699 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

Gtacatalina wrote...

After Yate telling me to go kill myself because of my views on page 5 of this thread, I wouldn't take anything that nasty Yate says seriously. 

Ouch, just read that comment.  

[guacamayus]

Yate wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

To me it was not the ending but most of the plot. Retcons and contradictions make it very hard to enjoy or even replay previous games, some examples;

ME1:
-why the need of a sentinel annalyzing organic life and opening the citadel relay if the "brain" of the reapers was already there, at the heart of galactic civilization?

ME2:
-the whole plot is rendered useless, according to their initial idea Harbinger was using the collectors to create a human reaper before the invasion because they've ran out of time to stop the dark energy problem. After ME3 the existance of the human reaper and the collectors makes no sense because there was no problem to fix other than AI vs Organics, which is not related in any way to the collectors or the human reaper. The human reaper plot is left as “Harbinger's side project” (Mac actually said this via twitter) and that is a real kick in the balls.

And even ME3:

-the whole charge to the conduit thing is pointess since apparently the normandy can get there without trouble. Why not pull an “Illos” again and throw a mako into the beam?

And these are just some examples, thereare many more.

So yeah, I'm a little pissed too because suddenly the writers forgot that the story has to make sense as a whole, you can't crap over the story of 2 games just like that and expect everyone to remain calm and understanding.

1. Harbinger wanted the reapers to take out the Citadel first, because it's the centre of government and contains data on the populations.

2. I'm not sure what your problem is here. The plot of each of the games is stand-alone, ME2 did far more than spend time on the collectors, it revealed part of the reaper's goal and introduced Cerberus properly.

3. That beam is for lifting humans up, not for transporting ships. Normandy's pretty big you know.

1 - That has little to do with my question. The Catalyst was there all along, why couldn't it gather the necessary data on the state of the galaxy and open the relay if necessary? Why leave a sentinel behind that can be discovered and also destroyed (preserving life... right). It doesn't make sense.

2 - My problem is that the human reaper plot makes no sense, there's no reason to rush the harvest and risk discovery. About their motives, they did hint at the possiblity that maybe the harvest is the equivalent of reproduction. This idea is discarded aswell during ME3 after we are told what they really want, so I don't understand why would you bring that up since it does nothing but reinforce my argument.

3 - The normandy can still land in front of the beam, drop Shepard off without the dramatic but unnecesary charge to the beam and accomplish the task with little casualties. And btw I said a Mako, not the whole normandy going through the beam.

Modifié par guacamayus, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:34 .

[Grubas]

Gtacatalina wrote...

After Yate telling me to go kill myself because of my views on page 5 of this thread, I wouldn't take anything that nasty Yate says seriously.

Yap Yate acting like a 3year old. Just report.

Modifié par Grubas, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:30 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Vigilant111 wrote...

You solve their problem by blowing up all the AIs that allegedly wipe all organics out

Destroy doesn't prevent new AI's from being built in the future, nor does it enable organics to compete and develop on the same level as an synthetic singularity.

What ideals?! That organics and synthetics must be joined in order to settle conflicts, and that perfection can ONLY be achieved this way

That's not an accurate description of synthesis, vague as the description is, and Synthesis makes no claims to settling conflicts in general... just one particular one (the innate mismatch between organic limitations and a runaway technological singularity).

Have I forgot?! I think YOU forgot the last ten minutes of the game where the Catalyst tells you it does not see torturing and murdering people as despicable but actually a way to bring salvation! It is trying to save you! How can someone who is desperately trying to preserve life be a bad guy?

Easily?

[Dean_the_Young]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Yate wrote...

And questions like "why didn't the reapers just fly in" have been present since ME1.

No, it wasn´t. Besides the obvious advantages of sucker-punching the goverment, it hinted the voyage wasn´t plausible even for Reapers. Then in the sequels it turned out it was a short stroll (from their POV), yet they waited centuries for Sovereign to open the relay.

As the evil overlord list says:

One of my proof-readers will be a 5 year old kid. Any plot holes s/he detects will be corrected.

In this case, it's not a plot hole.

Going by implications of the relay network, and the Dev's tweats, when the Reapers go with the Citadel Invasion route they more or less have a perfect victory. Minimal, if any, Reaper ships get destroyed because the organic fleets are already and permanently divided. It doesn't matter how many centuries the Reapers wait, to a point, and the results will be the same.

