talks about what attempts at synthesis have done to the collectors, but the story of the collectors and of TIM is all about the refutation of control as well as synthesis.

TIM wants Shepard to be Shepard and not some controlled or cloned pseudo Shepard.  ME2 is about autonomy, diversity, redemption, and evolving.  It's about learning and finding a better way and not about doing something under some past that controls you or under some external force that controls you.

The whole darn thing is just smashed ot bits by the ending and ME2 as well as ME1 and parts of ME3 are just totally ignored. 

It isn't about the tech at all.  It's about the people.  It's even about tech that wants to have the freedom that people have-tech that doesn't want to be just tech. 

ME3 turns it into succumbing to tech or having to smash it completely, rather than letting tech as synthetic life be what it wants to be, or letting other tech be what you want it to be, there to help you, not take you completely over.

Who ever said I'm pro synthesis. I'm just say the quetion of advancement it brings up is not something that comes out of the blue. The quetion of the morality of advancement has always been a part of ME and not only in a negative way. The only time anything is shown to be negative when it's shown to it's extremes.

My point is the ME leasves it to the player to choose if it's moraly right or wrong to pick synthesis. I'm not say you wrong for not liking. I'm saying you wrong to think it goes ageints the theme's of ME and the it inheritly wrong and shouldbeviewed as such by all. It ok for you to see it as a bad choice.

Advancement is an issues and theme of ME as well as issuea of Control, organic/synthetic relations and conflict, and what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force.

Who ever said I said you were pro-synthesis?  I didn't say you were. I said you could choose it if you think it makes sense to do to all synthetics something that invalidates Legion's loyalty mission in ME2.  That doesn't mean I think you like it. 

No, I'm not wrong that it goes against the theme because it is counter to everything that was part of the main theme.  In choosing it you invalidate the main themes. 

You not getting the fact that the statement from Legion in ME2 is one of a patient immortal synthetic. Based on that view it's understandable he has a point of view looking for different paths toward advancement is acceptible.
He is an immortal machine.
His choice in ME3 does not counter that because it was made out of need. He choose to take the reaper tech and use it on his own terms because his races servival depended on it. He began to think more like an organic.

In ME3 we also did the same thing to fight ageints the reapers and take them down. We used the reaper tech ageinst them. Which is a pro to the issue of advancement.

Synthesis does not go ageint the themes of ME being that the theme of it are the moralities of Advancement, the issu ea of Control, organic/synthetic relations and conflict, and what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force. 

Nothing in the ending counters that.

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 septembre 2012 - 08:38 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

You not getting the fact that the statement from Legion in ME2 is one of a patient immortal synthetic. Based on that view it's understandable he has a point of view looking for different paths toward advancement is acceptible.
He is an immortal machine.
His choice in ME3 does not counter that because it was made out of need. He choose to take the reaper tech and use it on his own terms because his races servival depended on it. He began to think more like an organic.

In ME3 we also did the same thing to fight ageints the reapers and take them down. We used the reaper tech ageinst them. Which is a pro to the issue of advancement.

Synthesis does not go ageint the themes of ME being that the theme of it are the moralities of Advancement, the issu ea of Control, organic/synthetic relations and conflict, and what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force. 

Nothing in the ending counters that.

No, you aren't getting the fact that in ME2 Legion's statements are specifically about he and the true geth not wanting to be given advancement, but to earn it or determine what they want for themselves.  They didn't want the reapers giving it to them, they wanted to choose what advancment they wanted for themselves.

I am talking about the endings and yes choosing synthesis at the end goes completely against what Legion and the true geth wanted in ME2 and 3.  They wanted autonomy and self-determination and to advance through the ways they saw fit and not what someone else decided for them.  Honestly, quit this arguing.  It makes no sense.  People don't want crap forced on them-synthesis is done to people without asking their consent.  It's done to synthetics too, which means the geth and after Legion gave up his life so the geth could determine their own future.  If Shepard picks synthesis it's Shepard forcing something internally upon everyone. 

