202 réponses à ce sujet

[New Display Name]

You can think of Synthesis in a similar manner as Shepard's synthetic implants. They allowed him to interface with Overlord and the Geth Consensus, helping gain greater perspective. It did not FORCE him to change what he really thinks, it simply gave him greater insight. It is therefore not brainwashing.

It was imposing  the ability to interface with technology - that is forced. But he wasn't forced to change his opinions from the interfacing.

Basically what Bioware seems to be going for with the synthesis ending is the notion that if people are given the means to understand each other in a deeper manner, they will tend towards peace rather than conflict. The dialog said if Wreav instead of Wrex is alive implies that some people are slower to accept peace and harmony than others, which again shows that synthesis wouldn't make everyone "the same" or brainwash them into the thinking the same things.

[Xilizhra]

Again, my reason for choosing Destroy is to end the cycle, because I've already proven synthetics and organics can get along. Not all of the geth would agree with my sacrificing them, but Legion would have understood. I think so would EDI. Sacrificing myself to become the Reaper Overlord doesn't make sense, because my Shepard knows herself, and absolute power would corrupt absolutely. She's not very patient, and I have the odd feeling she'd be hacking comms etc. to make a troll of herself after a while for entertainment's sake.

I find it curious as to why people make Shepards who are this weak.

But I'd like to point out, it's okay to not be a saint. Shepard is human, with human flaws (unless you played Saint Shepard of course). If I agonized over my initial decision, how much more did Shepard agonize over it, with so many lives in the balance and no guarantee that any of the options provided would even work? Knowing that she wouldn't be alive to try again, if she got it wrong? Because the StarChild basically tells you in every option that you're going to die whatever you choose (high EMS proves it wrong, possibly, depending on your head canon).

I don't agonize. I do what's right, as I've always done. A decision that's painful, to be sure, but if my Shepard were to make any decision other than Control, she wouldn't be Shepard. The decision itself was easy; too easy, really, as she almost wanted some kind of excuse for Destroy, but frankly there wasn't one.

[Ieldra]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Another OP that basically reads "It's all about me, baby! My Shepard, my Universe. Suffering people? Potential war? Who gives a crap! It's my Universe! MINE. MINE. MINE." and... wow. Well, let's just say that I have more respect for the people within my version of the ME Universe. I have more admiration and love for them. I want things to go right, I don't want to see them suffer with things any more (like Joker's incurable illness). So I choose Synthesis.

I'm not disenchanted at all. I know I've given Joker & EDI, the geth, and company a damn good shot at life. That's the best I could have done for them. Screw the clone's breath scene. My Shepard died for the good of them all. She always was selfless.

I agree. As much as I loved hanging out with the people in "my" universe, I always felt that I needed to do what I felt was best for them. This is why I chose Synthesis.

This basically - the Citadel DLC changes nothing for me.

As a matter of fact, it only makes me believe more strongly that I made the right choice in choosing Synthesis. Why? Because the people that I cared about (along with everyone else in the galaxy) survive with their personalities and minds intact.

And while I'm generally tired of repeating this, my opinion is that the only real alteration to people in the Synthesis ending is what amounts to swapping a few atoms here & there to create a different kind of biochemical framework for all life. It doesn't change who they are as people, it doesn't change their values, it doesn't change their sense of humor, and it doesn't change their capacity for love or sorrow or other emotions (which ought to be really clear based on the EC ending).

Yeah, I, too, am tired of repeating this, but apprently it needs to be. If anything, I'm more determined to choose Synthesis and make everything go as well for the galaxy as possible, because all that I care for is part of it, and will remain so. 

@OP:
There is no reason to believe that all those things you want to save are not part of the post-Synthesis galaxy.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

Again, my reason for choosing Destroy is to end the cycle, because I've already proven synthetics and organics can get along. Not all of the geth would agree with my sacrificing them, but Legion would have understood. I think so would EDI. Sacrificing myself to become the Reaper Overlord doesn't make sense, because my Shepard knows herself, and absolute power would corrupt absolutely. She's not very patient, and I have the odd feeling she'd be hacking comms etc. to make a troll of herself after a while for entertainment's sake.

I find it curious as to why people make Shepards who are this weak.