Whereas when the Reapers fight conventional, as they did this time, they do take casualties. Not enough to ruin the war, but more than they would take otherwise.


It's a difference between your evaluation and theirs. You value time efficiency: the Reapers could have conquered us centuries ago and gotten it over with. But why should the Reapers care? They never had to let us grow into a galactic civilization in the first place, if they wanted. The Reapers value Reaper-casualty efficiency: they'll accept risks and losses in the pursuit of other priorities and goals (sending Destroyers to Rannoch/Tuchanka on medium-risk, high-reward missions; conquering Homeworlds for processing, rather than nuking from orbit), but they prefer to avoid them.

For the Reapers flight to be a logic hole, there would need to be a clear, logical reason for them NOT to wait and try the Citadel gambit with Sovereign. While it's true they would have suffered fewer conventional losses in an earlier conventional invasion, if the Saren gambit had worked it would have been even better. Given how many stars had to align just-so for the Sovereign-Saren gambit to fail (had Shepard been half an hour later to any of the objectives outside of plot-flex-timing, the crucial clues would have been destroyed), why shouldn't the Reapers have tried the safer route later?

[Vigilant111]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Because we were forced to solve the reapers' problem,

Two of the four endings don't solve the Reaper's problem.

No, destroy also solves their problem, even if its only temporary, all AIs are destroyed, they could no longer pose threat to organics, that is, if organics stop building AIs in the future

I do not accept refuse as a valid option, no offence, it is not in the original cut, and it is only released after the ending controversy

accept their ideals,

You never have to accept their motivations or rational. You bring your own justification for any of the Crucible options.

Yes, headcanon, you have no idea how much I am doing it right now... sorry, I do not see this as a valid argument

BW should have given people a chance to join the reapers a long time ago, and not lead them to believe the reapers are the bad guys until the last ten minutes

The Reapers are still the bad guys even in the last ten minutes. The last ten minutes just offers you the explanation for their rational, a problem you don't even have to agree is a problem. It doesn't validate or pardon their cycle of genocide.

Yes, it doesn't validate, yes, I do not trust the Catalyst, yes, I despise the premise of "organics vs synthetics", but do these opinions really matter? At the end of the day, we are still lending some credence to the Catalyst's infinite wisdom are we not? Catalyst's projections must be upheld to some degree so that the ending options can be interpreted as being logical... how silly would the reason to control be if it is "Oh, I would like to enslave the reapers and make them dance for what they did"?, No, a more sensible rationale would be "I need to keep the reapers around so I could suppress revolting AIs

Modifié par Vigilant111, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Because we were forced to solve the reapers' problem,

Two of the four endings don't solve the Reaper's problem.

No, destroy also solves their problem, even if its only temporary, all AIs are destroyed, they could no longer pose threat to organics, that is, if organics stop building AIs in the future

The development of synthetics and tools is already considered an inevitable part of organic technological development.  The societal and competitive impetuses towards advancement more than justify that view as well. Even if you created galactic legislation forbidding the development of synthetics, the potential advantage to 'cheaters' would continue the development of such. Even before memories and enforcement fade with time and other concerns, you'll still have the Cerberus and STG's and criminals of the galaxy looking to get ahead.

Likewise, Control doesn't stop technological advancement either. As the galaxy nears the Reaper tech level, the army of Reapers will become less and less effective as a deterence to AI's. Eventually, so long as there is no technological plateau, the Reaper techlevel will be bypassed as well.

I do not accept refuse as a valid option, no offence, it is not in the original cut, and it is only released after the ending controversy

So what?

Yes, headcanon, you have no idea how much I am doing it right now... sorry, I do not see this as a valid argument

It is the only argument. There is no canonical argument presented by Shepard as to why he/she takes any of the Crucible options. In the absence of an espoused motivation by Shepard, the rational and justification falls upon the roleplayer.

Yes, it doesn't validate, yes, I do not trust the Catalyst, yes, I despise the premise of "organics vs synthetics", but do these opinions really matter?

Yes.

At the end of the day, we are still lending some credence to the Catalyst's infinite wisdom are we not?

You are not.

