4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Shermos]

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

Modifié par Shermos, 20 septembre 2012 - 02:51 .

[Seival]

Shermos wrote...

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

+1

What can we see when we observe a human being? Just an individual? No, we can also see tones of food that human eat, tones of waste products that human produced, and thousands of people who affected that human's destiny.

Freedom doesn't exist. Everyone depends on someone else. Everything depends on something else. We are all connected, and controlled. That's how the nature works. The ones who can't understand that will not be able to understand the Control and the Leviathans.

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Imagine, I know your concept and I still insist on my points. "Commander" is STILL a man+ a super computer and nothing more than that!

I have a feeling that you don't wanna accept the ending that was set in stone twice already. You are talking about a fan-fiction. I suggest you re-read one of my previous posts:

Seival wrote...

The Catalyst is not "a man connected to". Catalyst is the collective mind of all Reapers. The creature consisting of millions of different mobile and static platforms. The AI with unlimited processing power. Shepard died, giving that creature her personality and memories, giving birth to The New Catalyst. Shepard-Catalyst is The Reapers.

Now I hope you feel the scale of the matter.

Shepard-Catalyst is a Dictator only in case of Renegade Control ending. In case of Paragon Control ending Shepard-Catalyst is the Guardian... Well, I think you should watch all variants of Control ending. As far as I know, there are 6 different variants of this ending, each reflecting Shepard's personality.

I thought I was done with that, but fine.
You state that the reapers are mere platforms like a geth (before the reaper code) which is wrong, they are sapient and self-aware individuals that even make up names for themselves.
And about the second point: You know, ´Dictator´ and ´Guardian´ can be two names for the same thing: Shepard-Catalyst protects, yes, but if you break his/her rules you end up being someone that the galaxy needs to be protected from, that means obey or be punished. I do not question Shepard´s morality, I only question that an AI based on Shepard and the reapers´ minds is qualified to have more power than all other life in the galaxy combined.

I really do not try to convince you all that Control is bad (if that was the case I would start listing arguments like "Holoshep could be hacked or replaced by using another crucible" and others like those), I just wanted to ask a few questions to supporters.

About your first point. You keep ignoring everything the original Catalyst told you. It clearly states that it is an AI, and the collective mind of all Reapers. Nothing else matters - even toys can have names.

It called itself Sovereign through one of mobile platforms, then it called itself Harbinger through another mobile platform. And then it again avoided naming itself through a random destroyer. Logical enough - noone should know about the Catalyst till the time comes (...if the time comes).

About your second point. Are you against the Guardian who only punishes bad people? If so, then you have much more to worry about in case of Destroy. Because it will be Leviathans who will rule the galaxy, not the Catalyst. Believe me, you want this much less, then Catalyst-Shepard in charge... Leviathans are not bad, but after what happened, they will clearly rule more harshly. And noone will have any chance to disobey, just like in case of Control.



...In short - all Destroyers have to say hello to the Leviathans, and enjoy being under another Control, trapped between the Leviathans and remaining Reaper corpses. I don't want to say it's a bad or invalid ending, but it's the ending I don't really like.

First: Yes, I am aware that reaper kid tells us it is the collective mind of all reapers, but this can´t mean it was always it who talked to you. Reapers ARE independant, Souvereign (who calls herself Nazara) states that directly, and it is isolated and forced to act on its own. Even more proof: The destroyer on Rannoch.

"Harbinger spoke of you."

I disagree with CrutchCricket but that is interpretation and opinion, but you, Seival, are wrong in some points.

Second: Yes, I am against that Guardian. That is because I believe that no being, as wise it might be, should have that much power (Even a religios question: If there is a loving god, why does suffering exist? Some answer: Because men are given a free will.). Instead I believe in self-determination of sapient life and that is the main reason I prefer destroy- it means you break free of reaper influence. All of them are gone, indoctrination is not possible anymore, and the organic species will have to rebuild the Mass Relays and citadel on their own, that means they will stop depending on unknown but convenient technology and will be forced to understand it (I found myself very much agreeing with Aethyta), gaining the freedom to build more of them and explore the other 99% of the galaxy. This is not a matter of facts, however, but a matter of belief, you can agree or disagree on that one without being right or wrong.

