Wow, this section of the forums seems so much more civil than the rest of this place. I think I might choose Control in my next playthrough.
So, the Illusive Man was right after all [Control Ending support thread]
Débuté par
Seival
, mai 27 2012 04:58
Retour en haut
#3027
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 11:19
nitefyre410
-
- Members
- 8 944 messages
Ewok Hunter wrote...
Wow, this section of the forums seems so much more civil than the rest of this place. I think I might choose Control in my next playthrough.
Its all the blue... its a very calming and relaxing color
#3028
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 11:26
MetioricTest
-
- Members
- 1 275 messages
HagarIshay wrote...
It's Because the catalyst is an AI that is follows his orders. He can't decide doing another solution, the best he can do is present another solution to someone else, so s/he may do it.
False. This entire concept of the crucible is a new solution. The Catalyst says so himself. He's only just come up with this plan.
He also always was looking for solutions. The Reapers were not his first attempt.
The concept that he can't adapt because of his programming is clearly inaccurate. If Shepard controlling the Reapers is a solution than Shepard controlling the Reapers through the Catalyst is also a solution. The same one.
The Catalyst doesn't want that. It wants a new AI that merges with Shepard's thoughts and creates a stronger Catalyst. AKA it wants to improve itself and ensure Reaper survival. Which it does. That's the only explanation for the Catalyst's actions outside of throwing up your hands and saying he doesn't make sense/
The Shepard AI that controls the Reapers is clearly not Shepard at all. It's something else, something new. It tells you this directly.
Shepard controls nothing and you have no idea what the implications of controll will actualy be. Meanwhile the Reapers still live.
I call that a bad ending.
#3029
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 11:54
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
MetioricTest wrote...
HagarIshay wrote...
It's Because the catalyst is an AI that is follows his orders. He can't decide doing another solution, the best he can do is present another solution to someone else, so s/he may do it.
False. This entire concept of the crucible is a new solution. The Catalyst says so himself. He's only just come up with this plan.
He also always was looking for solutions. The Reapers were not his first attempt.
The concept that he can't adapt because of his programming is clearly inaccurate. If Shepard controlling the Reapers is a solution than Shepard controlling the Reapers through the Catalyst is also a solution. The same one.
The Catalyst doesn't want that. It wants a new AI that merges with Shepard's thoughts and creates a stronger Catalyst. AKA it wants to improve itself and ensure Reaper survival. Which it does. That's the only explanation for the Catalyst's actions outside of throwing up your hands and saying he doesn't make sense/
The Shepard AI that controls the Reapers is clearly not Shepard at all. It's something else, something new. It tells you this directly.
Shepard controls nothing and you have no idea what the implications of controll will actualy be. Meanwhile the Reapers still live.
I call that a bad ending.
Well, I sense a lot of misunderstanding in your point of view on the matter...
...There are pretty clear explanations of Control in the OP of this thread. You might want to read the OP carefully and completely. I hope it will help you to understand the Control Ending correctly.
...Also, I think you might find the "Testing Ground and the Gate Keeper" summary of the endings in general quite interesting. You may find it several pages above.
#3030
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 12:00
Ageless Face
-
- Members
- 2 786 messages
MetioricTest wrote...
False. This entire concept of the crucible is a new solution. The Catalyst says so himself. He's only just come up with this plan.
He also always was looking for solutions. The Reapers were not his first attempt.
The concept that he can't adapt because of his programming is clearly inaccurate. If Shepard controlling the Reapers is a solution than Shepard controlling the Reapers through the Catalyst is also a solution. The same one.
The crucible is not a solution specifacally to his problem. In fact, the only solution to his problem is synthesis. But destroy and control are another solutions, though only to Shepard's problem. The catalyst doesn't tell Shepard about destroy and control because he wants to (we can see how much he dislike them, especially destroy). He does it because he have to.
The Catalyst doesn't want that. It wants a new AI that merges with Shepard's thoughts and creates a stronger Catalyst. AKA it wants to improve itself and ensure Reaper survival. Which it does. That's the only explanation for the Catalyst's actions outside of throwing up your hands and saying he doesn't make sense/
How do you know the catalyst wants that? How do you know the catalyst himself will grow stronger by the Crucible? Why would control be against Shepard, when the Crucible is the solution? Why do we see Shepard in the epilouge with his/her personality and not the catalyst's?
Besides, if the catlayst did all those things, it means he was lying to Shepard. And he doesn't.
The Shepard AI that controls the Reapers is clearly not Shepard at all. It's something else, something new. It tells you this directly.
Actally, s/he is. Not exactly the same, maybe. Organic mind was left behind. But doesn't AI Shepard have the same ideals? The same memories? It's a synthetic Shepard. It's still Shepard, only in a new form. Like EDI in synthesis. She's still EDI, she just have emotions now.
Shepard controls nothing and you have no idea what the implications of controll will actualy be. Meanwhile the Reapers still live.
Shepard control reapers actually.
And I call it a great ending. It's nice that we have diffrent opinions.I call that a bad ending.
#3031
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 12:09
Ageless Face
-
- Members
- 2 786 messages
Seival wrote...
Well, I sense a lot of misunderstanding in your point of view on the matter...
...There are pretty clear explanations of Control in the OP of this thread. You might want to read the OP carefully and completely. I hope it will help you to understand the Control Ending correctly.
...Also, I think you might find the "Testing Ground and the Gate Keeper" summary of the endings in general quite interesting. You may find it several pages above.
Should also read this by CrutchCricket. Explains Shepard's new nature pretty well.
#3032
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 12:30
MetioricTest
-
- Members
- 1 275 messages
[quote]Seival wrote...
Well, I sense a lot of misunderstanding in your point of view on the matter...
...There are pretty clear explanations of Control in the OP of this thread. You might want to read the OP carefully and completely. I hope it will help you to understand the Control Ending correctly.
...Also, I think you might find the "Testing Ground and the Gate Keeper" summary of the endings in general quite interesting. You may find it several pages above.
[/quote]
Why is it that when a lot of people disagree with someone else instead of rolling with or discussing different views they just very condescendingly go "You just don't understand!"
I can assure you I and everyone else does. Perfectly well.
[quote]
The crucible is not a solution specifacally to his problem. In fact, the only solution to his problem is synthesis. But destroy and control are another solutions, though only to Shepard's problem. The catalyst doesn't tell Shepard about destroy and control because he wants to (we can see how much he dislike them, especially destroy). He does it because he have to.
[/quote]
That doesn't add up. If both options are undesirable, he wouldn't let you do them and would just have the Reapers kill you. Keep in mind Synthesis might not even be an option. (And doesn't solve the problem anyway)
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.
[quote]How do you know the catalyst wants that?[/quote]
I don't. It's just the only explanation that makes any sense. If we toss it out the window than the Catalyst is an absolute idiot.
[quote]How do you know the catalyst himself will grow stronger by the Crucible?
[quote]Why would control be against Shepard, when the Crucible is the solution? [/quote]
Not sure what you mean by that.
[quite]Why do we see Shepard in the epilouge with his/her personality and not the catalyst's?[/quote]
We don't. We see an AI talking about the man he was "guiding him" and then states it understands the Reapers more. This is not Shepard's personality it's an AI based on Shepard. You're even directly told it will be a new Catalyst.
