BluSoldier wrote...
Hasn't the trilogy proven to us that NO ONE can control the reapers? Shepard is only human....
The only assumption you have to make when choosing Control is that the Starchild is speaking the truth, but you must make that assumption when choosing either of the other two options as well. If you question the viability of Control, then you must also question the viability of Destroy and Synthesis. If you assume that choosing Destroy will, in fact, result in the utter annihilation of the Reapers, then you must, likewise, assume that picking Control will result in your absolute control of them.Zix13 wrote...
CSly wrote...
I picked control. I haven't seen a rational rebuttal to control that didn't rely on speculation and assumption. If we're meant to take everything the starchild says at face value, then control is the obvious choice--war ended, no genocide.
The problem is that you have to make huge assumptions to determine that control is viable. Given what we know about the reapers, lasting control by an organic is impossible. Not enough information, probability of success is low. Also, this involves taking everything the starchild says at face value, which is.... stupid.
Modifié par CSly, 28 mai 2012 - 02:18 .
Seboist wrote...
So, you see absolutely nothing wrong with Shepard having spent the entire game telling TIM to F off about the "insanity" of control and raving about how he's going to destroy the reapers only to make a complete reversal at the last moment?
The "three choices" at the end are just a hack imitation of Deus Ex's but unlike in that game there's no proper setup to the non-destroy endings.
Modifié par HagarIshay, 28 mai 2012 - 03:06 .
Modifié par incinerator950, 28 mai 2012 - 04:05 .
Tiberis wrote...
Control ending was probably the saddest IMO. Here is Shep fighting to eradicate the Reapers but, oh no, starbrat comes along and changes his mind. No evidence until the end that control would be "good". I might like control (synthesis too) is there was a bit more explanation prior to it and maybe some clues that control might be a good thing.
No.MerchantGOL wrote...
Tiberis wrote...
Control ending was probably the saddest IMO. Here is Shep fighting to eradicate the Reapers but, oh no, starbrat comes along and changes his mind. No evidence until the end that control would be "good". I might like control (synthesis too) is there was a bit more explanation prior to it and maybe some clues that control might be a good thing.
The reapers leaving isn't enough of a indicator?
Tiberis wrote...
No.MerchantGOL wrote...
Tiberis wrote...
Control ending was probably the saddest IMO. Here is Shep fighting to eradicate the Reapers but, oh no, starbrat comes along and changes his mind. No evidence until the end that control would be "good". I might like control (synthesis too) is there was a bit more explanation prior to it and maybe some clues that control might be a good thing.
The reapers leaving isn't enough of a indicator?
The reapers have only proven to be a corrupting and evil force in all three games. Simply because they leave Earth I'm supposed to believe everything is all right? There isn't enough information to say controlling them does any good. In fact, we don't know if Shep has become the new Catalyst or he became part of it (perhaps the Catalyst is a gestalt intellegence of all the races that have since been "absorbed" and Shep just adds to it?). Perhaps you will be proven right in the EC and we'll get to see reaper tech used for the betterment of the galaxy; I do not know.
MerchantGOL wrote...
Tiberis wrote...
No.MerchantGOL wrote...
Tiberis wrote...
Control ending was probably the saddest IMO. Here is Shep fighting to eradicate the Reapers but, oh no, starbrat comes along and changes his mind. No evidence until the end that control would be "good". I might like control (synthesis too) is there was a bit more explanation prior to it and maybe some clues that control might be a good thing.
The reapers leaving isn't enough of a indicator?
The reapers have only proven to be a corrupting and evil force in all three games. Simply because they leave Earth I'm supposed to believe everything is all right? There isn't enough information to say controlling them does any good. In fact, we don't know if Shep has become the new Catalyst or he became part of it (perhaps the Catalyst is a gestalt intellegence of all the races that have since been "absorbed" and Shep just adds to it?). Perhaps you will be proven right in the EC and we'll get to see reaper tech used for the betterment of the galaxy; I do not know.
if it didn't work why would the reapers leave?
Costin_Razvan wrote...
The Relays aren't blown up in Control. They are damaged, but whether or not they won't work anymore is anyone's guess.
MerchantGOL wrote...
BluSoldier wrote...
Hasn't the trilogy proven to us that NO ONE can control the reapers? Shepard is only human....
No , actualy Tim and Mr. Lawson expirments at sanctuary while grusome proved to be a sucess, controling the reapers was proven posible long befor the ending.
Modifié par Mesina2, 28 mai 2012 - 06:04 .
Sisterofshane wrote...
But are you really leaving the Galaxy in a better state?
Can you guarantee that the Reapers will never return?
I mean, what will people's reaction be when they figure out that the Reapers are still out there? I can pretty much guarantee you that they will still be considered a threat by most.