Catalyst's projections must be upheld to some degree so that the ending options can be interpreted as being logical... how silly would the reason to control be if it is "Oh, I would like to enslave the reapers and make them dance for what they did"?, No, a more sensible rationale would be "I need to keep the reapers around so I could suppress revolting AIs

Why the false delimma of choices?

'I choose Control because I believe it is preferable to Synthesis's uncertainty and I don't want to kill the Geth and/or EDI.'
'I choose Control because I have a hardon for (species/organization X) and I want to use the Reapers to make them the leading power in the post-war order.'
'I choose Control because I want the power of the Reapers at my control to make the changes I want to see in the galaxy.'

The Illusive Man, as badly handled as he was, offers a pretty basic rational for Control: to take the Reapers technologies and use them for our own ends. Those ends don't have to be suppressing an AI revolt.

[Vigilant111]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

You solve their problem by blowing up all the AIs that allegedly wipe all organics out

Destroy doesn't prevent new AI's from being built in the future, nor does it enable organics to compete and develop on the same level as an synthetic singularity.

No it doesn't gurantee anything, it is only a TEMPORARY solution until organics figure out something out ... uh duh, synthesis

I would appreciate it if you do not pull technological singularity like it is ace, I have never seen codex entries on it

What ideals?! That organics and synthetics must be joined in order to settle conflicts, and that perfection can ONLY be achieved this way

That's not an accurate description of synthesis, vague as the description is, and Synthesis makes no claims to settling conflicts in general... just one particular one (the innate mismatch between organic limitations and a runaway technological singularity).

The Catalyst did say synthesis is inevitable, so what do you think it means? Wasn't there a strong connection of synthesis and conflict settlement?

Singularity, again, twice in a single post, sir. To me, the occurence of singularity just means anything other than synthesis is just procrastination to the inevitable conflict

Have I forgot?! I think YOU forgot the last ten minutes of the game where the Catalyst tells you it does not see torturing and murdering people as despicable but actually a way to bring salvation! It is trying to save you! How can someone who is desperately trying to preserve life be a bad guy?

Easily?

Enlighten me

Look at the bolded text, think about it with the knowledge that the Catalyst has a different perspective, if the Catalyst tells the truth, like ascending people to make way for new life and that each reaper is really in fact a species preserved, then this does not make the Catalyst a clear bad guy, more like TIM (Well, it still is a "bad guy" but the attempt to exonerate the Catalyst is obvious)

[Wayning_Star]

Its really aggravating to know that of any of all those supposed choices, there isn't any, but one...and that one isn't popular because of itchy questions. But the fact remains that choices in the universe are not universal nor as simple as all that. Sure Leviathan forced the issue, but the reality of 'being' within the confines of any set circumstances(such as reality) organic and synthetic "beings" must choose to survive, or not. So, what does the trusty fans say? Survive at any cost, or just go with the flow.

What is the "flow" and what is "survive"? Why does nature ask such a thing of its creations? Nature doesn't care in the least actually. About technology, about organics or synthetics.. Do you? Why would you? Apparently, the nature of things in the MEU demands that you decide. Eventually someone/thing will. So, why wait?

Everyone seems to omit the facts, as they ARE the reapers. Pitted against the framework of the MEU reality. That reality being you're screwed with them and totally marooned without them...

Synthesis being the idea of controlling them in effect of destroying them by absorbing them. Realization that you are the problem, not the reaperships/catalyst/geth/etc. Organics are the oldest most apex race going and will not exist without the "created" technology that makes such possible in the MEU.

Live with it... or not... technology.(as it will advance, just as organics evolve with their creativity.)

It's all about resources, the Leviathan had the most, but there may be other beings (the rest of the civies in the MEU could qualify;) about that have more and that results in another story related to these ideas. Just like space, the imagination is boundless, but reality of existence has it's definitive limitations. Everyone knows how that works..don't they..lol(rise'n falls of civilization(s),etc) To dig a ditch, do you utilize a shovel, or mass altering disintegration? What level of civilization are you? Who thinks all this stuff up anyway, why bother?(where were you when I was saving the MEU?!?)

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 22 novembre 2012 - 04:42 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Vigilant111 wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Vigilant111 wrote...