By your logic, I can directly state that I'm a president of USA, and you will believe that immediately. I can also create a new BSN account and use it to "confirm that Seival is a president of USA", and you will immediately consider that as 100% proof of my words... That's silly.

When someone wants to remain incognita, it will avoid naming itself by any means. Catalyst, Harbinger, Sovereign/Nazara, are the same entity. "The Reapers" is one giant creature consisting of millions of mobile and static platforms.

You will never "break free". You will always depend on something and someone. Freedom doesn't exist. It's a myth. Please, don't be naive. You can only chose who will control you, and who will be controlled by you. This is how the nature works.

Modifié par Seival, 20 septembre 2012 - 08:13 .

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

+1

What can we see when we observe a human being? Just an individual? No, we can also see tones of food that human eat, tones of waste products that human produced, and thousands of people who affected that human's destiny.

Freedom doesn't exist. Everyone depends on someone else. Everything depends on something else. We are all connected, and controlled. That's how the nature works. The ones who can't understand that will not be able to understand the Control and the Leviathans.

There is a difference between letting your social background, subconscious mind and such determine your thoughts and being brainwashed (reapers) or commanded (organics) by a galactic overlord.

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

+1

What can we see when we observe a human being? Just an individual? No, we can also see tones of food that human eat, tones of waste products that human produced, and thousands of people who affected that human's destiny.

Freedom doesn't exist. Everyone depends on someone else. Everything depends on something else. We are all connected, and controlled. That's how the nature works. The ones who can't understand that will not be able to understand the Control and the Leviathans.

There is a difference between letting your social background, subconscious mind and such determine your thoughts and being brainwashed (reapers) or commanded (organics) by a galactic overlord.

There is no difference between social background and brainwashing. Social background shapes your own mind. Society brainwashes you constantly, starting right from your birth. You have to accept that. Freedom is a myth.

[Seival]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Seival wrote...

I didn't change my attitude to the Leviathans, you just didn't read my reply carefully enough:

Seival wrote...
Leviathans are not bad, but after what happened, they will clearly rule more harshly. And noone will have any chance to disobey, just like in case of Control.

Which means Destroyers betrayed EDI and the Geth just to become thralls instead of harvested. Strange, but still valid ending. This doesn't make the Leviathans evil. And  Galactic Civilization will be fine under Leviathans Control I believe.

Oh I'm sorry, I guess you didn't change your... oh wait:

Seival wrote...
Leviathans don't enslave anyone. They coexist with lesser races like a human coexists with bacteria. Did you ever
think that all micro-life existing in your own body was enslaved by you? I don't think so.

You did.

Slide around the point all you want, it doesn't make your perspective any more incomprehensible. Incidentally, this reminds me why I stopped debating with you.

But for the record, no one used the term "evil" as applied to Leviathans or anything else. Even if I accept your "logic", you're arguing against a strawman

I don't know why you see any conflict between my replies. As I already said, I see Leviathans as True Neutral creatures. They don't enslave anyone. The only possible exception is enemy forces. And considering what the Leviathan told us, they had only one enemy in their history - the original Reapers.

In case of Destroy the Leviathans will rule the galaxy again. And after what happend they will definitely rule more harshly than before. And that what Destroyers should worry about. Their betrayal have much higher price than they think. Tones of dead Reapers on one side, and Leviathans trying to clean up that mess on the other. Poor Destroyers...

Modifié par Seival, 20 septembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

+1

What can we see when we observe a human being? Just an individual? No, we can also see tones of food that human eat, tones of waste products that human produced, and thousands of people who affected that human's destiny.

Freedom doesn't exist. Everyone depends on someone else. Everything depends on something else. We are all connected, and controlled. That's how the nature works. The ones who can't understand that will not be able to understand the Control and the Leviathans.

