617 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
Blame the writers, Ieldra, for the story they told.

"You cannot control what others will do. But you can choose how to react to it" - Shepard to Garrus in the "Dr Saleon" mission.

The story is told. Is it for us to make the best of it. Instead, we are tearing each other apart.

if informed decisional..lol (just say'n)

being torn apart is the blessing and curse of being on the galactic council..dirty job but some fan's gotta do it..

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 14 février 2013 - 05:53 .

[Nerevar-as]

klarabella wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

klarabella wrote...

And I readily admit that Synthesis (sillness of how and why aside) is a more interesting premises for a setting (thinking of the sequel now).

Galactic peace, everybody´s friends with everyone, immortality round the corner, synthetics really alive (because it confirms they weren´t before <_<),... There´s nothing to make a sequel out of this. Utopia tales work when you see what´s wrong with them, otherwise it´s just propaganda of an author´s ideals who ignore anything that would make their perfect picture fall apart.

I didn't mean it that way.

I mean interesting as in getting to explore all the fridge horror that comes with forcing utopia on the galaxy at the push of a button (or a jump in a beam).

Or interesting as in exploring a galaxy of uplifted hybrids that share some sort of hive consciousness (only without the unicorns and the rainbows). 

That´s the worst. There´s no fridge horror because people are changed in a way they can´t be anything but happy about what was done to them. In a mental scale, it´s like rewriting the heretic geth on a galactic scale. If I can say anything positive about synthesis, is it made me realize what the rewrite meant.

[Ticonderoga117]

Destroy is the only option that removes the threat to our cycle. It's not boring, it's common sense.

Our objective isn't to drastically change organic life or synthetic life. Our objective wasn't to become the Reaper King.

Please stop saying it is.

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
Blame the writers, Ieldra, for the story they told.

"You cannot control what others will do. But you can choose how to react to it" - Shepard to Garrus in the "Dr Saleon" mission.

I'm not sure what it is you expect.  For people not to assert that the ending was an indoctrination attempt?  Because that makes you feel bad?  Where exactly is the line that you don't want us to cross?  I'd say you already scored a victory of sorts when IT was banned as a discussion topic.

Modifié par clennon8, 14 février 2013 - 06:03 .

[AlanC9]

Killdren88 wrote...

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

The answer to genocide is more genocide?

Punish them, control them, synthesize them- -- it's all over regardless of what you pick. Destroy serves no deterrence function since the situation's a one-off. Revenge may be emotionally satisfying, but it's no way to make decisions.

[Wayning_Star]

clennon8 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
Blame the writers, Ieldra, for the story they told.

"You cannot control what others will do. But you can choose how to react to it" - Shepard to Garrus in the "Dr Saleon" mission.

I'm not sure what it is you expect.  For people not to assert that the ending was an indoctrination attempt?  Because that makes you feel bad?  Where exactly is the line that you don't want us to cross?  I'd say you already scored a victory of sorts when IT was banned a discussion topic.

ahh,invoking thread lock via the same as to invoke the thread lock...interesting tactic..

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Destroy is the only option that removes the threat to our cycle. It's not boring, it's common sense.

Our objective isn't to drastically change organic life or synthetic life. Our objective wasn't to become the Reaper King.

Please stop saying it is.

My objective was to stop the Reapers at the least cost.

(Obviously that has nothing to do with Synthesis, since I hadn't any idea that was even possible until the last few minutes.)

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 février 2013 - 06:00 .

[BleedingUranium]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Destroy is the only option that removes the threat to our cycle. It's not boring, it's common sense.

Our objective isn't to drastically change organic life or synthetic life. Our objective wasn't to become the Reaper King.

Please stop saying it is.

Precisely.

[clennon8]

Not at all. I do not want to see this thread locked. But, good grief, can IT not even be mentioned any more without the lockdown hammer looming overhead like the Sword of Damocles? Let's be reasonable here.

[lordhugorune]

Nerevar-as wrote...

That´s the worst. There´s no fridge horror because people are changed in a way they can´t be anything but happy about what was done to them. In a mental scale, it´s like rewriting the heretic geth on a galactic scale. If I can say anything positive about synthesis, is it made me realize what the rewrite meant.