I don't know. Like I said, there isn't enough information to certainly say everything turned out fine. Throughout all of ME3 the only person telling you controlling the reapers is a good thing is the person in charge of a group who wants you dead; that isn't very convincing. The synthesis thing I can understand no one but the Catalyst would know about. Control should have been hinted at more; give the player a new perspective (or multiple ones). I chose control the first time I got to the end because I thought for sure they would show some scenes of the reapers being repurposed as tools for good (something I personally found appealing). Instead all we got was them leaving Earth and the Mass Relays being pretty much useless. I don't even know if the reapers left the galaxy as a whole (or how could they with broken Relays?). Just too many things left open. Going further with this will just be arguing over jargonistic speculation.MerchantGOL wrote...
if it didn't work why would the reapers leave?
HagarIshay wrote...
The reapers will return only if Sheaprd will tell them to. The catalyst is telling us Shepard will control the reapers. Shepard, and Shepard alone. The catalsyt does not say to Shepard "Want to control the reapers with me?"
And what is worth more? Killing your enemy, or control you enemy and save more lives? Some say killing the enemy, and there are good reasons for it, but by doing it you will loose so much. synthetic lives, Information, resources, protection... Just because the reapers were once a threat, does it worth to loose all this things and kill the reapers just to be sure, even when you are guaranteed you can control the reapers?
Sisterofshane wrote...
Worth is really too subjective to be brought up here. I mean, two people brought up in the same household could have two completely different methods of imparting "worth" onto objects or ideas.
As far as what I believe will happen (in game), I've been "dead" once before, and I didn't really have much control over anything at all. You may want to believe that Shepard lives on in some form, but I tend to take the Catalyst pretty seriously when he says that I will die.
If what happens is that I can "imprint" myself onto the Reapers, what exactly is there to stop them from changing their minds? What if, after thousands of years of watching and waiting, they come to the same conclusion that the cycle needs to continue?
To me, destroy is certain - it is final. And I've risked too much to bank everything on a "maybe".
Modifié par HagarIshay, 28 mai 2012 - 06:39 .
Same way they forget that Indcontrination/Huskification can caused by the Reapers Energy feild, and It is posible to build a relay with out the reapers help.Mesina2 wrote...
Costin_Razvan wrote...
The Relays aren't blown up in Control. They are damaged, but whether or not they won't work anymore is anyone's guess.
Patrick Weekes at unofficial interview said Relays can be repaired in all 3 endings, though in Control ending it takes far less time and resources since they are just deactivated, in Synthesis and Destroy they are broken.MerchantGOL wrote...
BluSoldier wrote...
Hasn't the trilogy proven to us that NO ONE can control the reapers? Shepard is only human....
No , actualy Tim and Mr. Lawson expirments at sanctuary while grusome proved to be a sucess, controling the reapers was proven posible long befor the ending.
Yeah, how do people forget that thing?
Modifié par MerchantGOL, 28 mai 2012 - 06:48 .
HagarIshay wrote...
Okay, I'll agree with the "worth". Everyone has their own thoughts to it. Sorry for that.
While we don't know for sure Shepard will live, surley there are some parts of his/her mind intact somewhere which are controlling the reapers. I don't know how much you can call ot "alive", but Shepard is still there, somewhere. For me personally, it's enough.
To be fair, destroy is the most certain of them all because we were ready for it since the first game. We were sure destroying the reapers was the only way to achieve the goal, so we saw it as an obvious. I don't believe it'll be such an easy thing to pick if Shepard wated to control the reapers. If s/he did, we will also see that as the most certain goal, because we'll know it's possible. There will be no loopholes, because all the loopholes would already be covered up by information we would have gathered throughout the series.
Control, if Shepard would have thought about it more before the ending, could have been the answer just as much as destroy. I'm guessing the same can be said for synthesis.
Sisterofshane wrote...
Maybe if control and Synthesis are elaborated upon I would see them as viable options (and really, this is what they should be striving for with the Extended cut). I wouldn't say that Destroy is the most certain because it was always the goal, however. I would argue that the reason it is the most certain is because it has the least amount of variables to consider. I know exactly the state in which I leave the galaxy. No reapers, no relays, no citadel. I can possibly kill EDI and the Geth (and I would speculate that they can possibly live, but this is not the thread for that discussion), and I could possibly live. Nothing else about the galaxy is changed, and the threat (the Reapers) are gone, for certain. I can also be reasonably certain that the Galaxy will try to rebuild what they once were, also.
In control (and with Synthesis), I can't really predict how the races will respond to the Reapers being alive. Will there be groups like Cerberus trying to "find" them and harness them for their power? Will there be groups of individuals hunting Reapers down for revenge, to "finish the job"?
HagarIshay wrote...
True, in destroy you know the most about what will happen. But there will be one big question about the choice if we would not have planned to kill the reapers (Assuming Shepard did not destroy the reapers before, since Shepard did not want them killed) : does destroying the reapers even possible?
