4520 réponses à ce sujet

[MerchantGOL]

Uncle Jo wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Seival wrote...

Believe it or not, but this is the point of Control. I'm not saying that other options aren't needed, I'm just saying that Control is true Paragon option... Catalist isn't lying. While "IT" is a pure nonsense.

Sure man whatever... It's true, that thinking that a human can control the Reapers makes a lot more sense... Ever played Mass Effect?

Sanctuary says hi.

seems like your the one who hasn't played.

Don't you think that there is a difference between controlling husks and Reapers?

the only diffrence is that  Controllign a reaper is a bigger chlange, the fact they were able to overide ths singal for the husks  means that it is posible they even said it.

[draken-heart]

all three endings are hypocritical for Paragon Shep. like the Destroy/rewrite the heretics in ME2, neither choice was truly paragon, only rewrite seemed more paragon than destroy.

that is of the end is taken literally.

not  saying IT is right, i voice my own opinion about the end being a battle of Shepard vs. Shepard.

Modifié par draken-heart, 28 mai 2012 - 10:29 .

[estebanus]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Destorying the collector base wasn't renagade.

Renagade is all about using the  lives of others to your advantage. i can't belive you missed that.

estebanus wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

the IT is fan ****** pure and simple

I could say that control is for the people with no morals whatsoever, who chose something that betrays everything you stood for the last 100+ hours just because the leader of an enemy responsible for the destruction of countless of civilizations told you so. 

i think comiting genocide on your allies and betraying a buch of your freinds like you do in destory show a bigger lack of morals and betrayal opposed to sacrafcing yourself so that every one else will have the right ot live with out conditons

I personally don't agree with that, but it sets up a finality with about the same reasoning as what you said.

Not really iam talking about the actual game  not some  bs some guys on the internet came up with.

And taking control of something nobody should control is any better? Is it truly better to do that which has no guarantee that the reapers will be gone forever? You don't betray your allies in destroy. You do exactly what they wanted. Did the Geth or EDI ever say that the reapers should be controlled? Hell, the Geth prime on Earth even says that there will be no more compromise with the reapers. Would controlling them not be a compromise?

You don't betray anyone in destroy, not the Geth, EDI, or anyone else. Nobody wanted the reapers to live through this. As a matter of fact, betraying them would be letting the reapers live on. Which you do in control and synthesis.

In destroy, you also don't betray your own morals. Your primary target was always to destroy the reapers. This goal is also shared by each of your allies. Nobody ever wanted the reapers to live on.

[MerchantGOL]

draken-heart wrote...

all three endings are hypocritical for Paragon Shep. like the Destroy/rewrite the heretics in ME2, neither choice was truly paragon, only rewrite seemed more paragon than destroy.

You got paragon points for it, so it was the paragon choice.

[Uncle Jo]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Control is not the paragon option for any reason. You're basically enslaving an advanced and intelligent race of synthetic/organic hybrids. You're also becoming the biggest hypocrite in ME history: you tell TIM not minutes beforehand that he can't possibly control the Reapers, that to do so is insanity. The mere fact it's what TIM wanted shows how twisted the option is.

I also am not convinced the Catalyst was totally honest with Shepard that he/she could actually control the Reapers indefinitely. There's no way to know for sure.

Despite the fact the color representation is blue, this is not a paragon option. Paragon Shepard would be vehemently against having this kind of power, or using an intelligent race as tools. IMO, paragon Shepard would do what he/she set out to do: destroy the Reapers. It's definitely the lesser of the three evils (Synthesis is a just an amoral choice as the others) because it will, for sure, end the Reaper threat once and for all. They don't exist, which means there is no potential in the future for them to ever return. Like I said, I'm not convinced anyone can know for sure if Shepard can control them indefinitely, that's a huge and dangerous assumption to make.

Exactly my point. It seems that a five minutes chit-chat with the space troll is enough to make some people totally forget what they're fighting for or what they've learned during the game. What kind of terrifying threat are the Reapers. And what Shep did say to TIM before meeting the brat

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 28 mai 2012 - 10:38 .

[Seival]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The greatest and most good choice doesn't necessarily have to involve martyrdom. Personally that's the way I feel about ME3 ending. But that's because I don't trust the catalyst, and the more he spoke the less my Shepard was MY Shepard.

I'm paragon to the bone, through and through, so to say that Destroy is the renegade choice I strongly disagree, this isn't because of my bias towards the catalyst but because I don't believe there is a paragon/renegade choice in any of the 3 as Bioware have left too little after the actions to determine the best result (except for Synthesis).