The advancement talked about is un-earned and is exactly the mistake the galaxy has been repeatedly making.

[Lunch Box1912]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You not getting the fact that the statement from Legion in ME2 is one of a patient immortal synthetic. Based on that view it's understandable he has a point of view looking for different paths toward advancement is acceptible.
He is an immortal machine.
His choice in ME3 does not counter that because it was made out of need. He choose to take the reaper tech and use it on his own terms because his races servival depended on it. He began to think more like an organic.

In ME3 we also did the same thing to fight ageints the reapers and take them down. We used the reaper tech ageinst them. Which is a pro to the issue of advancement.

Synthesis does not go ageint the themes of ME being that the theme of it are the moralities of Advancement, the issu ea of Control, organic/synthetic relations and conflict, and what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force. 

Nothing in the ending counters that.

No, you aren't getting the fact that in ME2 Legion's statements are specifically about he and the true geth not wanting to be given advancement, but to earn it or determine what they want for themselves.  They didn't want the reapers giving it to them, they wanted to choose what advancment they wanted for themselves.

I am talking about the endings and yes choosing synthesis at the end goes completely against what Legion and the true geth wanted in ME2 and 3.  They wanted autonomy and self-determination and to advance through the ways they saw fit and not what someone else decided for them.  Honestly, quit this arguing.  It makes no sense.  People don't want crap forced on them-synthesis is done to people without asking their consent.  It's done to synthetics too, which means the geth and after Legion gave up his life so the geth could determine their own future.  If Shepard picks synthesis it's Shepard forcing something internally upon everyone. 

The advancement talked about is un-earned and is exactly the mistake the galaxy has been repeatedly making.

Starchild even says they have tried it before and failed.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You not getting the fact that the statement from Legion in ME2 is one of a patient immortal synthetic. Based on that view it's understandable he has a point of view looking for different paths toward advancement is acceptible.
He is an immortal machine.
His choice in ME3 does not counter that because it was made out of need. He choose to take the reaper tech and use it on his own terms because his races servival depended on it. He began to think more like an organic.

In ME3 we also did the same thing to fight ageints the reapers and take them down. We used the reaper tech ageinst them. Which is a pro to the issue of advancement.

Synthesis does not go ageint the themes of ME being that the theme of it are the moralities of Advancement, the issu ea of Control, organic/synthetic relations and conflict, and what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force. 

Nothing in the ending counters that.

No, you aren't getting the fact that in ME2 Legion's statements are specifically about he and the true geth not wanting to be given advancement, but to earn it or determine what they want for themselves.  They didn't want the reapers giving it to them, they wanted to choose what advancment they wanted for themselves.

I am talking about the endings and yes choosing synthesis at the end goes completely against what Legion and the true geth wanted in ME2 and 3.  They wanted autonomy and self-determination and to advance through the ways they saw fit and not what someone else decided for them.  Honestly, quit this arguing.  It makes no sense.  People don't want crap forced on them-synthesis is done to people without asking their consent.  It's done to synthetics too, which means the geth and after Legion gave up his life so the geth could determine their own future.  If Shepard picks synthesis it's Shepard forcing something internally upon everyone. 

The advancement talked about is un-earned and is exactly the mistake the galaxy has been repeatedly making.

"No, you aren't getting the fact that in ME2 Legion's statements are specifically about he and the true geth not wanting to be given advancement, but to earn it or determine what they want for themselves.  They didn't want the reapers giving it to them, they wanted to choose what advancment they wanted for themselves"

And that is one of the issue of the morality of advancement. That still is my point. It not grounded to just black and white priciples. If one of the themes of Mass effectis the morality of advancement, that means all forms of morality applies.