There is a difference between letting your social background, subconscious mind and such determine your thoughts and being brainwashed (reapers) or commanded (organics) by a galactic overlord.

There is no difference between social background and brainwashing. Social background shapes your own mind. Society brainwashes you constantly, starting right from your birth. You have to accept that. Freedom is a myth.

There is a difference.
Social background partly determins the way you develop and can (!) affect you in a positive way. When you are old enough to think for yourself, you can observe and learn from your environment, decide whether you want to follow the examples and directions you see or go somewhere else and find your own way.
Brainwashing as it is done with the reapers means changing their minds and turning them into whatever you want them to be by force.
I might give you an example to clarify: The freedom you talk about is a philosophical or biological/chemical/psychological question, I think something of all those. The freedom I was talking about is a social/political question, the freedom that for example many Africans and Asians are fighting for right now. This freedom is no illusion.

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

+1

What can we see when we observe a human being? Just an individual? No, we can also see tones of food that human eat, tones of waste products that human produced, and thousands of people who affected that human's destiny.

Freedom doesn't exist. Everyone depends on someone else. Everything depends on something else. We are all connected, and controlled. That's how the nature works. The ones who can't understand that will not be able to understand the Control and the Leviathans.

There is a difference between letting your social background, subconscious mind and such determine your thoughts and being brainwashed (reapers) or commanded (organics) by a galactic overlord.

There is no difference between social background and brainwashing. Social background shapes your own mind. Society brainwashes you constantly, starting right from your birth. You have to accept that. Freedom is a myth.

There is a difference.
Social background partly determins the way you develop and can (!) affect you in a positive way. When you are old enough to think for yourself, you can observe and learn from your environment, decide whether you want to follow the examples and directions you see or go somewhere else and find your own way.
Brainwashing as it is done with the reapers means changing their minds and turning them into whatever you want them to be by force.
I might give you an example to clarify: The freedom you talk about is a philosophical or biological/chemical/psychological question, I think something of all those. The freedom I was talking about is a social/political question, the freedom that for example many Africans and Asians are fighting for right now. This freedom is no illusion.

You just follow the pattern of your growth-process-indoctrination. You were created, you didn't create yourself. And you will be always influenced by people and environment around you. If someone convinced you to change your mind about something, it's the same as someone mind-controlled you. There is no difference. Control is the part of natural order of things. Freedom is delusion...

...And all modern fighting is just a way to take control over some territory. They are talking about "fighting for freedom" just to look good in opinion of people, who think that freedom exists.

[Ghost]

Join the Lemons!

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

+1

What can we see when we observe a human being? Just an individual? No, we can also see tones of food that human eat, tones of waste products that human produced, and thousands of people who affected that human's destiny.

Freedom doesn't exist. Everyone depends on someone else. Everything depends on something else. We are all connected, and controlled. That's how the nature works. The ones who can't understand that will not be able to understand the Control and the Leviathans.

There is a difference between letting your social background, subconscious mind and such determine your thoughts and being brainwashed (reapers) or commanded (organics) by a galactic overlord.

There is no difference between social background and brainwashing. Social background shapes your own mind. Society brainwashes you constantly, starting right from your birth. You have to accept that. Freedom is a myth.

There is a difference.
Social background partly determins the way you develop and can (!) affect you in a positive way. When you are old enough to think for yourself, you can observe and learn from your environment, decide whether you want to follow the examples and directions you see or go somewhere else and find your own way.
Brainwashing as it is done with the reapers means changing their minds and turning them into whatever you want them to be by force.
I might give you an example to clarify: The freedom you talk about is a philosophical or biological/chemical/psychological question, I think something of all those. The freedom I was talking about is a social/political question, the freedom that for example many Africans and Asians are fighting for right now. This freedom is no illusion.

