It wasn't narrative from a character. It wasn't even in the context of the story. It was a message at the end of the game telling us the outcome of the events that took place. And the old guy has nothing to do with it, either. He didn't make the statement. It was basically a dev message saying "Congrats, you won! Look forward to future DLC."Archontor wrote...
JackumsD wrote...
Irrelevant. It says the Reaper threat was ended.Archontor wrote...
JackumsD wrote...
The arguments I keep seeing against Control are:
1. "The Catalyst is lying": That's a nice theory, but the endgame message that states Shepard became a legend after ending the Reaper threat strongly disagrees with your claim.
2. "The Reapers are evil, letting them live is immoral": The Catalyst states it controls the Reapers, therefore the blame rightfully belongs on the Catalyst itself. The Reapers were nothing more than puppets.
3. "TIM wanted it, therefore it's evil": That's quite the simple-minded conclusion you've come to there. There was nothing wrong with TIM's notion of control, simply his execution. TIM was indocrinated and a human elitist, which would have resulted negatively. Shepard is neither of those, and as the Catalyst confirms, the Reapers will obey Shepard. Control is not inherently evil, it's the person doing the controlling that determines the results of said choice. The Reapers can quite easily be used as a force of good.Very well said. These are my thoughts, too.nicksmi56 wrote...
Control, to me, is the only one that refutes Catalyst's problem. It only affects the Reapers and diversity is still out there. The relays aren't destroyed and I can repair them, I can send a Reaper to save my friends, and the Citadel is intact. For everyone that says to destroy all Reaper tech, we pretty much know their whole plan is: use Citadel to bring Reapers and shut off relays, then kill everyone. If Reapers are GOOD now, why would they do any of those things or indoctrinate anyone? They're mine. The mass relays aren't evil anymore. Neither is the Citadel. Heck, we could even use the Reapers to help out the next time a galaxy wide threat comes along. Control saves the galaxy without screwing everyone else over.
I refute you on claim one , that message comes out of literally a black screen after the credits and tells me to buy DLC, pressumably that wasn't discovered in universe or they're going to realise that they're in a game and the drell have only existed for two years as all of 3 people.
I refute you on claim two, If the reapers are being controlled then what you do is even more immoral than killing them, it forces them to be re-enslaved, no matter what you do with slavery it is still wrong.
I refute you on claim 3, Contoll isn't inherrantly evil but the temptation is always there and has infinty to happen as shep slowly loses humanity.
The Reapers were created to prevent technological singularity. It's their purpose. If they're being used as a safeguard against this, and to protect organics (which was the Catalyst's ultimate goal), then it's not slavery so much as it's just using them as they were intended. It's like using a fork to eat your food. You're simply utilising the Reapers for their intended purpose. It's not like Shepard went out and enslaved some race of uninvolved aliens and forced them to do his bidding.
This is not guarnateed. The Catalyst was level-headed. It handed its power over the moment it realised its solution was no longer going to work. Shepard won't be subject to the psychological torments of being organic once he becomes the new Catalyst. Either way, there are just as potentially severe consequences involved with both other options. Weighing them up, Control has no more potential for disaster than the others.
It isn't irrelevant, because it was out of universe it dosen't need to follow the logical chain of what actually happened, espescially since it was revvealed to all be just a story. For all we know shep picked destroy and this is just space-gramps making **** up.
The repers have demonstrated complexity enough to be regarded as people, evil people if they're free and and tragic people if they aren't. If you claim they aren't free than enslaving a sentient being is wrong no matter how you try and justify it. And the technalogical singularity? You honestly beleive that will both occur and be detrimental to us, do you?
There is a much greater potential for disaster than the other two options, it's entirely possible shep will just loose all semblance of empathy and go on for another cycle, or just wipe out all non-reaper life or that the catalyst/ reapers/harbinger will simply wrench control from him with their superior minds. In contrast the consequences of synthesis is...well the major criticisms aren't the risks of synthesising people but the apparent imorality of it and the criticisms of destroy's consequences are that the relays are destroyed and the citadel may fall to earth even though the former is true in all cases and the latter is true also in synthesis. Oh and the geth and EDI might die. Maybe. Unless they just shut down for a couple minutes and then reboot. Or the geth have a space station far from any relays and their effects, kind of like that one they definitely have and we've seen.
You're not enslaving them because enslavement implies they were "free" in the first place. They weren't. They're the Catalyst's solution. They were created to do what they're doing and to serve it. Sentient or not, they're fulfiling their intended purpose, and even they seem to have no objection to what they're doing. And what do you mean do I believe technological singularity would be detrimental? How could it not be? You do understand what it is, right? As for it ocurring, the chance is there and was implied by the Catalyst to have happened or come close to it in the past, hence its own existence and the existence of the Reapers.
That's all just speculation on your part. We've seen none of the Reapers even interact with the Catalyst or exert any influence over it. It's also implied that Shepard will take the Catalyst's place, meaning it won't be around to re-take control as you're suggesting. We have no reason to believe Shepard's personality will suddenly drastically change. What is this claim based on? There's no evidence or even suggestive evidence that any of these anti-Control arguments will come to pass. As for Destroy; committing mass genocide and leaving the galaxy without a lot of the technology they so rely on isn't at all worse than Control, which harms no-one, only damages the relays, leaves organics with a safeguard against technological singularity, and also leaves them with a source of very advanced technology to further themselves moreso.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if the only arguments that anti-Controllers can supply are based on the belief that the Cataylst is lying or baseless speculation, I'd rather agree to disagree and wait for EC.
Retour en haut
. Hello again.
?
. Got scared I didn't see something about him at the ending.
