439 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

My canon picks Destroy since it solves the Reaper threat definitively, with a close-to-zero chance of such a tragedy happening again.

My Paragon chose Control, because he just couldn't let the Geth and EDI croak. And the Reapers, who can be viewed as victims of the Catalyst's solution, are spared. The Reapers are also directed to repair the Relay network and most of the damage dealt by the war.

[Diurdi]

Are there any stats out there on what endings were the most popular?

[MegaSovereign]

Diurdi wrote...

Are there any stats out there on what endings were the most popular?

On BSN and most internet polls I've seen, Destroy is the most popular. However this may or may not be representative of the entire ME base.

[Auld Wulf]

@Broganisity

Synthesis doesn't affect minds. It simply provides new avenues of possibility. Also, it's kind of hypocritical to call slavery as an issue when you pick Destroy to kill innocent slaves.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 08 avril 2013 - 11:20 .

[spirosz]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Synthesis doesn't affect minds. It simply provides new avenues of possibility.

I'm sure Jack and Javik disagree.  

[Auld Wulf]

@spirosz

So where is your evidence? Synthesis had symbolic representations of free will (see: the husk). I didn't see any evidence of slavery.

Just sounds like unsubstantiated xenophobia to attempt to justify murder of slaves, to me.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 08 avril 2013 - 11:21 .

[Ultrabobo]

If synthesis doesn't affect minds it means reapers will keep reaping, Geth and Quarians will keep fighting, and the Krogan will rebel again?
Because same mind means same morals and ideals, nothing changes except some green circuits under the skin.

[spirosz]

I'm quoting changing their mind, not the slavery. Jack and Javik have said in game how they feel about these themes.

And don't generalize me in stating "xenophobia" and how I feel.  

Modifié par spirosz, 08 avril 2013 - 11:25 .

[Auld Wulf]

@spirosz

Jack and Javik don't even know about Synthesis. Your point is redundant/fallacious.

The xenophobia statement was based upon empirical evidence. I've seen you post before. You seem to dislike Synthesis on the grounds of how strange it is and based upon unfounded fears. That's xenophobia -- the fear of the unknown. It applies to you aptly.

@Ultrarobo

I never said that Synthesis would result in a utopia. That's ridiculous and insults the intelligence of anyone even thinking about the scenario. No, it simply improves quality of life for everyone involved and improves galactic understanding. It doesn't brainwash people.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 08 avril 2013 - 11:27 .

[spirosz]

Here - Jack's perspective on that theme

And Javik has stated how he feels about synthetics in general.

[Auld Wulf]

@spirosz

They can't talk about the scenario because the scenario doesn't exist yet. They don't know of all the variables. They can only surmise and guess upon their own versions of the scenario -- their versions, which is not the actual scenario.

This is what you appear to be missing.

[Ultrabobo]

That's what doean't make sense for me. How can it be an improvement if nothing changes, but is only a shade of green?

I mean, is either an utopia as you put it, but it means brainwashing so everyone gets along, or nothing changes, the war(s) goes on.

Is not a personal attack, i just cannot wrap my mind around it

[spirosz]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@spirosz

They can't talk about the scenario because the scenario doesn't exist yet. They don't know of all the variables. They can only surmise and guess upon their own versions of the scenario -- their versions, which is not the actual scenario.

This is what you appear to be missing.

The scenario is "changing" them without their input and I know how you feel about it being "optional" which I personally see it as not.  

[Auld Wulf]

@Ultrarobo

You must make the differentiation between physical (hardware) upgrades and mental (personality) changes.

[Auld Wulf]

@spirosz

It's providing them with new options. How is having new options available "changing" a person? We have options in today's society. If you had cancer, would you not want the "option" to cure cancer? It's potentiality, not forced.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 08 avril 2013 - 11:34 .

[Broganisity]

Auld Wulf wrote...
 It doesn't brainwash people.

We all had our own views and perceptions of the situation, whether or not  you agree or condemn them is a different matter entirely. Sort of like discussing one's favorite food or book, but with considerably more depth, often times without words to truly describe it.

You simply had a different interpretation of the event. Head cannon, essentially.

The information given to me showed that Destroy was like Chili dogs and Women of the Silk (very good book, you should check it out some time! Not a happy one, but a good one.). Synthesis became headcannoned as unionizing organic and synthetic life through -complicated scientific method here-. A result I could not forcibly inflict.

The same information transferred to you showed that Synthesis was like -favorite food here- and -favorite book here-. Synthesis was headcannoned into you as -Simple Explaination here-. A result that was best for you.

Always interesting to see third side of four sided coin. Will be here if you need me.

Modifié par Broganisity, 08 avril 2013 - 11:35 .

[Taboo]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@spirosz

Jack and Javik don't even know about Synthesis. Your point is redundant/fallacious.

The xenophobia statement was based upon empirical evidence. I've seen you post before. You seem to dislike Synthesis on the grounds of how strange it is and based upon unfounded fears. That's xenophobia -- the fear of the unknown. It applies to you aptly.

You're also applying a fallacy here. Judging the validity of a person's argument based on your impression of them is fallacious.

I might say a person is transhumanist is the way they are because they have a primal fear of death and seek to extend their petty bodies for as long as possible.

Do you see how silly the argument becomes if I say you pick Synthesis because you're afraid of wasting away?

[Steelcan]

Spirosz, don't get sucked into this. He's insane, you can't win.

[Auld Wulf]

@Broganisity

Lots of babble to hide the lack of evidence. Where is the evidence of brainwashing? There is evidence against brainwashing, as I have stated.

[Auld Wulf]

@Steelcan

And I could say that you're not very bright? That's fun, isn't it?

Have we fallen so far?

[spirosz]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@spirosz

It's providing them with new options. How is having new options available "changing" a person? We have options in today's society. If you had cancer, would you not want the "option" to cure cancer? IT's potentiality, not forced.

We don't see the means to the end of these "possibilites" without experiencing them, being optional in that sense is fine, since you as an individual, if put in this case - is being told and given the option to act on this.

Does Shepard suddenly communicate with everyone in the universe before he/she jumps in and asks them that he's about to change what they are?  No, he has no other input but his or her's own and the Catalyst.  It is being forced.

Modifié par spirosz, 08 avril 2013 - 11:38 .

[Auld Wulf]

@Taboo-XX

That's not what I said. I said that they can't have an opinion without having observed a situation. They are only forming incorrect hypothesis. I was talking about Jack and Javik, you are talking about me. Your argument is in error.

[Auld Wulf]

@spirosz

What, exactly, do you see as being "forced?"

[Ultrabobo]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@Ultrarobo

You must make the differentiation between physical (hardware) upgrades and mental (personality) changes.

But i am!
What i'm saying is that without a mental change, the physical one is pointless. Sure, maybe organics will shoot better, or resist more damage, but it doesn't end the war.
If not brainwash what can it be? Retroactively changing evolution? In everyone's mind things have always been like now so they stop fighting? I don't know, i don't get it.

The same goes for the other endings, sure. I can argue that since control doesn't mean control Geth and EDI, then destroy doesn't mean wiping them out.
Explanations are missing, or incomplete, too much room for interpretation. Which probably was the point.

EDIT: spelling...

Modifié par Ultrabobo, 08 avril 2013 - 11:41 .

[skate4tacos96]

I picked Destroy. From the beginning of the franchise, it's been Shepard's goal to overcome the Reapers. Destroy, is the only ending that 100% guarantees that the Reapers won't be back. I'm actually on agreeable terms with this ending. That, however, does not mean I'm satisfied with the outcome. But, please, let's not beat a dramatically tenderized, post-mortem horse..