You just follow the pattern of your growth-process-indoctrination. You were created, you didn't create yourself. And you will be always influenced by people and environment around you. If someone convinced you to change your mind about something, it's the same as someone mind-controlled you. There is no difference. Control is the part of natural order of things. Freedom is delusion...

...And all modern fighting is just a way to take control over some territory. They are talking about "fighting for freedom" just to look good in opinion of people, who think that freedom exists.

If someone tries to convince you of something, he needs arguments. You can judge his arguments and either agree or disagree, this is the reason things like ethics and philosophy even exist. The same thing happens here on the BSN anytime, but I can´t see any brainwashing here.
If you do not see a difference between reasoning and brainwashing, fine, than I have nothing more to say about that.

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

Talking about free will. I've studied some biology and I keep up to date on what's going on as best I can. It's uncomfortable for a lot of Westerners to admit, but as time goes on, studies in psychology and neuro-science are finding that free will doesn't truly exist. For something to be free, it has to have no constraints and our "will", our ability to make choices and decisions is full of them. Our genes and past experiences determine much of our behavior and the subconscious mind plays a much bigger role than we previously thought. Just putting that out there.

+1

What can we see when we observe a human being? Just an individual? No, we can also see tones of food that human eat, tones of waste products that human produced, and thousands of people who affected that human's destiny.

Freedom doesn't exist. Everyone depends on someone else. Everything depends on something else. We are all connected, and controlled. That's how the nature works. The ones who can't understand that will not be able to understand the Control and the Leviathans.

There is a difference between letting your social background, subconscious mind and such determine your thoughts and being brainwashed (reapers) or commanded (organics) by a galactic overlord.

There is no difference between social background and brainwashing. Social background shapes your own mind. Society brainwashes you constantly, starting right from your birth. You have to accept that. Freedom is a myth.

There is a difference.
Social background partly determins the way you develop and can (!) affect you in a positive way. When you are old enough to think for yourself, you can observe and learn from your environment, decide whether you want to follow the examples and directions you see or go somewhere else and find your own way.
Brainwashing as it is done with the reapers means changing their minds and turning them into whatever you want them to be by force.
I might give you an example to clarify: The freedom you talk about is a philosophical or biological/chemical/psychological question, I think something of all those. The freedom I was talking about is a social/political question, the freedom that for example many Africans and Asians are fighting for right now. This freedom is no illusion.

You just follow the pattern of your growth-process-indoctrination. You were created, you didn't create yourself. And you will be always influenced by people and environment around you. If someone convinced you to change your mind about something, it's the same as someone mind-controlled you. There is no difference. Control is the part of natural order of things. Freedom is delusion...

...And all modern fighting is just a way to take control over some territory. They are talking about "fighting for freedom" just to look good in opinion of people, who think that freedom exists.

If someone tries to convince you of something, he needs arguments. You can judge his arguments and either agree or disagree, this is the reason things like ethics and philosophy even exist. The same thing happens here on the BSN anytime, but I can´t see any brainwashing here.
If you do not see a difference between reasoning and brainwashing, fine, than I have nothing more to say about that.

"Reasoning" and "brainwashing" are different names of the same thing: Mind Control, which may force you to change your mind about something. The difference is only in methods of Mind Control. You may convince someone by words, or by force. Both methods work even without some fictional mental super-abilities.

You don't have to be a Reaper or Leviathan to control someone's mind. The entire society is about mind controlling. But right now humanity is just too primitive, so the control we see around is also primitive and barbaric most of the times.

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

"Reasoning" and "brainwashing" are different names of the same thing

Sure, whatever. If you truly want to believe that, fine, I will not bother you any longer.

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

"Reasoning" and "brainwashing" are different names of the same thing

Sure, whatever. If you truly want to believe that, fine, I will not bother you any longer.

You don't bother me at all. Our discussion about Control is quite interesting actually

[Seival]

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Exactly. You have to make a really tough choice in the end of the story, which built around difficult moral decisions. Only one ending, or too many advantages for one of the endings would make the entire story trivial.

[Seival]

mango smoothie wrote...