I can straight out tell you that the AI isn't Shepard and it's action don't represent what my Shepard would do. It's actions also automatically ensure Reaper survival.
Pretend ME3 hasn't come out yet. You've just finished ME2. The Reapers are coming.
I then tell you that the ending of ME3 is that the Reapers flourish under the leadership of a powerful AI that ensures their survival. Would you consider this a good ending?
Anything else is left to baseless speculation about how an AI with Shepard's experiences would act. And considering it doesn't act anything like Shepard and we are given no information, I don't have a clue and neither do you.
[quote]Besides, if the catlayst did all those things, it means he was lying to Shepard. And he doesn't.[/quote]
How do you know that?
To be honest, I don't think he's lying. I just think he's badly written. But I'll pretend he's lying so that he makes more sense.
[quote]
Actally, s/he is. Not exactly the same, maybe. Organic mind was left behind.[/quote]
Then it's not the same.
It directly tells you this. The new Catalyst, The man I was, Gave birth. It's a new, different entity.
[quote] But doesn't AI Shepard have the same ideals? [/quote]
No clearly not because the Reapers live. It also says Shepard's memories will guide it. Not that it does what Shepard was. It's an AI with organic understanding because of Shepard's mind.
And guess what? Shepard's ideals and memories are formed over time. Shepard from ME3 is different to Shepard on Eden Prime in ME1. What happens when new conflicts and issues arise? Will it still use Shepard's dated ideals and memories? That's that caused the Catalyst to create the cycles in the first place. Inability to adapt.
Again we're left to guess. And guessing with baseless assumptions is boring and pointless.
[quote] It's a synthetic Shepard. It's still Shepard, only in a new form. Like EDI in synthesis. She's still EDI, she just have emotions now.
[/quote]
Edi had emotions before.
And it's not a synthetic Shepard, anymore than the Graybox is a synthetic Keiji. It's an AI with Shepard's memories in it. That is different to Shepard.
[quote]Shepard control reapers actually.[/quote]
Shepard dies and a new AI controls the Reapers actually.
[quote]
And I call it a great ending. It's nice that we have diffrent opinions.
[/quote]
Agreed
Well, I sense a lot of misunderstanding in your point of view on the matter...
...There are pretty clear explanations of Control in the OP of this thread. You might want to read the OP carefully and completely. I hope it will help you to understand the Control Ending correctly.
...Also, I think you might find the "Testing Ground and the Gate Keeper" summary of the endings in general quite interesting. You may find it several pages above.
[/quote]
Why is it that when a lot of people disagree with someone else instead of rolling with or discussing different views they just very condescendingly go "You just don't understand!"
I can assure you I and everyone else does. Perfectly well.
[quote]
The crucible is not a solution specifacally to his problem. In fact, the only solution to his problem is synthesis. But destroy and control are another solutions, though only to Shepard's problem. The catalyst doesn't tell Shepard about destroy and control because he wants to (we can see how much he dislike them, especially destroy). He does it because he have to.
[/quote]
That doesn't add up. If both options are undesirable, he wouldn't let you do them and would just have the Reapers kill you. Keep in mind Synthesis might not even be an option. (And doesn't solve the problem anyway)
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.
[quote]How do you know the catalyst wants that?[/quote]
I don't. It's just the only explanation that makes any sense. If we toss it out the window than the Catalyst is an absolute idiot.
[quote]How do you know the catalyst himself will grow stronger by the Crucible?
[quote]Why would control be against Shepard, when the Crucible is the solution? [/quote]
Not sure what you mean by that.
[quite]Why do we see Shepard in the epilouge with his/her personality and not the catalyst's?[/quote]
We don't. We see an AI talking about the man he was "guiding him" and then states it understands the Reapers more. This is not Shepard's personality it's an AI based on Shepard. You're even directly told it will be a new Catalyst.
I can straight out tell you that the AI isn't Shepard and it's action don't represent what my Shepard would do. It's actions also automatically ensure Reaper survival.
Pretend ME3 hasn't come out yet. You've just finished ME2. The Reapers are coming.
I then tell you that the ending of ME3 is that the Reapers flourish under the leadership of a powerful AI that ensures their survival. Would you consider this a good ending?
Anything else is left to baseless speculation about how an AI with Shepard's experiences would act. And considering it doesn't act anything like Shepard and we are given no information, I don't have a clue and neither do you.
[quote]Besides, if the catlayst did all those things, it means he was lying to Shepard. And he doesn't.[/quote]
How do you know that?
To be honest, I don't think he's lying. I just think he's badly written. But I'll pretend he's lying so that he makes more sense.
[quote]
Actally, s/he is. Not exactly the same, maybe. Organic mind was left behind.[/quote]
Then it's not the same.
It directly tells you this. The new Catalyst, The man I was, Gave birth. It's a new, different entity.
[quote] But doesn't AI Shepard have the same ideals? [/quote]
No clearly not because the Reapers live. It also says Shepard's memories will guide it. Not that it does what Shepard was. It's an AI with organic understanding because of Shepard's mind.
And guess what? Shepard's ideals and memories are formed over time. Shepard from ME3 is different to Shepard on Eden Prime in ME1. What happens when new conflicts and issues arise? Will it still use Shepard's dated ideals and memories? That's that caused the Catalyst to create the cycles in the first place. Inability to adapt.
Again we're left to guess. And guessing with baseless assumptions is boring and pointless.
[quote] It's a synthetic Shepard. It's still Shepard, only in a new form. Like EDI in synthesis. She's still EDI, she just have emotions now.
[/quote]
Edi had emotions before.
And it's not a synthetic Shepard, anymore than the Graybox is a synthetic Keiji. It's an AI with Shepard's memories in it. That is different to Shepard.
[quote]Shepard control reapers actually.[/quote]
Shepard dies and a new AI controls the Reapers actually.
[quote]
And I call it a great ending. It's nice that we have diffrent opinions.
[/quote]Agreed
Modifié par MetioricTest, 18 juillet 2012 - 12:31 .
#3033
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 12:48
Ranger Jack Walker
-
- Members
- 1 064 messages
Control is the most open ending and allows for a lot of possibilities. Pretty much every interpretation is valid but that doesn't mean a particular person's view is the only possible outcome.
#3034
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 12:53
MetioricTest
-
- Members
- 1 275 messages
Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
Control is the most open ending and allows for a lot of possibilities. Pretty much every interpretation is valid but that doesn't mean a particular person's view is the only possible outcome.
I don't deny this (Although the ending does directly show that the Reapers are not destroyed and that they repair the relays. These are undeniable)
But my problem is that these interpretations and speculations of "What will happen next." cannot be debated, degraded, disproven or debunked. And you may think that's a good thing, but it's not. This is because it's absolutely baseless. We're given no information so no guess as to what will happen holds any value whatsoever.
Just in the same way that every interpretation of what what happened to Shepard's grandfather is valid. Of course it is we don't have a ****ing clue and it's meaningless to try and create one. Especially if the one you want to create is "He had no kids."