But I'd like to point out, it's okay to not be a saint. Shepard is human, with human flaws (unless you played Saint Shepard of course). If I agonized over my initial decision, how much more did Shepard agonize over it, with so many lives in the balance and no guarantee that any of the options provided would even work? Knowing that she wouldn't be alive to try again, if she got it wrong? Because the StarChild basically tells you in every option that you're going to die whatever you choose (high EMS proves it wrong, possibly, depending on your head canon).

I don't agonize. I do what's right, as I've always done. A decision that's painful, to be sure, but if my Shepard were to make any decision other than Control, she wouldn't be Shepard. The decision itself was easy; too easy, really, as she almost wanted some kind of excuse for Destroy, but frankly there wasn't one.

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Secont point, fair enough. That's the way I feel about my canon Shepard in regards to Destroy.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 08 mars 2013 - 06:59 .

[PainCakesx]

Xilizhra wrote...

Again, my reason for choosing Destroy is to end the cycle, because I've already proven synthetics and organics can get along. Not all of the geth would agree with my sacrificing them, but Legion would have understood. I think so would EDI. Sacrificing myself to become the Reaper Overlord doesn't make sense, because my Shepard knows herself, and absolute power would corrupt absolutely. She's not very patient, and I have the odd feeling she'd be hacking comms etc. to make a troll of herself after a while for entertainment's sake.

I find it curious as to why people make Shepards who are this weak.

But I'd like to point out, it's okay to not be a saint. Shepard is human, with human flaws (unless you played Saint Shepard of course). If I agonized over my initial decision, how much more did Shepard agonize over it, with so many lives in the balance and no guarantee that any of the options provided would even work? Knowing that she wouldn't be alive to try again, if she got it wrong? Because the StarChild basically tells you in every option that you're going to die whatever you choose (high EMS proves it wrong, possibly, depending on your head canon).

I don't agonize. I do what's right, as I've always done. A decision that's painful, to be sure, but if my Shepard were to make any decision other than Control, she wouldn't be Shepard. The decision itself was easy; too easy, really, as she almost wanted some kind of excuse for Destroy, but frankly there wasn't one.

I wouldn't call that a "weak" Shepard, but a realistic one. Very people people can withstand the temptations that come with absolute power. It's far too easy to lose touch with the people who were once your peers. It would be like a grown man forced to forever live among children - sooner or later you'll become detached and unable to empathise with the society. Give said person the ability to commit mass genocide with the flick of a wrist, and you have a ticking time bomb. 

And there's no guarentee that the Shepalyst will forever think the same way as Shepard over time.

[New Display Name]

It's funny you mention genocide, considering what happens to the geth.

[Xilizhra]

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

I wouldn't call that a "weak" Shepard, but a realistic one. Very people people can withstand the temptations that come with absolute power. It's far too easy to lose touch with the people who were once your peers. It would be like a grown man forced to forever live among children - sooner or later you'll become detached and unable to empathise with the society. Give said person the ability to commit mass genocide with the flick of a wrist, and you have a ticking time bomb.

If my Shepard couldn't withstand such temptations, I doubt she'd have risen to the position she's in in the first place, already a level of responsibility greater than any human has ever experienced prior.

[PainCakesx]

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

I wouldn't call that a "weak" Shepard, but a realistic one. Very people people can withstand the temptations that come with absolute power. It's far too easy to lose touch with the people who were once your peers. It would be like a grown man forced to forever live among children - sooner or later you'll become detached and unable to empathise with the society. Give said person the ability to commit mass genocide with the flick of a wrist, and you have a ticking time bomb.

If my Shepard couldn't withstand such temptations, I doubt she'd have risen to the position she's in in the first place, already a level of responsibility greater than any human has ever experienced prior.

How can you say that with any degree of certainty? Plenty of people with prior good intentions and achievements have been corrupted.

[Xilizhra]

PainCakesx wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

I wouldn't call that a "weak" Shepard, but a realistic one. Very people people can withstand the temptations that come with absolute power. It's far too easy to lose touch with the people who were once your peers. It would be like a grown man forced to forever live among children - sooner or later you'll become detached and unable to empathise with the society. Give said person the ability to commit mass genocide with the flick of a wrist, and you have a ticking time bomb.

