101 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

An atypical handwaving argument spouted by supercilious pro-Synthesis posters.

And a fairly ironic one as well, because no-one - NO-ONE - understands what Synthesis "really is", least of all it's supporters.  Whose who would claim to do so are mired in a swamp of self-justification and speculative headcanon.

Synthesis as a potential "solution" to the Reaper threat is introduced three minutes from the end of the game.  It is given a miniscule amount of narrative exposure and it's actual mechanics are glossed over entirely.  You are simply told to accept that it is now possible, and left to hope for the best.

And after all, what is Shepard's headlong dive into the Big Green Beam ™ but an allegorical leap of faith?

No-one who has played Mass Effect "understands" what Synthesis (as presented within the game) "really is", because we are never told or shown what it "really is" - the developers left all the pertinent questions unanswered.  Certainly Shepard is never given anywhere near enough information on the subject throughout the course of the Mass Effect trilogy  to make a clear and informed decision in it's favour (and yet Shepard is given plenty of narrative clues to do just the opposite).

Point me to someone who says "I understand what Synthesis really is", and I'll show you a liar.

[Wolfva2]

Point you to someone who says they understand what synthesis is, and you can show us someone who is mistaken...but not necessarily a liar.

A liar is someone who KNOWS the truth, but mispeaks it. A person who speaks to what they BELIEVE is true, even though it isn't...is not lying. They are simply mistaken. You might want to edit out that last bit, unless you're trying to start fights anyways.

[Goljana]

No one understands what any of the endings "really is".
I assume you are talking about the mechanics and details and if that is the case then, yeah we don't know what control and destroy "really is" either. We know what they result in and how they look but that's about it.

Destroy - how the hell do you get a selective energy explosion from shooting glass pipes?
Control - how the hell does getting incinerated turn you into a reaper controling A.I God?
Synthesis - How the hell does one person jumping into a magical beam produce enough magic stuff to change all life in the galaxy? and how does this give us acess to the reapers knowledge and all other knowledge?

Thing is, i think we're not supposed to know what any of the endings "really are". Otherwise they would be more foreshadowed and not introduced in the last minute. We know that destroy kill the reapers and all synthetics, we know that control turns shepard into an A.I god and we know that synthesis created a utopia where everyone has acess to all knowledge. I guess the devs didnt want us to know more cuz, you know, speculation for everyone

[S.A.K]

I understand synthesis well enough:
It's something I shouldn't pick!

[Caldari Ghost]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

An atypical handwaving argument spouted by supercilious pro-Synthesis posters.

And a fairly ironic one as well, because no-one - NO-ONE - understands what Synthesis "really is", least of all it's supporters.  Whose who would claim to do so are mired in a swamp of self-justification and speculative headcanon.

Synthesis as a potential "solution" to the Reaper threat is introduced three minutes from the end of the game.  It is given a miniscule amount of narrative exposure and it's actual mechanics are glossed over entirely.  You are simply told to accept that it is now possible, and left to hope for the best.

And after all, what is Shepard's headlong dive into the Big Green Beam ™ but an allegorical leap of faith?

No-one who has played Mass Effect "understands" what Synthesis (as presented within the game) "really is", because we are never told or shown what it "really is" - the developers left all the pertinent questions unanswered.  Certainly Shepard is never given anywhere near enough information on the subject throughout the course of the Mass Effect trilogy  to make a clear and informed decision in it's favour (and yet Shepard is given plenty of narrative clues to do just the opposite).

Point me to someone who says "I understand what Synthesis really is", and I'll show you a liar.

i understand what synthesis really is. the sun is rather bright. come at me bro.

[Uncle Jo]

It ain't about synthesis anymore, you're just bashing its supporters. It's getting boring.

[Argolas]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Synthesis as a potential "solution" to the Reaper threat

Sorry to pick out right that one, but I think it's more accurate that Synthesis is supposed to be a solution to a hypothetical synthetic threat

[Kataphrut94]

How 'bout this? It's the "let the babies have their bottle" option, where you give the crying babies (represented appropriately by an actual holographic child) the solution to their stupid problem so they'll stop killing you. You and all your mates then get to go on living while they float around believing all is well. After all, why bother arguing?

[Argolas]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

How 'bout this? It's the "let the babies have their bottle" option, where you give the crying babies (represented appropriately by an actual holographic child) the solution to their stupid problem so they'll stop killing you. You and all your mates then get to go on living while they float around believing all is well. After all, why bother arguing?