The other way to think about it, is it right that Shepherd, having this one chance to enable organic life to attain transcendence, reject it, when life may never have another chance for millions of years? He is at the crossroads of all history, the consequences of what he chooses not to do, and what will be lost, must weigh as much as the consequences of what he chooses.

I know that, had I been in that universe, I'd have been pretty darn pissed off about Shepherd avoiding that option, if I wasn't in the ground or the belly of a Reaper by this stage of course.

[AdmiralCheez]

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

[Wayning_Star]

clennon8 wrote...

Not at all. I do not want to see this thread locked. But, good grief, can IT not even be mentioned any more without the lockdown hammer looming overhead like the Sword of Damocles? Let's be reasonable here.

we'd have to figure out why they (Mods) decided to move it to another complete page of its own.

[Ieldra]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Our objective isn't to drastically change organic life or synthetic life. Our objective wasn't to become the Reaper King.

Please stop saying it is.

I did not. Our objective is to stop the cycle. We all do that. We all win. All the epilogues are good epilogues (not sure about Renegade Control, but I'm willing to give even that the benefit of the doubt, especially if you consider the leviathans). The way we do that is influenced by our very diverse preferences, but we all win. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

OP what is so bad about going back to normal.

The Mass Effect universe will still be full of conflict, there still will be obstacles for proper evolution to overcome, the galaxy and the much larger universe will still remain a mystery that is there to solved.

I think  Castiel sums it up nicely in the last episode of season 5 of Supernatural "No Paradise. No Hell. Just more of the same. I mean it Dean. What would you rather have? Peace - or freedom?

But if one where to choose synthesis Edi implies that they have achieved everything there is to, there is no mystery left, there is nothing to strive for, evolution has stopped all that is left would be stagnation and eventual extinction. THAT IS A UNIVERSE THAT WOULD BE UNBEARABLY BORING.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 14 février 2013 - 06:08 .

[Wayning_Star]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

the catalys ruins the fun with destroy, as it states it won't work as it's the problem, not the cure to the problem.

Note: the catalyst is a trusted source of informaton.

[Ticonderoga117]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I did not. Our objective is to stop the cycle. We all do that. We all win. All the epilogues are good epilogues (not sure about Renegade Control, but I'm willing to give even that the benefit of the doubt, especially if you consider the leviathans). The way we do that is influenced by our very diverse preferences, but we all win. 

Yet three options don't guarentee the cycle stops. If the Reapers are still around, the cycle has a chance of continueing. This is not acceptable.

[Fixers0]

Only in your Headcannon Ieldra.

[Ticonderoga117]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

Well that may be fine and dandy, but arguing for a certain choice because "It's boring in the meta game" is not a good reason. Especially because of what you mentioned.

[clennon8]

Wayning_Star wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Not at all. I do not want to see this thread locked. But, good grief, can IT not even be mentioned any more without the lockdown hammer looming overhead like the Sword of Damocles? Let's be reasonable here.

we'd have to figure out why they (Mods) decided to move it to another complete page of its own.

What they did, in effect, was chase IT discussion off the site entirely.  What, indeed, were their motivations?

But now I *am* derailing the thread.  Let it stop here.

Modifié par clennon8, 14 février 2013 - 06:08 .

[Fawx9]

Wayning_Star wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

the catalys ruins the fun with destroy, as it states it won't work as it's the problem, not the cure to the problem.

Note: the catalyst is a trusted source of informaton.

Unless you think it's wrong because it offers no direct proof.

It only has a theory. You challenge it by choosing destory and try to prove that its theory doesn't hold.

[Wayning_Star]

why do you ignore game facts and lore when posting stuff, just wondering?

[Wayning_Star]

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

the catalys ruins the fun with destroy, as it states it won't work as it's the problem, not the cure to the problem.

Note: the catalyst is a trusted source of informaton.

Unless you think it's wrong because it offers no direct proof.

It only has a theory. You challenge it by choosing destory and try to prove that its theory doesn't hold.

no, that is an observation by the catalyst, not an opinion. The catalyst doesn't have opinions. (see lore)

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 14 février 2013 - 06:11 .

[BleedingUranium]

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

[AdmiralCheez]

@BleedingUranium: Space magic.

[HiddenInWar]

All of the endings make us responsible for some sort of travesty. People can point out flaws just as large in synthesis and control just as one can in destroy. No one really wins.