617 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

Oh, I see plenty of potential for conflicts, both old and new, especially when innate organic traits emerge in this new setting. I was just curious about your perspective on it.

[masster blaster]

xAmilli0n wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

High EMS Destroy in the EC version is utterly boring and unworthy of the story that came before.

Agreed.

I can say the same thing about Synthesis. It's utter BS crap because I doubt EVERYONE is just going to rebuild the galaxy while the Reapers are still around. There should be no happiness at all in Synthesis, yet in the EC it does, but if you call Destroy Boring I can call synthesis boring then because clearlly nobody can't talk about synthesis in a bad way right.


And unworthy? Synthesis is unworthy because the Catalyst wanted it. Why should Shepard/ YOU the player give the Reaper leader what it want's. If you read my POST Ield and not promote synthesis. are YOU picking synthesis because you want it, or because the galaxy wants synthesis? I pick Destroy because that's what the galaxy wanted. To see the Reapers dead. Sure the price was high, but at least that boring ending shows the Reapers die. That's fine by me.

Shepard: Each of you must be wiling to die!. Anything less, and you're already dead.

Modifié par masster blaster, 15 février 2013 - 11:28 .

[masster blaster]

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

Oh, I see plenty of potential for conflicts, both old and new, especially when innate organic traits emerge in this new setting. I was just curious about your perspective on it.

Well there should be conflict right after you pick synthesis. All synthesis should have done was rewrite everyones DNA, but no just because of a DNA change everyone stops fighting. At least in control, and Destroy if you pick Weave as the leader of the Krogans you can see a possible conflict happening. It's even better if Branka is dead.

[Ieldra]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

Wouldn't that be more likely to create a more homogenized culture? Cultural diversity happens in isolation. If there is no isolation anymore and everyone is sharing everything, everything becomes the monoculture.

Just because everyone can share everything, doesn't mean everyone *will* share everything. People want uniqueness, I don't think that's going to change. Suppose Synthesis creates that mental networking scenario I mentioned in my Synthesis thread. Do you really think everyone will be in contact with everyone else all the time? Then theres the time constraints. People will still be selective about what kind of knowledge they absorb, what they do. No, I don't think cultural homogenization is an issue. Look at how the internet has resulted in more factionalization rather than less.

[masster blaster]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

Wouldn't that be more likely to create a more homogenized culture? Cultural diversity happens in isolation. If there is no isolation anymore and everyone is sharing everything, everything becomes the monoculture.

Just because everyone can share everything, doesn't mean everyone *will* share everything. People want uniqueness, I don't think that's going to change. Suppose Synthesis creates that mental networking scenario I mentioned in my Synthesis thread. Do you really think everyone will be in contact with everyone else all the time? Then theres the time constraints. People will still be selective about what kind of knowledge they absorb, what they do. No, I don't think cultural homogenization is an issue. Look at how the internet has resulted in more factionalization rather than less.

Mordin: Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific
advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for
limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so
invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No
advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before
culture is ready. Disastrous.

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Just because everyone can share everything, doesn't mean everyone *will* share everything. People want uniqueness, I don't think that's going to change. Suppose Synthesis creates that mental networking scenario I mentioned in my Synthesis thread. Do you really think everyone will be in contact with everyone else all the time? Then theres the time constraints. People will still be selective about what kind of knowledge they absorb, what they do. No, I don't think cultural homogenization is an issue. Look at how the internet has resulted in more factionalization rather than less.

I see your point and that makes sense.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 15 février 2013 - 11:32 .

[masster blaster]

adayaday wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

umm...no because starbart suggests it's no longer possible,you know with evolotion peak,and complete understand and such.

Yes that's true.

Catalyst: Synthesis is the Final evolution.

Shepard: But there will be peace?

Catalyst: Yes.

What happens in synthesis. Everyone forget's about all the crap the Reapers have done to everyone, but just giving everyone new DNA. Just DNA. I doubt just a DNA change would changes one view of the Reapers, unless in the process synthesis rewrote everyone's original self?

Modifié par masster blaster, 15 février 2013 - 11:35 .

[masster blaster]

jtav wrote...

It's not that Destroy is intrinsically boring, it's that it's presented in a boring way. Lance sounds extremely bored in his narration, and the speech itself feels trite. It would be completely possible to write a Destroy that is interesting by emphasizing different things, getting a new narrator, and making some of the slides more visually interesting. Though when I brought up the lack of a "geewhiz" factor, I was told Destroy wasn't for me.

AS is synthesis is presented as bs. There are many things wrong about Synthesis than Destroy, and control.  And Hackett does well, other than EDI who is not her self because if you talked to her through out ME3, then she says the Reapers are repulsive, but now she just accepts them without questioning? More slides? how about Bioware does a slide where in Destroy Shepard stands on Harbingers corpes, and in synthesis war starting all over again. And the galaxy is working together to rebuild the damage the Reapers did. Unity was gained in Destroy, other than Synthesising you pick so everyone would not have  conflict again with organics, and synthetics, yet conflict can still happen between them. From what Ield has been letting on, yet the IN game Synthesis ending does not have it so.

Modifié par masster blaster, 15 février 2013 - 11:44 .

[Steelcan]

Destroy is not unworthy of ME3's story.  ME3 was fairly disappointing to begin with.

Modifié par Steelcan, 15 février 2013 - 11:48 .

[masster blaster]

Steelcan wrote...

Destroy is not unworthy of ME3's story.  ME3 was fairly disappointing to begin with.

