6432 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

4." ME2 didn't have tough decisions "..... The geth choice in Legions mission... The collector base choice.
Me2 had hard desisions.

each ending in its own way benefits the Catalyst, Synthesis is to him is his perminant solution

and no, the geth choice and the Collector base are not hard choices based on how you play

Controling the reapers and doing evrything how you want it helps the catalyst?
Destroying him helps the catalyst?
Add, morality is relative. Not everyone is going to see hard choices as hard choices. The people who had no conflict with the virmire choice or citadel battle choice.Just because you did not find it moraly conflicting does not mean others did. Many people did see the geth choice in legions mission as moraly confliciting as well as the collector base choice.

destroy and control are considered tempary solutions by the Catalyst

once again the geth choice and the Collector base are not as hard of a choice compared to Virmire or the Council, the Collector Base choice is made irrelevant anyway

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...


Ok, first, you clearly have no idea what eugenics is, stop bringing it up, because that is not what synthesis is.

Also, destroy is not targeting your allies, collateral damage does not mean targetting your allies or civilians. Colateral damage is civilian casualties of war that occur when you are targeting your enemy.

You seem to still be hung up on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve", have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to good people?

Also, the Alliance did do a lot to prepare. Once they got into the council, they immediately began to expand their fleets in preparation for the reapers, although they told people it was to defend against the geth. This was in a book, don't remember which, also I think mentioned briefely in ME2.

Once again you want the game to play out like a fantasy world where everybody gets whats coming to them, you do not want to admit that the game as it is is much more like the real world than the ending you propose.

  

Explain to me in scientific terms exactly how this synthesis is achieved for both organics and synthetics-prove to me that that's real and not fantasy.

Doesit really matter? One in the ME univers ever really as why they found this amazing tech that uplited there races and  not ask why they were left behind for them to find. No of the race didn't  even try to fully understand he citadel when they found them nor the mass relay.  To most is just came majicly form the past and covered any quetion of it with a "Protheans did it". They never care if it possible may be a trap then.

It just getting tech not just good in it's self.../sarcasm

I didn't ask you.  And I can't understand you anyway.  Sorry.

[AlanC9]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Do you really think that genocide and totalitarianism can help you survive? If so, how long do you think you can survive? How long can you maintain the state of genocide and totalitarianism?

Didn't realize you were saying something that silly.

Nobody has to maintain a "state of genocide." Fire the Crucible and bang! After that, no more genocide required.

As for totalitarianism.... I'm guessing you mean control ..... Sheplyst probably won't remain invincible for very long. The galaxy wasn't that far from being able to handle the Reapers.

[3DandBeyond]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

I posted this today on a thread about victory through refusal.

"Destroy is already the most popular ending because of people headcanoning both Shepard's survival and the refurbishment of the Mass Relays. I'm not sure why this would create an "uber happy ending" and Synthesis is already portrayed as a "Disney" ending. Did the Soviet Union get a "Disney" ending in WW2, or the Northern Union in the American Civil War? They did not. The war has taken its toll, billions of people have died, even more have lost precious loved ones, the whole galaxy is drained and unstable from barely surviving this war of attrition. Why would it be bad, because we wouldn't have some stupid sacrafice forced on us? I'd rather have that than the option between three almost equally crappy endings. Victory through refusal wouldn't be a cake-walk, we're talking about an insanely high amount of EMS, gathered from playing all three games and maxing out galactic readiness in the multiplayer. And if you think this would be contradictory to Bioware, please elaborate. They have always rewarded the player for going the extra distance, you were able to save Urdnot Wrex, you were able to have a flawless suicide run, you were able to save both the Geth and the Quarians, at one point Bioware even considered allowing the player to save both Ashley and Kaidan. Even Mac Walters supported something like this."

Great post.

[IamDanThaMan]

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...


Ok, first, you clearly have no idea what eugenics is, stop bringing it up, because that is not what synthesis is.

