Aller au contenu

Photo

Wait, why is control ending a bad choice again?


376 réponses à ce sujet

#276
rachellouise

rachellouise
  • Members
  • 493 messages
More speculation.

The first cycle was much like Javik's. The strong got stronger by dominating the weak etc. but how would one nation defeat another , which was likely just as strong, if not stronger?

They did not want to lose, their scientists came up with a super machine, one they thought could help them dominate anyone, and anything. All they had to do was sacrifice their weak.

They had a few reapers built, when the reapers started communicating with each other. "hey, bob, if the rule of all life is that the strong must dominate the weak, then why are we listening to these guys?"

The reapers started harvesting on their own, to build their number. The creators where horrified. The army was sent out to fight, the president (or whoever) ordered the machines be shut down. The scientists looked at each other "...err...shut down?".
Nobody could believe that these weapons had been built without this.The scientists were ordered to create something to be used.

This is where they started work on the blueprint for the crucible. "make the destroy, a one time thing, yeah? We don't want the other nations getting hold of something that could be used whenever. It would make any synthetic life we build useless for war."

They never managed to start building it.

Modifié par rachellouise, 05 mai 2012 - 09:12 .


#277
Catroi

Catroi
  • Members
  • 1 992 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
you are doing what in Italy we refer to as climbing mirrors

I am not from Italy so the saying is lost on me.


I guess it means you're in total denial

#278
Candidate 88766

Candidate 88766
  • Members
  • 3 422 messages
The Catalyst was an (admittedly rather poor) avatar through which Bioware could explain the Reapers' motivations. You might not want to believe what it says (the Reaper motive does fly in the face of a lot of what the past three games have taught us), but from a storytelling point of view it makes no sense for Bioware to lie to the player in the endgame. It would be like making Vigil lie - while interesting to speculate about, it doesn't make much sense from a narrative point of view.

So it seems that Bioware decided that in the ME universe, synthetics and organics will always come to blows eventually, and that synthetics will eventually win. There is actually plenty of evidence for this: you fight the geth for three games, you fight a rogue AI on the Citadel and a rogue VI on Luna, the Prothean Empire was locked in a galaxy-spanning war with a race of synthetics before the Reapers showed up. There is evidence that organics and synthetics can get along - EDI works with and befriends the crew, Legion is willing to work with Shepard to fight both the Reapers and its own kind, and you can forge a peace on Rannoch between the quarians and the geth. The problem is though that we don't know whether the peace can last. In the face of the Reaper threat, its beneficial for the geth to work with organics. However, once the Reapers are out of the picture we can't know whether we forged permanent peace or merely a truce. If we believe the Catalyst - and it makes more sense to believe it than not to - then eventually war will break out again, and this time it is unlikely the geth would hold back. If war between organics and synthetics is inevitable, then eventually one side just going to try to eliminate the threat, and the synthetics will win.

Which brings me on to the endings:

Destroy: synthetic life is destroyed for a time, but eventually they will be created again and with the Cycle no longer an option, synthetics will eventually win. Destroy requires you to betray your allies the geth based on the assumption that eventually they will come to blows with organics.

Control: this is basically saying that the Cycle is either the best or the only option to prevent the total extinction of organics. This ending ensures that organic life can continue, but each civilization has a short amount of time before they are 'immortalized' in Reaper form against their will. There is some evidence that the Relays aren't entirely destroyed in this ending.

Synthesis: the only option to guarantee peace between synthetics and organics, by eliminating most of the differences between them and turning all life into orgthetics or synthanics or something. Morally and ethically, this is obviously the most questionable. However, people that say it turns everyone into husks or stuff like that are clearly wrong as you retain your individuality (Joker and EDI still clearly show affection for each other in the ending, so your personality - what makes you 'you' - can be assumed to be intact).



I don't really like the choices we got, and I don't like the explanation of why the Reapers do what they do, but this is what we're stuck with. And based on what we're stuck with, the control ending is just as justifiable as the others.

#279
Shallyah

Shallyah
  • Members
  • 1 357 messages

RMP _ said...

I'll trust the catalyst


Stopped reading there.

Modifié par Shallyah, 05 mai 2012 - 09:34 .


