tickle267 wrote...
AresKeith wrote...
That "picture" Bioware used for her face, her hair is black
And if synthesis really did do that then a lot of people wouldn't had green hair
ahh yes, the picture that had a great deal of work put into it, thanks for reminding me. still whats wrong with green hair?
AresKeith wrote...
tickle267 wrote...
AresKeith wrote...
Seival wrote...
AresKeith wrote...
And a green haired Quarian?
The green haired Tali to be more specific
Tali doesn't have green hair
do we ever see what colour hair (if any) tali has? besides its synthesis, so your claim is invalid.
That "picture" Bioware used for her face, her hair is black
And if synthesis really did do that then a lot of people wouldn't had green hair
Seival wrote...
I see. I got your point now.
Well, the answer is pretty simple. Devs didn't give Synthesis more details than it already has because:
(1) Synthesis happens in the very end of the game - there is simply no room for really detailed explanations.
(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?
In short - really detailed explanation of Synthesis is about creating a new huge story, not about creating just one codex entry.
Seival wrote...
spirosz wrote...
Seival wrote...
Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.
Oh god, what happened to your avatar.
I painted a picture about Synthesis recently.
And decided to use it for my new avatar and signature.
Seival wrote...
Yestare7 wrote...
Seival wrote...
(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?
So, if in the next story Synthesis is a non-issue, will you admit it's all a big spage magic waffle?
Your art reflects Synthesis perfectly. In a strange way it's pretty, but it has no soul.
Has no soul? And what is a "soul"? How can you measure it? How can you prove it even exists?
Modifié par JamieCOTC, 25 mai 2013 - 12:32 .
Robosexual wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
Just because morality is subjective, that is not the "be all and end all" excuse to get out of the argument. Its nothing more than a cop-out to get out of the work of actually having to defend your argument with logic and your own personal take (aka subjectiveness) on the issue at hand.
Discussion is the whole point of Mass Effect, Mass Effect was created to explore complex issues, most notably "how to define a life" . The game exists to make you question your self, your morality, and how you define others. If you played Mass Effect and all you can muster from the experience is that its "subjective", then the experience has been a waste of time.
This whole subjective argument... Its a roadblock to intelligent discussion. The word "idiot" comes from the classical Greek "idoites" which essentially means a person who could not part of the public society (they considered this to be very important), the Ancient Greeks (the origins of most of Western Civilization thought) saw debate and arguing in their government as the highest form of intelligence hence if you were an idoites , it essentially means you have no opinion and you are not worth knowing.
If a question is put to you and the only think you can put forth is that "my opinion is subjective" with out finding the root reason of yours or my "subjectiveness" in the first place, From what cultural, political, personal reasons it comes from..... Well... It is better not to post.
How can you say that after reading this thread? You can't dismiss morality being subjective after reading the points made by both sides in this thread, it's as clear as day, and it shows intelligent thought.
Saying it's a dismissal to defend oneself from logic is just pure nonsense.
Phatose wrote...
I wouldn't put too much stock in humanity
iconography. We are, after all, a species that sees a colon and a
close-parenthesis and manage to interpret it as a smiling face.
First off, ME1's goal is to stop the reapers...that does not have to equate to destroying them...XI BlackHawx IX wrote...
Saving everyone including Reapers for the life of one
Im personally a destroyer because i personally cannot justify making a galaxy changing choice like that, pretty much everyone besides TIM & Cerberus wanted the Reapers destroyed and that seemed like the goal (for Shepard) from ME1 on.
I don't see how synthesis is evil, its just morally wrong to make that choice for everyone
Like Spock says, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Carelessly sacrificing the geth, the reapers, and mass relays...seems illogical when you can have all join forces...just think of all the advancements acquired from the reapers in synthesis...I do not see any evil in synethesis at all. This whole notion of consent among the galaxy...is a strawman arguement.mass perfection wrote...
I see good in Synthesis but the bad in it seems to outweigh it.Convince meto believe otherwise or try to justify it.
lol another common misrepresentation of the facts...please troll on...mass perfection wrote...
Synthesis literally makes EVERYTHING in the galaxy a Reaper.
how again is synthesis forced on people? Do I need to watch the ending again because I do not believe I saw anyone resisting the colorful bubbles in ANY of the endings...expect for the normandy which was probably due to the fact that it was an energy blast that could and did overload the ship and it crashed...effin' destroyers...The Night Mammoth wrote...
I don't see Synthesis as evil, just boring, great big happy pill for the galaxy with absolutely nothing interesting going for it.
