4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

Doesn't the Catalyst actually say about control that it's not a permenant solution either, and when the time comes of the next uprising of AI's Shep will be forced to bring in the Reapers, so to speak?

[MerchantGOL]

Uncle Jo wrote...

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.

Project overlord was tehncialy a sucesse in what they set out to do. Had it been shepard they hooked up to the torturre chair it would of gone along swimmingly

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".

What he actualy says is vauge, you do die in the very literal of sense sbut your conchouness moves on, hence why you are able to control them

[estebanus]

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

I see it more as both destroy and control applying to the different natures of paragons and renegades. Both are truly grey in their area, which is why both would probably choose it. Both have things going for them, and both have things going against them.

[MerchantGOL]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

Doesn't the Catalyst actually say about control that it's not a permenant solution either, and when the time comes of the next uprising of AI's Shep will be forced to bring in the Reapers, so to speak?

no he dosen't, in fact when asked he said "yes there will be peace"

[Jadebaby]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

Doesn't the Catalyst actually say about control that it's not a permenant solution either, and when the time comes of the next uprising of AI's Shep will be forced to bring in the Reapers, so to speak?

no he dosen't, in fact when asked he said "yes there will be peace"

Okay well then that's my next question. Synthesis is supposed to stop the Reaper cycle by combining everyone (derp). Destroy stops it because they all die, albeit a temporary solution (supposedly).

So how does control stop the next technological singularity uprising?

[Jamie9]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

Doesn't the Catalyst actually say about control that it's not a permenant solution either, and when the time comes of the next uprising of AI's Shep will be forced to bring in the Reapers, so to speak?

Even if it was impossible to destroy the Reapers by flying them into a sun or self-sabotage, you could hide the Reapers in Dark Space and listen in on communications. See if the Catalyst was right. If he was wrong, no need to do anything, just let them run out of power. If, though, that millions of years old being was correct, you can swoop in, wipe out the synthetics (who would be trying to wipe out all life, all diversity), then allow the organics to try again.

It's the perfect paragon option IMO.

[CDRSkyShepard]

Seival wrote...
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.

The radiation pulse used to destroy the Collector base was also blue. Color is irrelevant. Siding with TIM all throughout ME2 was a renegade option, why would siding with TIM right at the last minute of ME3 be paragon all of the sudden?

The Catalyst did use the Reapers - an intelligent race - as tools, and he created them. That means he's no better than the quarians who wanted to destroy the geth when they became intelligent. To use intelligent anything as a tool is slavery, and the Catalyst is the worst offender. Paragon Shepard would never enslave another race, no matter what they have done. I think Paragon Shepard would have even released the Reapers from the Catalyst with no guarantee that they'd behave rather than let them continue to be enslaved by the Catalyst. ParagonShep took the same kind of gamble in trusting the geth in both ME2 and ME3.

Who said that the Reapers never thought about rebelling? Their processes are very slow and deliberate, as mentioned by Vigil when talking about Sovereign in ME1. Just because they hadn't rebelled in millions of years (which is probably not that long by the standards of a race that lives for as long as they have), doesn't mean they never would. The Catalyst says it himself...the created will always rebel against their creators. The fact he even created the Reapers with that philosophy blows my mind. Shows how poorly written all three options are.

The Reapers are intelligent. Sovereign and Harbinger proved that beyond a doubt. The fact of the matter remains: Control is no better than slavery, and Paragon Shepard would never bend an intelligent race to his/her will.

[MerchantGOL]

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]MerchantGOL wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]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.

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]MerchantGOL wrote...

the IT is fan ****** pure and simple[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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

[quote]I personally don't agree with that, but it sets up a finality with about the same reasoning as what you said.[/quote] Not really iam talking about the actual game  not some  bs some guys on the internet came up with.


[/quote]

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? [/quote] 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.

[quote]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. [/quote] 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

[quote]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. [/quote] 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


[/quote]

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.[/quote] 

WRONG.

