220 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

No. What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

[Bill Casey]

Meltemph wrote...

It isnt "horrible", because we dont really know what it did

That's a ridiculous line of thinking...
That's what experimenting on people is...

You don't know what it will do...
You essentially are saying mass human experimentation isn't horrible...

[Col.Aurion]

Eterna5 wrote...

No. What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

No You for not explaining why

[MegaSovereign]

Bill Casey wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It isnt "horrible", because we dont really know what it did

That's a ridiculous line of thinking...
That's what experimenting on people is...

You don't know what it will do...
You essentially are saying mass human experimentation isn't horrible...

Doesn't the narrative already push pragmatism?  You know...with Cerberus (a terrorist organization) saving the day in ME2 and Maelon's data saving Eve.

[Eterna]

Col.Aurion wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

No. What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

No You for not explaining why

At what point are synthetic functions integrated into the centipede?

[MegaSovereign]

A more accurate analogy would be the human centipad

[Meltemph]

Bill Casey wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It isnt "horrible", because we dont really know what it did

That's a ridiculous line of thinking...
That's what experimenting on people is...

You don't know what it will do...
You essentially are saying mass human experimentation isn't horrible...

It is clear people created a headcannon explaining "exactly what it was".  What you are talking about is the rationality of doing that... which is quite acceptable to talk about, but wasnt my point.  All the endings, outside of destroy is an experiment(including refuse).  That said, unless BW changes the endings, that was their point, so people who wanted to create anything they wanted in their heads "could be true".  Those of us who just wanted to know where the setting lands was given destroy.

Only problem is all the different endings created a no landing zone for all of MEU.  Either way though, your point is lost, because there are no specifics and people can make it out to mean anything they want, outside of exactly what the slides were showing.  This is why you go from the IT theory to people believing whatever the hell they want after the EC slides for all the endings.

All of it is goblygook, only difference is who's you want to believe in more.  The only people who were really left in the dust are those who wanted the MEU to take a step forward and unshackle the setting from the unnecessary plot point that was the reapers, imo.

Modifié par Meltemph, 24 janvier 2013 - 01:36 .

[Wayning_Star]

I wonder how many organics refuse to, or can, evolution? The entire universe is created in a big bang, but that's believable and is basically accepted. Each cell is taylored for purposes, unexplained, but is accepted.

Put that in a spray can and it's impossible and a cruel change unasked for..lol

s'funny how that works.

[Wayning_Star]

Meltemph wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It isnt "horrible", because we dont really know what it did

That's a ridiculous line of thinking...
That's what experimenting on people is...

You don't know what it will do...
You essentially are saying mass human experimentation isn't horrible...

It is clear people created a headcannon explaining "exactly what it was".  What you are talking about is the rationality of doing that... which is quite acceptable to talk about, but wasnt my point.  All the endings, outside of destroy is an experiment(including refuse).  That said, unless BW changes the endings, that was their point, so people who wanted to create anything they wanted in their heads "could be true".  Those of us who just wanted to know where the setting lands was given destroy.

Only problem is all the different endings created a no landing zone for all of MEU.  Either way though, your point is lost, because there are no specifics and people can make it out to mean anything they want, outside of exactly what the slides were showing.  This is why you go from the IT theory to people believing whatever the hell they want after the EC slides for all the endings.

All of it is goblygook, only difference is who's you want to believe in more.  The only people who were really left in the dust are those who wanted the MEU to take a step forward and unshackle the setting from the unnecessary plot point that was the reapers, imo.

really tho, all the choices are an experiment. Destroy also isn't as pragmatic as many hoped for. Rather idealistic in the reality of the MEU.

[Meltemph]

The only reason I say destroy is because you understand its implications fully and exactly what it is doing. The only real questions with destroy is "how does this effect tch and in what specific way". However, there is no concept to wrap your head around and requires no headcanon on your own to figure out all of what happened.

Modifié par Meltemph, 24 janvier 2013 - 01:50 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Bill Casey wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It isnt "horrible", because we dont really know what it did

That's a ridiculous line of thinking...
That's what experimenting on people is...

You don't know what it will do...
You essentially are saying mass human experimentation isn't horrible...

Good thing we actually do know what it will do.

[KevTheGamer]

I like the synthesis option. It really goes well with the creation of the catalyst if you think about it. He was created to resolve a problem and synthesis seems like the solution that works perfectly for both sides. Is it my favorite ending? no I prefer rejection or destroy but I respect it as a great option.

[Meltemph]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The original Synthesis.

. That was hella creepy

It's one of the endings of Deus Ex 2. It's actually the "best" ending in that game. The other endings are worse or more depressing.

IW was so disappointing... Thanks for the reminder, ANYHWO.

That said, the Illuminati one wasnt any worse, imo.

Modifié par Meltemph, 24 janvier 2013 - 02:02 .