#280
Ariq

Ariq
  • Members
  • 245 messages

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The Catalyst was an (admittedly rather poor) avatar through which Bioware could explain the Reapers' motivations. You might not want to believe what it says (the Reaper motive does fly in the face of a lot of what the past three games have taught us), but from a storytelling point of view it makes no sense for Bioware to lie to the player in the endgame. It would be like making Vigil lie - while interesting to speculate about, it doesn't make much sense from a narrative point of view.


From a narrative point of view, it makes no sense to devote a third of the game's main sequence and the story arc of one of three new squadmates to showing in great detail how great synthetics and organics can get along if the end message was in diametric opposition, but there you have it.

I see no reason to believe anything the Catalyst says, he's the enemy remember? Narrative cohesion generally has the protagonist acting against the interest of the antagonist unless there is solid reason given otherwise - 14 lines of deux ex-position from the machina ain't cuttin' it from my point of view. In any event, I find it interesting that he describes the Control ending as a question: "Do you think you can Control us?"




However, people that say it turns everyone into husks or stuff like that are clearly wrong as you retain your individuality (Joker and EDI still clearly show affection for each other in the ending, so your personality - what makes you 'you' - can be assumed to be intact).


Why? We never see husks interacting with one another, perhaps they have fully realized social lives. Sovereign claimed to be a 'nation unto himself', and Legion confirms the Reapers are a multiplicity of minds. Perhaps they have vast, vibrant operatic interactions within the sea of grey goop splashing around inside their shells. We just don't know. Perhaps we've just misjudged the husks, like we misjudged Sovereign. He just wanted to protect us from the evil Geth...I mean, the other Geth, not the ones he led in the attack on the Citadel. Some other Geth. Like the ones the Rannoch Reaper upgraded so they could kill Quarians. Those evil Geth. Or perhaps from EDI? Joker's pelvis might need protection, but he may not thank you for it in the morning.

Shepard certainly looks huskified falling into the green beam. But then I've never seen a non-huskified person covered in electrical circuitry in odd mockery of software based synthetic intelligence, so who knows?
 
It's simple wish fulfillment to believe everyone remains the same, and wish fulfillment that runs contrary to the purpose of the change: if they are the same before and after Synthesis it does not accomplish its goal of eliminating the differences between synthetic and organic life. Our humanity is not based on GATA composition - that is merely what we're made of; just as the Geth aren't Geth because of silicon and gallium and whatever rarified elements that go into building quantum blue boxes. If those underlying identities remain it doesn't matter how many circuit boards Joker has on his hat.

Modifié par Ariq, 05 mai 2012 - 09:48 .


#281
Mass effect 2 forever

Mass effect 2 forever
  • Members
  • 335 messages

Candidate 88766 wrote...

.

Control: this is basically saying that the Cycle is either the best or the only option to prevent the total extinction of organics. This ending ensures that organic life can continue, but each civilization has a short amount of time before they are 'immortalized' in Reaper form against their will. There is some evidence that the Relays aren't entirely destroyed in this ending.



Thats completely not how Control is presented. You are assuming that Shephard asked for a delay or that he would not be able to permanently control the reapers. Its a big assumption. The catalyst tells you in no uncertain terms that 'You will control us' indeed he tells you this twice. If you say he is not lying then why are you making big assumptions about what control entails. Control means what it says Shephard has total control over all the reapers and they are wandering the galaxy. Shephard would never try harvesting because its a horrible thing he witnessed first-hand. You could speculate IF org/syn cannot resolve their differences then he might get involved again BUT theres no reason to assume that it wouldn't be vastly different if the reapers have Shephards conscience.

Modifié par Mass effect 2 forever, 05 mai 2012 - 09:49 .


#282
Mass effect 2 forever

Mass effect 2 forever
  • Members
  • 335 messages

Ariq wrote...


From a narrative point of view, it makes no sense to devote a third of the game's main sequence and the story arc of one of three new squadmates to showing in great detail how great synthetics and organics can get along if the end message was in diametric opposition, but there you have it.

I see no reason to believe anything the Catalyst says, he's the enemy remember? Narrative cohesion generally has the protagonist acting against the interest of the antagonist unless there is solid reason given otherwise - 14 lines of deux ex-position from the machina ain't cuttin' it from my point of view. In any event, I find it interesting that he describes the Control ending as a question: "Do you think you can Control us?" 


hat.