#3035
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 01:40
Ageless Face
-
- Members
- 2 786 messages
[quote]MetioricTest wrote...
That doesn't add up. If both options are undesirable, he wouldn't let you do them and would just have the Reapers kill you. Keep in mind Synthesis might not even be an option. (And doesn't solve the problem anyway)[/quote]
Throughout all the game the reapers tried to kill Shepard. They didn't succeed. The crucible is forcing the catalyst to lift Shepard and tell him/her about the Crucible's new possibilities. Yet it didn't change the catalyst's functions and orders.
[quote]
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.
[/quote]
The reason is that the crucible changed him, created new possibiliteis. Yet it didn't create new actions for the catlayst. And what reason is there for him to lie? What could he possibly gain from that? Shepard is in a weak position. The catalyst is clearly isn't threatend by anything. Why is he is telling you about synesis and destroy, or lying abou thtem, if he's lying about control?
[quote]
[quote]How do you know the catalyst himself will grow stronger by the Crucible?
Why would control be against Shepard, when the Crucible is the solution?
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean by that.[/quote]
For the first one, I mean how do you know the catalyst will benefiet at all from Shepard choosing control? From what I understood, Shepard will control alone.
For the second one, I mean that the Crucible was supposed to be the solution to stopping the reapers. Why would the Crucible have it backfired AGAINST Shepard? Esspecially why if the other two endings are doing their jobs fine.
[quote]
We don't. We see an AI talking about the man he was "guiding him" and then states it understands the Reapers more. This is not Shepard's personality it's an AI based on Shepard. You're even directly told it will be a new Catalyst.[/quote]
Actually, we never heard Shepard wil be the new catalyst. Just because Shepard will control the reapers it doesn't mean it will be in the same way. And doesn't AI Shepard wants to protect the galaxy/dominate it, according to Shepard's past ideals? Indeed it does.
[quote]
I can straight out tell you that the AI isn't Shepard and it's action don't represent what my Shepard would do. It's actions also automatically ensure Reaper survival.[/quote]
Then I guess we play our Shepard diffrently. I can see my Shepard do it. My Shepard already did it.
[quote]
Pretend ME3 hasn't come out yet. You've just finished ME2. The Reapers are coming.
I then tell you that the ending of ME3 is that the Reapers flourish under the leadership of a powerful AI that ensures their survival. Would you consider this a good ending?
Anything else is left to baseless speculation about how an AI with Shepard's experiences would act. And considering it doesn't act anything like Shepard and we are given no information, I don't have a clue and neither do you.
[/quote]
Now you just descirbed pretty much the orignal ending. But now we ARE given information about Shepard's existence.
[quote]
How do you know that?
To be honest, I don't think he's lying. I just think he's badly written. But I'll pretend he's lying so that he makes more sense.
[/quote]
Because he has no reason to. Because from what we understand, the catalyst is a shackled AI (can't do anything but follow his orders). From that, we understand that he can't lie. The only synthetic live forms that do are unshackled. Because if he is lying, the only way to beat the game is through refusal. This ending wasn't even orignially planned. And in metagaming, every epilogue has it's good end. Which we can heavily assume he's not lying.
[quote]
No clearly not because the Reapers live.[/quote]
So what if the reapers live? Not everyone played their Shepard only to kill the reapers. Otherwise we'd all pick destroy.
[quote]
It also says Shepard's memories will guide it. Not that it does what Shepard was. It's an AI with organic understanding because of Shepard's mind.[/quote]
If a memory guides you, and that is basically makes you what you are, would you not do what you did before? And don't we see in the epilouge Shepard having different ideals if was played paragon/renegade?
[quote]
And guess what? Shepard's ideals and memories are formed over time. Shepard from ME3 is different to Shepard on Eden Prime in ME1. What happens when new conflicts and issues arise? Will it still use Shepard's dated ideals and memories? That's that caused the Catalyst to create the cycles in the first place. Inability to adapt.[/quote]
Did synthetics ever changed their goals? By Mass Effect's philosophy, a big difference between an organic mind and a synthetic is that synthetics have direct goals, while orgnics don't. In this case, AI Shepard goal is based on his/her past life. Even if Shepard will change over time, his/her programmed goals stay the same.
Though from what we understand from the catalyst, there is no reason for Shepard to change anyway. AI Shep will be disconnected from the galaxy. Why would Shepard change his/herself, if there was nothing to change?
[quote]
Edi had emotions before.
And it's not a synthetic Shepard, anymore than the Graybox is a synthetic Keiji. It's an AI with Shepard's memories in it. That is different to Shepard. [/quote]
Not exactly emotions. She herself doesn't see it as emotions, but prefrences. We accept it as emotions, because it's heavily look like it.
I see it as synthetic Shepard because of his/her new mind. Though I guess it is more of AI than synthetic, yes. So sorry for that.
[quote]
Shepard dies and a new AI controls the Reapers actually.
[/quote]
As long as the new Shepard will do what I expect from him/her to do, I'm happy.
That doesn't add up. If both options are undesirable, he wouldn't let you do them and would just have the Reapers kill you. Keep in mind Synthesis might not even be an option. (And doesn't solve the problem anyway)[/quote]
Throughout all the game the reapers tried to kill Shepard. They didn't succeed. The crucible is forcing the catalyst to lift Shepard and tell him/her about the Crucible's new possibilities. Yet it didn't change the catalyst's functions and orders.
[quote]
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.
[/quote]
The reason is that the crucible changed him, created new possibiliteis. Yet it didn't create new actions for the catlayst. And what reason is there for him to lie? What could he possibly gain from that? Shepard is in a weak position. The catalyst is clearly isn't threatend by anything. Why is he is telling you about synesis and destroy, or lying abou thtem, if he's lying about control?
[quote]
[quote]How do you know the catalyst himself will grow stronger by the Crucible?
Why would control be against Shepard, when the Crucible is the solution?
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean by that.[/quote]
For the first one, I mean how do you know the catalyst will benefiet at all from Shepard choosing control? From what I understood, Shepard will control alone.
For the second one, I mean that the Crucible was supposed to be the solution to stopping the reapers. Why would the Crucible have it backfired AGAINST Shepard? Esspecially why if the other two endings are doing their jobs fine.
[quote]
We don't. We see an AI talking about the man he was "guiding him" and then states it understands the Reapers more. This is not Shepard's personality it's an AI based on Shepard. You're even directly told it will be a new Catalyst.[/quote]
Actually, we never heard Shepard wil be the new catalyst. Just because Shepard will control the reapers it doesn't mean it will be in the same way. And doesn't AI Shepard wants to protect the galaxy/dominate it, according to Shepard's past ideals? Indeed it does.
[quote]
I can straight out tell you that the AI isn't Shepard and it's action don't represent what my Shepard would do. It's actions also automatically ensure Reaper survival.[/quote]
Then I guess we play our Shepard diffrently. I can see my Shepard do it. My Shepard already did it.
[quote]
Pretend ME3 hasn't come out yet. You've just finished ME2. The Reapers are coming.
I then tell you that the ending of ME3 is that the Reapers flourish under the leadership of a powerful AI that ensures their survival. Would you consider this a good ending?