You solve their problem by blowing up all the AIs that allegedly wipe all organics out[/quote]Destroy doesn't prevent new AI's from being built in the future, nor does it enable organics to compete and develop on the same level as an synthetic singularity. [/quote]

No it doesn't gurantee anything, it is only a TEMPORARY solution until organics figure out something out ... uh duh, synthesis[/quote]A temporary solution is not an actual solution to the Crucible's long-term problem.

[quote]
I would appreciate it if you do not pull technological singularity like it is ace, I have never seen codex entries on it[/quote]Technological singularity is the concept that the entire synthetic menace (and Geth) ties to and revolves around: that as technology grows more advanced, it will advance in ways we can't predict, to the point where it will advance faster than we can match.

This is pretty much the backbone of the synthetic threat theme.

[quote]
The Catalyst did say synthesis is inevitable, so what do you think it means?[/quote]Synthesis isn't combining organic and synthetics from two species into one: it's giving organics synthetic-level abilities of the physical and synthetics organic-like abilities on the mental.
[quote]
Wasn't there a strong connection of synthesis and conflict settlement?[/quote]Only of the conflicts born from the innate differences between synthetics and organics: organic inability to match synthetic growth, and synthetic limitations on understanding the organics.
[quote]
Singularity, again, twice in a single post, sir. To me, the occurence of singularity just means anything other than synthesis is just procrastination to the inevitable conflict[/quote]On the most fundamental level, a technological singularity is a point at which a technological advancement makes a paradigm shift such that what occurs afterwards can not be predicted beforehand. The advancement of writting to the illiterate, which enabled organized civilizations, or the creation of the internet and microprocessor.

A technological singularity could lead to synthesis... maybe, eventually, possibly. But the Reaper's views on inevitably don't actually have to happen.
[quote]
[quote][quote]
Have I forgot?! I think YOU forgot the last ten minutes of the game where the Catalyst tells you it does not see torturing and murdering people as despicable but actually a way to bring salvation! It is trying to save you! How can someone who is desperately trying to preserve life be a bad guy?
[/quote]Easily?
[/quote]

Enlighten me[/quote]Bad people don't stop being bad people when they do bad things for agreeable goals. That should have been apparent enough with Cerberus.

The Reapers are trying to preserve life as they see it by a standard they accept, but no one else has to agree with it. You don't have to agree that the thought-processes in a Reaper are 'alive', and you don't have to agree with that and concede that it justifies killing off everyone else in the galaxy. You don't have to agree that the Cycle is an acceptable solution for the problem of Synthetic Menace, and you don't even have to agree that the Synthetic Menace IS a problem.


[quote]
Look at the bolded text, think about it with the knowledge that the Catalyst has a different perspective, if the Catalyst tells the truth, like ascending people to make way for new life and that each reaper is really in fact a species preserved, then this does not make the Catalyst a clear bad guy, more like TIM (Well, it still is a "bad guy" but the attempt to exonerate the Catalyst is obvious)
[/quote]Being amoral, or even an anti-hero, doesn't mean you aren't a Bad Person (Thing). We do not have to agree with the Catalyst's perspective of itself, or it's perspective of others.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 novembre 2012 - 04:50 .

[Vigilant111]

@Dean_the_Young: Its early morning here and I must rest, I will be replying to your post tomorrow

[Tonymac]

Look - many MANY people hated the ending(s). I am included in that bunch. It was/is the worst writing I can think of from any professional outfit I have ever come across in my 40 years here on the planet. I'm not joking when I say that a 5 year old of average intelligence can do better.

When you end a trilogy on a terrible note like that, you ARE indeed destroying it. Don't believe me? Try replaying the game. Tell me how that works out for you - because for me it was like being duct-taped inside of a porta-john on hot summer day. Its terrible, and I cannot go through it again.

As far as I am concerned, the Mass Effect Universe is trashed now. Its a total diaster, and I have lost all interest in it. ME4? WhatEVER!

What I would like from Bioware is to see proof that this garbage does not ever happen again. Mass Effect - much like Surf Music - should be a thing of the past. Just let it go - let it die and be forgotten.