Exactly. People assumed the catalyst was a narrator and took his subtle attempts to manipulate you as god given truth. He says 'Do you think you can control us?' BUT when Shephard presses him on this he quite bluntly admits that you will be able to do it. You then see first hand that Shephard can control the reapers. Also, we see the reapers try to destroy a cerberus base investigating the possibility. This was a MASSIVE hint that it could be done since cerberus and the reapers never fought eachother except then.

The compromise you make is to avoid the destructive elements of the renegade ending that will kill not just the Geth but all of your allied fleets n other ships. Billions of people will die unneccesarily is Shep picks that option.So he is pushed to compromise but still has the option of control if he thinks the catalyust is talking out his own ass. The catalyst sees the merits of synthesis and wants to push you toward this ending and so pushes the idea the syn/org will always fight; even though most of the game has said otherwise.

#283
Mass effect 2 forever

Mass effect 2 forever
  • Members
  • 335 messages

Valentia X wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...



 The idea of trans-humanism is completely against everything established in all the ME and ME3 above all.


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.


Exactly and Dues Ex plays the issue very well. But as you say its not about forcing issues like that. Think about it, the reason why shephard modifies everyone is because difference creates war and more badly that because organics are less evolved than synthetics and the inferior life form will be killed. What the catalyst says. Then we have to remove the issue. Now, I hope people understand why such a concept is on a horrifyingly vulgar concept and that when I say social darwinism I really mean that the idea is like something a bunch of ****s would come up with. Again Bioware misjudged massively if that is the ending they pushed on you.

#284
wright1978

wright1978
  • Members
  • 8 116 messages

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The Catalyst was an (admittedly rather poor) avatar through which Bioware could explain the Reapers' motivations. You might not want to believe what it says (the Reaper motive does fly in the face of a lot of what the past three games have taught us), but from a storytelling point of view it makes no sense for Bioware to lie to the player in the endgame. It would be like making Vigil lie - while interesting to speculate about, it doesn't make much sense from a narrative point of view.


Sorry but vigil was a simple VI. They could easily have made the endgame character a simple AI, they didn't. Starbrat claims he is the genocidal maniac controlling the reapers. So yeah i'm not going to believe a word it says and i'm going to view every choice it offers through the lens that this is a genocidal maniac offering it to me.

#285
oxdarkfirexo

oxdarkfirexo
  • Members
  • 187 messages
 I personally believe that the options we were given were tricks and that the control option doesn't actually control the Reapers but infact it indoctrinates organics on a galatic scale. My thread on the Control Option Not Being What It Seems goes into more detail about it but it makes sense that the Catalyst would try to trick Shepard into picking an option that doesn't result in the Reapers being destroyed and that would also benefit the Reapers.

#286
Ariq

Ariq
  • Members
  • 245 messages

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

Thats completely not how Control is presented. You are assuming that Shephard asked for a delay or that he would not be able to permanently control the reapers. Its a big assumption. The catalyst tells you in no uncertain terms that 'You will control us' indeed he tells you this twice.


Actually, the terms aren't so certain. The first time the Catalyst mentions Control, it is a question, "Do you think you can Control us?" That isn't an assertion. It can even be read as a challenge or as an expression of doubt. I'm not so sure of his second response given the phrasing of his first description of this option. 

As far as permanent Control goes, how is it that you're explaining the whole "Die" part? And the "you will lose everything that you have" part? Does everything include the soul? Moral compass? Rational mind? I would say I "have" all of these things. If Shepard loses that (and since he's already dying, why does it need to be specified if it doesn't include metaphysical ideas? I figure if Shepard is dead he's already lost command of the Normandy, a future with his LI, and the day at the beach with the crew), so if Shepard loses those things, what is left to Control the Reapers? A vague idea? A single final command during the agonizing moments while the Catalyst grinned as the Crucible fried Shepard's physical form? Nothing ingame implies the Control will be permanent. Less than nothing implies that Shepard will survive in any meaningful form: to the contrary, the Catalyst says outright that you will not survive.

Modifié par Ariq, 05 mai 2012 - 11:00 .


#287
rachellouise

rachellouise
  • Members
  • 493 messages
There's no guarantee of anything. Hence the speculation.