I like the choices from the rough draft script more; where Control would preserve the Mass Relays and Destroy would completly destroy them.

It added a more interesting choice in whether one would take the risk in controlling the Reapers to preserve galactic civilization or would one eliminate the risk of keeping the Reapers around, but at the cost of galactic civiliaztion. Kind of funny though because if they had gone with that ending I would've chosen Control, but since the Mass Relays are destroyed/deactivated in all the endings I felt the risks of Control were to high to the pontential benefits.

I think that the Relays' destruction with inevitable subsequent reconstruction in each ending was made to provide the ground for a sequel. I really hope that I'm right about that.

Modifié par Seival, 23 septembre 2012 - 04:31 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Exactly. You have to make a really tough choice in the end of the story, which built around difficult moral decisions. Only one ending, or too many advantages for one of the endings would make the entire story trivial.

Except in retroperspective, the side effect of destroy just comes off as being tacked on, so the "difficult decision" feels artificial.

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Exactly. You have to make a really tough choice in the end of the story, which built around difficult moral decisions. Only one ending, or too many advantages for one of the endings would make the entire story trivial.

Except in retroperspective, the side effect of destroy just comes off as being tacked on, so the "difficult decision" feels artificial.

You mean in case of Destroy noone will remember anything good about EDI and the Geth later? Noone will care about them anymore? Well, I think all heroes (even Shepard) of the war harvest will be almost forgotten in time. Unless some of those heroes are still alive, which is only possible in case of Control or Synthesis.

The right legacy is important to prevent repeating the same mistakes in the future. But final choice in not only about providing Galactic Civilization's legacy. Final choice is mostly about Shepard's personality. In each ending Shepard has to sacrifice something in order to stop the Reapers. Each sacrifice is dire. The question is which sacrifice your Shepard prefers.

[Xilizhra]

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings.

No. Not in the slightest. People are trying to find something to grasp to, in large part, but don't mistake this for the endings having even the slightest glimmer of quality.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Hardly. Anyone could still want to control the Reapers if they wanted their power hanging around instead of just destroying them. How is it satisfying to choose a different ending just because you want to avoid completely arbitrary genocide instead of actually, you know, wanting that outcome?

Also, Control is unsustainable over the long term, as you can't replace lost Reapers unless you restart the cycle.

[Seival]

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings.

No. Not in the slightest. People are trying to find something to grasp to, in large part, but don't mistake this for the endings having even the slightest glimmer of quality.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Hardly. Anyone could still want to control the Reapers if they wanted their power hanging around instead of just destroying them. How is it satisfying to choose a different ending just because you want to avoid completely arbitrary genocide instead of actually, you know, wanting that outcome?

Also, Control is unsustainable over the long term, as you can't replace lost Reapers unless you restart the cycle.

Disagree, but will not argue (because I already discussed that too often).

About Control is unsustainable over the long term... That's why I think Synthesis in inevitable anyway. In case of Control, Shepard just bought some time to improve Synthesis mechanics and prepare everyone for the transformation. Controlled Synthesis will remove synthetics-vs-organics issue without adding too many new issues in the process.

Modifié par Seival, 24 septembre 2012 - 11:08 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Exactly. You have to make a really tough choice in the end of the story, which built around difficult moral decisions. Only one ending, or too many advantages for one of the endings would make the entire story trivial.

Except in retroperspective, the side effect of destroy just comes off as being tacked on, so the "difficult decision" feels artificial.

You mean in case of Destroy noone will remember anything good about EDI and the Geth later? Noone will care about them anymore? Well, I think all heroes (even Shepard) of the war harvest will be almost forgotten in time. Unless some of those heroes are still alive, which is only possible in case of Control or Synthesis.

The right legacy is important to prevent repeating the same mistakes in the future. But final choice in not only about providing Galactic Civilization's legacy. Final choice is mostly about Shepard's personality. In each ending Shepard has to sacrifice something in order to stop the Reapers. Each sacrifice is dire. The question is which sacrifice your Shepard prefers.