If you are really pure paragon, then you will prefer to sacrifice only yourself and save everyone else, instead of sacrificing millions people to save yourself, reunite with your love interest, and provide everyone with unknown future. Even dead Reapers are a great threat with unknown consequences.

...Tell me, how your "paragon" Shepard can look in the mirrior and into the love interest's eyes after Destroy? True paragon will commit suicide after that... Just like Tali, if you betrayed her on Rannoch.

Modifié par Seival, 28 mai 2012 - 10:33 .

[Jadebaby]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Control is not the paragon option for any reason. You're basically enslaving an advanced and intelligent race of synthetic/organic hybrids. You're also becoming the biggest hypocrite in ME history: you tell TIM not minutes beforehand that he can't possibly control the Reapers, that to do so is insanity. The mere fact it's what TIM wanted shows how twisted the option is.

I also am not convinced the Catalyst was totally honest with Shepard that he/she could actually control the Reapers indefinitely. There's no way to know for sure.

Despite the fact the color representation is blue, this is not a paragon option. Paragon Shepard would be vehemently against having this kind of power, or using an intelligent race as tools. IMO, paragon Shepard would do what he/she set out to do: destroy the Reapers. It's definitely the lesser of the three evils (Synthesis is a just an amoral choice as the others) because it will, for sure, end the Reaper threat once and for all. They don't exist, which means there is no potential in the future for them to ever return. Like I said, I'm not convinced anyone can know for sure if Shepard can control them indefinitely, that's a huge and dangerous assumption to make.

It was a good point about Paragon Shepard being against using that kind of power as tools. And your next point is honestly what made me ultimately choose destroy anyway. I had heard that Shepard died no matter, so I figured I might as well do what I came here to do.

It was such a failed twist.

Through that whole conversation I swear I could hear "Whaat A Twist!" from M. Night Shyamalan in Robot Chicken.

[estebanus]

Seival wrote...


Well, it's not just my opinion on "IT". BioWare already told that "IT" is not an option.

No they didn't. If they did, I'd like to have a link to where they said it. As far as I remember, they said they wouldn't comment on it at all.

[MerchantGOL]

estebanus wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Destorying the collector base wasn't renagade.

Renagade is all about using the  lives of others to your advantage. i can't belive you missed that.

estebanus wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

the IT is fan ****** pure and simple

I could say that control is for the people with no morals whatsoever, who chose something that betrays everything you stood for the last 100+ hours just because the leader of an enemy responsible for the destruction of countless of civilizations told you so. 

i think comiting genocide on your allies and betraying a buch of your freinds like you do in destory show a bigger lack of morals and betrayal opposed to sacrafcing yourself so that every one else will have the right ot live with out conditons

I personally don't agree with that, but it sets up a finality with about the same reasoning as what you said.

Not really iam talking about the actual game  not some  bs some guys on the internet came up with.

And taking control of something nobody should control is any better? Is it truly better to do that which has no guarantee that the reapers will be gone forever? You don't betray your allies in destroy. You do exactly what they wanted. Did the Geth or EDI ever say that the reapers should be controlled? Hell, the Geth prime on Earth even says that there will be no more compromise with the reapers. Would controlling them not be a compromise? 

Its not a comprimise, its domination, you aren't giving them any thing, they might contiue their pale mockery of life but you are calling the shots now.

You don't betray anyone in destroy, not the Geth, EDI, or anyone else. Nobody wanted the reapers to live through this. As a matter of fact, betraying them would be letting the reapers live on. Which you do in control and synthesis.

Killing them is a betrayel, not givign them say in their fates is a betrayle, its a betrayel to each and every one fo them espcaily legion. If you dont feel that genocide is a betrayel then  it just shows you are untrustworthy. and you prove the catalyst right, Organics value the lives of synthietic sless then their own, and synthetics cnanot trust organics

In destroy, you also don't betray your own morals. Your primary target was always to destroy the reapers. This goal is also shared by each of your allies. Nobody ever wanted the reapers to live on.

Wrong the goal was to stop them, that meant destroyign them cause their was no other path left open.

The only betrayel of morals is the betrayal of your synthetic allies you convinced to fight for your cause, but were willing to throw away for the cheap, cowardly, simple solution

Modifié par MerchantGOL, 28 mai 2012 - 10:37 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well, the whole crux of Control is this: Yes, the reapers will obey you, but what will you be allowed to do with them? Will you have absolute control? Or will you just be in charge of the cycles?