The Geth Watned a Future, they wanted to live, You took that away from them, You Did betray them! 

They all fought for the right to live  on after the reapers were gone.

[quote]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?[/quote] Being a a paragon means accepting diffrent poitns of veiw, and Trying to save as many lives as posible despite the hardships. You don't Embrace the Reapers ideals that is a retarded statment. that maybe valid if we were talkign about synthisis, but were not. Controll isn't the reapers gettign a win or gttign a draw, it is you taking over their leader ship snd telling them to GTFO. that isnt a comprimis that is a very utter defeat

[quote]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? [/quote] thats still more complex then just killing the reapers

[quote]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. [/quote] no its not simply killing your enemy and scraficign good people has alwas been the bllunt lazy rengade awnser  justified by "atleast their dead"

[quote]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?[/quote] that is done to show the grey complex area. jyst because anderson apporved it dosen't mean it was the right call. just like just because tim thoght some thing was a good idea dosen't make it bad, you should be making the choice on your own perception not because of the wapred father figures

[estebanus]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

Doesn't the Catalyst actually say about control that it's not a permenant solution either, and when the time comes of the next uprising of AI's Shep will be forced to bring in the Reapers, so to speak?

no he dosen't, in fact when asked he said "yes there will be peace"

Okay well then that's my next question. Synthesis is supposed to stop the Reaper cycle by combining everyone (derp). Destroy stops it because they all die, albeit a temporary solution (supposedly).

So how does control stop the next technological singularity uprising?

It doesn't.

[estebanus]

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Modifié par estebanus, 28 mai 2012 - 11:06 .

[jijeebo]

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because f*** the alternatives!

[CroGamer002]

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

[Jadebaby]

Jamie9 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

Doesn't the Catalyst actually say about control that it's not a permenant solution either, and when the time comes of the next uprising of AI's Shep will be forced to bring in the Reapers, so to speak?

Even if it was impossible to destroy the Reapers by flying them into a sun or self-sabotage, you could hide the Reapers in Dark Space and listen in on communications. See if the Catalyst was right. If he was wrong, no need to do anything, just let them run out of power. If, though, that millions of years old being was correct, you can swoop in, wipe out the synthetics (who would be trying to wipe out all life, all diversity), then allow the organics to try again.

It's the perfect paragon option IMO.

But that's the problem, you wouldn't be letting the organics try again because you wouldn't be restarting anything, the only reason the 50,000 years thing works is because they don't know why they're being butchered.
If you swooped in to eliminate the Synthetics, it would raise a whole lot of new problems with the organics against you. Intelligent life is curious. They would want answers.

[MerchantGOL]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Seival wrote...
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.

The radiation pulse used to destroy the Collector base was also blue. Color is irrelevant. Siding with TIM all throughout ME2 was a renegade option, why would siding with TIM right at the last minute of ME3 be paragon all of the sudden?

 Irony

Who said that the Reapers never thought about rebelling? Their processes are very slow and deliberate, as mentioned by Vigil when talking about Sovereign in ME1. Just because they hadn't rebelled in millions of years (which is probably not that long by the standards of a race that lives for as long as they have), doesn't mean they never would. The Catalyst says it himself...the created will always rebel against their creators. The fact he even created the Reapers with that philosophy blows my mind. Shows how poorly written all three options are.

He is areaper so for them to rebel they would have to rebel aginst themselves, 

The Reapers are intelligent. Sovereign and Harbinger proved that beyond a doubt. The fact of the matter remains: Control is no better than slavery, and Paragon Shepard would never bend an intelligent race to his/her will.

By that logic a Pargaon shepard should neve use dominate , AI hack, or Sabatoge, Paragon Shepard is far morlikley to Take comand of the reapers then murder an entire race.

[balance5050]

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

The catalyst was just bending the truth, to dissuade you from destruction, they didn't design the crucible to kill the geth, they designed it to kill the reapers.