Anything else is left to baseless speculation about how an AI with Shepard's experiences would act. And considering it doesn't act anything like Shepard and we are given no information, I don't have a clue and neither do you.
[/quote]
Now you just descirbed pretty much the orignal ending. But now we ARE given information about Shepard's existence.
[quote]
How do you know that?
To be honest, I don't think he's lying. I just think he's badly written. But I'll pretend he's lying so that he makes more sense.
[/quote]
Because he has no reason to. Because from what we understand, the catalyst is a shackled AI (can't do anything but follow his orders). From that, we understand that he can't lie. The only synthetic live forms that do are unshackled. Because if he is lying, the only way to beat the game is through refusal. This ending wasn't even orignially planned. And in metagaming, every epilogue has it's good end. Which we can heavily assume he's not lying.
[quote]
No clearly not because the Reapers live.[/quote]
So what if the reapers live? Not everyone played their Shepard only to kill the reapers. Otherwise we'd all pick destroy.
[quote]
It also says Shepard's memories will guide it. Not that it does what Shepard was. It's an AI with organic understanding because of Shepard's mind.[/quote]
If a memory guides you, and that is basically makes you what you are, would you not do what you did before? And don't we see in the epilouge Shepard having different ideals if was played paragon/renegade?
[quote]
And guess what? Shepard's ideals and memories are formed over time. Shepard from ME3 is different to Shepard on Eden Prime in ME1. What happens when new conflicts and issues arise? Will it still use Shepard's dated ideals and memories? That's that caused the Catalyst to create the cycles in the first place. Inability to adapt.[/quote]
Did synthetics ever changed their goals? By Mass Effect's philosophy, a big difference between an organic mind and a synthetic is that synthetics have direct goals, while orgnics don't. In this case, AI Shepard goal is based on his/her past life. Even if Shepard will change over time, his/her programmed goals stay the same.
Though from what we understand from the catalyst, there is no reason for Shepard to change anyway. AI Shep will be disconnected from the galaxy. Why would Shepard change his/herself, if there was nothing to change?
[quote]
Edi had emotions before.
And it's not a synthetic Shepard, anymore than the Graybox is a synthetic Keiji. It's an AI with Shepard's memories in it. That is different to Shepard. [/quote]
Not exactly emotions. She herself doesn't see it as emotions, but prefrences. We accept it as emotions, because it's heavily look like it.
I see it as synthetic Shepard because of his/her new mind. Though I guess it is more of AI than synthetic, yes. So sorry for that.
[quote]
Shepard dies and a new AI controls the Reapers actually.
[/quote]
As long as the new Shepard will do what I expect from him/her to do, I'm happy.
Modifié par HagarIshay, 18 juillet 2012 - 01:41 .
#3036
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 01:42
Quackjack
-
- Members
- 694 messages
IT'S A TRAP! *Flameshield activated*nitefyre410 wrote...
Ewok Hunter wrote...
Wow, this section of the forums seems so much more civil than the rest of this place. I think I might choose Control in my next playthrough.
Its all the blue... its a very calming and relaxing color
#3037
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 03:37
CrutchCricket
-
- Members
- 7 750 messages
Thanks for the endorsement:DHagarIshay wrote...
Should also read this by CrutchCricket. Explains Shepard's new nature pretty well.
I also agree with you on the earlier discussion about possible errors. Reapers are not perfect, and they are not cosmic entities, though they are too far above us to even begin to imagine what possible errors there might be. Though if you look at the holokid and notice how bat**** insane its logic is...
Anyway that being said, the holokid and the Reapers never had to change or upgrade because they were perfectly suited to their task. Whatever you believe Commander is or will do, it clearly has rejected that task. Thus it must self-improve and upgrade at some point, to be in line with its new goals.
So short version: Its not perfect now and were it to remain the same it may be subject to some flaws (that we can't define). But it will upgrade to overcome those flaws. I believe Commander becomes far more than the sum of the Reapers. Thus its not out of the question that this entity may achieve perfection and wipe clean any potential for errors before they manifest.
Also regarding the current discussion, it is perfectly possible (and preferable in my opinion) to disregard the holokid entirely. There is no evidence that Shepard buys into its nonsense "problem" so there's no need to worry about cycles and organics vs synthetics after Control.
Better to just dismiss it as a buggy AI that's nonetheless following a course it is shackled to and the Crucible interferes with its programming, loosening the shackles enough for the holokid to present the three solutions. This is taking the "you have altered the variables" line literally.
And as for the concerns of the new control entity itself, yes I direct you to the link provided (also in my sig-Control Explained) for what it is and the logical progression of its development.
#3038
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 05:25
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
MetioricTest wrote...
Seival wrote...
Well, I sense a lot of misunderstanding in your point of view on the matter...
...There are pretty clear explanations of Control in the OP of this thread. You might want to read the OP carefully and completely. I hope it will help you to understand the Control Ending correctly.
...Also, I think you might find the "Testing Ground and the Gate Keeper" summary of the endings in general quite interesting. You may find it several pages above.
Why is it that when a lot of people disagree with someone else instead of rolling with or discussing different views they just very condescendingly go "You just don't understand!"
I can assure you I and everyone else does. Perfectly well.
I think in this particular case the best way to argue was to show how I already answered mentioned questions, instead of re-typing the answers. If I'll see some new concerns, on which I didn't yet replied, I'll reply on them. So, my answer was that I think you didn't understand Control ending correctly, and there are a lot of explanations (both inside this thread and in some others), which could help you to understand. It's as simple as that
#3039
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 05:36
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
MetioricTest wrote...
I call that a bad ending.
...And I want to reply on this one separately.
...I believe there is no "bad", "good", or "best" ending for ME Trilogy. The endings were intended to be different, with their own advantages and disadvantages, so people with different ways of thinking will prefer only the ending they like the most. Simple, and perfect game's rule... Well, I think only one ending is out of this rule: refusal. Because it's the ultimate mission failure, not a "true ending".
Modifié par Seival, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:37 .
#3040
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 05:42
MetioricTest
-
- Members
- 1 275 messages
[quote]
Throughout all the game the reapers tried to kill Shepard. They didn't succeed. The crucible is forcing the catalyst to lift Shepard and tell him/her about the Crucible's new possibilities. Yet it didn't change the catalyst's functions and orders.[/quote]
Bull****. Shepard is down on the cold hard floor and nothing happens. The elevator that pulls him up is clearly caused by the Catalyst. The Catalyst could have led Shepard to die.
The Catalyst wants to use the crucible. He literally talks Shepard into using it and gets angry if Shepard doesn't. Even if Synthesis is not an option.
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.
[quote]The reason is that the crucible changed him, created new possibiliteis. Yet it didn't create new actions for the catlayst. And what reason is there for him to lie? What could he possibly gain from that? Shepard is in a weak position. The catalyst is clearly isn't threatend by anything. Why is he is telling you about synesis and destroy, or lying abou thtem, if he's lying about control?[/quote]
More power. The Shepard AI is stronger than the Catalyst AI and the Reapers still exist.
If he's telling the truth then he is a fool for demanding that Shepard needs to die to control...When he could just follow Shepard's orders. You said yourself, the Catalyst can change and take opportunities. He doesn't.