Ha Also I am starting my new " that shall not be said" speech alternative.

Modifié par masster blaster, 15 février 2013 - 11:50 .

[Steelcan]

Destroy is consistent with numerous positive themes

-victory through sacrifice
-defiance
-achieving the impossible
-death bringing about good change

Synthesis's major positive themes are embracing the unknown and death leading to a greater future. Only one of those is prevalent before talking to the Catalyst, and it could easily apply to Destroy as well.

ieldra, I think you are too focused on what you perceive to be "thematic inconsistency" between the idea of Destroy and the Hgh EMS variant.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you want Destroy to be more dark and foreboding, cut out the relay's damaging back to destruction.  My question is, why?  It's a perfectly fine bittersweet ending.  Though I'd argue the "bittersweet" is added in o make it harder to digest.  It's consistent with ME themes and really is kind of what I expected the ending to be. (Minus the deaths of EDI and the geth)

Modifié par Steelcan, 16 février 2013 - 12:02 .

[xAmilli0n]

masster blaster wrote...

I can say the same thing about Synthesis. It's utter BS crap because I doubt EVERYONE is just going to rebuild the galaxy while the Reapers are still around. There should be no happiness at all in Synthesis, yet in the EC it does, but if you call Destroy Boring I can call synthesis boring then because clearlly nobody can't talk about synthesis in a bad way right.

And unworthy? Synthesis is unworthy because the Catalyst wanted it. Why should Shepard/ YOU the player give the Reaper leader what it want's. If you read my POST Ield and not promote synthesis. are YOU picking synthesis because you want it, or because the galaxy wants synthesis? I pick Destroy because that's what the galaxy wanted. To see the Reapers dead. Sure the price was high, but at least that boring ending shows the Reapers die. That's fine by me.

Synthesis aint my cup of tea.  I find Control the most interesting myself.  Conflict is what makes that so.  Lots of potential.

Shepard: Each of you must be wiling to die!. Anything less, and you're already dead.

So we die or we die, thats the plan?

Modifié par xAmilli0n, 16 février 2013 - 12:04 .

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
I see what you're saying.  I guess maybe that's why they find Destroy boring?

Not so. As I said, I find Destroy boring because it makes of the ME trilogy a story that can be summarized as "kill the evil monsters and go home to friends and family". Extremely conventional.

Conventional =/= boring.  If it was, people wouldn't like it.  Then it would cease to be conventional

For me, the conventional tends to be boring. And conventional isn't actually popular because it's so interesting, but because it tends to affirm the majority's belief system. It creates no tension because almost everyone can basically agree that yeah, it's good. Or at least ok. Apart from a few contrarians like me.

Ah, but in this case, if Destroy is 'conventional" what do we have?

A galaxy trashed by war and the relay network depended on for long-distance travel damaged for the time being.  In short, the galaxy is broken.  How will the pieces be fit back together?  How long will it take?  What will it look like later?  Even without the Reapers in the mix, the galaxy will never be the same again.

What will it look like, then?  That's what makes it conventional, but interesting. 

[Steelcan]

The status quo or conventional, in ME is hardly boring.

[Alexius]

Unschuld wrote...

AlexiusDAlex wrote...

It's probably late to point out that "boring" is not an argument, it's an opinion.

But there ya go.

Personally I found the fact that "boring" was the OP's most compelling  argument against choosing destroy hilarious.

That's another way of putting it, yes.

[masster blaster]

xAmilli0n wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

I can say the same thing about Synthesis. It's utter BS crap because I doubt EVERYONE is just going to rebuild the galaxy while the Reapers are still around. There should be no happiness at all in Synthesis, yet in the EC it does, but if you call Destroy Boring I can call synthesis boring then because clearlly nobody can't talk about synthesis in a bad way right.

And unworthy? Synthesis is unworthy because the Catalyst wanted it. Why should Shepard/ YOU the player give the Reaper leader what it want's. If you read my POST Ield and not promote synthesis. are YOU picking synthesis because you want it, or because the galaxy wants synthesis? I pick Destroy because that's what the galaxy wanted. To see the Reapers dead. Sure the price was high, but at least that boring ending shows the Reapers die. That's fine by me.

Synthesis aint my cup of tea.  I find Control the most interesting myself.  Conflict is what makes that so.  Lots of potential.

Shepard: Each of you must be wiling to die!. Anything less, and you're already dead.

So we die or we die, thats the plan?

It works in Destroy.

[ShinsFortress]

Kodan Officer - "What'll we do?"
Lord Krill - "We die."

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

masster blaster wrote...

adayaday wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ieldra2 said ...

As for the utopian theme, I can't see all that happening without conflict. Without large-scale war, maybe, but not without conflict.

Between whom, and for what reason?

You have a large body of knowledge covering a multitude of viewpoints newly integrating into civilization, and you are telling me you cannot see the potential for ideological conflict? You have a wide range of possibilities for self-enhancement. This will add a whole layer of cultural diversity as different factions embrace different "enhanced" lifestyles. More cultural diversity means more conflict potential.

umm...no because starbart suggests it's no longer possible,you know with evolotion peak,and complete understand and such.

Yes that's true.

Catalyst: Synthesis is the Final evolution.

Shepard: But there will be peace?

Catalyst: Yes. The cycle will end.

What happens in synthesis. Everyone forget's about all the crap the Reapers have done to everyone, but just giving everyone new DNA. Just DNA. I doubt just a DNA change would changes one view of the Reapers, unless in the process synthesis rewrote everyone's original self?

No the little bastard never said there would be peace.