That issue has been there from day one with the Mass relays and use of prothean date to advance the races of ME.
Do you not get this?
From day one the races have been using prothean tech and every tech they found and could get with out quetioning the origin or meaning of the tech. Then suddenly we find out it's a trap. That is part of the same issue and morality legion brings up. We by taking the reaper tech advanced alone there planned and forgo all the other paths of advancement we could of taken. Ironicly, this same path gives us a way to fight the reapers. And even more ironic the other paths would be longer to get to the same point that taking the reaper tech would take us.

That means technology and advancement is inheritly a double edge sword...Which is what synthesis is.

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 septembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...


And that is on of the issue of the morality of advancement. That still is my point. It not grounded to just black and white priciples. If one of the themes of Mass effectis th emorality of advancement, that means all forms of morality applies.

That issue has been there from day one with teh Mass relays and use of prothean date to advance the races of ME.
Do you not get this?
From day one the races have been using prothean tech and every tech they found and could get with out quetioning the origin or meaning of the tech. Then suddenly wefind out it's a trap. That is part of the same issue and morality legion brings up. We bytaking the reaper tech advanced alone there planned and forgone all the other paths of advancemetn we could of taken. Ironicly, this same path gives us a way to fight the reapers.

That means technology and advancement is inheritly a doulbe edge sword...Which is what synthesis is.

Uh, there's nothing quite so grounded in black and white as innocent people not wanting you to insert something into their bodies without consent, unless it's also murder, pure and unvarnished.

Legion isn't bringing up morality.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  In ME2 he is discussing different philosophies and he doesn't see the heretics idea as flawed-he sees their implementation of it as flawed.  He sees them as potentially infecting all geth, whether intentional or not.

Technology and advancement are not a double edged sword.  That implies they are always bad or dangerous, which they aren't.  Autonomous, self-determined advancement is learning things as your culture is ready.  Random, arbitrary advancement is ignoring that a culture and a people may not be ready.  Yes, that's exactly what was wrong with all the found tech that everyone used.  It kept people from finding their own way.  As does synthesis and as does control

Why are you arguing this when this is what I've said all along.  I've continually said that people are like children, picking things up and using them when they don't know what they are.  They go and live in the citadel and don't question anything (keepers).

And I fail to see how this all ultimately defeats the reapers.  Apparently you are now agreeing with another way I've suggested that could be used to get rid of them-realize that there is a force within the reapers that's wants to stop the reapers-also known as the creators/minds of harvested people.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 septembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

I tried to warn you that he had comprehension problems, 3DandBeyond. <Shakes head>

He's akin to BlueProtoss in this regard, arguing for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter how often you show him he's wrong.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


And that is on of the issue of the morality of advancement. That still is my point. It not grounded to just black and white priciples. If one of the themes of Mass effectis th emorality of advancement, that means all forms of morality applies.

That issue has been there from day one with teh Mass relays and use of prothean date to advance the races of ME.
Do you not get this?
From day one the races have been using prothean tech and every tech they found and could get with out quetioning the origin or meaning of the tech. Then suddenly wefind out it's a trap. That is part of the same issue and morality legion brings up. We bytaking the reaper tech advanced alone there planned and forgone all the other paths of advancemetn we could of taken. Ironicly, this same path gives us a way to fight the reapers.

That means technology and advancement is inheritly a doulbe edge sword...Which is what synthesis is.

Uh, there's nothing quite so grounded in black and white as innocent people not wanting you to insert something into their bodies without consent, unless it's also murder, pure and unvarnished.

Legion isn't bringing up morality.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  In ME2 he is discussing different philosophies and he doesn't see the heretics idea as flawed-he sees their implementation of it as flawed.  He sees them as potentially infecting all geth, whether intentional or not.

Technology and advancement are not a double edged sword.  That implies they are always bad or dangerous, which they aren't.  Autonomous, self-determined advancement is learning things as your culture is ready.  Random, arbitrary advancement is ignoring that a culture and a people may not be ready.  Yes, that's exactly what was wrong with all the found tech that everyone used.  It kept people from finding their own way. 