Also, destroy is not targeting your allies, collateral damage does not mean targetting your allies or civilians. Colateral damage is civilian casualties of war that occur when you are targeting your enemy.

You seem to still be hung up on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve", have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to good people?

Also, the Alliance did do a lot to prepare. Once they got into the council, they immediately began to expand their fleets in preparation for the reapers, although they told people it was to defend against the geth. This was in a book, don't remember which, also I think mentioned briefely in ME2.

Once again you want the game to play out like a fantasy world where everybody gets whats coming to them, you do not want to admit that the game as it is is much more like the real world than the ending you propose.

Eugenics was a movement aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human race-correct, it was a movement with that specific name.  But the term of late has been taken to mean those that subscribe to the theory of improving humans genetically.  In ME3, there's a case to be made that were the Krogans human that would have been Eugenics (in practice, but not as a part of the social movement).  So, how about I call it genetic molestation?

If you are given a gun and told if you shoot 5 people that 10 other people will be saved, the 5 you shoot are not collateral damage.  If you decide to shoot them, you have committed murder, no matter what the circumstances.  You could have decided not to shoot.

I'm going to tell you to never assume what you have just assumed.  I know full well what real life is like and I know well enough how unfair it can be.  It is amazingly narrow-minded of you to assume that I do not.  I have not once assumed anything about your character.  My father died in front of me when I was 16-I gave him mouth to mouth resusitation but could not revive him.  My sister killed herself.  My mother died in front of me-don't tell me about moral dilemmas and hard choices-I had to let her die.  I have cared for more people than I care to think about at the end of life.  I have talked people out of committing suicide, saved people bleeding from gunshot wounds, cared for a boy who suffered a head injury and whose brain matter was coming out his nose, cared for a man with a gaping chest wound, oversaw the locations of numerous responders to hostage situations while handling other emergency situations, helped locate people in emergency situations when they were unable to give me their location, helped deliver babies, helped raise 3 children, and watch over scores of other neighborhood kids (latch key children with no one at home), and more.  I bloody well know how difficult choices can be.  Have you ever had to decide between emergency situations that could mean who might live and who might die? 

Explain to me in scientific terms exactly how this synthesis is achieved for both organics and synthetics-prove to me that that's real and not fantasy.

And explain to me just who has the right to decide for you what is put into your body.

I have made no assumptions about you, only factual statements about your arguments. I really don't need to know your life story or what made you feel the need to escape your real life into a video game.

And I will be very happy to explain how sythesis works just as soon as you can tell me how it is we are supposed to create a machine that will kill all the synthetics, except for the ones we don't want it to kill, or kill all the part organic, part synthetics, except for the ones we don't want to kill.

I'm sorry, but poking holes in the game as it currently exists does not mean that your idea is not worse.

Did I love everything about ME3? No. Does that mean that I think it should be changed to how I think it should have ended? No.

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.I contol the reapers...I took back earth. I destroyed them....I took back earth. I only get bak earth in synthesis.
2.Count one reaper at the end of commercial? Going by the combat part, it's only garunteed I can stand up to husks.

3.His goal is sythesis.The leviathen dlc stated this...He and clear says he does not want to be control.
 

Helping him is not controling him or destroying him. Helping him is choosing synthesis.

4." ME2 didn't have tough decisions "..... The geth choice in Legions mission... The collector base choice.
Me2 had hard desisions.

1. Yes, you beat the Reapers. You didn't use a DEM superweapon. Nope. Shepard and galaxy reclaimed Earth because Shepard and galaxy > Reapers.

2. What numerological term did they use to describe the amount of choices in ME1? "Many?" 3/4 isn't many, that's several.

3. He needs to fix the problem of synthetics vs. organics and synthetics destroying organics, not to acheive Synthesis. The Catalyst desires Synthesis because it is the best solution to his problem. Destroy, Control and Synthesis each eliminate synthetics as a threat, Refuse doesn't.

