315 réponses à ce sujet

[ArchDuck]

@KingKhan03 You can use that for everyone of the endings and it is equally as valid. All require trusting the catalyst and choosing from his limited preferred options.

[ArchDuck]

eventhewaves wrote...

Pretty much, yeah.

Everybody else is asking questions.  I just wanted to fit in!

Seriously, though: if you lose everything you have, then the Catalyst's pretty much telling you outright that if you pick this option, we're going to destroy you, your morals, your ethics, your purpose, and your goals so you're -- at best -- a total blank slate, a paper doll being sent forth to get torn apart by the combined reality-warping might of the Reaper personalities...

And now I get what the Catalyst is trying to do.  It's had enough and wants to force somebody else to deal with these giant galaxy-killing ****s.  He's thinking, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

It all makes sense now!

That A**hole!
LoL

[KingKhan03]

ArchDuck wrote...

@KingKhan03 You can use that for everyone of the endings and it is equally as valid. All require trusting the catalyst and choosing from his limited preferred options.

lol good point!

[pharsti]

Control is obviously the Paragon choice, no idea why discuss that.

Thou, which choice is the "best" one is up to each individual.

[IanPolaris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The amount of denial some people show here is astounding. The lengths to which people go just to avoid having to admit that the ending where Shepard survives may not be the best one....

Control keeps the Citadel intact and only damages the relays. It's clearly the best ending if your goal is to rebuild galactic civilization in a reasonable time frame.

And....nowhere does the game tell us that controlling the Reapers is a *bad* idea. For most of the game, it seems an *impossible* idea, that's quite the difference. Even Hackett admits that TIM might be on to something after Sanctuary. TIM isn't a villain because he wants to control the Reapers, but because he leaves heaps of corpses and indoctrinated people in his wake to achieve that goal, and possibly because of what *he* would do with the Reapers if he controlled them. What Shepard would do with the Reapers is up to your imagination, but I'd think for most of us it's quite different.

[prayer wheel mode]
The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it!
[/prayer wheel mode]

Pfft.  Shepard himself (herself) explains to TIM brilliantly and eloquantly why control is such a horrible idea for ANYONE.  Even Adm Hacket immediately post Mars scoffs at control saying "He's (TIM) wrong.  Dead Reapers are how we win this."

No, Shepard doesn't doesn't explain this to TIM. Not in my games anyway because I choose the options where he doesn't. Which are, ironically, the Paragon options on Mars and the Renegade options on the Citadel.

As for Hackett, yeah, he says that, but that's after Mars, when controlling the Reapers still seems like an impossible idea. He talks differently afteer Sanctuary.

No and no.  Hackett does not talk differently after Sanctuary.  The most he says is that it is useful intel but the cost was too high.  That's not praise at all for control.  Not. One. Bit.  Try the paragon options in the Citadel. Shepard explains brilliantly why control is such a bad idea.

Basically, you are asked to believe that you will DIE and you will LOSE everything you have/are but you will control the Reapers.  How is that supposed to work?  Oh wait...it doesn't.  Notice the star-brat smirking when you pick this terrible choice giving the Reapers their victory.

You die as a human. You sacrifice your organic nature. Yeah, the phrasing is terrible, just like other parts of the Catalyst speech like "I can't make them happen.....and I won't", but the meaning is rather obvious.

Facts not in evidence.  You die and lose everything you have.  So much for control after that.

Even if you do somehow control them, how long is it before Shepard becomes something other than human.  Not long I think and that is the point Shepard makes to TIM.  What's worse, it's no longer feasible (because the Reapers know all about it) to use the crucible again if the Reapers break control....or if Shepard becomes corrupted.

What happens to Shepard long-term is up to your imagination. I can argue the same way against Destroy, saying "there is no guarantee that synthetics won't eventually destroy all organics". There are never absolute solutions, to expect them is foolish and to use their absence as a argument is a fallacy.

No. No. NO!  "Use your imagination" is not a valid response to a loss of narrative coherence of this sort.  You need to be TOLD and TOLD in no uncertain terms what your choices are and are not.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

pharsti wrote...

Control is obviously the Paragon choice, no idea why discuss that.

Thou, which choice is the "best" one is up to each individual.

Really?  TIM's goal is the paragon choice?  Really?

-Polaris

[eventhewaves]

ArchDuck wrote...

That A**hole!
LoL

That's why he's so willing to offer Shepard some kind of solution to the problem.  And why his sales pitch is so lazy, unconvincing, and full of stinkin' thinkin'.  He doesn't care which one you pick.  After uncountable millennia of having to -- shudder -- talk to the Reapers, anything's better than status quo.  Literally anything.

So that's also why Destroy is an option: because it puts him out of his misery, and takes all the rest of the bastards with him.