Maybe sounding like he's challenging you is to make you doubt yourself, and disregard the option,  because he wants to stay in charge.

Modifié par rachellouise, 05 mai 2012 - 11:11 .


#288
Abreu Road

Abreu Road
  • Members
  • 374 messages
 Problem with Control: touch this lever and dissolve. Because this is how it works. Deal with it.


Control would be a good option if you argue with the catalyst, won an argument against it (quarian-geth peace, EDI's free will), and then, prove that your choice is a best solution. Then you can die if your EMS is low or survive if it's high enough.

Control should be the option for who did everything right in the series, for a Shepard so strong willed that not even a godlike ancient AI could beat him in an argument.

Forcing hero's sacrifice with control is just plain stupidity. It's not heroic to dissolve touching a lever, for god's sake.

Modifié par Abreu Road, 05 mai 2012 - 11:22 .


#289
Ariq

Ariq
  • Members
  • 245 messages

rachellouise wrote...

There's no guarantee of anything. Hence the speculation.


The problem with this is that once we begin casting so much doubt on one of the Catalyst's assertions, then *all* of his assertions become suspect. Why should we believe any of it? Which is where I end up. The Catalyst can't be believed. Not part of what he says, but all of what he says is in doubt. Throw the whole conversation out the window. He's the leader of the Reapers. Why am I put into a situation where I have to trust my mortal enemy?

#290
xsdob

xsdob
  • Members
  • 8 575 messages

Abreu Road wrote...

 Problem with Control: touch this lever and dissolve. Because this is how it works. Deal with it.


Control would be a good option if you argue with the catalyst, won an argument against it (quarian-geth peace, EDI's free will), and then, prove that your choice is a best solution. Then you can die if your EMS is low or survive if it's high enough.

Control should be the option for who did everything right in the series, for a Shepard so strong willed that not even a godlike ancient AI could beat him in an argument.

Forcing hero's sacrifice with control is just plain stupidity. It's not heroic to dissolve touching a lever, for god's sake.


Shoot the tube and win a victory.

The rest of your post is good though, but that first part is kind of an undersell. Of course this being the bsn underselling and cheap shotting the ending is the bread and butter here so go nuts.

Modifié par xsdob, 05 mai 2012 - 11:35 .


#291
Vox Draco

Vox Draco
  • Members
  • 2 939 messages

Abreu Road wrote...
Forcing hero's sacrifice with control is just plain stupidity. It's not heroic to dissolve touching a lever, for god's sake.


My thoughts exactly...And no matter how you twist and turn all these options...green and blue don't make sense to pick in this situation. Too much is at stake, not enough information is presented, the catalyst not a trustworthy source anyway. How, in hell, would a soldier or any sane person choose to kill himself without being sure what will happen or if your sacrifice is worth it? At least in destroy there is a slight cahnce of survival, and I don't mean the breathing scene Shepard cannot know about, or the vagueness of the Starkid. But the simple fat that shepard is supposed to shoot at some device, which might explode or not, you cannot really know if it is deadly.

If you throw yourself on a grenade to save your comrades...that might be counting as a sacrifice worth it, as you know about grenades and what will ahppen if you don't do it. (Though I'd rather try to throw the grenade away, but I am a coward). Or put yourself between a bullet and a victim! 

But you will never stop a bullet or a grenade by simply commiting suicide...and this is basically what I see in control or synthesis. But hey, at least Shepard is dead and doesn't have to bother much with a guilty conscience afterwards like with destroy  anyway, so maybe its all good...

#292
Abreu Road

Abreu Road
  • Members
  • 374 messages

xsdob wrote...

Shoot the tube and win a victory.

The rest of your post is good though, but that first part is kind of an undersell. Of course this being the bsn underselling and cheap shotting the ending is the bread and butter here so go nuts.


Every choice is stupid. "Shoot the tube while walking towards it", "jump right onto the cliff/green light" and "touch this lever and dissolve".

They clearly forced Shepard's death. I have no problem with her death, if it was did in a way like Mordin's, Legion and even Thane's.

#293
RMP _

RMP _
  • Members
  • 84 messages

wright1978 wrote...

Starbrat claims he is the genocidal maniac controlling the reapers. So yeah i'm not going to believe a word it says and i'm going to view every choice it offers through the lens that this is a genocidal maniac offering it to me.