He is either a liar with an agenda or an idiot.
Take your pick.
[quote]For the first one, I mean how do you know the catalyst will benefiet at all from Shepard choosing control? From what I understood, Shepard will control alone.[/quote]
Shepard won't control at all. A new AI will and the new AI will ensure Reaper survival
[quote]For the second one, I mean that the Crucible was supposed to be the solution to stopping the reapers. Why would the Crucible have it backfired AGAINST Shepard? Esspecially why if the other two endings are doing their jobs fine.[/quote]
I would say Synthesis backfired more.
[quote]Then I guess we play our Shepard diffrently. I can see my Shepard do it. My Shepard already did it.[/quote]
I have 3 Sheps. The actions in control only fit 1 of them.
That in of itself displays how poor the ending is. It's not control, it's a path for a new being.
[quote]Now you just descirbed pretty much the orignal ending. But now we ARE given information about Shepard's existence.[/quote]
No we are not. We are merely told:
1. It's a totally new being with a new personality. (Thus, not Shepard at all)
2. It ensures Reaper survival.
3. It repairs the Relays.
That is all. We are given now information. And you didn't actually answer the question.
[quote]Because he has no reason to. [/quote]
I just gave you one
[quote]Because from what we understand, the catalyst is a shackled AI (can't do anything but follow his orders). From that, we understand that he can't lie. The only synthetic live forms that do are unshackled. Because if he is lying, the only way to beat the game is through refusal. This ending wasn't even orignially planned. And in metagaming, every epilogue has it's good end. Which we can heavily assume he's not lying. [/quote]
Doesn't matter if he is Shackled or not (and there is no way of telling anyway)He's capable of creating new solutions and adapting to the situation. Why does this make him unable to die?
Are you saying that if he found the perfect solution to his problem that needed a lie, he wouldn't be unable to do it? Shackled Edi could lie simply by joking. And the Catalyst's goal "find a solution" is so vast that there isn't reason to assume his "shackles" really hinder anything. He built the Reapers.
[quote]So what if the reapers live? Not everyone played their Shepard only to kill the reapers. Otherwise we'd all pick destroy.[/quote]
I wouldn't. I'd pick control, repair the relays, give out all the beneficial information the Reapers have, then destroy them. Spare Edi, spare the Geth, Spare the Quarians/Volus, spare every single ship in space(they don't die but they have synthetics in their environmental suits so there was no reason for Shepard to assume they'd be okay.) while gaining a great deal of info.
Destroy eliminates all this. It's an illogical action that's only made logical because the ending is written so badly. (Which is why It's better to pretend the Catalyst is lying)
The very fact that this choice can't be made, that the Reapers have to live on. Shows that it doesn't represent what Shepard would do. It represents what a new AI Catalyst with understanding of organics would do.
And if that fits your Shepard than great. But don't try to argue it's what Shepard would do because that would vary.
[quote]If a memory guides you, and that is basically makes you what you are, would you not do what you did before? And don't we see in the epilouge Shepard having different ideals if was played paragon/renegade?[/quote]
For one, I disagree but I'll roll with it because what you just said is dangerous no matter how we look at it. If the AI can't advance because it has Shepard's memories, it will become dated.
If it can advance, it will gain new experiences and memories which are not Shepards, they are the AIs. And it will begin to have less and less of Shepard inside it.
How useful would an AI of Juan de Torquemada be in charge of the Reapers centuries later?
And how much of Shepard's memories will guide a being with centuries of new memories and experience for new situations?
Either way, it's a dangerous precedent. And either way speculation is baseless and pointless.
[quote]Did synthetics ever changed their goals?[/quote]
Yes. The Geth went from servants, to survival to Dyson sphere.
[quote]Not exactly emotions. She herself doesn't see it as emotions, but prefrences. We accept it as emotions, because it's heavily look like it.[/quote]
So a different Shepard who looks, acts and thinks differently is the same.
But emotions are different because the carrier is made of metal? Edi has emotions. She has a gender, she has wants and desires and she has fears and doubts. The Risk of Joker's death saddens her and she needs comfort. The fact this comes from circuitry is no different to coming from a brain.
That's the difference between an AI and VI. It can think. There's a reason why the Reapers were arrogant. It's because they were.
[quote]As long as the new Shepard will do what I expect from him/her to do, I'm happy.[/quote]
Think over that some more and you'll discover why most players are not.
Throughout all the game the reapers tried to kill Shepard. They didn't succeed. The crucible is forcing the catalyst to lift Shepard and tell him/her about the Crucible's new possibilities. Yet it didn't change the catalyst's functions and orders.[/quote]
Bull****. Shepard is down on the cold hard floor and nothing happens. The elevator that pulls him up is clearly caused by the Catalyst. The Catalyst could have led Shepard to die.
The Catalyst wants to use the crucible. He literally talks Shepard into using it and gets angry if Shepard doesn't. Even if Synthesis is not an option.
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.
[quote]The reason is that the crucible changed him, created new possibiliteis. Yet it didn't create new actions for the catlayst. And what reason is there for him to lie? What could he possibly gain from that? Shepard is in a weak position. The catalyst is clearly isn't threatend by anything. Why is he is telling you about synesis and destroy, or lying abou thtem, if he's lying about control?[/quote]
More power. The Shepard AI is stronger than the Catalyst AI and the Reapers still exist.
If he's telling the truth then he is a fool for demanding that Shepard needs to die to control...When he could just follow Shepard's orders. You said yourself, the Catalyst can change and take opportunities. He doesn't.
He is either a liar with an agenda or an idiot.
Take your pick.
[quote]For the first one, I mean how do you know the catalyst will benefiet at all from Shepard choosing control? From what I understood, Shepard will control alone.[/quote]
Shepard won't control at all. A new AI will and the new AI will ensure Reaper survival
[quote]For the second one, I mean that the Crucible was supposed to be the solution to stopping the reapers. Why would the Crucible have it backfired AGAINST Shepard? Esspecially why if the other two endings are doing their jobs fine.[/quote]
I would say Synthesis backfired more.
[quote]Then I guess we play our Shepard diffrently. I can see my Shepard do it. My Shepard already did it.[/quote]
I have 3 Sheps. The actions in control only fit 1 of them.
That in of itself displays how poor the ending is. It's not control, it's a path for a new being.
[quote]Now you just descirbed pretty much the orignal ending. But now we ARE given information about Shepard's existence.[/quote]
No we are not. We are merely told:
1. It's a totally new being with a new personality. (Thus, not Shepard at all)
2. It ensures Reaper survival.
3. It repairs the Relays.
That is all. We are given now information. And you didn't actually answer the question.
[quote]Because he has no reason to. [/quote]
I just gave you one
[quote]Because from what we understand, the catalyst is a shackled AI (can't do anything but follow his orders). From that, we understand that he can't lie. The only synthetic live forms that do are unshackled. Because if he is lying, the only way to beat the game is through refusal. This ending wasn't even orignially planned. And in metagaming, every epilogue has it's good end. Which we can heavily assume he's not lying. [/quote]
Doesn't matter if he is Shackled or not (and there is no way of telling anyway)He's capable of creating new solutions and adapting to the situation. Why does this make him unable to die?