No, I mean from a meta game perspective. Looking back at it, the Geth/EDI deaths just comes off as being added for the sake of drama and to add some drawback to destroy.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...
Also, Control is unsustainable over the long term, as you can't replace lost Reapers unless you restart the cycle.

That is not much of an issue since in my own headcanon, the new catalyst will eventually go into a self-imposed exile from the galaxy.

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Exactly. You have to make a really tough choice in the end of the story, which built around difficult moral decisions. Only one ending, or too many advantages for one of the endings would make the entire story trivial.

Except in retroperspective, the side effect of destroy just comes off as being tacked on, so the "difficult decision" feels artificial.

You mean in case of Destroy noone will remember anything good about EDI and the Geth later? Noone will care about them anymore? Well, I think all heroes (even Shepard) of the war harvest will be almost forgotten in time. Unless some of those heroes are still alive, which is only possible in case of Control or Synthesis.

The right legacy is important to prevent repeating the same mistakes in the future. But final choice in not only about providing Galactic Civilization's legacy. Final choice is mostly about Shepard's personality. In each ending Shepard has to sacrifice something in order to stop the Reapers. Each sacrifice is dire. The question is which sacrifice your Shepard prefers.

No, I mean from a meta game perspective. Looking back at it, the Geth/EDI deaths just comes off as being added for the sake of drama and to add some drawback to destroy.

Well, the endings have to be balanced. If there was at least one perfect ending, then there was no point in making different endings at all. And story built around moral choices without a moral choice in the end is an absurd...

...And actually I don't find Destroy sacrifices "artificial". I think they are logical enough. The problem is that people choose Destroy refusing to understand and accept EDI's and Geth's death. They think about "disney" ending instead.  Also Destroyers somehow trying to ignore Leviathans, and worlds full of dead Reaper bodies. And that attitude is actually artificial.

[CrutchCricket]

Lizardviking wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Also, Control is unsustainable over the long term, as you can't replace lost Reapers unless you restart the cycle.

That is not much of an issue since in my own headcanon, the new catalyst will eventually go into a self-imposed exile from the galaxy.

Say it with me:

"limitless technological possibilities".

Reaper were made the way they were because of an insane plan to "preserve" genocided species.

Nowhere is it stated this is the only way to make something that advanced, or better.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Also, Control is unsustainable over the long term, as you can't replace lost Reapers unless you restart the cycle.

That is not much of an issue since in my own headcanon, the new catalyst will eventually go into a self-imposed exile from the galaxy.

Say it with me:

"limitless technological possibilities".

Reaper were made the way they were because of an insane plan to "preserve" genocided species.

Nowhere is it stated this is the only way to make something that advanced, or better.

You are missing my point.

Could something as advanced as the Reapers be built through other means? Sure, I guess so, I am not arguing against that.

What I was talking about was that such things never mattered to me, because in my headcanon the catalyst will in the end leave the galaxy so that galactic civilization truly can govern themselves in the end.

[Volc19]

Seival wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings.

No. Not in the slightest. People are trying to find something to grasp to, in large part, but don't mistake this for the endings having even the slightest glimmer of quality.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Hardly. Anyone could still want to control the Reapers if they wanted their power hanging around instead of just destroying them. How is it satisfying to choose a different ending just because you want to avoid completely arbitrary genocide instead of actually, you know, wanting that outcome?

Also, Control is unsustainable over the long term, as you can't replace lost Reapers unless you restart the cycle.

Disagree, but will not argue (because I already discussed that too often).

About Control is unsustainable over the long term... That's why I think Synthesis in inevitable anyway. In case of Control, Shepard just bought some time to improve Synthesis mechanics and prepare everyone for the transformation. Controlled Synthesis will remove synthetics-vs-organics issue without adding too many new issues in the process.

Or we could just remove Synthesis from our minds entirely.

I look upon Synthesis like I do ME:Deception. Too silly to be canon.