Why are you arguing this when this is what I've said all along.  I've continually said that people are like children, picking things up and using them when they don't know what they are.  They go and live in the citadel and don't question anything (keepers).

And I fail to see how this all ultimately defeats the reapers.  Apparently you are now agreeing with another way I've suggested that could be used to get rid of them-realize that there is a force within the reapers that's wants to stop the reapers-also known as the creators/minds of harvested people.

Your not gettin gthat that view is supjective. Morality is inheritly relative. What you see is wrong someone else see is right.

Added, what Legion brings up is a morality. It his morality. Morality is grounded in personal beilfs and personal logic. What Legion is saying is a morality for him.

Added, technology is a double edge sword. Every bit of it improves of live and adds it own complexity the hampers you in some way.

A calulator can help you do math faster but detract from you using your on mind to solve problem. A car can get you places fast but cuts a way for you doing physical excurtions to stable your health. The internet can have you take with many people nations away but pulls you away from the attetion of you family who are close by.

Tech is inheritly a doulbe edge sword...Even the mass relays are like that.

You fail to see how using reaper tech helps you fight and defet the reapers?
The thanix cannos are reaper tech and the mass realys are you to fire the crucible. That is how.

Take a look at the series agein to see my point that the issues and moralities of advancement is a theme.

[dreman9999]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

I tried to warn you that he had comprehension problems, 3DandBeyond. <Shakes head>

He's akin to BlueProtoss in this regard, arguing for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter how often you show him he's wrong.

How am I wrong to state that one of the themes of ME  is the issues and morality of advancement?

[3DandBeyond]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

I tried to warn you that he had comprehension problems, 3DandBeyond. <Shakes head>

He's akin to BlueProtoss in this regard, arguing for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter how often you show him he's wrong.

Yep, it can be fun for a few minutes but then loses that new car smell.

He's so twisted up in a pretzel that he can't admit that he now agrees with things I've said.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 septembre 2012 - 09:34 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

I tried to warn you that he had comprehension problems, 3DandBeyond. <Shakes head>

He's akin to BlueProtoss in this regard, arguing for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter how often you show him he's wrong.

Yep, it can be fun for a few minutes but then loses that new car smell.

He's so twisted up in a pretzel that he can't admit that he now agrees with things I've said.

do you even understand my points?

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

I tried to warn you that he had comprehension problems, 3DandBeyond. <Shakes head>

He's akin to BlueProtoss in this regard, arguing for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter how often you show him he's wrong.

Yep, it can be fun for a few minutes but then loses that new car smell.

He's so twisted up in a pretzel that he can't admit that he now agrees with things I've said.

do you even understand my points?

do you?

[sdinc009]

dreman9999 is techincally correct in what's being argued. Morality is relative and is based upon perspective and the is a theme of advancement throughout the series. However, that is all that is correct. dreman9999 is still false because it is claiming that Sythesis is acceptable as an ending because this underlying theme exists which is a false claim. This is the ending of the story and the purpose of the ending is to provide resolution to the primary theme of the narrative. Tieing everything up and hanging it onto a sub plot that has already been addressed previously in the story is not how to provide proper story resolution. The central driving goal of the story takes a back seat to a subplot that has already resolved. dreman9999 is posing a Strawman arguement

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

dreman9999 is techincally correct in what's being argued. Morality is relative and is based upon perspective and the is a theme of advancement throughout the series. However, that is all that is correct. dreman9999 is still false because it is claiming that Sythesis is acceptable as an ending because this underlying theme exists which is a false claim. This is the ending of the story and the purpose of the ending is to provide resolution to the primary theme of the narrative. Tieing everything up and hanging it onto a sub plot that has already been addressed previously in the story is not how to provide proper story resolution. The central driving goal of the story takes a back seat to a subplot that has already resolved. dreman9999 is posing a Strawman arguement

No disagreement there at all.  Morality is relative though some things don't ever change.  Society can determine morality that exists under law, but is not technically moral.