4. Deciding to destroy or brainwash the same group that was dooming the galaxy who you spent the whole first game fighting was tough? How on earth do you decide between ketchup and mustard on your hot dogs? The Collector Base choice was the one truly ambiguous choice in ME2. It's a damn shame it didn't count for crap in the end.

1. The crucible isnot a dem and super weapon were used to end wars in real life. So theris no problem with using the crucible toend the war.
2.Samantics. We still get planty of hard choices.
3. Destory does not do that. He says that the problem will comeback addedhis programingis to preserveall life...organic and synthetic.
Control does notend the problem ether.It keeps some one over it to a totalerat state but it does not solve it. There just fire fight stations. 
Only sysnthesis helps him.
4. Of corse that is tough. Many people saw that as tough. You think people are ok with genocide and brian washing? They are both moraly wrong. It matters not if it done to an enemy.

[Calamity]

Ithurael wrote...

We can debate forever on the power/shackledness of the SC.

My main point however is that the three options that come from the crucible all are used to predominatly solve the Starkids problem of Organics will always be destroyed by Synthetics.

These options - nor this conflict - was never shepards purpose nor shepard's war. He fought to stop the reapers from killing all life. (The reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids whose minds are comprised of the organics melted down to make the reaper)

So why is it, in the final moments of the game SC comes down, gives a spcheel about organics destroying synthetics and then gives three choices that predominantly affect that conflict.

Synthesis is the ideal solution

Control keeps synthetics from destroying organics via the reapers

Destroy kills all synthetic life (preventing organic life from being destroyed by synthetic life)

yes, all three end the current solution (the reapers and the cycle) but these solutions tie predominatly to starkids problem and affect shepard's problem.

It did not feel natural to the story. It felt like a Shamalyan twist and then focused entirely on Starkid's problem.

Very good point.

Modifié par Calamity, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:14 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...


Ok, first, you clearly have no idea what eugenics is, stop bringing it up, because that is not what synthesis is.

Also, destroy is not targeting your allies, collateral damage does not mean targetting your allies or civilians. Colateral damage is civilian casualties of war that occur when you are targeting your enemy.

You seem to still be hung up on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve", have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to good people?

Also, the Alliance did do a lot to prepare. Once they got into the council, they immediately began to expand their fleets in preparation for the reapers, although they told people it was to defend against the geth. This was in a book, don't remember which, also I think mentioned briefely in ME2.

Once again you want the game to play out like a fantasy world where everybody gets whats coming to them, you do not want to admit that the game as it is is much more like the real world than the ending you propose.

  

Explain to me in scientific terms exactly how this synthesis is achieved for both organics and synthetics-prove to me that that's real and not fantasy.

Doesit really matter? One in the ME univers ever really as why they found this amazing tech that uplited there races and  not ask why they were left behind for them to find. No of the race didn't  even try to fully understand he citadel when they found them nor the mass relay.  To most is just came majicly form the past and covered any quetion of it with a "Protheans did it". They never care if it possible may be a trap then.

It just getting tech not just good in it's self.../sarcasm

I didn't ask you.  And I can't understand you anyway.  Sorry.

I'm say thatthe synthesis choice is comparison to how we got tech from the past in ME as a series. It masteriously was found with little warning...Like magic. Like the synthesis ending.

[dreman9999]

Calamity wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

We can debate forever on the power/shackledness of the SC.

My main point however is that the three options that come from the crucible all are used to predominatly solve the Starkids problem of Organics will always be destroyed by Synthetics.

These options - nor this conflict - was never shepards purpose nor shepard's war. He fought to stop the reapers from killing all life. (The reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids whose minds are comprised of the organics melted down to make the reaper)

So why is it, in the final moments of the game SC comes down, gives a spcheel about organics destroying synthetics and then gives three choices that predominantly affect that conflict.

Synthesis is the ideal solution

Control keeps synthetics from destroying organics via the reapers

Destroy kills all synthetic life (preventing organic life from being destroyed by synthetic life)

yes, all three end the current solution (the reapers and the cycle) but these solutions tie predominatly to starkids problem and affect shepard's problem.

