101 réponses à ce sujet

[Lokiwithrope]

I just consider Synthesis the lesser among evils. I didn't go through all that work to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians only to destroy the former. Control could result in Shepard's AI being corrupted.

[Manou1]

I dislike synthesis ending because everyone is green. I hate green.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Here's a nice little post I archived from a non Sync-supporter about what Sync "really" is...

http://social.biowar...0751/7#16717949

I hadn't thought of it like that before, but it's a fairly nice assesment I'd say. Now, I still reserve the right to challenge one's interpretation (people both for and against have a tendency to exaggerate the good/bad they see) ..... but I digress!!

Also, please do not attack Sync supporters. Thank you.

[KaiserShep]

As much as I'm against synthesis, I think I'm against repetitive anti-[insert choice] posts more. Are you trying to convince others, or are you trying to convince yourself?

[Jukaga]

Can't we all just get along? Why does anyone really care or get offended by other people's preferences in the endings? Sure, some partisans troll-bait but shrug it off. The only problems I really have with Control and Synthesis is that they seem to remove any drama from the universe going forward; we're either looked after by a benevolent machine-god or have reached and surpassed the technological singularity. Even though I accept that paragon Control is the most responsible path to choose for the benefit of the most people, and that synthesis, or something like it really is the end goal for synthetic-organic life I'm not ready to let go of the bold, frontier spirit that ME gave us so I pick destroy but have no problem with those who are ready to move on to a different IP.

[Enhanced]

Manou1 wrote...

I dislike synthesis ending because everyone is green. I hate green.

That's a valid reason to not like synthesis. Most criticism about synthesis is based on worse-case-scenerio speculation and headcanon, rather than what we are actually shown in game.

Modifié par Enhanced, 23 mai 2013 - 05:35 .

[Ledgend1221]

Can anyone explain magic?

[Enhanced]

^
I agree

[Ridwan]

*raises hand* I understand Synthesis.

It's green and ****, and you know good stuff is green. Like greenpeace, weed and ehmm.... grass! So like if we all pick green, or rather Shepard jumps into the green beam, we're like all green too. You know what I'm saying?

[The Night Mammoth]

Enhanced wrote...

Manou1 wrote...

I dislike synthesis ending because everyone is green. I hate green.

That's a valid reason to not like synthesis. Most criticism about synthesis is based on worse-case-scenerio speculation and headcanon, rather than what we are actually shown in game.

Right, and why isn't that just as valid as the equally speculative best-case scenario headcanon a lot of people come up with to support their choice? 

[Reorte]

Lokiwithrope wrote...

I just consider Synthesis the lesser among evils. I didn't go through all that work to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians only to destroy the former. Control could result in Shepard's AI being corrupted.

I didn't go through all of that to do something that affects every single living thing in the entire galaxy, forever, for the sake of one species.

[Auld Wulf]

Another hate thread by ElSuperGecko?

You do realise that this only reflects badly upon you, right? This is your third Synthesis hate thread this week, isn't it? You just can't let it go, you have to keep making a fool of yourself. You really are a touched young lad, and I do advise seeking help.

[Auld Wulf]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Most criticism about synthesis is based on worse-case-scenerio speculation and headcanon, rather than what we are actually shown in game.

Right, and why isn't that just as valid as the equally speculative best-case scenario headcanon a lot of people come up with to support their choice?

Because it isn't speculation. The pro-points of Synthesis are wholly supported by the Extended Cut, as Ieldra2 has pointed out with the Synthesis compendium. Whereas the "criticism" just tends to be nervous, knee-jerk, defensive, and hate-filled bile, much like this thread. It essentially shows that Synthesis haters like the OP are VERY insecure, so much so that they won't stop making threads about it.

I'm sure we'll have another one tomorrow, and the day after that. The OP has been on a roll with Synthesis hate threads this week, and not even criticisms, because those I'd answer in kind with logic, but just... hate threads? No. I mean, look at this one right here, it's nothing more than a hate thread.

This is why I don't give Synthesis haters any credibility. You have speakers like ElSuperGecko.

Really, compare the Synthesis compendium with this thread and tell me which you find more credible.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 23 mai 2013 - 07:20 .

[Bill Casey]

It's experimenting on people...
It represents the absolute worst of human history, and is the reason people find Cerberus and the Reapers so much more abhorrent than the Krogan or the Geth...

[Bill Casey]

For the record, the EC supports brainwashing for peace...

[BioWareM0d13]

Auld Wulf wrote...

 It essentially shows that Synthesis haters like the OP are VERY insecure, so much so that they won't stop making threads about it.

Is that why you and some of the other Synthesizers are also fond of creating multiple threads about how Destroy is genocide or anti-technology, or something similar? Your characterization of the OP as being insecure is rather ironic, considering some Synthesizers (including yourself) are guilty of the same behavior you are criticizing the OP for.