If my Shepard couldn't withstand such temptations, I doubt she'd have risen to the position she's in in the first place, already a level of responsibility greater than any human has ever experienced prior.

How can you say that with any degree of certainty? Plenty of people with prior good intentions and achievements have been corrupted.

I say it because it's my character and such decisions are mine to make.

[PainCakesx]

HJF4 wrote...

It's funny you mention genocide, considering what happens to the geth.

It's the only way to ensure that the Reapers have 0 possibility of ever being a threat again.

[AtreiyaN7]

PainCakesx wrote...


And I'll repeat this again. How does swapping out some organic bits for synthetic bits (and vice versa) lead to eternal peace and happiness? 

See the blog link in my signature? That's there so that I don't have to keep repeating myself in detail - in fact, it explicitly says that it's my analysis of the Synthesis ending (so that I don't have to type it out for the umpteenth time. Reading comprehension much, anyone????

Now read it if you want an answer or don't. My position about Synthesis is there, along with with my detailed reasoning about the subject, including why I felt it mattered and what it represented, etc. That's if you can actually handle reading something so lengthy. *snort*

I'm absolutely done with wasting hours of my life in the forums writing detailed, intelligent posts in response to people whose arguments generally amount to "hurr-durr, they're brainwashed!" - which is exactly what that other poster basically did in here. *rolleyes*

[PainCakesx]

Xilizhra wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

I wouldn't call that a "weak" Shepard, but a realistic one. Very people people can withstand the temptations that come with absolute power. It's far too easy to lose touch with the people who were once your peers. It would be like a grown man forced to forever live among children - sooner or later you'll become detached and unable to empathise with the society. Give said person the ability to commit mass genocide with the flick of a wrist, and you have a ticking time bomb.

If my Shepard couldn't withstand such temptations, I doubt she'd have risen to the position she's in in the first place, already a level of responsibility greater than any human has ever experienced prior.

How can you say that with any degree of certainty? Plenty of people with prior good intentions and achievements have been corrupted.

I say it because it's my character and such decisions are mine to make.

Well, if your Shepard is a saint in the league of various religious messiahs, then that's your right to RPG as you please.

I tend to prefer a Shepard more in line with how real, admittedly remarkably strong willed and accomplished, would act.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

Because as much as despots of the past have tried to pretend otherwise, these limitations still exist - as well they should.

I've roleplayed all four of my Shepards as human beings, flawed in their own ways. Both paragon and renegade have their own flaws; I don't march a straight line with either of them.

[Xilizhra]

PainCakesx wrote...

HJF4 wrote...

It's funny you mention genocide, considering what happens to the geth.

It's the only way to ensure that the Reapers have 0 possibility of ever being a threat again.

Also guaranteeing that the krogan and Leviathans can be a threat again. As well as ensuring that you're a gigantic preemptive threat by committing genocide right then and there.

Well, if your Shepard is a saint in the league of various religious messiahs, then that's your right to RPG as you please.

It's not like the imagery in-game pointing to that is all that subtle.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 mars 2013 - 07:07 .

[PainCakesx]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...


And I'll repeat this again. How does swapping out some organic bits for synthetic bits (and vice versa) lead to eternal peace and happiness? 

See the blog link in my signature? That's there so that I don't have to keep repeating myself in detail - in fact, it explicitly says that it's my analysis of the Synthesis ending (so that I don't have to type it out for the umpteenth time. Reading comprehension much, anyone????

Now read it if you want an answer or don't. My position about Synthesis is there, along with with my detailed reasoning about the subject, including why I felt it mattered and what it represented, etc. That's if you can actually handle reading something so lengthy. *snort*

I'm absolutely done with wasting hours of my life in the forums writing detailed, intelligent posts in response to people whose arguments generally amount to "hurr-durr, they're brainwashed!" - which is exactly what that other poster basically did in here. *rolleyes*

Based on your attitude, I'm not going to read your sig.

I honestly don't give a damn, there is nothing that willl justify forced galactic genetic mutilation. I generally am not a eugenics kind of guy.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

Because as much as despots of the past have tried to pretend otherwise, these limitations still exist - as well they should.