In order to move on, I want them to step up their game - go back to the basics that made them an incredible and amazing comapny. They need some good writers. Not writers that forgot to take their antidepressants. Make my decisions COUNT if you say they are going to count - and if you say its not A,B,C - then make it so. (red, green, blue does not cut it, jack) The whole premise of the Starchild is utter BS and whoever thought of it should be fired on the spot. You do not win a war by bending over for the enemy.

Seriously, Bioware did destroy the series with ME3. The only reason I stick around at all is for the MP.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tonymac wrote...

Look - many MANY people hated the ending(s). I am included in that bunch. It was/is the worst writing I can think of from any professional outfit I have ever come across in my 40 years here on the planet. I'm not joking when I say that a 5 year old of average intelligence can do better.

Where are these 5 yeard olds located?

When you end a trilogy on a terrible note like that, you ARE indeed destroying it. Don't believe me? Try replaying the game. Tell me how that works out for you - because for me it was like being duct-taped inside of a porta-john on hot summer day. Its terrible, and I cannot go through it again.

Sucks to be you. I've little problem with it. No more than I did with the other story problems in the other games.

As far as I am concerned, the Mass Effect Universe is trashed now. Its a total diaster, and I have lost all interest in it. ME4? WhatEVER!

Ok. And?

In order to move on, I want them to step up their game - go back to the basics that made them an incredible and amazing comapny. They need some good writers. Not writers that forgot to take their antidepressants. Make my decisions COUNT if you say they are going to count - and if you say its not A,B,C - then make it so. (red, green, blue does not cut it, jack) The whole premise of the Starchild is utter BS and whoever thought of it should be fired on the spot. You do not win a war by bending over for the enemy.

What does this mean? 

'The Basics'? That's about as vague a premise as you can get, considering how many different answers you'd get from people if asked what made past Bioware games good.

Antidepressants? DAO has a pretty grim-dark setting, and certainly a strong tendency towards bitter-sweet endings.

Decisions counting? I'm failing to think of another Bioware game with as much reactivity to choice-carryover as you got with the Genophage/Rannoch plotlines, or a gradiant-ending in which ending options could fail to be available for lack of played content.

That all endings, no matter how different, can be grouped into A, B, C is a function of arbitrary labeling systems.

Besides wars that have been ended on better terms by surrendering, at no point in ME3 do you have to submit to the Catalyst and Reapers.

Seriously, Bioware did destroy the series with ME3. The only reason I stick around at all is for the MP.

MP of this sort isn't something they've done before, but now you're affirming it as a success. That's a bit contrary to your earlier point of going back to the old ways.

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Given how many stars had to align just-so for the Sovereign-Saren gambit to fail (had Shepard been half an hour later to any of the objectives outside of plot-flex-timing, the crucial clues would have been destroyed), why shouldn't the Reapers have tried the safer route later?

Not to mention that magic voice recording Tali picked up. I sometimes give Sovereign grief for having Saren anywhere near the Eden Prime operation (meaning the writers who came up with his plan, of course) , but that really was a horrible bit of bad luck. (It also looks like Saren went to the Petraeus School of Data Security, but everyone derps from time to time).

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides wars that have been ended on better terms by surrendering, at no point in ME3 do you have to submit to the Catalyst and Reapers.

I saw an interesting argument about this a week or so back.... well, "argument" isn't quite right, so let's say "perspective" instead. Apparently some players read Shepard's body language and speech patterns in the Catalyst sequence as "submissive," and this governs their interpretation of what's happening. Apparently there should have been a lot more shouting and arguing, or something like that.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides wars that have been ended on better terms by surrendering, at no point in ME3 do you have to submit to the Catalyst and Reapers.

I saw an interesting argument about this a week or so back.... well, "argument" isn't quite right, so let's say "perspective" instead. Apparently some players read Shepard's body language and speech patterns in the Catalyst sequence as "submissive," and this governs their interpretation of what's happening. Apparently there should have been a lot more shouting and arguing, or something like that.

I've heard that, and can understand even if I don't agree. For a half-dead man (or woman), Shepard's 'meh' and looking a bit tired is more than contextually explained.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Given how many stars had to align just-so for the Sovereign-Saren gambit to fail (had Shepard been half an hour later to any of the objectives outside of plot-flex-timing, the crucial clues would have been destroyed), why shouldn't the Reapers have tried the safer route later?