Or beneficial. Apparently, Synthesis is inevitable anyway, so why would I force transhumanism on the masses when I can kill the Reapers now and let people choose it for themselves later?
Nobody had time to react before it was already done to them.alienatedflea wrote...
how again is synthesis forced on people? Do I need to watch the ending again because I do not believe I saw anyone resisting the colorful bubbles in ANY of the endings...expect for the normandy which was probably due to the fact that it was an energy blast that could and did overload the ship and it crashed...effin' destroyers...The Night Mammoth wrote...
I don't see Synthesis as evil, just boring, great big happy pill for the galaxy with absolutely nothing interesting going for it.
Or beneficial. Apparently, Synthesis is inevitable anyway, so why would I force transhumanism on the masses when I can kill the Reapers now and let people choose it for themselves later?
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Quote that just popped into my head, may be relevant...
Ensign Copeland: (on husks, iirc) "But it's eeevuhlllll!"
Garrus: "What has *that* ever mattered in war?"
Asharad Hett wrote...
Could a Synthesis supporter justify the evil of Synthesis?
Could a Control supporter justify the evil of Control?
Could a Destroy supporter justify the evil of Destroy?
Could a Refusal supporter justify the evil of Refusal?
None of the endings are ideal. None of them are 100% win. The choice you make is subjective, based on how you personally perceive the endings with limited knowledge. Unless you meta-game, you only have a few words from the Catalyst to base your decision on. If you do meta-game, you only have a few slide-shows to base your decision on. Regardless, all of the endings have problems.
I've said it before, I don't feel like we beat the Reapers. In the very end, the Reapers weren't the enemy to beat. It was a misguided AI, who provides 3 misguided magical endings, all of which have some form of "evil".
xlegionx wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Quote that just popped into my head, may be relevant...
Ensign Copeland: (on husks, iirc) "But it's eeevuhlllll!"
Garrus: "What has *that* ever mattered in war?"
A nice sentiment, though since the final decision should be made with creating peace in mind, I'm not sure how relevant this quote would be.
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 25 mai 2013 - 03:09 .
HYR 2.0 wrote...
xlegionx wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Quote that just popped into my head, may be relevant...
Ensign Copeland: (on husks, iirc) "But it's eeevuhlllll!"
Garrus: "What has *that* ever mattered in war?"
A nice sentiment, though since the final decision should be made with creating peace in mind, I'm not sure how relevant this quote would be.
It's anything but a "nice" sentiment -- there are no rules in war.
The Catalyst believes peace is created after every cycle. We believe he is the very problem he claims to solve.
Only one can be right. How far do you go to make sure it's you? That, IMO, entails some "necessary evils."
xlegionx wrote...
So you focus on the positives rather than the negatives, considering the evils in any of the endings to be necessary (control Reapers/Destroy Reapers/Achieve Sync instantly)?
HYR 2.0 wrote...
No matter what some people want to insist, none of the Crucible options are truly a worse fate than losing the war.
'Til then, YES, every option is very much on the table for me.
Modifié par bowboski, 25 mai 2013 - 03:28 .
bowboski wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
No matter what some people want to insist, none of the Crucible options are truly a worse fate than losing the war.
'Til then, YES, every option is very much on the table for me.
Agreed, while every ending involves some form of sacrifice, they're better alternatives than loosing the war.
No war has been won without sacrifice
JamieCOTC wrote...
Still others won't care. They'll be too busy internally downloading cat videos and experiencing porn w/in their own minds.
JamieCOTC wrote...
Seival wrote...
Yestare7 wrote...
Seival wrote...
(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?
So, if in the next story Synthesis is a non-issue, will you admit it's all a big spage magic waffle?
Your art reflects Synthesis perfectly. In a strange way it's pretty, but it has no soul.
Has no soul? And what is a "soul"? How can you measure it? How can you prove it even exists?
The eyes are the window of the soul. It's the first thing that humans notice when looking at another person. When BioWare gave glowing eyes to everyone in synthesis it "dehumanized" them. The main antagonist of the game has glowing eyes. The problem is not, "what is a soul" but the simple idea of iconography. Glowing eyes = bad and it's very hard for most people to get around that concept. That really reinforces the notion that everyone is indoctrinated. That's why people think it's "creepy."
I like the idea of synthesis, though I see its shortcomings including the fact that it probably wouldn't solve the organic vs. synthetics problem. It may allow for better understanding between organic vs. synthetics, but ultimately it is time that will grant a true understanding. However, they just really botched the execution.
As for your drawing, it looks good and fits well w/in the lore that BW set up.
Retour en haut
