164 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

You mean ad hominems like "extremists" and "fundamentalists?" lol. Go stuff yourself.

[AxStapleton]

I'm not trying to be obtuse or anything, but doesn't the OP defeat the object of having a thread about it? Having the thread seems to only encourage discussion about synthesis rather than stop it as you're attempting to do.

[AlanC9]

Someone With Mass wrote...


If they decide to make a canon with the next game, then those choices are completely pointless. It'd also have the hilarious side effect of making the Catalyst dialogues meaningless as well.

That's silly. In Fallout one the VD can save Tandi, fail to save her, kill her himself, or ignore the whole thing. He can save Vault 13 or not. In Fallout 2 you find that the VD saved both of them.

[Wayning_Star]

OP, it's apparent,even to hard core destroy/IT'ers that synthesis is the canon like ending. I'm of the opinion there is NO moral to this story and it's not ending well with all the debate about it.

All facts and mechanics demands synthesis to accomplish Sheps goal to actually rid the MEU of the reaper thread. All devised by the leviathan(its the actual reason for the DLC), as they're explanation of the cycle and what the catalyst actually is and why. They rigged it to cover their thralls necessity for invention of synthetic life. The fact that the leviathan created the catalyst only prooves that point.

It would seem another simplification of complex issues, but stops the validity of other choices cold, even unpins the IT, as moot, there is no need to indoctrinate the MEU via Shep. Circumstances ends up controlling the decision making to only one. Everyone knows this to be true, but sitll plain don't like it.

Shepard was resurrected just to accomplish the goal, a second chance to upend the cycle, not the reapers, per se. As the reapers are only the symptom of another more pressing issue. Evolution and the organic link/dependence on technology. Everything in the MEU is based on tech, depends on tech, LIVES off of tech. Tech, becoming sentienc/being in of it's self requires a 'next step', and that is the plague harrassing the MEU. Not reapers/catalyst or even any enemies.

This spells 'inevitibility'. The basis of the Mass Effect(key words) story.

discalmer: BiowarEa are hard put to alter the synopsis, claim 'head space' for folks involved into the story and hopes for eventual apathy. Really tho, what else could the devs do, now that the ME story ending will/can never actually occur? The cycle continues..lol

[clennon8]

Look, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of transhumanism/synthesis. It's just that no literal interpretation of the ending sequence belongs in this particular game. And I strongly suspect most of the pro-Synths know this, as evidenced by the following quotation from one pro-Synth:

"The last ten minutes wandered in from a different game, but I'd rather play that game. It's the previous 25 hrs I hated."

And then there's HYR 2.0, who recently stated that a large part of the reason he chose Synthesis and defends it so strongly is because he checked to see what the rest of BSN liked, and did the opposite.

Then there's Ieldra2 himself, who has stated on numerous occasions the he picked Synthesis because it was "something different."

I can't help but conclude that there's a strong thread of contrarianism at the heart of Synthesis, and the rest of it really is the rationalized bullsh*t that it appears to be.

[jtav]

You quoted me out of context clen, and I don't appreciate it. You left out the part where I went on to explain that it was the themes I hated: the sanctification of the normal and the average and the villainization of those who seek to improve themselves. Destroy supports those themes. And I was leaning toward Control at the time. The reason I picked Synthesis was actually something I'm 99% sure Ieldra would disagree with.

[Wayning_Star]

clennon8 wrote...

Look, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of transhumanism/synthesis. It's just that no literal interpretation of the ending sequence belongs in this particular game. And I strongly suspect most of the pro-Synths know this, as evidenced by the following quotation from one pro-Synth:

"The last ten minutes wandered in from a different game, but I'd rather play that game. It's the previous 25 hrs I hated."

And then there's HYR 2.0, who recently stated that a large part of the reason he chose Synthesis and defends it so strongly is because he checked to see what the rest of BSN liked, and did the opposite.

Then there's Ieldra2 himself, who has stated on numerous occasions the he picked Synthesis because it was "something different."

I can't help but conclude that there's a strong thread of contrarianism at the heart of Synthesis, and the rest of it really is the rationalized bullsh*t that it appears to be.

well, the game does sort of put Shep in the mind of destroy throughout the series, even 3, but the actualities of the symptomology of harvest and catlyst is contrary to that end. Shep cannot actually destroy the 'idea' of the catalyst/program. It's wrought from the necessity of organics, who end up their own enemy. Benign in their apathy, but still the basis for the chaos/pattern/cycle. Everyone forgets that this stuff has been going on for billions of years in the MEU. Earth missed out on it until they aquired "the tech". But,eventually( if logic serves )  Earth/humans would of advanced without reaper tech anyway, and fall victim to the cycle. Mars was just the catalyst stirring the petri dish via prothean lackies.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

You quoted me out of context clen, and I don't appreciate it. You left out the part where I went on to explain that it was the themes I hated: the sanctification of the normal and the average and the villainization of those who seek to improve themselves. Destroy supports those themes. And I was leaning toward Control at the time. The reason I picked Synthesis was actually something I'm 99% sure Ieldra would disagree with.