That has yet to be clarified. I don't believe the Catalyst told us anything false. I just don't think that it told us everything in about the Control and Synthesis choices. Why?

See, when you have relatively low EMS and get there it's kind of angry with you because you only have the destroy option available. Yes, you're going to fry your planet, but still, your only option is to fry the reapers as well. So I chose the destroy option.

So don't go making the assumption you're going to be able to do good with the reapers. But thank you for ending the cycle for another 50,000 yrs. By then anyone who is alive in this cycle won't care because they'll be dead, although the Geth Primes might have a surprise for you.

PS: don't tell me I killed the Geth by choosing destroy -- the Quarians already had done that. 

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 28 mai 2012 - 10:40 .

[MerchantGOL]

Uncle Jo wrote...

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Control is not the paragon option for any reason. You're basically enslaving an advanced and intelligent race of synthetic/organic hybrids. You're also becoming the biggest hypocrite in ME history: you tell TIM not minutes beforehand that he can't possibly control the Reapers, that to do so is insanity. The mere fact it's what TIM wanted shows how twisted the option is.

I also am not convinced the Catalyst was totally honest with Shepard that he/she could actually control the Reapers indefinitely. There's no way to know for sure.

Despite the fact the color representation is blue, this is not a paragon option. Paragon Shepard would be vehemently against having this kind of power, or using an intelligent race as tools. IMO, paragon Shepard would do what he/she set out to do: destroy the Reapers. It's definitely the lesser of the three evils (Synthesis is a just an amoral choice as the others) because it will, for sure, end the Reaper threat once and for all. They don't exist, which means there is no potential in the future for them to ever return. Like I said, I'm not convinced anyone can know for sure if Shepard can control them indefinitely, that's a huge and dangerous assumption to make.

Exactly my point. It seems that a five minutes chit-chat with the space troll is enough to make some people totally forget what they're fighting for or what they've earned during the game. What kind of terrifying are the Reapers. And what Shep did say to TIM before meeting the brat

yeah keep acting like shepard wasn't acting  on a very small percentage fo the full information.

[Uncle Jo]

MerchantGOL wrote...


the only diffrence is that  Controllign a reaper is a bigger chlange, the fact they were able to overide ths singal for the husks  means that it is posible they even said it.

A significant hurdle. Don't you even realize that there is absolutely no comparison between a mindless husk and a REAPER ?

BTW how are you going to control them if you're dead?

The Brat:
"Or do you think you can control us?" (1st warning)

"You will die. You'll lose everything that you have". (2nd warning)

After that if you still chose control...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 28 mai 2012 - 10:40 .

[estebanus]

Seival wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The greatest and most good choice doesn't necessarily have to involve martyrdom. Personally that's the way I feel about ME3 ending. But that's because I don't trust the catalyst, and the more he spoke the less my Shepard was MY Shepard.

I'm paragon to the bone, through and through, so to say that Destroy is the renegade choice I strongly disagree, this isn't because of my bias towards the catalyst but because I don't believe there is a paragon/renegade choice in any of the 3 as Bioware have left too little after the actions to determine the best result (except for Synthesis).

If you are really pure paragon, then you will prefer to sacrifice only yourself and save everyone else, instead of sacrificing millions people to save yourself, reunite with your love interest, and provide everyone with unknown future. Even dead Reapers are a great threat with unknown consequences.

...Tell me, how your "paragon" Shepard can look in the mirrior and into the love interest's eyes after Destroy? True paragon will commit suicide after that... Just like Tali, if you betrayed her on Rannoch.

A true paragon would have seen the choice as the right one. They would have seen rejecting the enemy's philosophy as the right choice, no matter what. They would have seen that they didn't compromise who they are, and that staying true to their own and their allies' beliefs was right, no matter what happened.

Also, Shepard doesn't know that s/he will survive at the end of destroy. Therefor, you saying that Shepard doing it to save him/herself is invalid.

[draken-heart]

MerchantGOL wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

all three endings are hypocritical for Paragon Shep. like the Destroy/rewrite the heretics in ME2, neither choice was truly paragon, only rewrite seemed more paragon than destroy.

You got paragon points for it, so it was the paragon choice.

true paragons would not brainwash an organic race though, and paragon options on that quest point to both as being unwelcome choices for paragons to take.

like i said though, rewrite seemed more paragon so you got paragon points for it...

Modifié par draken-heart, 28 mai 2012 - 10:40 .