Modifié par eventhewaves, 15 avril 2012 - 09:56 .

[Dragoni89]

pharsti wrote...

Control is obviously the Paragon choice, no idea why discuss that.

Thou, which choice is the "best" one is up to each individual.

It is the blue ending but thats it. Do not be decived by its colour that was not the paragon ending. Destroyed was.
Anderson= Paragon
Illusive man = Renegade

Is this not how it goes?

Modifié par Dragoni89, 15 avril 2012 - 09:56 .

[Ieldra]

Dragoni89 wrote...
One final note. The Protheon VI says there were 2 groups that wanted to one wanted to control and one wanted to destroy. The one that wanted to control the reapers were the ones that were INDOCRINATED.
Well it looks like you certainly have been indoctrinated to believed control is a good option. It is by no mere coincidence the VI states this. The amount of denial "control liker" show here is astounding.

Everything points towards CONTROL is a bad idea.  So please your arguing a proven fact.

It's actually the other way round. If your goal is to control the Reapers, you run a higher risk of indoctrination on the way to finding out how. Shepard escapes this fate only because it wasn't his goal from the start and he never dealt with Reaper technology as extensively as TIM. 

Again, the merit of the idea of controlling the Reapers doesn't depend on this. If you can get there without being indoctrinated - as Shepard can - then it may or may not be a good idea, but the answer to that question - is it a good idea - is independent from others' experience on the way to that goal.

It has still to be demonstrated that controlling the Reapers is a *bad* idea, and not just incredibly risky on the way to that goal and difficult to achieve.

Again, you're arguing like "the fact that you're indoctrinated now makes all ideas you ever had bad". That isn't how things work.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 avril 2012 - 10:00 .

[IanPolaris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...
One final note. The Protheon VI says there were 2 groups that wanted to one wanted to control and one wanted to destroy. The one that wanted to control the reapers were the ones that were INDOCRINATED.
Well it looks like you certainly have been indoctrinated to believed control is a good option. It is by no mere coincidence the VI states this. The amount of denial "control liker" show here is astounding.

Everything points towards CONTROL is a bad idea.  So please your arguing a proven fact.

It's actually the other way round. If your goal is to control the Reapers, you run a higher risk of indoctrination on the way to finding out how. Shepard escapes this fate only because it wasn't his goal from the start and he never dealt with Reaper technology as extensively as TIM. 

Again, the merit of the idea of controlling the Reapers doesn't depend on this. If you can get there without being indoctrinated - as Shepard can - then it may or may not be a good idea, but the answer to that question - is it a good idea - is independent from others' experience on the way to that goal.

It has still to be demonstrated that controlling the Reapers is a *bad* idea, and not just an incredibly risky and difficult to achieve goal.

Again, you're arguing like "the fact that you're indoctrinated now makes all ideas you ever had bad". That isn't how things work.

The fact that Control is extremely high risk, and has absolutely no safety margin if it fails, AND is bound to fail eventually (either because the controller loses her/her humanity or the Reapers slip the leash) is what makes it such a bad idea.  If you destroy the reapers, the threat is gone forever.  New problems and threats may arise, but those will be problems for the future.  You solve the problem today forever.  Control IMHO is "reapers win" and the smirk of Reaper-Boy IMHO bears me out when you take this option.

-Polaris

[Dragoni89]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...
One
final note. The Protheon VI says there were 2 groups that wanted to one
wanted to control and one wanted to destroy. The one that wanted to
control the reapers were the ones that were INDOCRINATED.
Well it looks like you certainly have been indoctrinated to believed control is a
good option. It is by no mere coincidence the VI states this. The
amount of denial "control liker" show here is astounding.

Everything points towards CONTROL is a bad idea.  So please your arguing a proven fact.

It'sactually the other way round. If your goal is to control the Reapers,
you run a higher risk of indoctrination on the way to finding out how.
Shepard escapes this fate only because it wasn't his goal from the start
and he never dealt with Reaper technology as extensively as TIM. 

Again,the merit of the idea of controlling the Reapers doesn't depend on
this. If you can get there without being indoctrinated - as Shepard can -
then it may or may not be a good idea, but the answer to that question -
is it a good idea - is independent from others' experience on the way
to that goal.

It has still to be demonstrated that controlling
the Reapers is a *bad* idea, and not just an incredibly risky and
difficult to achieve goal.

Again, you're arguing like "the fact
that you're indoctrinated now makes all ideas you ever had bad". That
isn't how things work.

*face palm
What the hell are you saying? What other way around? There is no other way around. Did
the Prothean VI say the group that wanted to control the reapers? Did
the VI say it turned out later that they were all indocrinated.  Watch
the cutscene. YES HE DID. It was LATER found out they were indocrinated.
Obviously you can't ****ing read. I am saying because you pick control.
It shows you are an indocrinated player in the Mass Effect 3. Yes I
associate indocrinate = bad. Why is indocrination bad, cause it shows
you sideing with the reapers.