Appeasement. It's literally the Saren way.

[Indy_S]

You've gone too far, Gecko. This is not an argument against Synthesis, this is you telling people that they're wrong. This is nothing but flamebait.

Modifié par Indy_S, 23 mai 2013 - 10:00 .

[Caldari Ghost]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

 why bother arguing?

exactly.

[Caldari Ghost]

Argolas wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

How 'bout this? It's the "let the babies have their bottle" option, where you give the crying babies (represented appropriately by an actual holographic child) the solution to their stupid problem so they'll stop killing you. You and all your mates then get to go on living while they float around believing all is well. After all, why bother arguing?

Appeasement. It's literally the Saren way.

appeasment was to saren as control was to the illusive man. with sheperd all things are possible. there is no other way.

if what's said about the endings having religious qualities rudely thrust upon them are true.

[Kataphrut94]

Argolas wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

How 'bout this? It's the "let the babies have their bottle" option, where you give the crying babies (represented appropriately by an actual holographic child) the solution to their stupid problem so they'll stop killing you. You and all your mates then get to go on living while they float around believing all is well. After all, why bother arguing?

Appeasement. It's literally the Saren way.

Exactly! And Saren was a well-motivated antagonist whose views were rational. The only thing he lacked was the fact that he was just a big old puppet in the end. Shepard doesn't have that problem, and we get some sweet-as cybernetics and implied robot sex out of the deal. What's not to like?

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 23 mai 2013 - 10:08 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I waited 5 years so I could pick the color of the explosions on my screen. I die in virtually all of them, the mass relays are destroyed, and the Normandy crashes. Wow. That's a deep ending. Five years so I could pick the color on my screen. But it's the meaning behind the colors. But what is the meaning? How do you feel?

[Yestare7]

S.A.K wrote...

I understand synthesis well enough:
It's something I shouldn't pick!

+1

I understand Synthesis perfectly!!

[Yestare7]

Indy_S wrote...

You've gone too far, Gecko. This is not an argument against Synthesis, this is you telling people that they're wrong. This is nothing but flamebait.

Telling people that they are wrong is nothing.

Calling people Luddites, hyppocrites, sociopathic mass murderers, and genocidial maniacs,
NOW you are doing it right!! 



Y

[Indy_S]

Yestare7 wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

You've gone too far, Gecko. This is not an argument against Synthesis, this is you telling people that they're wrong. This is nothing but flamebait.

Telling people that they are wrong is nothing.

Calling people Luddites, hyppocrites, sociopathic mass murderers, and genocidial maniacs,
NOW you are doing it right!! 



Y

Yeah, that's the proper way to do it. No half measures.

[Asharad Hett]

Goljana wrote...

No one understands what any of the endings "really is".

Destroy - how the hell do you get a selective energy explosion from shooting glass pipes?
Control - how the hell does getting incinerated turn you into a reaper controling A.I God?
Synthesis - How the hell does one person jumping into a magical beam produce enough magic stuff to change all life in the galaxy? and how does this give us acess to the reapers knowledge and all other knowledge?

Exactly.  The only ending that's easy to understand is refusal.  TBH, I still hate all 4 endings.

[Caldari Ghost]

OP is arrogant. for shame.

[Ruadh]

I'm truly surprised that a teary eyed Auld Wulf hasn't been in to insult everyone yet.

[Bizinha]

Yestare7 wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

You've gone too far, Gecko. This is not an argument against Synthesis, this is you telling people that they're wrong. This is nothing but flamebait.

Telling people that they are wrong is nothing.

Calling people Luddites, hyppocrites, sociopathic mass murderers, and genocidial maniacs,
NOW you are doing it right!! 



Y

this 

[dorktainian]

Yestare7 wrote...

S.A.K wrote...

I understand synthesis well enough:
It's something I shouldn't pick!

+1

I understand Synthesis perfectly!!

    


+1

''The reapers are our friends...''  /ultimatefacepalm

[Jadebaby]

genocide, tyranny or communist dystopia, which galactic menace are you?

BioWare: Proudly supporting heinous war crimes since 2012.

[crimzontearz]

Oh jade....how I love your posts so

[Iakus]

"Sure as I know anything, I know this: they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean.  A year from now, ten?  They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better.  And I do not hold to that."