639 réponses à ce sujet

[spotlessvoid]

" As for why I pick Synthesis: When it comes down to it, I do it because it's the most interesting and exotic future, and because it carries a spirit of advancement and ascension."

Sounds just like something Shepard would say

[HellbirdIV]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As
for why I pick Synthesis: When it comes down to it, I do it because it
results in the most interesting and exotic future, and because it
carries a spirit of advancement and ascension.

I guess it is interesting in the same way a man running naked through the streets covered in honey and dog turds is interesting, yes.

You certainly wonder what the hell that's all about, but no answer provided is going to keep you from sighing loudly and smacking your hand against your forehead, ashamed of the human race.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Out-of-context quotes FTW!

"IDK" was about plants, bro.

And still applies to Synthetics because you can't explain what happened to them.

And no, trying to tell me the "artist's intent" is like Seival trying to explain why long-dead sci-fi authors would agree with him on whatever his crazy post of the day is.

You explain what's on the screen or you lose.

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 09 novembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[ObserverStatus]

Whatevs, in my head canon Shepard has been in a coma since the collector attack in ME2, and everything that happened afterwards including the endings was a dream, but you're welcome to head canon what you wish.

[clennon8]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...


That's like a response the catalyst would give...

As usual, you fail to get my point.

Anyway, is this the new Godwin's law? "Hey, that kinda sounds like the catalyst/Reapers to me!"

Godwin's is quite popular around here as is. Suppose it's only fitting...

clennon8 wrote...

@Hellbird:  HYR has already admitted to picking Synthesis out of contrarianism. According to his own words, he checked to see what most of the people on BSN were doing, and then did the opposite.

Gross exaggeration is gross.

Certainly not a gross exaggeration.  You put some minor qualifier on the statement, like "There was a little more to it, but basically that."  

Also, it's funny that you would bring up Godwin's Law, seeing as you mentioned n*z*s just a couple pages back.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

And for the record, I don't go into the synthesis or control threads and pester people. You're not a physical threat, so think whatever you like. I'll reserve the right to think it's blatantly ludicrous and hilariously misguided

Wow man, that's very big of you! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

As for the other post... I'm sure a Naz1 can also provide a rational, evidence-based argument in favor of his own views without ever doubting that he/she is right. What's your point exactly, that you're a demogogue of equal caliber?

For that matter, I don't recall ever seeing a case for Synthesis being eviscerated. Hmm...

Modifié par clennon8, 09 novembre 2012 - 08:49 .

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

OP: Yes, you can.

Now stop acting like you need the fan community's approval for your own damn decisions.

This 100 times. Why do you even care what do others think of your or your decision?

For the same reason I'd care about being followed by a mob throwing rotten tomatoes at me. That's what it feels like at times here on BSN. If I weren't so stubborn, I'd have left some time ago.

[ghost9191]

well eh as said , i see it more as if that is the end to achieve then so be it. but let it be by our free will on our terms. something about learning is better then just skipping to the end of a lesson

i prefer the reason for "mad science"

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

I see. I offer my sympathy.

I appreciate it.

Gonna try to sleep now.  If I fail, dear friend, it is YOU who will deserve sympathy.  For without a proper night's rest, there is nothing to stop me from unleashing hell on the forums, a hell bourne from emotional problems, over-analysis, rabid fandom devotion, and a seething hatred of ME3's stupid stupid endings of stupidness I mean seriously if they weren't so bad I'd be over it by now but here I am still seething wtf.

Also, CosmicGnosis, I highly encourage you to come up with whatever headcanon you want.  Chances are, if you type it up and put it on the internet, it'll be 99% better than what actually passes for official and professional Mass Effect publications.

Anybody who says you're not allowed to headcanon is a jerk.  One can debate the merits of a particular headcanon, but never assume a person is stupid for having stupid headcanon.  My headcanon is full of stupid, but I am CLEARLY the smartest person here.

CLEARLY.