[CDRSkyShepard]

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

Genocide is awful (all the choices are awful) but the way I see it, you're given the choice to:

a) Sacrifice the geth (genocide, yes) to save everyone else
Force the Reapers into slavery with no guarantees it would work long-term, or
c) Force a genetic re-write of everyone's bodies, synthetic and organic alike: forced evolution

IMO, Shep has no right to choose any of these. However, I think that the geth truly want the destruction of the Reapers versus anything else (true, who knows what they would want, but they joined the fight to destroy the Reapers) and they have already proven they were willing to make enormous sacrifices to save others. They would be remembered as martyred heroes of the galaxy. It's not a perfect solution, but Destroy is the lesser of the three evils because it actually brings an end to the Reapers and might actually break the cycle of violence between synthetics and organics. The Catalyst says it will continue, but who in their right mind takes the Catalyst at his word? Who also says that we can't bring the geth back? Who says it even destroys all synthetics anyway when Shepard can survive? There are too many unknowns for us to say which choice is superior for certain, but one thing IS certain: Destroy is the only option that allows you to do what you originally set out to do, and that is to send the Reapers to hell once and for all.

[MerchantGOL]

balance5050 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

The catalyst was just bending the truth, to dissuade you from destruction, they didn't design the crucible to kill the geth, they designed it to kill the reapers.

Bull ****.

[jijeebo]

balance5050 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

The catalyst was just bending the truth, to dissuade you from destruction, they didn't design the crucible to kill the geth, they designed it to kill the reapers.

It wasn't designed to set Earth on fire but it can...

[balance5050]

MerchantGOL wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

The catalyst was just bending the truth, to dissuade you from destruction, they didn't design the crucible to kill the geth, they designed it to kill the reapers.

Bull ****.

Yep, that would be Andersons response to the starkid for sure..

[Aaleel]

Meh...wasn't interested in spending millenia tied to the Citadel as the new catalyst. Control is never absolute. The created will always rebel against the creator(s) right?

To quote Ripley in Aliens, destroy was "the only way to be sure."

[estebanus]

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

Ah, you see, that is exactly what I was trying to point out.

You can't put paragon/renegade on control or destroy, because both are evil in their own way. If you think control is paragon because it's blue, you're an idiot, and the same goes with those who see destroy as renegade because it's red.

Fact is, you cannot apply paragon or renegade to either of them, because both have their negative sides.

In control, you enslave an entire sentient species.

In destroy, you commit genocide on synthetic life.

Both aren't renegade, and both aren't paragon. There are just different personal perceptions on what is right.

[balance5050]

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

The catalyst was just bending the truth, to dissuade you from destruction, they didn't design the crucible to kill the geth, they designed it to kill the reapers.

It wasn't designed to set Earth on fire but it can...

Only fail Shep gets that ending.

[MerchantGOL]

estebanus wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Slavery: Because that's what a paragon would do!

(thx Byne)

Genocide: Because that's what a paragon would do!



See, I can play the same game.

Ah, you see, that is exactly what I was trying to point out.

You can't put paragon/renegade on control or destroy, because both are evil in their own way. If you think control is paragon because it's blue, you're an idiot, and the same goes with those who see destroy as renegade because it's red.

Fact is, you cannot apply paragon or renegade to either of them, because both have their negative sides.

In control, you enslave an entire sentient species.

In destroy, you commit genocide on synthetic life.

Both aren't renegade, and both aren't paragon. There are just different personal perceptions on what is right.

if Shepard is  willing to kill all the reapers despite alienment, i dont think he will give a **** about controling them.

[Jadebaby]

The main issue here is that I don't see any of the 3 ending choices as paragon/renegade options, at all. I've gone into it more before so I wont repeat myself there.
However, you guys do see it as paragon, and I think the fact that you push this belief, in and of itself, is not the paragon thing to do.
Paragon/Renegade is almost black and white decisions. The 3 endings are roughly the same shade of grey and that's all I'll say.

[D24O]

One of our units has used all its ammunition sir!