And advancement does exist.  No argument with that.  It's how it's presented.  As something artificial and unearned it's given a distinctly bad connotation in some instances and a misunderstood good connotation in others.  The krogan and rachni are examples of it being done completely wrong and not having a good outcome until fixed.  And still the questions arise as to what will happen, but you can't impose continued wrongs on people because of how they've been treated.  At some point you have to stop.  The geth show advancement that was handled badly.  It worked actually well, but was not intended and then feared so dealing with it was what caused problems. 

The themes are so twisted at the end, that there is a push to get you to pick the one choice that mostly advances all things with no thought as to what that means.  It's repeating mistakes but on a much larger scale. 

And you are so right, this was a settled issue.  Advancement done artificially is not such a good thing especially if done without prior permission. 

[Lunch Box1912]

Hachew (sneeze controversy) uhhhmm (clears throat)

See Controversy


I would definitely say there is a lingering subplot that just reappeared.

[dreman9999]

sdinc009 wrote...

dreman9999 is techincally correct in what's being argued. Morality is relative and is based upon perspective and the is a theme of advancement throughout the series. However, that is all that is correct. dreman9999 is still false because it is claiming that Sythesis is acceptable as an ending because this underlying theme exists which is a false claim. This is the ending of the story and the purpose of the ending is to provide resolution to the primary theme of the narrative. Tieing everything up and hanging it onto a sub plot that has already been addressed previously in the story is not how to provide proper story resolution. The central driving goal of the story takes a back seat to a subplot that has already resolved. dreman9999 is posing a Strawman arguement

1. I'm say the it up to the player to take it as acceptable.

2. The issues of advancement and the morals of it is not a sub plot. It's one of the main themes. The issue was first brought up with the staement that humanity advance because they found tech on mars and later the mass relays. It's a major theme that has been used over and over agien from Cerberus, characters, the reapers and Commander Shepard him/herself.
Synthesis is just a question to the player if any form of advancement is acceptable to the player.
That's my point.

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 septembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[Lunch Box1912]

dreman9999 wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

dreman9999 is techincally correct in what's being argued. Morality is relative and is based upon perspective and the is a theme of advancement throughout the series. However, that is all that is correct. dreman9999 is still false because it is claiming that Sythesis is acceptable as an ending because this underlying theme exists which is a false claim. This is the ending of the story and the purpose of the ending is to provide resolution to the primary theme of the narrative. Tieing everything up and hanging it onto a sub plot that has already been addressed previously in the story is not how to provide proper story resolution. The central driving goal of the story takes a back seat to a subplot that has already resolved. dreman9999 is posing a Strawman arguement

1. I'm say the it up to the player to take it as ackseptible.

2. The issues of advancement and the morals of it is not a sub plot. It's one of the main themes. The issue was first brought up with the staement that humanity advance because they found tech on mars and later the mass relays. It's a major theme that has been used over and over agien from Cerberus, characters, the reapers and Commander Shepard him/herself.
Synthesis is just a question to the player if any form of advancement is acceptable to the player.
That's my point.

Still sways from the main plot.. Stop the Reapers

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

dreman9999 is techincally correct in what's being argued. Morality is relative and is based upon perspective and the is a theme of advancement throughout the series. However, that is all that is correct. dreman9999 is still false because it is claiming that Sythesis is acceptable as an ending because this underlying theme exists which is a false claim. This is the ending of the story and the purpose of the ending is to provide resolution to the primary theme of the narrative. Tieing everything up and hanging it onto a sub plot that has already been addressed previously in the story is not how to provide proper story resolution. The central driving goal of the story takes a back seat to a subplot that has already resolved. dreman9999 is posing a Strawman arguement

No disagreement there at all.  Morality is relative though some things don't ever change.  Society can determine morality that exists under law, but is not technically moral.

