376 réponses à ce sujet

[Quething]

Modifié par Quething, 05 mai 2012 - 01:16 .

[Mass effect 2 forever]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Control is bad because you're signing up to be the steward of the galaxy for, presumably, eternity. That's a pretty crappy job. No retiring to live off the proceeds from the vids, no meeting in the bar in heaven... you're the galaxy's beat cop forever. A thankless job which requires you to make galaxy-shaping decisions. What if, after Control, the Geth do get all uppity and revolt against organics? Do you use the Reapers to wipe them out? Just let it play out? Wipe out the Quarians afterwards to prevent it from happening again? What about smaller skirmishes like the Batarians raiding a colony for slaves? Can you even keep track of an entire galaxy with billions of people? That would be completely exhausting. I suppose you could commit suicide by trashing all the Reapers in a black hole, or tossing them into a star... but if you're going to do that, why not just choose Destroy?

Assuming, of course, your control of the Reapers is permanent. What happens if it wears off? Are the Reapers just going to back to harvesting? Oh well, Shep's dead. Hopefully there's another superhero out there somewhere.

That's why I think Control is a bad choice. You are free to disagree, I don't care. I think Destroy is the only choice to make.

Well, hypothetically. If Shephards conscious still remains and can be converted into digital form then projected into a unit: either a VI or a robot like EDI would make communication plausable. I mean reapers can talk by telepathy and the starchild spoke to you. If Sheps in there then why wouldn't he?

Another possibility, is that Legions death foreshadows Shephards for both synthesis and control. Both change the fate of their races and convey something of themselves 'direct personality dissemination required' in order to change their races. So yes Shephard probably is dead if this parrallel is deliberate BUT it means every individual reaper and the starchild were massively changed in terms of personality and empathy. In other words once they had Shephards personality they would feel that they couldn't go through with harvesting and finally accepted it as immoral and perhaps realised what Shephard saw in that the syn/org problem can be overcome.

Modifié par Mass effect 2 forever, 05 mai 2012 - 01:26 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

[Mass effect 2 forever]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

IT theory was disproved a long time ago why do so many people still act as though the catalyst was trying to trick you or indoctrinate you to get the last laugh?

[BatmanTurian]

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

IT theory was disproved a long time ago

Prove it. Hint: you can't.

[Xellith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

Shooting something is a lot safer than electrocuting myself or letting myself disintergrate in a beam of light. Also destroy gets rid of the reapers.. yes plz!

[Mass effect 2 forever]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

IT theory was disproved a long time ago

Prove it. Hint: you can't.

I wish it were true. But Bioware have said they won't in unequivocal terms.

[Xellith]

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

IT theory was disproved a long time ago

Prove it. Hint: you can't.

I wish it were true. But Bioware have said they won't in unequivocal terms.

I do find it amusing that bioware was meant to discuss the ending with us after enough people had completed the game.  Yet here we are 2 months on and now they refuse to talk about the ending in detail.  Maybe extended cut will fill in some blanks - then a few months later maybe the mods/devs will discuss the ending with a full conversation.

[BatmanTurian]

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

IT theory was disproved a long time ago

Prove it. Hint: you can't.

I wish it were true. But Bioware have said they won't in unequivocal terms.

Again. Prove it. Give me an official answer from Bioware, not some twitter message or some paraphrased statement. Show me proof. If IT is wrong, I want to know.

[shepskisaac]

Xellith wrote...
Regardless of how you look at the reaper creation is irrelevant since their master is an AI.  (apparantly)

Says who? Nowhere it is said Catalyst is an AI. Furthermore, he often reffers to himself and Reapers as "we", implying they're similar. Last but not least, this is in the game files:

EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthDestroyed,
EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthDevastated,
EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthOk,
EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthOkShepardAlive,
EGO_BecomeAReaperAndEarthDestroyedAndReapersLeave,
EGO_BecomeAReaperAndEarthOkAndReapersLeave,
EGO_HarmonyOfManAndMachine,

If Shep becomes a Reaper when he gets uploaded into the Citadel, then of course the Catalyst is a form of a Reaper too. And the defining characteristic of the Reapers is thet they're transcended flesh, millions of organic minds uploaded and conjoined in immortal bodies, as Legion says: www.youtube.com/watch And he says it himself, the Reapers are different to Geth and the difference is that these minds of Reapers come from organics, unlike Geth and their pure AI

Modifié par IsaacShep, 05 mai 2012 - 01:34 .

[DOHC46]

pottman wrote...

All three endings are bad, case closed.

This.  Except for one technical inaccuracy...  There is really only one ending, just 3 small variants of the same ending.

[shepskisaac]

DOHC46 wrote...

pottman wrote...

All three endings are bad, case closed.