There are other questions about control, of course, aside from "Is is possible for Shepard to control the reapers?". Like you said, destroy is the least vague. But once you've answer this question, all the little question, like where will Shepard's mind will be stored, what will happen after, are possible to be assumed. Right now, our assumptions are always deflected with the question "is it possible to control?".
The big questions should have been answered during the series. I believe myself it's very much possible to control the reapers, but alas, we are not being given a clear answer aside from the catalyst. And with satemants flying all around that he is lying, control will I guess be seemed to most spectical people as impossible, even when It can make sense. I just hope it will be corrected in the EC.
Sisterofshane wrote...
And see, to me, as I played the game, I knew it was possible to take down singular reapers, but I was always in question of whether or not we could destroy all of them, or even enough of them to make a difference.
Besides, once we reach the Catalyst, we don't really have anymore chances to "turn back". To advance the game, we must choose one of the three endings presented. If you believe the endings are real (IT'ers need not apply), then there is no reason to believe that the Catalyst is lying about what he explicitly states the Crucible is capable of (ie, he is not making us believe that we are destroying the Reapers, when in fact shooting the tube will only sabotage the crucible).
When asking about the options, for destroy the Catalyst says [in response to "But the Reapers will be destroyed?"] "Yes".
For Control, he says [in response to "But I can [i](control the Reapers)[/i]?"] "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."
So even if I just take the endings without the rest of the series, there is some serious doubt seeded into the control choice itself. Again, like you said above, this is really more a problem with the writing and implementation of the choices. In the leaked script, it was much less ambiguous, and it was clear that Shepard would become the new Catalyst. I probably would have gone with control as it was written in the leaked script. Hopefully this is something that will be fixed in the extended cut.
HagarIshay wrote...
I'm not saying the catalyst was lying. I don't believe he did. I was just giving was example as to why it's so easy to think he is lying about control, because there is no evidence we can.
And actually, the catalyst does say it's possible to control the reapers.
"But the reapers will obey me?"
"Yes"
Modifié par Sisterofshane, 28 mai 2012 - 08:19 .
Archontor wrote...
Seival wrote...
Archontor wrote...
Seival wrote...
Archontor wrote...
Seival wrote...
Archontor wrote...
How does Shep control them, he's did, he vaporised on considerable pain whilst surrounded by lightning. If it really was brain uploading they'd just strap some electrodes to their head and fall over dead.
More and more people are starting to realize that Shepard becomes a new Catalist in control ending
Didn't answer a thing, if you get vaporised you die.
More importantly Shep becomes another genocidal ****.
That's more than a defeat it's just depressing.
As a new Catalist, Shepard keeps her personality. You can see the proof of it in the ending itself - Reapers go away, remaining under full Shepard's control. I just can't call this "Shepard died" no matter Shepard lost her body. I can call it only "Shepard survived, and become heavily upgraded". Citadel is her new body. Beautiful, isn't it?
Except the Catalyst exactly states that you will loose everything you are. Moreover your just using headcannon as an answer. I could just as easily say that they received Shep's tactical skill and pulled back to regroup you know in that giant in penetrable fortress filled with people to make reapers out of.
My headcannon is bigger than yours.
Pull back? From what? A united fleet that can't do any real damage to them?
The entire United Fleet was just a distraction, nothing more.
By "loose everything" and "die" Catalist meant human body and everything that comes with it. If it was not the case, then Catalist could just say - "you will die" and add nothing to it.
Actually they would pull back for a number of reasons. There are enough ships to seriously dmage and or kill many many Reapers even sovreign type before being exterminated (espescially if they do those suicide nuje things like palaven) combined with Liara's chests of information there is a great potential for the next cycle to develop enough to roflstomp them. If they just sit back the fractured races (now devoid of mass relays) will squable for land and resources, those that don't die of starvation and illness or the effects of eezo contamination/ stray shots during the battle that hit earth will see new divisions and they'll either go to war seriously weakening their forces or just have to demilitarise to free up resources to feed the people stuck on earth. At that point you charge in and kill them all suffering minimal losses and pry the location of liara's databoxes. Shep would know.
And no lose everything you are means more than die. Death as you have pointed out can simply mean biological death, people have survived being 'dead' for a few hours and do so commonly. To lose everything you are sounds like a more metaphysical loss of your memories or opinions or personality, in essence it strips the organic facets from you and lets you become a cold collection of uninflected experiences and imoral logic that provides logistical control but dosen't take moral authority.
Hey your right he does become the catalyst.
Modifié par Seival, 28 mai 2012 - 08:35 .
Sisterofshane wrote...
It's a pretty vague question though. He just got through telling you that you will lose "everything" - does that mean ones' sense of morality of ethics as well? I mean, I they will obey me, but will I still be "me" after this?
To ask if they will be destroyed is pretty cut and dry. It means they are gone, No more questions to ask.
The first thought that came to mind when he said "yes" was "For how long?". That, to me, is a pretty important question.
Retour en haut