Are you saying that if he found the perfect solution to his problem that needed a lie, he wouldn't be unable to do it? Shackled Edi could lie simply by joking. And the Catalyst's goal "find a solution" is so vast that there isn't reason to assume his "shackles" really hinder anything. He built the Reapers.
[quote]So what if the reapers live? Not everyone played their Shepard only to kill the reapers. Otherwise we'd all pick destroy.[/quote]
I wouldn't. I'd pick control, repair the relays, give out all the beneficial information the Reapers have, then destroy them. Spare Edi, spare the Geth, Spare the Quarians/Volus, spare every single ship in space(they don't die but they have synthetics in their environmental suits so there was no reason for Shepard to assume they'd be okay.) while gaining a great deal of info.
Destroy eliminates all this. It's an illogical action that's only made logical because the ending is written so badly. (Which is why It's better to pretend the Catalyst is lying)
The very fact that this choice can't be made, that the Reapers have to live on. Shows that it doesn't represent what Shepard would do. It represents what a new AI Catalyst with understanding of organics would do.
And if that fits your Shepard than great. But don't try to argue it's what Shepard would do because that would vary.
[quote]If a memory guides you, and that is basically makes you what you are, would you not do what you did before? And don't we see in the epilouge Shepard having different ideals if was played paragon/renegade?[/quote]
For one, I disagree but I'll roll with it because what you just said is dangerous no matter how we look at it. If the AI can't advance because it has Shepard's memories, it will become dated.
If it can advance, it will gain new experiences and memories which are not Shepards, they are the AIs. And it will begin to have less and less of Shepard inside it.
How useful would an AI of Juan de Torquemada be in charge of the Reapers centuries later?
And how much of Shepard's memories will guide a being with centuries of new memories and experience for new situations?
Either way, it's a dangerous precedent. And either way speculation is baseless and pointless.
[quote]Did synthetics ever changed their goals?[/quote]
Yes. The Geth went from servants, to survival to Dyson sphere.
[quote]Not exactly emotions. She herself doesn't see it as emotions, but prefrences. We accept it as emotions, because it's heavily look like it.[/quote]
So a different Shepard who looks, acts and thinks differently is the same.
But emotions are different because the carrier is made of metal? Edi has emotions. She has a gender, she has wants and desires and she has fears and doubts. The Risk of Joker's death saddens her and she needs comfort. The fact this comes from circuitry is no different to coming from a brain.
That's the difference between an AI and VI. It can think. There's a reason why the Reapers were arrogant. It's because they were.
[quote]As long as the new Shepard will do what I expect from him/her to do, I'm happy.[/quote]
Think over that some more and you'll discover why most players are not.
#3041
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 05:46
MetioricTest
-
- Members
- 1 275 messages
I think in this particular case the best way to argue was to show how I already answered mentioned questions,
No you didn't. I have read the topic, you didn't answer any point that I raised (and still haven't) and that's not what you thought.
Please don't insult my intelligence. It demeans us both.
...And I want to reply on this one separately.
...I believe there is no "bad", "good", or "best" ending for ME Trilogy. The endings were intended to be different, with their own advantages and disadvantages, so people with different ways of thinking will prefer only the ending they like the most. Simple, and perfect game's rule... Well, I think only one ending is out of this rule: refusal. Because it's the ultimate mission failure, not a "true ending".
By "good" I don't mean "happy and productive" in fact control is probably the most "good" in that respect considering it does the least damage on paper.
I meant "good" as in both well told, interesting and entertaining. Which it is not.
When I see it there's "Really Bad" "Bad" "Not so bad" and "Okay"
And funnily enough it's refusal that I think is okay.
#3042
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 05:58
Ageless Face
-
- Members
- 2 786 messages
That's it. You officially became my control ending's interpreter.CrutchCricket wrote...
Thanks for the endorsement:D
I also agree with you on the earlier discussion about possible errors. Reapers are not perfect, and they are not cosmic entities, though they are too far above us to even begin to imagine what possible errors there might be. Though if you look at the holokid and notice how bat**** insane its logic is...
Anyway that being said, the holokid and the Reapers never had to change or upgrade because they were perfectly suited to their task. Whatever you believe Commander is or will do, it clearly has rejected that task. Thus it must self-improve and upgrade at some point, to be in line with its new goals.
So short version: Its not perfect now and were it to remain the same it may be subject to some flaws (that we can't define). But it will upgrade to overcome those flaws. I believe Commander becomes far more than the sum of the Reapers. Thus its not out of the question that this entity may achieve perfection and wipe clean any potential for errors before they manifest.
Also regarding the current discussion, it is perfectly possible (and preferable in my opinion) to disregard the holokid entirely. There is no evidence that Shepard buys into its nonsense "problem" so there's no need to worry about cycles and organics vs synthetics after Control.
Better to just dismiss it as a buggy AI that's nonetheless following a course it is shackled to and the Crucible interferes with its programming, loosening the shackles enough for the holokid to present the three solutions. This is taking the "you have altered the variables" line literally.
And as for the concerns of the new control entity itself, yes I direct you to the link provided (also in my sig-Control Explained) for what it is and the logical progression of its development.
#3043
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 06:54
Ageless Face
-
- Members
- 2 786 messages
[quote]MetioricTest wrote...
Bull****. Shepard is down on the cold hard floor and nothing happens. The elevator that pulls him up is clearly caused by the Catalyst. The Catalyst could have led Shepard to die.
The Catalyst wants to use the crucible. He literally talks Shepard into using it and gets angry if Shepard doesn't. Even if Synthesis is not an option.
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.[/quote]
...That was what I was saying? I meant that the Crucible changed him in some way. Not his orders though.
[quote]
More power. The Shepard AI is stronger than the Catalyst AI and the Reapers still exist.
If he's telling the truth then he is a fool for demanding that Shepard needs to die to control...When he could just follow Shepard's orders. You said yourself, the Catalyst can change and take opportunities. He doesn't.
He is either a liar with an agenda or an idiot.
Take your pick. [/quote]
Or, like I said, the catalyst can't change his ORDERS. He might change his outlook, but he still has certain orders to follow, that as a shackled AI he must do them.
[quote]
Shepard won't control at all. A new AI will and the new AI will ensure Reaper survival
[/quote]
Still has Shepard's ideals. And "ensure reaper survial"? They will be under AI Shepard's control.
[quote]
I would say Synthesis backfired more. [/quote]
*Sigh* So you mean to say that only destroy is right? It's not. The lie can be the biggest there is in that ending. If the catalyst is lying.
[quote]
I have 3 Sheps. The actions in control only fit 1 of them.
That in of itself displays how poor the ending is. It's not control, it's a path for a new being.[/quote]
So? I have two Sheps, and renegade one fits destroy. Does that mean destroy is actually renegade, or bad, or whatever? It doesn't. My canon Shep chose control, and I believe it's the best ending. With all due respect, your game eperience doesn't make control bad. It makes it bad for you.
[quote]
No we are not. We are merely told:
1. It's a totally new being with a new personality. (Thus, not Shepard at all)
2. It ensures Reaper survival.
3. It repairs the Relays.
That is all. We are given now information. And you didn't actually answer the question.
