316 réponses à ce sujet

[spotlessvoid]

" Then why pounce and gang up on others who have their own opinion and say that they are wrong? Why?"

Lol right. Because it's us who make threads dedicated to moving literal ending to fan fiction. It's us calling people crazy, cultish, conspiracy theorists. Lol

[MajorKellyRisner]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Then why pounce and gang up on others who have their own opinion and say that they are wrong? Why?"

Lol right. Because it's us who make threads dedicated to moving literal ending to fan fiction. It's us calling people crazy, cultish, conspiracy theorists. Lol

Well, you are fanatically and somewhat cultish

[spotlessvoid]

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not saying I want perfect endings, I want them all to have drawbacks. I want it to depend on the individual Shepard's ideology which one is best of the lot for the galaxy and the future,which benefits are worth the cost (Or in the case of synthesis, more of a leap of faith)"

And I find 3 victorious options trite. Just because you like synthesis doesnt mean the starchild is telling the truth....

Just because you like Destroy, doesn't mean the starchild is telling the truth.

lol I use your argument against you and thats the best yoy can do?


Saren=synthesis
TIM=control
Anderson/Squad/Hackett/Everyone else=destroy

destroy was the goal for 99% of the trilogy. Then Reaperkid tells you otherwise and you all lap it up

[spotlessvoid]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Then why pounce and gang up on others who have their own opinion and say that they are wrong? Why?"

Lol right. Because it's us who make threads dedicated to moving literal ending to fan fiction. It's us calling people crazy, cultish, conspiracy theorists. Lol

Well, you are fanatically and somewhat cultish

You have zero credibility after that. 

[MajorKellyRisner]

spotlessvoid wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not saying I want perfect endings, I want them all to have drawbacks. I want it to depend on the individual Shepard's ideology which one is best of the lot for the galaxy and the future,which benefits are worth the cost (Or in the case of synthesis, more of a leap of faith)"

And I find 3 victorious options trite. Just because you like synthesis doesnt mean the starchild is telling the truth....

Just because you like Destroy, doesn't mean the starchild is telling the truth.

lol I use your argument against you and thats the best yoy can do?


Saren=synthesis
TIM=control
Anderson/Squad/Hackett/Everyone else=destroy

destroy was the goal for 99% of the trilogy. Then Reaperkid tells you otherwise and you all lap it up

Because either ending could be possible. I chose synthesis  when i first played. Does that prove that I was indoctrinated? 

[ATiBotka]

spotlessvoid wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not saying I want perfect endings, I want them all to have drawbacks. I want it to depend on the individual Shepard's ideology which one is best of the lot for the galaxy and the future,which benefits are worth the cost (Or in the case of synthesis, more of a leap of faith)"

And I find 3 victorious options trite. Just because you like synthesis doesnt mean the starchild is telling the truth....

Just because you like Destroy, doesn't mean the starchild is telling the truth.

lol I use your argument against you and thats the best yoy can do?


Saren=synthesis
TIM=control
Anderson/Squad/Hackett/Everyone else=destroy

destroy was the goal for 99% of the trilogy. Then Reaperkid tells you otherwise and you all lap it up

But I can prove that Control and Synthesis are possible.

[MajorKellyRisner]

spotlessvoid wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Then why pounce and gang up on others who have their own opinion and say that they are wrong? Why?"

Lol right. Because it's us who make threads dedicated to moving literal ending to fan fiction. It's us calling people crazy, cultish, conspiracy theorists. Lol

Well, you are fanatically and somewhat cultish

You have zero credibility after that. 

And you are merely cult like and fantically cuttlefish who "prove IT exist" by suggesting ideas which are fan created. 

Modifié par MajorKellyRisner, 07 octobre 2012 - 07:30 .

[spotlessvoid]

" Idon't need destroy to be a wrong decision, I only believe it shouldn't be the only correct one that gets the best outcome. Ijust oppose any theory that seeks to limit choices to a rigid hierarchy of better and worse. Do you at least see the problem with that?"

I like a game that forces me to pay attention to the narrative and themes as well as the details so that I can not get fooled (which I did-control)

[ATiBotka]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Because either ending could be possible. I chose synthesis  when i first played. Does that prove that I was indoctrinated? 