This.  Except for one technical inaccuracy...  There is really only one ending, just 3 small variants of the same ending.

Yeah, because transforming all life in one of the endings is just a small 'detail' lol

[Mass effect 2 forever]

Xellith wrote...


I do find it amusing that bioware was meant to discuss the ending with us after enough people had completed the game.  Yet here we are 2 months on and now they refuse to talk about the ending in detail.  Maybe extended cut will fill in some blanks - then a few months later maybe the mods/devs will discuss the ending with a full conversation.

You know, a lot of people have said that the ending was rushed or that EA pushed them into other priorities. But that honestly isn't what I think happened. I think a commercial ending, ala Gears of War was what everyone expects past Mars and would have been a dramatic way to end the series. However I think Casey Hudson? n the writers wanted a high brow ending so they ended up re-writing the ending multiple times, throwing out ideas like the reaper TIM and eventually came up with something rushed when it had no reason to be. A number of other facts taken together: plot holes, surreal change of mood, high art over character, inadvertently forcing synthesis in the player to preclude the notion of choice or that Shephard doesn't have to agrre with the reapers and the lack of an epilogue to really just make the ending unpalatable.Also killing Shephard was a bold move but to do it in a poor context for the reasons listed was suicide. I'd say my opinion of the ending has gotten better and I think control is actually part of what was meant to be a subtle distinction in the players mind about free will n inevitability. Even then it really is not clear from the portrayel and I admit I may just be reading too much into minor details.

[Xellith]

IsaacShep wrote...

Xellith wrote...
Regardless of how you look at the reaper creation is irrelevant since their master is an AI.  (apparantly)

Says who? Nowhere it is said Catalyst is an AI. Furthermore, he often reffers to himself and Reapers as "we", implying they're similar. Last but not least, this is in the game files:

EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthDestroyed,
EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthDevastated,
EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthOk,
EGO_ReapersDestroyedEarthOkShepardAlive,
EGO_BecomeAReaperAndEarthDestroyedAndReapersLeave,
EGO_BecomeAReaperAndEarthOkAndReapersLeave,
EGO_HarmonyOfManAndMachine,

If Shep becomes a Reaper when he gets uploaded into the Citadel, then of course the Catalyst is a form of a Reaper too. And the defining characteristic of the Reapers is thet they're transcended flesh, millions of organic minds uploaded and conjoined in immortal bodies, as Legion says: www.youtube.com/watch And he says it himself, the Reapers are different to Geth and the difference is that these minds of Reapers come from organics, unlike Geth and their pure AI

You are suggesting that the catalyst himself was once an organic that uploaded their mind to the citadel then? 

[shepskisaac]

Xellith wrote...

You are suggesting that the catalyst himself was once an organic that uploaded their mind to the citadel then? 

Of course. If the Catalyst is a Reaper, then he's uploaded organic mind(s), like other Reapers.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 05 mai 2012 - 01:49 .

[Mass effect 2 forever]

IsaacShep wrote...


EGO_HarmonyOfManAndMachine,

That is the main reason why I doubt myself about control being better than synthesis and why I want to believe that bioware wouldn't have been stupid enoguh to actually push synthesis it as the better ending. The idea of trans-humanism is completely against everything established in all the ME and ME3 above all. The idea that they could not see that the blatent social darwinism of such a concept as utterly vulgar and repulsive is beyond me. If somebody made a machine that could turn all races on the Earth into one generic type to avoid conflict; would that be right? No it would not, because the question itself rests on an illegitimate and false asumption that difference equals conflict and needs to be solved with . At least a toss up between control and synthesis makes it a matter of player judgement. It gives the player a chance to reach a decision on the org/syn, the krogan all of that and pick control.

[D1ck1e]

Only the writing was bad for sure.

[BatmanTurian]

Fibonacci wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If you don't believe Starbrat at all, then you can't trust destroy either. Forget the post choice animations.

IT theory was disproved a long time ago

Prove it. Hint: you can't.

I wish it were true. But Bioware have said they won't in unequivocal terms.

Again. Prove it. Give me an official answer from Bioware, not some twitter message or some paraphrased statement. Show me proof. If IT is wrong, I want to know.

If IT is right, prove it. Hint: you can't.

We can spin this top all day long.

Then you've proved my point. Thanks.

[Raiil]

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...



That is the main reason why I doubt myself about control being better than synthesis and why I want to believe that bioware wouldn't have been stupid enoguh to actually push synthesis it as the better ending. The idea of trans-humanism is completely against everything established in all the ME and ME3 above all. The idea that they could not see that the blatent social darwinism of such a concept as utterly vulgar and repulsive is beyond me. If somebody made a machine that could turn all races on the Earth into one generic type to avoid conflict; would that be right? No it would not, because the question itself rests on an illegitimate and false asumption that difference equals conflict and needs to be solved with . At least a toss up between control and synthesis makes it a matter of player judgement. It gives the player a chance to reach a decision on the org/syn, the krogan all of that and pick control.