And advancement does exist.  No argument with that.  It's how it's presented.  As something artificial and unearned it's given a distinctly bad connotation in some instances and a misunderstood good connotation in others.  The krogan and rachni are examples of it being done completely wrong and not having a good outcome until fixed.  And still the questions arise as to what will happen, but you can't impose continued wrongs on people because of how they've been treated.  At some point you have to stop.  The geth show advancement that was handled badly.  It worked actually well, but was not intended and then feared so dealing with it was what caused problems. 

The themes are so twisted at the end, that there is a push to get you to pick the one choice that mostly advances all things with no thought as to what that means.  It's repeating mistakes but on a much larger scale. 

And you are so right, this was a settled issue.  Advancement done artificially is not such a good thing especially if done without prior permission. 

Your missing the fact that all the races advanced because of found prothean and reapers tech.
BW is not say there is a correct or incorrect way to get tech. They are say tech inheritlyis a double edge sword. That notsay tech would cause death but it can cause negative effect as well as possitive.

Saying that there is a right way to advance and a wrong way to advance is looking at it in a too black and white fashion.

[Lunch Box1912]

Based off how you handled Legion and EDI in ME2 and ME3, the answers surrounding this topic should have mostly been dealt with after ME2 and used to shape your ending not entwined with the main plot completely effecting it’s outcome.

I think thats what we're trying to say dreman9999

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 24 septembre 2012 - 10:51 .

[dreman9999]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

dreman9999 is techincally correct in what's being argued. Morality is relative and is based upon perspective and the is a theme of advancement throughout the series. However, that is all that is correct. dreman9999 is still false because it is claiming that Sythesis is acceptable as an ending because this underlying theme exists which is a false claim. This is the ending of the story and the purpose of the ending is to provide resolution to the primary theme of the narrative. Tieing everything up and hanging it onto a sub plot that has already been addressed previously in the story is not how to provide proper story resolution. The central driving goal of the story takes a back seat to a subplot that has already resolved. dreman9999 is posing a Strawman arguement

1. I'm say the it up to the player to take it as ackseptible.

2. The issues of advancement and the morals of it is not a sub plot. It's one of the main themes. The issue was first brought up with the staement that humanity advance because they found tech on mars and later the mass relays. It's a major theme that has been used over and over agien from Cerberus, characters, the reapers and Commander Shepard him/herself.
Synthesis is just a question to the player if any form of advancement is acceptable to the player.
That's my point.

Still sways from the main plot.. Stop the Reapers

No it does not. For us ti defeat the reapers we have to advance ourselves and our tech. That was the very question the choices the collector base choice and cerberus asks.

In ME we need to advance so we have a way to fight the reapers. Shepard being turned to a cyborg points this out.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

dreman9999 is techincally correct in what's being argued. Morality is relative and is based upon perspective and the is a theme of advancement throughout the series. However, that is all that is correct. dreman9999 is still false because it is claiming that Sythesis is acceptable as an ending because this underlying theme exists which is a false claim. This is the ending of the story and the purpose of the ending is to provide resolution to the primary theme of the narrative. Tieing everything up and hanging it onto a sub plot that has already been addressed previously in the story is not how to provide proper story resolution. The central driving goal of the story takes a back seat to a subplot that has already resolved. dreman9999 is posing a Strawman arguement

1. I'm say the it up to the player to take it as ackseptible.

2. The issues of advancement and the morals of it is not a sub plot. It's one of the main themes. The issue was first brought up with the staement that humanity advance because they found tech on mars and later the mass relays. It's a major theme that has been used over and over agien from Cerberus, characters, the reapers and Commander Shepard him/herself.
Synthesis is just a question to the player if any form of advancement is acceptable to the player.
That's my point.

Still sways from the main plot.. Stop the Reapers

No it does not. For us ti defeat the reapers we have to advance ourselves and our tech. That was the very question the choices the collector base choice and cerberus asks.

In ME we need to advance so we have a way to fight the reapers. Shepard being turned to a cyborg points this out.

EDI already stated this, Shepard is still more human than being a cyborg