Not to mention that magic voice recording Tali picked up. I sometimes give Sovereign grief for having Saren anywhere near the Eden Prime operation (meaning the writers who came up with his plan, of course) , but that really was a horrible bit of bad luck.

Add to that how Benezia fought off indoctrination, how the Thorian wasn't killed in time, how Liara successfully locked herself in a Prothean ruin and escaped right before it erupted, and then how Joker made a thought-to-be-impossible Mako drop...

(It also looks like Saren went to the Petraeus School of Data Security, but everyone derps from time to time).

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I've been offline so much in the last month that you have me at a disadvantage. I knew of the Petraeus affair, but not how it was discovered.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 novembre 2012 - 06:03 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides wars that have been ended on better terms by surrendering, at no point in ME3 do you have to submit to the Catalyst and Reapers.

I saw an interesting argument about this a week or so back.... well, "argument" isn't quite right, so let's say "perspective" instead. Apparently some players read Shepard's body language and speech patterns in the Catalyst sequence as "submissive," and this governs their interpretation of what's happening. Apparently there should have been a lot more shouting and arguing, or something like that.

I've heard that, and can understand even if I don't agree. For a half-dead man (or woman), Shepard's 'meh' and looking a bit tired is more than contextually explained.

shep is not in a good shape - bleeding, just had to watch a dear friend and mentor die, the last push went into a disaster, friends are far away and before that, the galaxy (expect the friends) were calling shepard a lunatic.

but - despite all the s**t that happened before, it is the last chance to end this - the final confrontation. imho, shepard should have had the chance to show the catalyst what "having a quad" is.


the trilogy suffers from this ending - no doubt about it.

imho, it suffers more from the bad writing and the lack of personal closure (shepard/crew relating), than from the choices. the choices are bad. imo, there should have been a slightly brighter outcome possible, if you collected all the possible war assets and you had done everything "right".
the starchild itself is a p**s-poor plot device - they could have written the story in a far better way. if you cant fit the audience for the motivation/outcome within the first 2 acts, leaving it a mystery is sometimes better. concluding a story by introducing a new character on the last pages, is a no-go. that could have been prepared better with hints/decision throughout the storyline - far more plausible and less abrupt. the starchild smells like depseration - and desperation is a stinky odor.

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I've been offline so much in the last month that you have me at a disadvantage. I knew of the Petraeus affair, but not how it was discovered.

Well, it wasn't that bad. They were doing the drop-box technique, where both participants have access to the same email account and just write and edit drafts. So there's no actual email traffic. IIRC they were using a GMail account, though I guess this would work with any kind of  cloud data storage.

Thing is, counterterrorism folks worked out how to break into this long ago. There are much better techniques available.

[Yate]

Have I forgot?! I think YOU forgot the last ten minutes of the game where the Catalyst tells you it does not see torturing and murdering people as despicable but actually a way to bring salvation! It is trying to save you! How can someone who is desperately trying to preserve life be a bad guy?

Every villain has good intentions. Every bad guy thinks he's doing the right thing.

[Yate]

Dean_The_Young, I think I love you.

[Nightwriter]

Yate wrote...

Dean_The_Young, I think I love you.

You can't. That's like Draco Malfoy loving Spock. Doesn't any sense.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 22 novembre 2012 - 08:21 .

[Yate]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yate wrote...

Dean_The_Young, I think I love you.

You can't. That's like Draco Malfoy loving Spock. Doesn't many sense.

I don't care. He is the only person I've seen who actually GETS synthesis.

[The Night Mammoth]

Yate wrote...

Have I forgot?! I think YOU forgot the last ten minutes of the game where the Catalyst tells you it does not see torturing and murdering people as despicable but actually a way to bring salvation! It is trying to save you! How can someone who is desperately trying to preserve life be a bad guy?

Every villain has good intentions. Every bad guy thinks he's doing the right thing.

As defined by the bad-guy.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Yate wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yate wrote...

Dean_The_Young, I think I love you.

You can't. That's like Draco Malfoy loving Spock. Doesn't many sense.

I don't care. He is the only person I've seen who actually GETS synthesis.

lol Yate with his sweeping generalizations and blanket satements, never gets old. People only understand anything if they don't completely disagreee with you. 

Newsflash, you have no idea what you are talking about.