[/quote]
Right, it tell us all of those. But it also tells us:
1. Shepard's thoughts will guide and give directions AI Shepard.
2. AIS have plans to dominate/protect the galaxy.
3. The reapers are under control of AI Shep.
There are more obviously, but those are the only ones on top of my head.
[quote]
Doesn't matter if he is Shackled or not (and there is no way of telling anyway)He's capable of creating new solutions and adapting to the situation. Why does this make him unable to die?[/quote]
Actually, him being shackled is pretty important. He didn't try to create new possibilities, but (if we take Saren's example) he did exactly as before, just let the orgnaics do another solution for him.
[quote]
Are you saying that if he found the perfect solution to his problem that needed a lie, he wouldn't be unable to do it? Shackled Edi could lie simply by joking. And the Catalyst's goal "find a solution" is so vast that there isn't reason to assume his "shackles" really hinder anything. He built the Reapers.[/quote]
When exactly did EDI ever lie when she was shackled?
And the catalyst didn't build the reapers... Those were creators, no? As did his cretors gave him his purpose.
[quote]
I wouldn't. I'd pick control, repair the relays, give out all the beneficial information the Reapers have, then destroy them. Spare Edi, spare the Geth, Spare the Quarians/Volus, spare every single ship in space(they don't die but they have synthetics in their environmental suits so there was no reason for Shepard to assume they'd be okay.) while gaining a great deal of info.
Destroy eliminates all this. It's an illogical action that's only made logical because the ending is written so badly. (Which is why It's better to pretend the Catalyst is lying)
The very fact that this choice can't be made, that the Reapers have to live on. Shows that it doesn't represent what Shepard would do. It represents what a new AI Catalyst with understanding of organics would do.
And if that fits your Shepard than great. But don't try to argue it's what Shepard would do because that would vary.[/quote]
I'm not saying this is what all Shepards will do. It just make sense for my Shep. My Shepard ideals weren't destroyed in control. Maybe your Shep did. If so, then I understand why you'll dislike control. But that doesn't make control not representive of Shepard's actions. It make sense for SOME. The point of not destroying the reapers in control was that destroy won't feel a pointless choice.
[quote]
For one, I disagree but I'll roll with it because what you just said is dangerous no matter how we look at it. If the AI can't advance because it has Shepard's memories, it will become dated.
If it can advance, it will gain new experiences and memories which are not Shepards, they are the AIs. And it will begin to have less and less of Shepard inside it.
How useful would an AI of Juan de Torquemada be in charge of the Reapers centuries later?
And how much of Shepard's memories will guide a being with centuries of new memories and experience for new situations?
Either way, it's a dangerous precedent. And either way speculation is baseless and pointless.[/quote]
That is assuming Shepard will even have new experiences and memories. At least ones that will affect his/her judment. Shepard's expirience said exactly the oppisite of everything the catalyst said. Unless the catalyst is actually right somehow, There is no reason for Shepard to even think about his theory. That is even assuming it wasn't one big malfunction in his creation.
[quote]
Yes. The Geth went from servants, to survival to Dyson sphere.[/quote]
And those were deliberate self modifying intelligence. Hell, most of it was even the Quarians that did it. Obviously that after putting the reaper codes into the Geth they will have new purpose. Why would Shepard want to self mofify his/her intelligent? Maybe upgrade, but change? I hardly see Shepard does that on purose.
[quote]
So a different Shepard who looks, acts and thinks differently is the same.[/quote]
What do you mean?
[quote]
But emotions are different because the carrier is made of metal? Edi has emotions. She has a gender, she has wants and desires and she has fears and doubts. The Risk of Joker's death saddens her and she needs comfort. The fact this comes from circuitry is no different to coming from a brain.
That's the difference between an AI and VI. It can think. There's a reason why the Reapers were arrogant. It's because they were.
[/quote]
Like I said, EDI has prefrences. She herself doesn't see it as emotions. In the EC epilouge, she seemed pretty sure she does.
If you think she had emotions then that's fine. I would also call it emotions if not for her specifically saying she doesn't.
[quote]
Think over that some more and you'll discover why most players are not.
[/quote]
Have I ever say I don't know why others aren't happy? I specifically said "I'm happy". Not "Everyone should be happy".
Bull****. Shepard is down on the cold hard floor and nothing happens. The elevator that pulls him up is clearly caused by the Catalyst. The Catalyst could have led Shepard to die.
The Catalyst wants to use the crucible. He literally talks Shepard into using it and gets angry if Shepard doesn't. Even if Synthesis is not an option.
There is no reason why he has to tell us. There is also no reason why he couldn't stop us or just lie about it. It's also absolutely obvious that he prefers us to use the crucible as opposed to not using it. He says so himself, his solution has failed and a new one is needed.[/quote]
...That was what I was saying? I meant that the Crucible changed him in some way. Not his orders though.
[quote]
More power. The Shepard AI is stronger than the Catalyst AI and the Reapers still exist.
If he's telling the truth then he is a fool for demanding that Shepard needs to die to control...When he could just follow Shepard's orders. You said yourself, the Catalyst can change and take opportunities. He doesn't.
He is either a liar with an agenda or an idiot.
Take your pick. [/quote]
Or, like I said, the catalyst can't change his ORDERS. He might change his outlook, but he still has certain orders to follow, that as a shackled AI he must do them.
[quote]
Shepard won't control at all. A new AI will and the new AI will ensure Reaper survival
[/quote]
Still has Shepard's ideals. And "ensure reaper survial"? They will be under AI Shepard's control.
[quote]
I would say Synthesis backfired more. [/quote]
*Sigh* So you mean to say that only destroy is right? It's not. The lie can be the biggest there is in that ending. If the catalyst is lying.
[quote]
I have 3 Sheps. The actions in control only fit 1 of them.
That in of itself displays how poor the ending is. It's not control, it's a path for a new being.[/quote]
So? I have two Sheps, and renegade one fits destroy. Does that mean destroy is actually renegade, or bad, or whatever? It doesn't. My canon Shep chose control, and I believe it's the best ending. With all due respect, your game eperience doesn't make control bad. It makes it bad for you.
[quote]
No we are not. We are merely told:
1. It's a totally new being with a new personality. (Thus, not Shepard at all)
2. It ensures Reaper survival.
3. It repairs the Relays.
That is all. We are given now information. And you didn't actually answer the question.
[/quote]
Right, it tell us all of those. But it also tells us:
1. Shepard's thoughts will guide and give directions AI Shepard.
2. AIS have plans to dominate/protect the galaxy.
3. The reapers are under control of AI Shep.
There are more obviously, but those are the only ones on top of my head.
[quote]
Doesn't matter if he is Shackled or not (and there is no way of telling anyway)He's capable of creating new solutions and adapting to the situation. Why does this make him unable to die?[/quote]
Actually, him being shackled is pretty important. He didn't try to create new possibilities, but (if we take Saren's example) he did exactly as before, just let the orgnaics do another solution for him.