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Again, you're arguing like "the fact that you're indoctrinated now makes
all ideas you ever had bad". That isn't how things work."

You do realize this is exactly how things work. What does being
indoctrinated mean? It means the reaper ideology has been implanted in
you. So all you ideas are what the reapers acatully want. When did the
ideas of the reapers became good ?

Modifié par Dragoni89, 15 avril 2012 - 10:22 .

[Dragoni89]

edit double post

Modifié par Dragoni89, 15 avril 2012 - 10:21 .

[Ieldra]

IanPolaris wrote...
The fact that Control is extremely high risk, and has absolutely no safety margin if it fails, AND is bound to fail eventually (either because the controller loses her/her humanity or the Reapers slip the leash) is what makes it such a bad idea.  If you destroy the reapers, the threat is gone forever.  New problems and threats may arise, but those will be problems for the future.  You solve the problem today forever.  Control IMHO is "reapers win" and the smirk of Reaper-Boy IMHO bears me out when you take this option.

The risk lies on the way there, not in the idea itself. And as I said, Destroy runs the risk of synthetics destroying all organics in the end - which would make a Reapers Win scenario retroactively preferable. It solves nothing forever, it only solves the immediate problem of galactic civilization being harvested by the Reapers. And guess what, so does Control and Synthesis. Only Control preserves more of galactic civilization and Synthesis attemps a more permanent solution to the problem.

Besides, what happens when the Reapers slip the leash? Well, the Synthesis tells you - they leave.  

[Ieldra]

@Dragoni89:
So...if I become indoctrinated tomorrow, the ideas I've had today suddenly turn bad? I repeat that's not how things work.

[IanPolaris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
The fact that Control is extremely high risk, and has absolutely no safety margin if it fails, AND is bound to fail eventually (either because the controller loses her/her humanity or the Reapers slip the leash) is what makes it such a bad idea.  If you destroy the reapers, the threat is gone forever.  New problems and threats may arise, but those will be problems for the future.  You solve the problem today forever.  Control IMHO is "reapers win" and the smirk of Reaper-Boy IMHO bears me out when you take this option.

The risk lies on the way there, not in the idea itself. And as I said, Destroy runs the risk of synthetics destroying all organics in the end - which would make a Reapers Win scenario retroactively preferable. It solves nothing forever, it only solves the immediate problem of galactic civilization being harvested by the Reapers. And guess what, so does Control and Synthesis. Only Control preserves more of galactic civilization and Synthesis attemps a more permanent solution to the problem.

Besides, what happens when the Reapers slip the leash? Well, the Synthesis tells you - they leave.  

The game never shows or gives any evidence that sythetics will inevitably destroy organics.  The Reapers and Star-Brat claim this but with absolutely no support for it.  In short you are committing a false-dichtomy.  The threat is purely theoretical and not born out in the game experience.

By constrast with Control, you are taking the immediate and very real risk of losing the war completely and immediately to the Reapers.  Star-brat knows this which is why he smirks when you make this collossal mistake (by picking control).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Dragoni89:
So...if I become indoctrinated tomorrow, the ideas I've had today suddenly turn bad? I repeat that's not how things work.

Frankly yes.  The moment you become indoctrinated (and not trying to be indoctrinated), your ideas become suspect...and yes that most definately includes control.

-Polaris

[Dragoni89]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Dragoni89:
So...if I become indoctrinated tomorrow, the ideas I've had today suddenly turn bad? I repeat that's not how things work.

We do not know when TIM became indocrinated, but most likely before Me3 but not in Me2. When played Mass Effect 2 TIM attitude was more like he will use any means to destory the reapers. Tims ideals there were along thlines of using reaper tech to destroy the reapers. But now suddenly in Me3 he wants to control the reapers. Some change must have happened. Which is explained by people now deserting cerebus. 

Do you think people keep the ideas the had before there indoctrination . Obviously not. But Tim kept talking control eve after in docination.

Modifié par Dragoni89, 15 avril 2012 - 10:43 .

[IanPolaris]

Dragoni89 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Dragoni89:
So...if I become indoctrinated tomorrow, the ideas I've had today suddenly turn bad? I repeat that's not how things work.

We do not know when TIM became indocrinated, but most likely before Me3 but not in Me2. When played Mass Effect 2 TIM attitude was more like he will use any means to destory the reapers. Tims ideals there were along thlines of using reaper tech to destroy the reapers. But now suddenly in Me3 he wants to control the reapers. Some change must have happened. Which is explained by people now deserting cerebus. 

Do you think people keep the ideas the had before there indoctrination . Obviously not. But Tim kept talking control eve after in docination.