I don't think your contextualization is doing anything to disprove my point, jtav.

[knightnblu]

Arcian wrote...

Morgan Freeman was once asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace, "How do we get rid of racism?"

His answer was, "Stop talking about it."

Please follow his advice in regards to Synthesis and stop treating it as a big deal when it isn't.

I always find it interesting when people try to control the conversation toward their own ends. Usually they begin with reason and when that fails they attempt to shut down the other side by preventing the airing of their opinion in the first place. That is what is happening in the U.K. at this very moment as it's citizens mull whether or not to allow "offensive" comments or to keep them criminalized. Rising arrests for offensive speech (including the arrest and prosecution of a Pub owner who only posted newspaper ads defining a theme) has shut down many would be dissidents and that makes the government happy.
 
The best way to win an argument is to shut your opponent up and the best way to do so is to prevent him from speaking his mind in the first place. Mr. Freeman clearly realizes this when he gives his answer to the question, but Mr. Freeman also plays the race card against those with political views that he doesn't like. How can this be? Because he is the only one allowed to speak and therefore he wins.
 
By framing the synthesis debate with your plea you are telling those of us who oppose it essentially to "shut up," while you continue talking. If you truly believed your own initial post then you would never have initiated this thread. Since that is not the case then one can only assume you are carping about what you don't like and that is the moral judgments about synthesis which you clearly state is no "big deal."
 
If that is your moral judgment, then fine. You are entitled to it, however you never provide any reasons for why I am not entitled to mine. You just say that I should shut up about it as well as anyone who disagrees with your position. A position you are also entitled to possess. However, expecting those of us who disagree with you to abide by it is laughable.

[jtav]

It does. I chose Synthesis because it was more in line with my values. I took the ending on its own terms because it had the decency to be bad in an interesting way. Related, but separate. If Destroy had been in line with my values, I would have chosen it. You can find multiple attempts both here and at TCR where I attempted to make it fit my values. A contrarian wouldn't do that.

[Wayning_Star]

knightnblu wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Morgan Freeman was once asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace, "How do we get rid of racism?"

His answer was, "Stop talking about it."

Please follow his advice in regards to Synthesis and stop treating it as a big deal when it isn't.

I always find it interesting when people try to control the conversation toward their own ends. Usually they begin with reason and when that fails they attempt to shut down the other side by preventing the airing of their opinion in the first place. That is what is happening in the U.K. at this very moment as it's citizens mull whether or not to allow "offensive" comments or to keep them criminalized. Rising arrests for offensive speech (including the arrest and prosecution of a Pub owner who only posted newspaper ads defining a theme) has shut down many would be dissidents and that makes the government happy.
 
The best way to win an argument is to shut your opponent up and the best way to do so is to prevent him from speaking his mind in the first place. Mr. Freeman clearly realizes this when he gives his answer to the question, but Mr. Freeman also plays the race card against those with political views that he doesn't like. How can this be? Because he is the only one allowed to speak and therefore he wins.
 
By framing the synthesis debate with your plea you are telling those of us who oppose it essentially to "shut up," while you continue talking. If you truly believed your own initial post then you would never have initiated this thread. Since that is not the case then one can only assume you are carping about what you don't like and that is the moral judgments about synthesis which you clearly state is no "big deal."
 
If that is your moral judgment, then fine. You are entitled to it, however you never provide any reasons for why I am not entitled to mine. You just say that I should shut up about it as well as anyone who disagrees with your position. A position you are also entitled to possess. However, expecting those of us who disagree with you to abide by it is laughable.

actually, Old Morgan was only defining the difference of having 'racism' as opposed to not considering it a topic for discussion, or even exist in real time. He wasn't trying to 'close' the conversation, so much as remove racism as a part of the reality that is racism. You see a difference in 'race', then that is racism. Simple really, and is very sneaky..racism.

I think the 'shut up' part of it all is the extreme nature of the arguement, not the basis FOR the/any arguement, for or against. Many entertain the notion that it's fun to be argumentitive and that's it to the arguement.

[clennon8]

Apparently, your values don't preclude falling for obvious tricks that the game series has demonstrated as being obvious tricks.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KaiLengnon8, didn't I tell you to take your own advice on what the series should do?