If you believe nothing that Starbrat says, how you can trust him when he says to destroy reapers, take the ramp on the right and start shooting at that thing?? How do you know that's what you should do to trigger a massive shockwave from the crucible that destroys all the reapers?

#294
KingZayd

KingZayd
  • Members
  • 5 344 messages

RMP _ wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Starbrat claims he is the genocidal maniac controlling the reapers. So yeah i'm not going to believe a word it says and i'm going to view every choice it offers through the lens that this is a genocidal maniac offering it to me.



If you believe nothing that Starbrat says, how you can trust him when he says to destroy reapers, take the ramp on the right and start shooting at that thing?? How do you know that's what you should do to trigger a massive shockwave from the crucible that destroys all the reapers?


He doesn't say it though. You see it in your mind. If he's the source, then he can beam images to your mind. In that case everything you see could just be signals sent by the Starchild.

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 mai 2012 - 01:28 .


#295
Ariq

Ariq
  • Members
  • 245 messages

RMP _ wrote...

If you believe nothing that Starbrat says, how you can trust him when he says to destroy reapers, take the ramp on the right and start shooting at that thing??


I didn't trust him with it. I picked "green" because I like the colour. The choice was meaningless. A choice has meaning if it occurs within context, if you're informed enough to make it, and you have some reason to expect an outcome. I had none of these with Starchild. He offered three flavours of the Kool-aid and I had to drink one, nothing more to it.

#296
Johcande XX

Johcande XX
  • Members
  • 369 messages
Not bad per se, just the most hypocritical ending.

#297
RMP _

RMP _
  • Members
  • 84 messages

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

Also, we see the reapers try to destroy a cerberus base investigating the possibility. This was a MASSIVE hint that it could be done since cerberus and the reapers never fought eachother except then.


That's good point that I completely forgot about. TIM was likely already indonctrinated by then, but for sure they wouldn't want that information getting out.

Modifié par RMP _, 06 mai 2012 - 01:57 .


#298
ReXspec

ReXspec
  • Members
  • 588 messages
So, why should I trust a character who presents a new, superseding conflict in the supposed resolution? Why should I perform something that is presented without any concrete evidence? That it will truly succeed? You could argue the same thing for all the other endings, but "destroy," to kick the reapers ass, was the goal the ENTIRE GAME.

Even if you somehow subscribe to Casper's logic that you can somehow control the Reapers there is no evidence that proves the Reapers will not return.

Modifié par ReXspec, 06 mai 2012 - 01:58 .


#299
Sundance31us

Sundance31us
  • Members
  • 2 647 messages
The official guide doesn't use the word "control" do describe the blue ending; instead the phrase used is, "if you choose to become a Reaper". :blink:

Here's my theory: (not serious)
  • Harbinger and Sovereign were a couple.
  • After 50,000 years Sovereign REALLY wanted to see Harbinger again.
  • Sovereign died (Shepard & human fleet at fault).
  • Next thing we know Harbinger is trying to make a human Reaper; Shepard kills it when it's only a baby.
  • Harbinger "speaks" of Shepard to the point where other Reapers recognize him/her.
  • Harbinger bails at the final battle.
  • TIM & Catalyst try talking Shepard into becoming a Reaper.
Clearly Shepard is intended to fill the emotional void left by Sovereign's death. :P

Edit

Modifié par Sundance31us, 06 mai 2012 - 01:58 .


#300
ReXspec

ReXspec
  • Members
  • 588 messages

Sundance31us wrote...

The official guide doesn't use the word "control" do describe the blue ending; instead the phrase used is, "if you choose to become a Reaper". :blink:

Here's my theory: (not serious)

  • Harbinger and Sovereign were a couple.
  • After 50,000 years Sovereign REALLY wanted to see Harbinger again.
  • Sovereign died (Shepard & human fleet at fault).
  • Next thing we know Harbinger is trying to make a human Reaper; Shepard kills it when it's only a baby.
  • Harbinger "speaks" of Shepard to the point where other Reapers recognize him/her.
  • Harbinger bails at the final battle.
  • TIM & Catalyst try talking Shepard into becoming a Reaper.
Clearly Shepard is intended to fill the emotional void left by Sovereign's death. :P

Edit


If this was intended to make me laugh, you succeeded. :D