[Wayning_Star]

this OP reminds me of that old movie: In search of the canon ending to ME.

It's amazing how real it all seems..

[BleedingUranium]

clennon8 wrote...

No. It's transhumanism!  And transhumanism is GOOD.  Therefore Synthesis is GOOD. What's that you say, people who do care about narrative context, thematic consistency, and violation of consent?  LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA.

[MacroSpamMK]

In Synthesis, if a human gets shot, does blood pour out...or do sparks fly out?

[Mouton_Alpha]

Meltemph wrote...

So attributing moral or technical explanations to any of the endings is nothing but creating a narrative for your own personal enjoyment, to help rationalize your choice to what was mainly an irrational decision.

Irrational decision? There is at least a rough idea what each of the endings does, with synthesis being the most vague. One can reason and decide basing on incomplete data. Not surprising, since we practically never have complete data when we make real life decisions. We only think we do because we instinctively simplify our models for our purposes.

[Meltemph]

One can reason and decide basing on incomplete data. Not surprising, since we practically never have complete data when we make real life decisions. We only think we do because we instinctively simplify our models for our purposes.

If that was the case, we wouldnt have 20 different versions of what synthesis means or what CataShep does with his new found power. Making decisions with incomplete data is one thing, making decisions with no clue how something is actually happening or to what full extent the long term implications are, is something else.

The explinations for control and synthesis are extremely vague with no real idea as to what is happening, beyond "controlling the reapers", in some allegorical sense or synthesis the galaxy, which you can create about a billion scenario's from that, with how vague it was.

Incomplete data is one thing, but what the endings are, are unknowns with incomplete and vague explanations. There may be some semblance of rationality, but mainly because of other sources of fiction(specifically with synthesis).

Modifié par Meltemph, 24 janvier 2013 - 03:38 .

[thehomeworld]

JBPBRC wrote...

More like Deus Ex.

If Deus Ex had gone horribly wrong.

It does.


Sythesis is the world AFTER Darrow hits the button not cool unless you're shep then you're the only sane one left.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Meltemph wrote...

If that was the case, we wouldnt have 20 different versions of what synthesis means or what CataShep does with his new found power. Making decisions with incomplete data is one thing, making decisions with no clue how something is actually happening or to what full extent the long term implications are, is something else.

No, it is making decions with incomplete data. There are some clues which can be basis for decision, as long as we realize there are significant risks and uncertainties. THEY ARE based on what Catalyst says, and they are a leap of faith but many real life decions are like that, especially ones done under pressure.

Meltemph wrote...
The explinations for control and synthesis are extremely vague with no real idea as to what is happening, beyond "controlling the reapers", in some allegorical sense or synthesis the galaxy, which you can create about a billion scenario's from that, with how vague it was.

I agree that Synthesis is a bit vague, but Control seemed pretty straightforward to me. There is no guarantee that Shepard AI does not eventually come to some genocidal conclusions, but at least for a while we know where we stand.

Anyways, the decision is based on risk and opportunities - Control/Synthesis simply have more of both. If you prefer surer outcomes, you choose the certainty of Destroy.

[Meltemph]

No, it is making decions with incomplete data. There are some clues which can be basis for decision, as long as we realize there are significant risks and uncertainties. THEY ARE based on what Catalyst says, and they are a leap of faith but many real life decions are like that, especially ones done under pressure.

This actually is my point. People are not choosing it because of the surety of it, but because they like the decision or dislike a consequence of a sure decision. When you have 4 options, and only one of them have a definite explanation, when the entire galaxy is at stake...well. Risk for the sake or morals or belifs or ones infatuation with an idea, I just don't find very rational.

Now if the catalyst made a proper explanation of the decisions and had more of a full long term application of the choices I would agree, but otherwise not so much.

but Control seemed pretty straightforward to me. There is no guarantee that Shepard AI does not eventually come to some genocidal conclusions, but at least for a while we know where we stand.

Not really. Control shows cooperation, but does not explain how control works or its extent. We don't even know how the catalyst or to what extent he controlled the reapers.

[Pantegana]

MegaSovereign wrote...

A more accurate analogy would be the human centipad

You're right
Medical horror, but it's apple so no wonder why so many like it.

[ElSuperGecko]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
It isnt "horrible", because we dont really know what it did

That's a ridiculous line of thinking...
That's what experimenting on people is...

You don't know what it will do...
You essentially are saying mass human experimentation isn't horrible...

Good thing we actually do know what it will do.

LOL, no you don't.  You don't know what it will do when you make the choice, you don't know what it will do afterwards.  You just headcanon that you do, to justify your own decision.

Good work Dr Frankenstein.

[dorktainian]

ElSuperGecko

Nice signature. Synthesis in a nutshell.

Anyone want proof. Listen to mordins conversation with shepard about Protheans / collectors.

Synthesis = Final Insult.

[BleedingUranium]

No soul! Replaced by tech!