It did not feel natural to the story. It felt like a Shamalyan twist and then focused entirely on Starkid's problem.

Very good point.

No it's not.
Destroy is not an absolute answer because we can alway make synthetics and they can always rebel again. It just a band aid on a rotting wound.

Control does not just police syntheic. It also police oragnics. What would happen if the reapers turn on the organics?

[IamDanThaMan]

Calamity wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

We can debate forever on the power/shackledness of the SC.

My main point however is that the three options that come from the crucible all are used to predominatly solve the Starkids problem of Organics will always be destroyed by Synthetics.

These options - nor this conflict - was never shepards purpose nor shepard's war. He fought to stop the reapers from killing all life. (The reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids whose minds are comprised of the organics melted down to make the reaper)

So why is it, in the final moments of the game SC comes down, gives a spcheel about organics destroying synthetics and then gives three choices that predominantly affect that conflict.

Synthesis is the ideal solution

Control keeps synthetics from destroying organics via the reapers

Destroy kills all synthetic life (preventing organic life from being destroyed by synthetic life)

yes, all three end the current solution (the reapers and the cycle) but these solutions tie predominatly to starkids problem and affect shepard's problem.

It did not feel natural to the story. It felt like a Shamalyan twist and then focused entirely on Starkid's problem.

Very good point.

Except that the fans had been clamoring to learn the purpose behind the reaper's cycle. Would you have preferred that they just stick with the old "our motivations are beyond your comprehension" BS?

[3DandBeyond]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have made no assumptions about you, only factual statements about your arguments. I really don't need to know your life story or what made you feel the need to escape your real life into a video game.

And I will be very happy to explain how sythesis works just as soon as you can tell me how it is we are supposed to create a machine that will kill all the synthetics, except for the ones we don't want it to kill, or kill all the part organic, part synthetics, except for the ones we don't want to kill.

I'm sorry, but poking holes in the game as it currently exists does not mean that your idea is not worse.

Did I love everything about ME3? No. Does that mean that I think it should be changed to how I think it should have ended? No.

This is what you said to me and that is an assumption.  Are you even aware anymore of what you are writing?

IamDanThaMan wrote...

You seem to still be hung up
on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve",
have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to
good people?

It would be easy enough to explain how destroy might work-reaper IFF targeting.  It would recognize only reapers.

However, I asked you first and you are the one that loves the fantasy of these endings-explain how the magical beam can suddenly insert reaper tech into the bodies of every organic being in the galaxy as well as provide all synthetics with full understanding of organics.  And be specific as to where that understanding would come from, seeing as it's full understanding, it couldn't come from one lone human.

[plfranke]

dreman what is wrong with you. why can't you write correctly. I mean I understand a typo here and there a little grammar mistake, but every one of your posts is just atrocious.

[Vigilant111]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Once again you want the game to play out like a fantasy world where everybody gets whats coming to them, you do not want to admit that the game as it is is much more like the real world than the ending you propose.

What kind of argument is this?

This is a science fiction story set in the future, it is not like the real world, the real world is much more complex than jumping into a beam to solve problems, there are repurcussions and ramifications, political and bureauratical red tapes

Synthesis IS fantasy. No need to preach about "fantasizing" cos throughout the series, we never fantasized about anything, we knew what we were getting into when we decided to fight the reapers, and we hoped that at the end of tunnel there would be light, a simple resolution would have been sufficient enough, instead of focusing on troubling and convoluting logic, maybe more time should have been devoted to characters, art direction, gameplay elements, etc

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

If you are given a gun and told if you shoot 5 people that 10 other people will be saved, the 5 you shoot are not collateral damage.  If you decide to shoot them, you have committed murder, no matter what the circumstances.  You could have decided not to shoot.

This has nothing to do with using the Crucible. The only way to male a gun metaphor work would be to make it a full-auto machine gun. You can kill the murderers before they kill again, but you'll hit some bystanders. 