With regards to the bolded- what? where? Transhumanism has never been about a forceable merge en masse of all living creatures (or at least sapient, sentient ones) with tech and vice versa. Transhumanism is about humanity's ability to evolve, on an individual level, with technology. One of the strongest telling points about the h+ movement manifesto is they outright refuse to consider a situation where technological upgrades are forced on a person, and that the right to remain un-upgraded is sancrosect and must be protected and defended.

Transhumanism is not what synthesis is. There's nothing about killing genetic diversity involved.

[Aaleel]

I never considered Control because I had spent the entire game being beaten over the head with the fact that controlling the reapers was an illusion.

Then add the fact that just moments earlier, I just made a man suicide himself for not letting go of this idea. I just didn't trust it. Also I came to stop the reaper threat definitively, and leaving them alive under the hope I would have and maintain control indefinitely didn't achieve that.

[TJX2045]

I doubt that the strongest mind in the world could overcome the willpower of a consensus more than fifty thousand years old. And clearly he can't shut them down because they still move and they still have their vital parts in tact unless you choose Destroy.

Synthesis is the lesser of that evil if you don't believe that the hybrids will make pure synthetics again to help them (I doubt they wouldn't; they'd just rebuild again and make more geth like full on synthetics and we're back at the cycle).

Destroy is the only logical option IMO. Sure, the synthetics die, but they can be remade again. Also we do not know the extent of their destruction...their software, their hardware? Both?

It's the same way that people argue in favor of Control.

They are all ambiguous, but if you consider that both of the major antagonists in the previous games both tried Synthesis and Control and failed horribly at it, it doesn't mean that if Shepard tries it it's magically different. In the romance scene if you chose to pursue a romance, it's clear that Shepard has doubts about whether he/she will make it, and may even mention that sometimes they need to be inspired or motivated.

With that said, Shepard is just a man/woman and not some demigod who is infallible, which is why I believe Control is the worst and most likely option to just restart the cycle once Shepard's will is overpowered.

[Ieldra]

IsaacShep wrote...

Xellith wrote...

You are suggesting that the catalyst himself was once an organic that uploaded their mind to the citadel then? 

Of course. If the Catalyst is a Reaper, then he's uploaded organic mind(s), like other Reapers.

If it is....but there is no indication that it is. In fact, the Catalyst speaks about the Reapers as if they were external to itself. "I control the Reapers", "The Reapers are my solution". When it says "we", it is very obvious that it means "I and the Reapers".

Game files are no evidence of anything, except that at some time during developments, the person who named those files interpreted the ending that would later become known as "Control the Reapers" as "Shepard becomes a Reaper":

The most plausible interpretation is still "Shepard is divested of his organic form and becomes something like an AI god". Besides, "Shepard becomes a Reaper" isn't possible because, as we all know, a Reaper is "billions of organic minds uploaded and conjoined within an immortal machine body".

[Erield]

RMP _ wrote...

It seems most people think the 'right' choice to make is destroy. After watching all three, it looks like control is the best one to me.
If we assume everything is actually happening as we see it (no indoctrination test inside a dream) and break it down point by point some of the arguments I've seen.

1. It's bad because it's what the illusive man wanted and he's evil.
It would be bad if TIM himself got it, he's a tyrant with no morals and no conscience.

2. If the reapers don't die, you lose.
No, if the reapers and the cycle aren't stopped, you lose. 
 
3. You fought TIM all this time to stop him from trying to control them, why would it seem like a good idea at the very end?
Before the final scene, you don't know if control is even a possibility, but after talking with Catalyst, you now know it is. In ME1, no one was thinking alliance with the Geth. They were the bad guys. New information can and should change your decisions.

4. If you choose control, you're indoctrinated.
Weak chicken/egg argument here. I'll trust the catalyst when he says the reapers will obey Shepard.

5. The catalyst is a liar, he's trying to trick you. We've been told from the beginning, you can't control the Reapers.
No one has ever made it as far as the catalyst, no one has ever had the crucible at their disposal, so the situation could be different this time.
Also, if you think he's lying about control, then everything he says about everything is suspect

Further, why not let you die in front of the control panel?

Other arguments in favor of control:

6. Your decsion doesn't kill EDI or the entire Geth population.

7. The reapers are spared.

8. A theme prevalent throughout the ME series is making peace with former enemies.

Re-numbered your last 3 so that it's not confusing when I argue them point by point.