Exactly.  In ME2 (and before) TIM was willing to use any methode and pay any price to defeat the Reapers and if he has a magic wand that could destroy every one of them, he'd have pressed it without hesitation.  This changes in ME3 after he is implanted and suspiciously so....

-Polaris

[Ieldra]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Dragoni89:
So...if I become indoctrinated tomorrow, the ideas I've had today suddenly turn bad? I repeat that's not how things work.

Frankly yes.  The moment you become indoctrinated (and not trying to be indoctrinated), your ideas become suspect...and yes that most definately includes control.

Frankly, no. If I have the idea today that controlling the Reapers is a good idea, and become indoctrinated tomorrow, that certainly makes *me* suspect, but not the idea itself.

That's what I'm about this whole time. That TIM has the idea instead of someone else means absolutely nothing. TIM is most certainly suspect, but the ideas he's always had  to "illuminate the dark places and use what we find there for humanity's benefit" (ME:Evolution, paraphrased, 2157 in ME's timeline) are independent from that. Of course you'd be equally justified in assuming that TIM's indoctrination began with the Reaper artifact in 2157, which would mean his ideas *could* be the result of indoctrination. But coincidence does not entail causation.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 avril 2012 - 11:04 .

[Commander Shepard the Grey Warden]

After reading through these and being completely amused, I'd like to add that this is a place of discussion that disregards the indoctination theory. Please be aware, I think the idea is rather clever, but it's fan made. Not canon.

[Wulfram]

IanPolaris wrote...

The fact that Control is extremely high risk, and has absolutely no safety margin if it fails, AND is bound to fail eventually (either because the controller loses her/her humanity or the Reapers slip the leash) is what makes it such a bad idea.  If you destroy the reapers, the threat is gone forever.  New problems and threats may arise, but those will be problems for the future.  You solve the problem today forever.  Control IMHO is "reapers win" and the smirk of Reaper-Boy IMHO bears me out when you take this option.

-Polaris

The "eventually" can be negated by immediately using your Control to order the Reapers to fly into the sun or something.

Short term, there is somewhat more risk - though any theory that Starkid is lieing or misleading needs to explain why he didn't also lie about everything else, and why he didn't just leave Shepard to die.  But taking a risk to avoid committing genocide is a fairly paragon thing to do.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The fact that Control is extremely high risk, and has absolutely no safety margin if it fails, AND is bound to fail eventually (either because the controller loses her/her humanity or the Reapers slip the leash) is what makes it such a bad idea.  If you destroy the reapers, the threat is gone forever.  New problems and threats may arise, but those will be problems for the future.  You solve the problem today forever.  Control IMHO is "reapers win" and the smirk of Reaper-Boy IMHO bears me out when you take this option.

-Polaris

The "eventually" can be negated by immediately using your Control to order the Reapers to fly into the sun or something.

Short term, there is somewhat more risk - though any theory that Starkid is lieing or misleading needs to explain why he didn't also lie about everything else, and why he didn't just leave Shepard to die.  But taking a risk to avoid committing genocide is a fairly paragon thing to do.

There is no evidence that you are permitted to do this.  After all you are GONE (dead and destroyed) as soon as you order the Reapers to break off.

-Polaris

[Big I]

No one really knows what's happening in the Control ending. Maybe Shepard becomes the Reaper King/Queen. Maybe Shepard dies but has enough time to press the "come back in 50,000 years button." Who knows. There is not enough information to be certain.


However, based on the stuff we can be certain about Control still seems to be the best option, especially in the short term. You don't kill the geth or other synthetics. The Citadel, with it's millions of survivors, is intact. The relays aren't as badly damaged as in the other endings. And no one is forcing anyone to become cyborgs against their wills.

Modifié par LookingGlass93, 15 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[IanPolaris]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

No one really knows what's happening in the Control ending. Maybe Shepard becomes the Reaper King/Queen. Maybe Shepard dies but has enough time to press the "come back in 50,000 years button." Who knows. There is not enough information to be certain.


However, based on the stuff we can be certain about Control still seems to be the best option, especially in the short term. You don't kill the geth or other synthetics. The Citadel, with it's millions of survivors, is intact. The relays aren't as badly damaged as in the other endings. And no one is forcing anyone to become cyborgs against their wills.

I strongly disagree.  The reapers are still there and the reapers WANT you to pick control.  Reason enough not to.  There is no assurance that the Reapers won't turn around and kill the galaxy anyway and there is nothing left to stop them.  That's even more true with Synethesis.  It's not worth it.

-Polaris

[Asch Lavigne]

Considering the Control ending left me with the most questions (almost all of which have been brought up in various posts in this thread), I'd say it's the worst ending. And yes, I saw the synthesis ending.