[Conniving_Eagle]

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

1. Yes, you beat the Reapers. You didn't use a DEM superweapon. Nope. Shepard and galaxy reclaimed Earth because Shepard and galaxy > Reapers.

2. What numerological term did they use to describe the amount of choices in ME1? "Many?" 3/4 isn't many, that's several.

3. He needs to fix the problem of synthetics vs. organics and synthetics destroying organics, not to acheive Synthesis. The Catalyst desires Synthesis because it is the best solution to his problem. Destroy, Control and Synthesis each eliminate synthetics as a threat, Refuse doesn't.

4. Deciding to destroy or brainwash the same group that was dooming the galaxy who you spent the whole first game fighting was tough? How on earth do you decide between ketchup and mustard on your hot dogs? The Collector Base choice was the one truly ambiguous choice in ME2. It's a damn shame it didn't count for crap in the end.

1. The crucible isnot a dem and super weapon were used to end wars in real life. So theris no problem with using the crucible toend the war.
2.Samantics. We still get planty of hard choices.
3. Destory does not do that. He says that the problem will comeback addedhis programingis to preserveall life...organic and synthetic.
Control does notend the problem ether.It keeps some one over it to a totalerat state but it does not solve it. There just fire fight stations. 
Only sysnthesis helps him.
4. Of corse that is tough. Many people saw that as tough. You think people are ok with genocide and brian washing? They are both moraly wrong. It matters not if it done to an enemy.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina Hackett: There's no way we can beat them conventionally, Shepard: Liara: Shepard I just found the schematics for a Prothean super weapon that I think can defeat the Reapers! Real life super-weapons are irrelevant when we're talking about a work of fiction.

2. Lack of substantiation. This is being degraded into another subjective argument.

3. He thinks the problem will come back (yet there were already laws against making AIs), but Destroy is still a solution, albeit possibly temporary.

4. So you have debatably two tough choices in Mass Effect 2. That doesn't work well with the ME1 TV spot.

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:21 .

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Calamity wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

We can debate forever on the power/shackledness of the SC.

My main point however is that the three options that come from the crucible all are used to predominatly solve the Starkids problem of Organics will always be destroyed by Synthetics.

These options - nor this conflict - was never shepards purpose nor shepard's war. He fought to stop the reapers from killing all life. (The reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids whose minds are comprised of the organics melted down to make the reaper)

So why is it, in the final moments of the game SC comes down, gives a spcheel about organics destroying synthetics and then gives three choices that predominantly affect that conflict.

Synthesis is the ideal solution

Control keeps synthetics from destroying organics via the reapers

Destroy kills all synthetic life (preventing organic life from being destroyed by synthetic life)

yes, all three end the current solution (the reapers and the cycle) but these solutions tie predominatly to starkids problem and affect shepard's problem.

It did not feel natural to the story. It felt like a Shamalyan twist and then focused entirely on Starkid's problem.

Very good point.

No it's not.
Destroy is not an absolute answer because we can alway make synthetics and they can always rebel again. It just a band aid on a rotting wound.

Control does not just police syntheic. It also police oragnics. What would happen if the reapers turn on the organics?

ever heard of temporary solutions

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

No it's not.
Destroy is not an absolute answer because we can alway make synthetics and they can always rebel again. It just a band aid on a rotting wound.

Control does not just police syntheic. It also police oragnics. What would happen if the reapers turn on the organics?

In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?

And please, point me to the rotting wound of killer robots that exist in Shepard's world-you know the ones that rebeled against their creators and caused overwhelming conflict and chaos.  Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them.

[plfranke]

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have made no assumptions about you, only factual statements about your arguments. I really don't need to know your life story or what made you feel the need to escape your real life into a video game.

And I will be very happy to explain how sythesis works just as soon as you can tell me how it is we are supposed to create a machine that will kill all the synthetics, except for the ones we don't want it to kill, or kill all the part organic, part synthetics, except for the ones we don't want to kill.