[MerchantGOL]

Uncle Jo wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...


the only diffrence is that  Controllign a reaper is a bigger chlange, the fact they were able to overide ths singal for the husks  means that it is posible they even said it.

A significant hurdle. Don't you even realize that there is absolutely no comparison between a mindless husk and a REAPER ? 

But their is, The reapers aserrt their control through their husks , if that cna eb overidden, then so can the reapers minds, It is a big hurdel but posible none the less. the reapers control and concouness are not infaliable

BTW how are you going to control them if you're dead?

*facepalms* Obviously you are only dead in a phisical sens your concusoness is still alive.

This is a childslevel scifi trope

[MerchantGOL]

estebanus wrote...

Seival wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The greatest and most good choice doesn't necessarily have to involve martyrdom. Personally that's the way I feel about ME3 ending. But that's because I don't trust the catalyst, and the more he spoke the less my Shepard was MY Shepard.

I'm paragon to the bone, through and through, so to say that Destroy is the renegade choice I strongly disagree, this isn't because of my bias towards the catalyst but because I don't believe there is a paragon/renegade choice in any of the 3 as Bioware have left too little after the actions to determine the best result (except for Synthesis).

If you are really pure paragon, then you will prefer to sacrifice only yourself and save everyone else, instead of sacrificing millions people to save yourself, reunite with your love interest, and provide everyone with unknown future. Even dead Reapers are a great threat with unknown consequences.

...Tell me, how your "paragon" Shepard can look in the mirrior and into the love interest's eyes after Destroy? True paragon will commit suicide after that... Just like Tali, if you betrayed her on Rannoch.

A true paragon would have seen the choice as the right one. They would have seen rejecting the enemy's philosophy as the right choice, 

But you arent. you are takaign the enmeys choice of destroy, that confirms synthetics and organics cannot live together and peace.

[jijeebo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


See, when you have relatively low EMS and get there it's kind of angry with you because you only have the destroy option available. Yes, you're going to fry your planet, but still, your only option is to fry the reapers as well. So I chose the destroy option.

Isn't Star-Jar equally annoyed if you have low-EMS and only Control available?

[CDRSkyShepard]

Seival wrote...
If you are really pure paragon, then you will prefer to sacrifice only yourself and save everyone else, instead of sacrificing millions people to save yourself, reunite with your love interest, and provide everyone with unknown future. Even dead Reapers are a great threat with unknown consequences.

...Tell me, how your "paragon" Shepard can look in the mirrior and into the love interest's eyes after Destroy? True paragon will commit suicide after that... Just like Tali, if you betrayed her on Rannoch.

Alive Reapers are even more dangerous, especially when we have no idea if we can actually control the Reapers indefinitely.

Destroy is an option that should have destroyed Shepard, too, if it is to believe that it would destroy all synthetic life (also synthetic/organic hybrids, because that's what the Reapers are). The explosion itself should have killed Shepard. In actuality, if there wasn't a breath scene with Destroy, Control would be the only real option where Shepard could survive. In the beta leaks, Control only destroyed Shepard's physical being, and that was heavily emphasized. It's even heavily implied in the endings we got. So it wasn't a true "sacrifice."

Defeating the Reapers was going to cost a lot, and Shepard knows this, whether Paragon or Renegade. Paragon Shepard would, of course, want to eliminate as much collateral damage as possible, but I don't think Paragon Shepard would allow him/herself the kind of power that Control implies. My Paragon was also severely skeptical that it would be a permanent solution. Deal with dead Reapers later, but alive reapers are infinitely more of a threat, no matter who controls them...

Besides, wasn't the Catalyst's main point that the synthetic servants would always rise up against their masters?

[Jadebaby]

Seival wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The greatest and most good choice doesn't necessarily have to involve martyrdom. Personally that's the way I feel about ME3 ending. But that's because I don't trust the catalyst, and the more he spoke the less my Shepard was MY Shepard.

I'm paragon to the bone, through and through, so to say that Destroy is the renegade choice I strongly disagree, this isn't because of my bias towards the catalyst but because I don't believe there is a paragon/renegade choice in any of the 3 as Bioware have left too little after the actions to determine the best result (except for Synthesis).

If you are really pure paragon, then you will prefer to sacrifice only yourself and save everyone else, instead of sacrificing millions people to save yourself, reunite with your love interest, and provide everyone with unknown future. Even dead Reapers are a great threat with unknown consequences.

...Tell me, how your "paragon" Shepard can look in the mirrior and into the love interest's eyes after Destroy? True paragon will commit suicide after that... Just like Tali, if you betrayed her on Rannoch.