[quote]
Are you saying that if he found the perfect solution to his problem that needed a lie, he wouldn't be unable to do it? Shackled Edi could lie simply by joking. And the Catalyst's goal "find a solution" is so vast that there isn't reason to assume his "shackles" really hinder anything. He built the Reapers.[/quote]
When exactly did EDI ever lie when she was shackled?
And the catalyst didn't build the reapers... Those were creators, no? As did his cretors gave him his purpose.
[quote]
I wouldn't. I'd pick control, repair the relays, give out all the beneficial information the Reapers have, then destroy them. Spare Edi, spare the Geth, Spare the Quarians/Volus, spare every single ship in space(they don't die but they have synthetics in their environmental suits so there was no reason for Shepard to assume they'd be okay.) while gaining a great deal of info.
Destroy eliminates all this. It's an illogical action that's only made logical because the ending is written so badly. (Which is why It's better to pretend the Catalyst is lying)
The very fact that this choice can't be made, that the Reapers have to live on. Shows that it doesn't represent what Shepard would do. It represents what a new AI Catalyst with understanding of organics would do.
And if that fits your Shepard than great. But don't try to argue it's what Shepard would do because that would vary.[/quote]
I'm not saying this is what all Shepards will do. It just make sense for my Shep. My Shepard ideals weren't destroyed in control. Maybe your Shep did. If so, then I understand why you'll dislike control. But that doesn't make control not representive of Shepard's actions. It make sense for SOME. The point of not destroying the reapers in control was that destroy won't feel a pointless choice.
[quote]
For one, I disagree but I'll roll with it because what you just said is dangerous no matter how we look at it. If the AI can't advance because it has Shepard's memories, it will become dated.
If it can advance, it will gain new experiences and memories which are not Shepards, they are the AIs. And it will begin to have less and less of Shepard inside it.
How useful would an AI of Juan de Torquemada be in charge of the Reapers centuries later?
And how much of Shepard's memories will guide a being with centuries of new memories and experience for new situations?
Either way, it's a dangerous precedent. And either way speculation is baseless and pointless.[/quote]
That is assuming Shepard will even have new experiences and memories. At least ones that will affect his/her judment. Shepard's expirience said exactly the oppisite of everything the catalyst said. Unless the catalyst is actually right somehow, There is no reason for Shepard to even think about his theory. That is even assuming it wasn't one big malfunction in his creation.
[quote]
Yes. The Geth went from servants, to survival to Dyson sphere.[/quote]
And those were deliberate self modifying intelligence. Hell, most of it was even the Quarians that did it. Obviously that after putting the reaper codes into the Geth they will have new purpose. Why would Shepard want to self mofify his/her intelligent? Maybe upgrade, but change? I hardly see Shepard does that on purose.
[quote]
So a different Shepard who looks, acts and thinks differently is the same.[/quote]
What do you mean?
[quote]
But emotions are different because the carrier is made of metal? Edi has emotions. She has a gender, she has wants and desires and she has fears and doubts. The Risk of Joker's death saddens her and she needs comfort. The fact this comes from circuitry is no different to coming from a brain.
That's the difference between an AI and VI. It can think. There's a reason why the Reapers were arrogant. It's because they were.
[/quote]
Like I said, EDI has prefrences. She herself doesn't see it as emotions. In the EC epilouge, she seemed pretty sure she does.
If you think she had emotions then that's fine. I would also call it emotions if not for her specifically saying she doesn't.
[quote]
Think over that some more and you'll discover why most players are not.
[/quote]
Have I ever say I don't know why others aren't happy? I specifically said "I'm happy". Not "Everyone should be happy".
Modifié par HagarIshay, 18 juillet 2012 - 06:56 .
#3044
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 08:49
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
MetioricTest wrote...
Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
Control is the most open ending and allows for a lot of possibilities. Pretty much every interpretation is valid but that doesn't mean a particular person's view is the only possible outcome.
I don't deny this (Although the ending does directly show that the Reapers are not destroyed and that they repair the relays. These are undeniable)
But my problem is that these interpretations and speculations of "What will happen next." cannot be debated, degraded, disproven or debunked. And you may think that's a good thing, but it's not. This is because it's absolutely baseless. We're given no information so no guess as to what will happen holds any value whatsoever.
Just in the same way that every interpretation of what what happened to Shepard's grandfather is valid. Of course it is we don't have a ****ing clue and it's meaningless to try and create one. Especially if the one you want to create is "He had no kids."
It's the matter of faith, I suppose. In case of Alisia-Shepard-Catalist game clearly states that everything is and will be as the epilogue says. I trust my Shepard completely. Also, I think it's clear that in case of Control you don't trust your Shepard as much as I trust mine...
...And in some particular cases matter of faith may become a difference between the success and a failure. I believe you should think about this.
Modifié par Seival, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:30 .
#3045
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 09:05
Lord Goose
-
- Members
- 865 messages
The Catalyst doesn't want that. It wants a new AI that
merges with Shepard's thoughts and creates a stronger
Catalyst. AKA it wants to improve itself and ensure Reaper
survival.
He actually doesn't. Try to refuse Control. Shepard will say that he or she doesn't want to lose anything, and Catalyst will say: ''And I do not want you in control, so what? I will be forced to accept it''.
#3046
Posté 18 juillet 2012 - 09:56
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
Lord Goose wrote...
The Catalyst doesn't want that. It wants a new AI that
merges with Shepard's thoughts and creates a stronger
Catalyst. AKA it wants to improve itself and ensure Reaper
survival.
He actually doesn't. Try to refuse Control. Shepard will say that he or she doesn't want to lose anything, and Catalyst will say: ''And I do not want you in control, so what? I will be forced to accept it''.
Even the original Catalist with its unstable and ill ways of thinking is ready to sacrifice itself for a greater good. So, in case of Refusal option Shepard can't be even as good as a villain AI...
...Just some out-loud thoughts.
#3047
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 10:43
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
Ericus wrote...
pirate1802 wrote...
Seival wrote...
Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job
Agreed. At the risk of getting lynched, I'd say I like how bioware gave us 3 (or 4 after EC) each with its benefits and failings, and no 100% win ending. And I really like how people with different moral/psychological/whatever orientations are attracted towards different endings
I think this is exactly the type of discussion Bioware was hoping would happen after the original endings. Thankfully the EC endings are fleshed-out well enough to allow for some really interesting debates.
Agreed. The original endings were really hard to understand, and required a lot of time to be processed. That's why a lot of players, who got used to standard and simple stories in the most modern games, became very angry. And that's why BioWare decided to explain the endings in more details...
...It looks like more and more players start to accept the endings as they are, and this is a very good sign. And I hope that from now players are prepared to the fact that some modern games can have really strong, interesting, and wise stories.
#3048
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 11:37
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
Ewok Hunter wrote...
Wow, this section of the forums seems so much more civil than the rest of this place. I think I might choose Control in my next playthrough.
Welcome
#3049
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 12:22
CroGamer002
-
- Members
- 20 674 messages
Ewok Hunter wrote...
Wow, this section of the forums seems so much more civil than the rest of this place. I think I might choose Control in my next playthrough.
That's probably because I'm not posting here lately.
#3050
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 04:28
kolibri_
-
- Members
- 11 messages
I wouldn't say the Illusive Man was right, but well... Control ftw! 