I'm sorry, but poking holes in the game as it currently exists does not mean that your idea is not worse.

Did I love everything about ME3? No. Does that mean that I think it should be changed to how I think it should have ended? No.

This is what you said to me and that is an assumption.  Are you even aware anymore of what you are writing?

IamDanThaMan wrote...

You seem to still be hung up
on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve",
have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to
good people?

It would be easy enough to explain how destroy might work-reaper IFF targeting.  It would recognize only reapers.

However, I asked you first and you are the one that loves the fantasy of these endings-explain how the magical beam can suddenly insert reaper tech into the bodies of every organic being in the galaxy as well as provide all synthetics with full understanding of organics.  And be specific as to where that understanding would come from, seeing as it's full understanding, it couldn't come from one lone human.

Yeah the crucible, the way it works, what it does, all of these ridiculous things about it stem from it being a terrible plot device. No one knows what it does but everyone knows how to build it. It won't discriminate when destroying every synthetic in the galaxy, however it has the perfect finesse to rearrange everyone's dna in a manner that won't kill them, and even a severely damaged crucible can manage to control every Reaper, something that has been pounded into your head as an impossibility and only in the last 10 minutes of the game do you find out you can do it, and by the leader of the Reapers no less. It also makes no sense why a damaged crucible will ahnihilate everything in its path even organics, but a perfected crucible can't be built to not target anything but Reapers.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

4." ME2 didn't have tough decisions "..... The geth choice in Legions mission... The collector base choice.
Me2 had hard desisions.

each ending in its own way benefits the Catalyst, Synthesis is to him is his perminant solution

and no, the geth choice and the Collector base are not hard choices based on how you play

Controling the reapers and doing evrything how you want it helps the catalyst?
Destroying him helps the catalyst?
Add, morality is relative. Not everyone is going to see hard choices as hard choices. The people who had no conflict with the virmire choice or citadel battle choice.Just because you did not find it moraly conflicting does not mean others did. Many people did see the geth choice in legions mission as moraly confliciting as well as the collector base choice.

once again the geth choice and the Collector base are not as hard of a choice compared to Virmire or the Council.

That only to you. The concept of moral conflit is your morality vs the reality of the sitsuation, aka morality vs goals.
The thing is morality is realitive. You may not think the things you need toget to you goal conflict with your morality..That means less moral conflict.
If you don't feel that the geth choice and collector base choice  had alot of moral conflict , that does not mean other did not. Many people did have  a lot of moralconflict over those choices.

[AlanC9]

Vigilant111 wrote...
This is a science fiction story set in the future, it is not like the real world, the real world is much more complex than jumping into a beam to solve problems, there are repurcussions and ramifications, political and bureauratical red tapes

Yep. Repercussions and ramifications. Your new super-weapon doesn't' only kill Reapers, for instance.

[plfranke]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No it's not.
Destroy is not an absolute answer because we can alway make synthetics and they can always rebel again. It just a band aid on a rotting wound.

Control does not just police syntheic. It also police oragnics. What would happen if the reapers turn on the organics?

In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?

And please, point me to the rotting wound of killer robots that exist in Shepard's world-you know the ones that rebeled against their creators and caused overwhelming conflict and chaos.  Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them.

That's the problem though 3d, synthesis lovers can just point to there "Everyone has an elevated understanding!" argument. The ending is just way too ridiculous. We can't have a reunion, but we can have robotic rainbows and butterflies, even though nobody even the writers can explain how it works.

[AresKeith]

plfranke wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have made no assumptions about you, only factual statements about your arguments. I really don't need to know your life story or what made you feel the need to escape your real life into a video game.

And I will be very happy to explain how sythesis works just as soon as you can tell me how it is we are supposed to create a machine that will kill all the synthetics, except for the ones we don't want it to kill, or kill all the part organic, part synthetics, except for the ones we don't want to kill.