[xlegionx]

Auld Wulf wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Most criticism about synthesis is based on worse-case-scenerio speculation and headcanon, rather than what we are actually shown in game.

Right, and why isn't that just as valid as the equally speculative best-case scenario headcanon a lot of people come up with to support their choice?

Because it isn't speculation. The pro-points of Synthesis are wholly supported by the Extended Cut, as Ieldra2 has pointed out with the Synthesis compendium. Whereas the "criticism" just tends to be nervous, knee-jerk, defensive, and hate-filled bile, much like this thread. It essentially shows that Synthesis haters like the OP are VERY insecure, so much so that they won't stop making threads about it.

I'm sure we'll have another one tomorrow, and the day after that. The OP has been on a roll with Synthesis hate threads this week, and not even criticisms, because those I'd answer in kind with logic, but just... hate threads. I mean, look at this one right here, it's nothing more than a hate thread.

This is why I don't give Synthesis haters any credibility. You have speakers like ElSuperGecko.

Really, compare the Synthesis compendium with this thread and tell me which you find more credible.

I certainly don't agree with how the OP goes about spreading his viewpoint, but he is one guy, not a representative of all people who pick Destroy. But many people (myself included) hate Synthesis not for what it brings about, but how it is brought about, forced upon every organic and synthetic being in the galaxy without their consent.

And Really? you discredit ALL people who don't like Synthesis because of people like Gecko? That's like me discrediting any supporter of Synthesis because of the views of people like you and Seival. The Extremists are not representative of the moderates

Modifié par xlegionx, 24 mai 2013 - 01:52 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Auld Wulf wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Most criticism about synthesis is based on worse-case-scenerio speculation and headcanon, rather than what we are actually shown in game.

Right, and why isn't that just as valid as the equally speculative best-case scenario headcanon a lot of people come up with to support their choice?

Because it isn't speculation. The pro-points of Synthesis are wholly supported by the Extended Cut, as Ieldra2 has pointed out with the Synthesis compendium. Whereas the "criticism" just tends to be nervous, knee-jerk, defensive, and hate-filled bile, much like this thread. It essentially shows that Synthesis haters like the OP are VERY insecure, so much so that they won't stop making threads about it.

I'm sure we'll have another one tomorrow, and the day after that. The OP has been on a roll with Synthesis hate threads this week, and not even criticisms, because those I'd answer in kind with logic, but just... hate threads? No. I mean, look at this one right here, it's nothing more than a hate thread.

Says the raven to the crow. 

This is why I don't give Synthesis haters any credibility. You have speakers like ElSuperGecko.

Don't assume my opinon on the Synthesis ending. 

Really, compare the Synthesis compendium with this thread and tell me which you find more credible.

Oh yes, Ieldra2 certainly put a lot effort into his explanations, but the vast majority of it is no less speculative in nature. It's more credible because it's better reasoned and Ieldra2 is a fair and amiable poster. 

[Enhanced]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Manou1 wrote...

I dislike synthesis ending because everyone is green. I hate green.

That's a valid reason to not like synthesis. Most criticism about synthesis is based on worse-case-scenerio speculation and headcanon, rather than what we are actually shown in game.

Right, and why isn't that just as valid as the equally speculative best-case scenario headcanon a lot of people come up with to support their choice? 

Because it's clearly not the writers' intentions and not what they are trying to portray to the player. Overly positive speculation can be just as invalid if it's not supported by in-game information.

Modifié par Enhanced, 23 mai 2013 - 07:40 .

[Reorte]

Enhanced wrote...

Because it's clearly not the writers' intentions and not what they are trying to portray to the player. Overly positive speculation can be just as invalid if it's not supported by in-game information.

What have the writers' intentions got to do with anything? It's what they wrote that matters, not what they intended to write.

[The Night Mammoth]

Enhanced wrote...

Because it's clearly not the writers' intentions and not what they are trying to portray to the player. Overly positive speculation can be just as invalid if it's not supported by in-game information.

The writer's intentions are irrelevant; how they wanted the player to interpret their work should have no bearing on the interpretation else the work itself is undermined. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 23 mai 2013 - 07:56 .

[estebanus]

Uncle Jo wrote...

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

Exactly so. This has absolutely nothing to do with synthesis.

[EnerPrime]

iakus wrote...

"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."

That right there sums up the main reason I am not that fond of the Synthesis ending. It requires me to accept that there is something inherently 'wrong' with life that needs to be 'fixed'. I wouldn't accept that if it was Mordin, Padok Wiks and every other reputable scientist in the ME universe, so I am sure not going to accept it from a flawed AI programmed by arrogant, selfish people who had the sheer hubris to declare themselves the 'apex race'.