I didn't betray her on Rannoch because I got the Quarians and Geth to work together. Which is one of the main reasons why I don't trust the Catalyst.
The problem here is everything you're basing your evidence of is the catalyst's word. It's sometimes that which is the hardest thing for a pure paragon person to deal with, filtering the bs from whats real.. the nicer you get, the more gullable you can become.
Also, for you to say that a "true" paragon would commit suicide after that is just completely false and going against any true Paragon's value of life. A true Paragon would never take their own life, period.
There is no difference in the casualty rate whether you choose control or destroy other than the synthetic lives. And that's also assuming you trust the Catalyst. In my destroy ending everyone survives.
Lastly, you said "Even dead Reapers are a great threat with unknown consequences."  It's quotes like these (making the Reapers seem so godlike) that really rules out control for me. Any attempt to control something like that, you're playing with fire.

[Uncle Jo]

MerchantGOL wrote...

1. But their is, The reapers aserrt their control through their husks , if that cna eb overidden, then so can the reapers minds, It is a big hurdel but posible none the less. the reapers control and concouness are not infaliable

2. *facepalms* Obviously you are only dead in a phisical sens your concusoness is still alive.
This is a childslevel scifi trope

1. See David Archer and the Project Overlord to have just a small idea of what you're trying to do.
2. But the Catalyst doesn't lie... If it was just a "physical" death, he'd tell you you'll lose your body and everything you have. He tells here explicitly : "You'll die".
Or he's trustworthy or to take literally, only when it's convenient to you?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 28 mai 2012 - 10:52 .

[Jamie9]

The way I see it: Paragons are there to save people. Renegades are there to destroy their enemies, thus saving people.

It's that slight change in mindset that is the difference between the two. I've come to the conclusion that, as of what we know, control is the paragon option and destroy the renegade. Synthesis is the crazy option (none of my Sheps would take it).

Of course a renegade can pick control and justify it, and a paragon can pick destroy and justify it. But the choices were seemingly designed to counter each other.

[estebanus]

MerchantGOL wrote...

estebanus wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Destorying the collector base wasn't renagade.

Renagade is all about using the  lives of others to your advantage. i can't belive you missed that.

estebanus wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

the IT is fan ****** pure and simple

I could say that control is for the people with no morals whatsoever, who chose something that betrays everything you stood for the last 100+ hours just because the leader of an enemy responsible for the destruction of countless of civilizations told you so. 

i think comiting genocide on your allies and betraying a buch of your freinds like you do in destory show a bigger lack of morals and betrayal opposed to sacrafcing yourself so that every one else will have the right ot live with out conditons

I personally don't agree with that, but it sets up a finality with about the same reasoning as what you said.

Not really iam talking about the actual game  not some  bs some guys on the internet came up with.

And taking control of something nobody should control is any better? Is it truly better to do that which has no guarantee that the reapers will be gone forever? You don't betray your allies in destroy. You do exactly what they wanted. Did the Geth or EDI ever say that the reapers should be controlled? Hell, the Geth prime on Earth even says that there will be no more compromise with the reapers. Would controlling them not be a compromise? 

Its not a comprimise, its domination, you aren't giving them any thing, they might contiue their pale mockery of life but you are calling the shots now.

You don't betray anyone in destroy, not the Geth, EDI, or anyone else. Nobody wanted the reapers to live through this. As a matter of fact, betraying them would be letting the reapers live on. Which you do in control and synthesis.

Killing them is a betrayel, not givign them say in their fates is a betrayle, its a betrayel to each and every one fo them espcaily legion. If you dont feel that genocide is a betrayel then  it just shows you are untrustworthy. and you prove the catalyst right, Organics value the lives of synthietic sless then their own, and synthetics cnanot trust organics

In destroy, you also don't betray your own morals. Your primary target was always to destroy the reapers. This goal is also shared by each of your allies. Nobody ever wanted the reapers to live on.

Wrong the goal was to stop them, that meant destroyign them cause their was no other path left open.

The only betrayel of morals is the betrayal of your synthetic allies you convinced to fight for your cause, but were willing to throw away for the cheap, cowardly, simple solution

You do NOT betray them. You do exactly what each one of them wanted. They all wanted to destroy the reapers. They did NOT want to control them. They wanted to see the reapers dead, even if it meant them getting killed in the process, ok? They were all prepared to die to defeat the reapers. And that is exactly what happens in destroy.