I'm sorry, but poking holes in the game as it currently exists does not mean that your idea is not worse.

Did I love everything about ME3? No. Does that mean that I think it should be changed to how I think it should have ended? No.

This is what you said to me and that is an assumption.  Are you even aware anymore of what you are writing?

IamDanThaMan wrote...

You seem to still be hung up
on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve",
have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to
good people?

It would be easy enough to explain how destroy might work-reaper IFF targeting.  It would recognize only reapers.

However, I asked you first and you are the one that loves the fantasy of these endings-explain how the magical beam can suddenly insert reaper tech into the bodies of every organic being in the galaxy as well as provide all synthetics with full understanding of organics.  And be specific as to where that understanding would come from, seeing as it's full understanding, it couldn't come from one lone human.

Yeah the crucible, the way it works, what it does, all of these ridiculous things about it stem from it being a terrible plot device. No one knows what it does but everyone knows how to build it. It won't discriminate when destroying every synthetic in the galaxy, however it has the perfect finesse to rearrange everyone's dna in a manner that won't kill them, and even a severely damaged crucible can manage to control every Reaper, something that has been pounded into your head as an impossibility and only in the last 10 minutes of the game do you find out you can do it, and by the leader of the Reapers no less. It also makes no sense why a damaged crucible will ahnihilate everything in its path even organics, but a perfected crucible can't be built to not target anything but Reapers.

my crucible thread made more sense lol

[AlanC9]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Except that the fans had been clamoring to learn the purpose behind the reaper's cycle. Would you have preferred that they just stick with the old "our motivations are beyond your comprehension" BS?

An awful lot of fans liked that BS. 

Don't ask me why.

[plfranke]

AresKeith wrote...

plfranke wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have made no assumptions about you, only factual statements about your arguments. I really don't need to know your life story or what made you feel the need to escape your real life into a video game.

And I will be very happy to explain how sythesis works just as soon as you can tell me how it is we are supposed to create a machine that will kill all the synthetics, except for the ones we don't want it to kill, or kill all the part organic, part synthetics, except for the ones we don't want to kill.

I'm sorry, but poking holes in the game as it currently exists does not mean that your idea is not worse.

Did I love everything about ME3? No. Does that mean that I think it should be changed to how I think it should have ended? No.

This is what you said to me and that is an assumption.  Are you even aware anymore of what you are writing?

IamDanThaMan wrote...

You seem to still be hung up
on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve",
have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to
good people?

It would be easy enough to explain how destroy might work-reaper IFF targeting.  It would recognize only reapers.

However, I asked you first and you are the one that loves the fantasy of these endings-explain how the magical beam can suddenly insert reaper tech into the bodies of every organic being in the galaxy as well as provide all synthetics with full understanding of organics.  And be specific as to where that understanding would come from, seeing as it's full understanding, it couldn't come from one lone human.

Yeah the crucible, the way it works, what it does, all of these ridiculous things about it stem from it being a terrible plot device. No one knows what it does but everyone knows how to build it. It won't discriminate when destroying every synthetic in the galaxy, however it has the perfect finesse to rearrange everyone's dna in a manner that won't kill them, and even a severely damaged crucible can manage to control every Reaper, something that has been pounded into your head as an impossibility and only in the last 10 minutes of the game do you find out you can do it, and by the leader of the Reapers no less. It also makes no sense why a damaged crucible will ahnihilate everything in its path even organics, but a perfected crucible can't be built to not target anything but Reapers.

my crucible thread made more sense lol

but the player should not have to create a way for something in the universe to make sense. and me3 is full of things where the player is forced to do that.

[plfranke]

AlanC9 wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Except that the fans had been clamoring to learn the purpose behind the reaper's cycle. Would you have preferred that they just stick with the old "our motivations are beyond your comprehension" BS?

An awful lot of fans liked that BS. 

Don't ask me why.

It is beyond your comprehension, is a lot better than something that is contradicted in the game.