Yes, we both are indoctrinated!

[MajorKellyRisner]

ATiBotka wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Because either ending could be possible. I chose synthesis  when i first played. Does that prove that I was indoctrinated? 

Yes, we both are indoctrinated!

Whoot!!! IT can suck it

[spotlessvoid]

That's the best you got Kelly?

[AlanC9]

spotlessvoid wrote...
Saren=synthesis
TIM=control
Anderson/Squad/Hackett/Everyone else=destroy

Yep. Sweet, sweet irony.

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not saying I want perfect endings, I want them all to have drawbacks. I want it to depend on the individual Shepard's ideology which one is best of the lot for the galaxy and the future,which benefits are worth the cost (Or in the case of synthesis, more of a leap of faith)"

And I find 3 victorious options trite. Just because you like synthesis doesnt mean the starchild is telling the truth....

So instead there can only be one victorious Shepard, yours, while everyone else's choice succumbs to brainwashing?  That's bad story telling for an RPG where choice is the primary tagline.  I am attracted by customization and choice.  I am not attracted by a simplistic system that dictates its own version of correct morality to me and punishes me for deviating.  Punish me for making a tactical error, punish me for preparing my forces enough.  Do not punish me for having a different idea of what's best for the galaxy than you happen to have.

You've said that, and my preference for synthesis still beside the point.  Just because you like destroy doesn't mean the starchild was being truthful about it either.  That's something of a doublestandard.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 07 octobre 2012 - 07:38 .

[spotlessvoid]

" But I can prove that Control and Synthesis are possible."

Show and prove then

[BatmanTurian]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

...How many times do I have to say they did the suicide mission right before you actually read what I'm typing?  How many times are you going to refuse to see the distinction between the suicide mission and the IT?  I won't explain it again, I've typed it out a dozen times over these past few pages.

Saren had Reaper hardware jammed directly into his skull, that is not the same as the synthesis no matter how much you want it to be, but at any rate I've said earlier that synthesis is a leap of faith.  TIM was under the Reaper's control, but they freaked when they realized he'd figured out how to actually pull it off.  That actually seems to suggest that Control is quite possible.  Like I said, these "Foreshadowings" are nothing but selective interpretations.

I just don't understand the IT theory proponents need for my decision to be wrong.

We don't " need" you to be wrong. We just see things differently based on lore and themes present in the game. But you are entitled to your own opinion that you are right and we are wrong  just as we are entitled to believe you are wrong and we are right. We both have valid interpretations (according to Bioware anyway).

Then why pounce and gang up on others who have their own opinion and say that they are wrong? Why?

It's called debating ideas. It's something they started doing back in the times of Ancient Greece. Maybe you've heard of it? Both sides say the other is wrong, so this isn't a one-sided example.

[MajorKellyRisner]

spotlessvoid wrote...

That's the best you got Kelly?

Why should i both continuing when I am "wrong" and ITers are "right".  This social site was supposed to be intended for those to suggest their own idea, not be dampened and bombarded from people who "claim" IT is right and others are wrong. Why bother?

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Idon't need destroy to be a wrong decision, I only believe it shouldn't be the only correct one that gets the best outcome. Ijust oppose any theory that seeks to limit choices to a rigid hierarchy of better and worse. Do you at least see the problem with that?"

I like a game that forces me to pay attention to the narrative and themes as well as the details so that I can not get fooled (which I did-control)

So do I.  It's a good thing I paid attention and realized Saren and synthesis aren't the same thing.  Really, the level of assumptions that go into the IT theory evaluation of events...

[ATiBotka]

 Proof that Control and Synthesis are possible:

Control

Synthesis

[BatmanTurian]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Then why pounce and gang up on others who have their own opinion and say that they are wrong? Why?"

Lol right. Because it's us who make threads dedicated to moving literal ending to fan fiction. It's us calling people crazy, cultish, conspiracy theorists. Lol

Well, you are fanatically and somewhat cultish

here we go with cults and fanatics. Like the legions of control and synthesis believers are somehow different. These pejoratives are inaccurate and should be removed from the argument.