1.  Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The Catalyst has absolute Control over the Reapers.  According to your assumption of Control, Shepard would have absolute Control over them as well.  There is every reason to think that 1,489,257,290 years from now Shepard is not as sane, helpful, and nice as he is now and he just goes ape-**** on the galaxy and eats it all.  That's a best-case scenario.  In the example of my renegade Shep, I immediately take control of the Reapers and **** **** up.  Maybe you've not played renegade Shep, but he pretty much agrees 100% with TIM in ME2 and with the goals (if not the method) in ME3.

2.  It's not so much that the Reapers need to die, but they need to be defeated so that they are no longer a threat--ever.  They will still be around.  It's even possible that Joe Schmoe, the janitor for Sector 7-G of the Citadel, accidentally triggers the elevator up to the Room of Ascendance and takes over the job from Shepard.  We have no reason to believe that this is not possible; it's exactly what Shepard did.  (The Crucible was already used to change the Catalyst.  There is no reason why it should need to be changed again, because the change to allow an organic to Assume Control has already occurred.  Partial-success of this would result in Shepard being displaced as the ultimate arbiter of the Reapers, and they actually gain independence for the first time ever.)

3.  You know during the Sanctuary mission that Control is a possibility.  You know during the Cerberus base mission.  You know during the TIM scene.  It's not very likely to succeed, but it's there as a possibility.  The greatest limiting factor seems to be a matter of power to overcome whatever is protecting the Reapers.  I find it interesting to muse what would have been the result of the upgrades TIM gave himself being used on EDI instead--would she be able to control the Reapers?  What about if it was used on Legion?

4.  I am not a believer in IT.  If you choose control, then the Reapers will still exist.  Perhaps you will exist inside of one; that is unknown.  It seems evident that Indoctrination will remain a threat, however.  The Reapers are still around; that means Indoctrination will still  be around.  There is no guarantee of safety from Indoctrination even if your 'brain' is software (see Geth) which is what it seems happens upon Shepards 'Ascendance.'

5.  There is absolutely no reason to take the Star Child's words at face value.  First, he is the arbiter of the Cycle.  Second, he is the Controller of the Reapers.  Finally, he is the leader of the enemy, and potentially faces destruction.  Many of us would rather die than lose our free will and be turned into mindless slaves.  The Geth are machines; the Geth chose otherwise.  Shepard believes that the Star Child is a machine.  It is plausible that the Star Child is willing to choose being turned into a mindless slave if it means he won't face Destruction.  He has every reason to talk up the whole I DON'T WANT TO ****ING DIE PLEASE GOD DON'T KILL ME!! points.

6.  Yes, EDI and the Geth live if you chooes Control.  Their deaths seemed to be arbitrary constructs artificially placed by Bioware to make Destroy less appealing.  If this is your sole reason for not choosing Destroy, then it is an exceedingly weak argument (or you just really love them.)  The fact that with high EMS Shepard is shown living gives the possibility that this is a lie, as well.  We don't know enough to evaluate this as it is.  There is reason to doubt the Star Child is telling the complete truth, and post-game cinematics show us a faint hint that this might be for a reason.  A weak argument, yes, but a valid one.

7.  The Reapers will be Indoctrinating the **** out of everyone.  The Reapers will also be mindless servants that obey the will of Shepard (assuming he gets to Maintain Direct Control, and it's not just a one-time order.)  I guess that if you are given the choice of killing every human being or turning them all into mindless husks that have no semblance of free will, art, culture, or identity there are those who would say that it's better to let them live.  I am not one of those people.

8.  You are not making peace with the Reapers.  You are not making peace with the Reapers.  You are not making peace with the Reapers.  You are enslaving them.  Do not delude yourself that it is anything it is not.  They will be your puppets, and they will dance and do exactly what you want.  Either that, or they will be free to ignore you and they will kill everything.  Which is better, again?

The main reasons why Control is bad:

9.  There is no evidence to suggest that Shepard will actually be able to maintain Control of the Reapers.  There is evidence to suggest this will not be possible (via TIM.)  All we really know is that Shepard got out one Control-thought to the Reapers before he died.  Will he be able to keep giving out orders?  Did he just order them to dark space for another 50,000 years, just delaying the Cycle for one revolution?  What happens with my earlier example of somebody reaching the same room and pressing the same controls?

10.  Control is only good if you endorse slavery.  Period.

[G00N3R7883]

Until the last 15 minutes, what did we know? The Reapers were devastating entire civilisations and using the organic material to make more Reapers. Again. They're pretty much the purest evil you could find. And they're insanely powerful. This is the first time ever that anyone even has a chance to stop them.

And we're supposed to spare them, just because a character that we've never met before, who also admits to being the one who is controlling the Reapers, asks us nicely?

Hell no. Kill them now while we can. If the control fails later, we'd regret it. For about 5 minutes. Then they'd kill us all. Again.