How can you say that Destroy results in Shepard rejecting his/her own morals? Control does that! For paragons, anyway. Control results in you accepting the morals of a man who has been indoctrinated for a very long time, and who stopped at nothing to complete his own goals, to satisfy his own ambition. You embrace the philosophy of one of your worst enemies by choosing control! Is that truly what your allies wanted? Is that truly what paragon Shep would have wanted?

How is it the simple solution? Synthesis is!  Synthesis tells you that all life will live forever together in peace if you jump into a beam. Everything will be harmony. That seems more like the simple solution, doesn't it?

Destroy is the hardest one to choose for people who actually decide to believe the leader of your worst enemy, because of what you think will happen. However, it is the only one where you truly reject the necessity of the reapers to solve anything. Hell, the damn thing is even portrayed by Anderson! Would you rather choose TIM than Anderson?
Anderson has always represented Shepard's good siede, no matter what, so if destroy truly were bad, why would it be pertrayed by your good side?

[Seival]

Uncle Jo wrote...

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Control is not the paragon option for any reason. You're basically enslaving an advanced and intelligent race of synthetic/organic hybrids. You're also becoming the biggest hypocrite in ME history: you tell TIM not minutes beforehand that he can't possibly control the Reapers, that to do so is insanity. The mere fact it's what TIM wanted shows how twisted the option is.

I also am not convinced the Catalyst was totally honest with Shepard that he/she could actually control the Reapers indefinitely. There's no way to know for sure.

Despite the fact the color representation is blue, this is not a paragon option. Paragon Shepard would be vehemently against having this kind of power, or using an intelligent race as tools. IMO, paragon Shepard would do what he/she set out to do: destroy the Reapers. It's definitely the lesser of the three evils (Synthesis is a just an amoral choice as the others) because it will, for sure, end the Reaper threat once and for all. They don't exist, which means there is no potential in the future for them to ever return. Like I said, I'm not convinced anyone can know for sure if Shepard can control them indefinitely, that's a huge and dangerous assumption to make.

Exactly my point. It seems that a five minutes chit-chat with the space troll is enough to make some people totally forget what they're fighting for or what they've earned during the game. What kind of terrifying are the Reapers. And what Shep did say to TIM before meeting the brat

Reapers were intended to be just tools. It's clear that they use current Catalist way of thinking. So Control is not an enslavement. If the Reapers ever had an independent mind, they would rebel agains the Catalist long long ago.

TIM was right about Control possibility indeed, and this doesn't make Control a renegade option, no matter the TIM is pure renegade. TIM insisted that the Reapers CAN be Controlled, but almost noone believed him... But he WAS right.

In the end Shepard understood that Control is really possible and started to consider it as a valid option. And everything that Paragon Shepard told to TIM on the Citadel just proves that Shepard is truly ready to Control the Reapers.



Control is true Paragon option. That's why the blue color is used for it. It's not a mistake, it was intended.

[Uncle Jo]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


I didn't betray her on Rannoch because I got the Quarians and Geth to work together. Which is one of the main reasons why I don't trust the Catalyst.
The problem here is everything you're basing your evidence of is the catalyst's word. It's sometimes that which is the hardest thing for a pure paragon person to deal with, filtering the bs from whats real.. the nicer you get, the more gullable you can become.
Also, for you to say that a "true" paragon would commit suicide after that is just completely false and going against any true Paragon's value of life. A true Paragon would never take their own life, period.
There is no difference in the casualty rate whether you choose control or destroy other than the synthetic lives. And that's also assuming you trust the Catalyst. In my destroy ending everyone survives.
Lastly, you said "Even dead Reapers are a great threat with unknown consequences."  It's quotes like these (making the Reapers seem so godlike) that really rules out control for me. Any attempt to control something like that, you're playing with fire.

Very well said. Hats off to you!

[CDRSkyShepard]

Uncle Jo wrote...
1. See David Archer and the Project Overlord to have just a small idea of what you're trying to do.
2. But the Catalyst doesn't lie... If it was just a "physical" death, he'd tell you you'll lose your body and everything you have. He tells here explicitly : "You'll die".
Or he's trustworthy or to take literally, only when it's convenient to you?

How do you control something when you're dead? Truly dead? You're not doing much of anything if you're actually dead...which means if you're really dead, the joke's on you and the Reapers can keep on reaping, no?

Edit: Just clarifying a point, not directed solely at you, Jo. Lol. Sorry if I confused anyone there.

Modifié par CDRSkyShepard, 28 mai 2012 - 10:55 .