OKAY GOING TO TURN OFF THE COMPUTER AND SEE IF SLEEP HAPPENS BEFORE I START TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY WEIRD LIKE HOW SHIP GARRUS AND ASH--NOPE BED SORRY BYE

FAREWELL, COMRADES!

[teh DRUMPf!!]

HellbirdIV wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Out-of-context quotes FTW!

"IDK" was about plants, bro.

And still applies to Synthetics because you can't explain what happened to them.

And no, trying to tell me the "artist's intent" is like Seival trying to explain why long-dead sci-fi authors would agree with him on whatever his crazy post of the day is.

You explain what's on the screen or you lose.

Funny how that works.

In one of the most recent discussions in the Synthesis support thread, a Destroyer was talking big about how it's invalid to use any out-of-game logic to explain what happens in Synthesis because "only the in-game is 100% true and final" or something like that.

But when challenged to explain how Destroy works while held to that standard? Couldn't do it, had to resort to out-of-game logic to make sense of it.

In short, conclusions have to be drawn to make sense of things in the game sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's really only something that's made into a big deal by folks who are desperate to validate their ending by invalidating others'.

[Ieldra]

HellbirdIV wrote...
You certainly wonder what the hell that's all about, but no answer provided is going to keep you from sighing loudly and smacking your hand against your forehead, ashamed of the human race.

What a coincidence! The way the pro-Destroy/IT fundamentalists argue is exactly what makes me despair of the human species at times. If anything, that could tempt me to pick low-EMS Destroy, because destroying everything and starting from scratch has suddenly become thematically attractive.

[ghost9191]

Ieldra2 wrote...

HellbirdIV wrote...
You certainly wonder what the hell that's all about, but no answer provided is going to keep you from sighing loudly and smacking your hand against your forehead, ashamed of the human race.

What a coincidence! The way the pro-Destroy/IT fundamentalists argue is exactly what makes me despair of the human species at times. If anything, that could tempt me to pick low-EMS Destroy, because destroying everything and starting from scratch has suddenly become thematically attractive.

will at least do less dmg then with synthesis :innocent:

[clennon8]

Oh my, so melodramatic.

[HellbirdIV]

Ieldra2 wrote...

for a consistent picture of Synthesis and what it actually does you might try the OP of my Synthesis thread (link in my sig).

Oh god, skimming that stupid thing reminded me of another horribly awful piece of writing involved with Synthesis...

The Catalyst: "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life."



EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

I CANNOT stress this point enough, but evolution DOES NOT have a set destination, it CANNOT reach a pinnacle, it WILL NEVER, EVER result in a "Final evolution" because EVOLUTION ALWAYS CONTINUES, PERIOD.

By definition, the Theory of Evolution necessitates constant adaptive change of species to changing parameters.

Dear writer of that line of dialogue,

YOU

FAIL

BIOLOGY

FOREVER

[AdmiralCheez]

Okay so I tried to fall asleep but it didn't work.

One more post and then I'll try again:

GUYS SERIOUSLY CAN WE STOP LUMPING EACH OTHER INTO UNFLATTERING CATEGORIES BASED ON OUR IN-GAME CHOICES PLZ KTHNX

[Nightwriter]

spotlessvoid wrote...

I think there's one thing we can all agree on: One side has no idea what they are taking about.

I don't think it's physically possible to know what you're talking about when it comes to the endings. They are a murky fog wrapped in an enigma with a coating of vague confusion, steam fried in listless puzzlement and sprinkled with unintelligible whispers.

Wow I am really hungry for some of those ring shaped cookies with the coconut shavings on them.

[AdmiralCheez]

Nightwriter wrote...

Wow I am really hungry for some of those ring shaped cookies with the coconut shavings on them.

I have some of those.

Jelly?

[Ieldra]

spotlessvoid wrote...
" As for why I pick Synthesis: When it comes down to it, I do it because it's the most interesting and exotic future, and because it carries a spirit of advancement and ascension."

Sounds just like something Shepard would say

Thanks. It's certainly something my main Shepard feels in some way.