[clennon8]

Ending sequence:  Shepard falls unconscious.  Things get strange.  Shepard falls unconscious again.  Things get stranger.  Shepard falls unconscious yet again.  Things get really fracking weird, and every lesson we've learned in the previous 100 hours gets completely turned on its head in ten minutes.  By the leader of an army of indoctrinating death machines taking the guise of a small child.

Seems legit.

Modifié par clennon8, 28 octobre 2012 - 05:28 .

[Samtheman63]

clennon8 wrote...

Ending sequence:  Shepard falls unconscious.  Things get strange.  Shepard falls unconscious again.  Things get stranger.  Shepard falls unconscious yet again.  Things get really fracking weird, and every lesson we've learned in the previous 100 hours gets completely turned on its head in ten minutes.  By the leader of an army of indoctrinating death machines taking the guise of a small child.

Seems legit.

[Wayning_Star]

clennon8 wrote...

Ending sequence:  Shepard falls unconscious.  Things get strange.  Shepard falls unconscious again.  Things get stranger.  Shepard falls unconscious yet again.  Things get really fracking weird, and every lesson we've learned in the previous 100 hours gets completely turned on its head in ten minutes.  By the leader of an army of indoctrinating death machines taking the guise of a small child.

Seems legit.

almost as strange as when columbus landed on the new continent...er..land. etc

Shep, compared to the collective knowledge of a few billion years would be 'like a child'..whouldn't it? All we learned in the previous 100 hrs was that the reapers reap and everything was a mystery. The catalyst wasn't even part of the equation. I always thought there were mystery super powers at work, besides pesky overbearing/simplistic reaperships.

I still am forced to think that there is/are other beings at work, mainly because of Sheps reanimation as well as the choices/crucible. It's not detailed anywhere, who actually desingned/programmed the crucible. MEU organics/synthetics only assembled and charged it up. Talk about long shots..lol (D'oh!!) nobody had a first clue as to what it would do, to rid the systems of the reaper thread. They just "Took it".. on faith.. like reaper tech and the citadel'n mars.

Humans are soooo complex..lol

[Ieldra]

I stand by my claim. Synthesis and Control supporters aren't the ones who constantly claim an ending they don't like shouldn't be in the game, or that those who choose another ending than theirs aren't thinking straight. That particular privilege belongs to a subset of the pro-Destroy faction, and it is a fundamentalist's attitude.

Just imagine if things were the other way round: if obsessive anti-Destroyers constantly barged into any relevant topic yelling that Destroy is evil, people aren't thinking straight for choosing it and that the option to Destroy the Reapers should never have been in the game...

As for the obvious answer "That's different" - no, it's not. It may be hard to believe for some, but I hoped that I could end the war without destroying the Reapers ever since ME1. Granted, the story didn't make it appear likely that such an option would present itself, but it's not as far-fetched as some people make it out to be.

[ThatGuyThatPlaysThisGame]

Kabooooom wrote...

They will make it canon. Why? Because a ME prequel won't fly for a number of reasons that aren't worth mentioning here. That leaves either a side-story during the Reaper War, ODST style - or a sequel in the future of the ME universe.

And Synthesis presumably occurs whether you choose Control or Destroy as well. It happens no matter what.

Or just bare with me here. They make our choices matter again? 

[Headcount]

Isn't synthesis basically like ending all of earth's problems simply by making everyone white and christian? Great idea unless you are the billions on the other side of the fence.

[Bill Casey]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I stand by my claim. Synthesis and Control supporters aren't the ones who constantly claim an ending they don't like shouldn't be in the game, or that those who choose another ending than theirs aren't thinking straight. That particular privilege belongs to a subset of the pro-Destroy faction, and it is a fundamentalist's attitude.

Yeah, no ****...
It's because they're ****ing right...

[Ieldra]

Bill Casey wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I stand by my claim. Synthesis and Control supporters aren't the ones who constantly claim an ending they don't like shouldn't be in the game, or that those who choose another ending than theirs aren't thinking straight. That particular privilege belongs to a subset of the pro-Destroy faction, and it is a fundamentalist's attitude.

Yeah, no ****...
It's because they're ****ing right...

That's what fundamentalists always say, actually....

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I never really cared what they canonize.

Though I am beginning to want Synthesis canon for the ensuing nuclear apocalypse on BSN.

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Synthesis and Control supporters aren't the ones who constantly claim an ending they don't like shouldn't be in the game, or that those who choose another ending than theirs aren't thinking straight.  

Except when someone picks Destroy because he believes in IT, or because he's headcanoning that only Reapers die. In those cases the Destroyer really isn't thinking straight, and it's OK to call him on it.