[spotlessvoid]

" Do not punish me for having a different idea of what's best for the galaxy than you happen to have."

What a child like view of the world, no offense. Every decision is right is so cliche and Hollywood cheesy. Failure should always be an option. Especially in a narrative rich game aimed at adults

[BatmanTurian]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

That's the best you got Kelly?

Why should i both continuing when I am "wrong" and ITers are "right".  This social site was supposed to be intended for those to suggest their own idea, not be dampened and bombarded from people who "claim" IT is right and others are wrong. Why bother?

It's not just It'ers who do it. You are being extremely biased and disingenous.

[BatmanTurian]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

...How many times do I have to say they did the suicide mission right before you actually read what I'm typing?  How many times are you going to refuse to see the distinction between the suicide mission and the IT?  I won't explain it again, I've typed it out a dozen times over these past few pages.

Saren had Reaper hardware jammed directly into his skull, that is not the same as the synthesis no matter how much you want it to be, but at any rate I've said earlier that synthesis is a leap of faith.  TIM was under the Reaper's control, but they freaked when they realized he'd figured out how to actually pull it off.  That actually seems to suggest that Control is quite possible.  Like I said, these "Foreshadowings" are nothing but selective interpretations.

I just don't understand the IT theory proponents need for my decision to be wrong.

We don't " need" you to be wrong. We just see things differently based on lore and themes present in the game. But you are entitled to your own opinion that you are right and we are wrong  just as we are entitled to believe you are wrong and we are right. We both have valid interpretations (according to Bioware anyway).

I don't need destroy to be a wrong decision, I only believe it shouldn't be the only correct one that gets the best outcome.  I just oppose any theory that seeks to limit choices to a rigid hierarchy of better and worse.  Do you at least see the problem with that?

What I see is  people like you believing that because others believe differently, this somehow means we're spitting in your faces and on your decisions. This is an overreaction.

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Do not punish me for having a different idea of what's best for the galaxy than you happen to have."

What a child like view of the world, no offense. Every decision is right is so cliche and Hollywood cheesy. Failure should always be an option. Especially in a narrative rich game aimed at adults

Its astonishing how many times you seem to think I want failure to be impossible.

If you aren't actually going to pay attention to my positions I will stop this exchange now.

[ghost9191]

ATiBotka wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

actually , considering TIM brought it up numerous times , and shepard brought it up with Hackett , one can assume more then just TIM knew about control. think hackett was along the lines of " it will be like taming a shark"

But Control and Synthesis are still possible. 

And I have proof.

didn't mean to come off like i thought it wasn't possible , just that more then TIM probably knew it was . most just probbaly saw the reapers as a enemy that needed to be stopped . not controlled


sorry for late response

Modifié par ghost9191, 07 octobre 2012 - 07:40 .

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

...How many times do I have to say they did the suicide mission right before you actually read what I'm typing?  How many times are you going to refuse to see the distinction between the suicide mission and the IT?  I won't explain it again, I've typed it out a dozen times over these past few pages.

Saren had Reaper hardware jammed directly into his skull, that is not the same as the synthesis no matter how much you want it to be, but at any rate I've said earlier that synthesis is a leap of faith.  TIM was under the Reaper's control, but they freaked when they realized he'd figured out how to actually pull it off.  That actually seems to suggest that Control is quite possible.  Like I said, these "Foreshadowings" are nothing but selective interpretations.

I just don't understand the IT theory proponents need for my decision to be wrong.

We don't " need" you to be wrong. We just see things differently based on lore and themes present in the game. But you are entitled to your own opinion that you are right and we are wrong  just as we are entitled to believe you are wrong and we are right. We both have valid interpretations (according to Bioware anyway).

I don't need destroy to be a wrong decision, I only believe it shouldn't be the only correct one that gets the best outcome.  I just oppose any theory that seeks to limit choices to a rigid hierarchy of better and worse.  Do you at least see the problem with that?

What I see is  people like you believing that because others believe differently, this somehow means we're spitting in your faces and on your decisions. This is an overreaction.

IT dictates that anyone that doesn't pick destroy has succombed to indoctrination.  Where's the ambiguity in that?