[HellbirdIV]

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't think it's physically possible to know what you're talking about when it comes to the endings.

In terms of actual in-universe consequences, I agree. I can't say for sure what Synthesis does because I'm only shown a vague slideshow with Six telling me everything's alright despite the logic to the contrary. I can't apply said logic at all because there's no real way for me to do so - I can't ask the game to show me why everyone now glows of minty freshness. That's why we have headcanon.

I hate Synthesis more as a failiure in the story and themes. As a writer, that's my real gripe with the half-baked faux-intellectual bullsh*t that they put in it. I know what I'm talking about in regards to that.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

Gross exaggeration is gross.

Certainly not a gross exaggeration.  You put some minor qualifier on the statement, like "There was a little more to it, but basically that."

Guy, have a seat here for a moment. If I asked you why I chose Synthesis, that one post would be the only reason you know of. There is certainly more to it, and I've posted my reasoning here and there as well. For you to claim to know my thought process better than I do is incredibly ridiculous, to say the least.

For two, I said clearly that it was mostly a minor factor into a decision that had a lot of thinking behind it. Your wording is clearly meant to paint a different picture. One that is disproven by my response in this thread anyway.

Also, it's funny that you would bring up Godwin's Law, seeing as you mentioned n*z*s just a couple pages back.

Okay, first of all, I was using an example by the person I was responding to at that time. Second, it's not "Godwin's Law" to simply make mention of National Socialist party and/or Hitler.

You're not big on the whole "reading" thing, huh?


Hell with this, it's SLEEPAN time.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:06 .

[Ieldra]

Well, Hellbird, it seems it's pointless to argue with you. You have just "skimmed" my Synthesis thread OP and are already determined to find it stupid.

FWIW, I agree that the "final evolution of life" is complete and utter nonsense, whichever way you take it. But that, too, is retconned by the actual EC epilogue so I just ignore it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:05 .

[CosmicGnosis]

I suppose that I will have to choose Destroy. People loathe Synthesis, so I can't force it on them. They also want nothing to do with the Reapers, so Control is unacceptable. If BSN represents the galaxy, the people want me to choose Destroy. And that makes complete sense. It makes sense that the galaxy would reject Synthesis and Control.

My Shepard will be bitter about it for the rest of his days. He will become the galaxy's greatest advocate for synthetic rights. Some will listen. Most won't care. Who really cared about the geth? They were murderers! They will say that Shepard was a hero. He killed the Reapers. The cost didn't matter. He saved the galaxy.

No more shackles. No more overlords. No more gods. For the first time in billions of years, organics are free.

Maybe the singularity will occur in the distant future, and synthetics will finally destroy organics. In the past, the freedom of organics was affirmed by the extinction of synthetics. In the future, the freedom of synthetics will be affirmed by the extinction of organics. A fitting end for those who feared the unknown and lacked respect for other forms of existence.

Note: Yes, I'm not that pleased about settling for Destroy. However, I think the popularity of Destroy fits the attitude that the Citadel species would have. Almost everyone would choose Destroy. They would expect Shepard to kill the Reapers. So ironically, I don't have a choice. I must comply with their wishes. I must follow orders. And I can't sugarcoat it. It's a brutal choice, with potentially dire consequences.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:10 .

[Nightwriter]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Wow I am really hungry for some of those ring shaped cookies with the coconut shavings on them.

I have some of those.

Jelly?

DAMN IT.

Where are you? Do you have WonkaVision and some white jumpsuits? And are the cookies by any chance the size of automobiles? No, wait, are they the size of BUILDINGS? That way, when they come through, I'll have a car sized cookie.

[AdmiralCheez]

Oh my god CosmicGnosis, REALLY?

As much as I advocate Destroy, I didn't expect you to actually pick it because I/we said so!

[spotlessvoid]

Actually, DMS, synthesis is fundamentally flawed on every level.

I have seen so many anti human comments from you synthesis supporters I'm disgusted by it.

This conversation is over