I've roleplayed all four of my Shepards as human beings, flawed in their own ways. Both paragon and renegade have their own flaws; I don't march a straight line with either of them.

I confess, I've gone almost wholly Paragon with my own, and I honestly doubt that anything at all could make her truly give up her convictions.

[TheBlackBaron]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

]"We're not telling people what to think... we're just showing them how."



*STAB*

This actually fairly well sums up the general viewpoint behind Synthesis. 

[Bill Casey]

I never asked for this...

[PainCakesx]

Xilizhra wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

HJF4 wrote...

It's funny you mention genocide, considering what happens to the geth.

It's the only way to ensure that the Reapers have 0 possibility of ever being a threat again.

Also guaranteeing that the krogan and Leviathans can be a threat again. As well as ensuring that you're a gigantic preemptive threat by committing genocide right then and there.

Well, if your Shepard is a saint in the league of various religious messiahs, then that's your right to RPG as you please.

It's not like the imagery in-game pointing to that is all that subtle.

Krogans and Leviathans =/= the Reaper threat. One posed a threat of guarenteed extermination of all galactic life, the other 2 don't. And you're really grasping at straws with the whole " ensuring that you're a gigantic preemptive threat by committing genocide right then and there" statement. To compare Shepard to the Reapers because of choosing Destroy is laughable. 

And many people don't like the notion of Shepard being a messiah. I certainly don't. 

Modifié par PainCakesx, 08 mars 2013 - 07:10 .

[Xilizhra]

Krogans and Leviathans =/= the Reaper threat. One posed a threat of guarenteed extermination of all galactic life, the other 2 don't. And your really grasping at straws with the whole " ensuring that you're a gigantic preemptive threat by committing genocide right then and there" statement. To compare Shepard to the Reapers because of choosing Destroy is laughable.

Evidently not that guaranteed, considering our ability to stop them, as the krogan were stopped before. And I personally am against trying to avoid genocide by committing genocide; I'm funny that way.

And many people don't like the notion of Shepard being a messiah. I certainly don't.

I think it fits nicely. For all intents and purposes, the Catalyst is the God of the ME universe, and Shepard is the only one able to encounter it in person... of course, such divine contact is more akin to mythologies older than Christianity, but Synthesis is likely the single most Christian one (Destroy and Control both turn Shepard into a sort of Satan figure; of course, being the Adversary to the Catalyst is quite an honorable position).

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

Because as much as despots of the past have tried to pretend otherwise, these limitations still exist - as well they should.

I've roleplayed all four of my Shepards as human beings, flawed in their own ways. Both paragon and renegade have their own flaws; I don't march a straight line with either of them.

I confess, I've gone almost wholly Paragon with my own, and I honestly doubt that anything at all could make her truly give up her convictions.

And there's nothing wrong with that. As you've noted, she's your character. These are mine.

I have a paragade male infiltrator (colonist/ruthless) with a complex backstory, wrestling with his past. A Cerberus-sympathizing paragade female engineer (colonist/sole survivor) who takes an AU perspective on that same backstory; the sibling of the former had things gone differently on Mindoir. A renegon female vanguard (spacer/ruthless) who is actually based on a fanfiction I read once, and Jayne Cobb from Joss Whedon's Firefly (earthborn/war hero/renegon/soldier).

All four are just about as different from each other as they can be. Different classes and backstories. No two romance the same person (or persons). Each brings a different combination of survivors into ME3, with different outcomes in the trilogy spanning story arcs. As I see it, this lets me see the most content possible.

[Taboo]

Oh it's beyond Christianity, it's Mysticism. Vitalism to be more specific.

[dreamgazer]

Bill Casey wrote...

I never asked for this...

It's okay: according to some, it's apparently optional.

[Xilizhra]

All four are just about as different from each other as they can be. Different classes and backstories. No two romance the same person (or persons). Each brings a different combination of survivors into ME3, with different outcomes in the trilogy spanning story arcs. As I see it, this lets me see the most content possible.

I personally only ever have one set of content I really want to see. At least, to play for myself. The one exception would be a possible Samara romance, but while that's... kind of there now, it's not enough for me to play a whole game without Liara.