4520 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

HagarIshay wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Indeed. Evolution is often classified as a natural evil, as opposed to a moral evil.

If evolution did not happen, the human race would have died out a long time ago. It's required for life to continue, as you very clearly stated.

If you believe in the technological singularity, and you have a prejudice against AI, then synthesis could be perceived as required for life to continue. That's what the Catalyst is ultimately. He's a racist. And if you agree with his logic, then pick synthesis.

Jamie9, There can be people who simply think it's cool to make every person inside a game half synthetic. It does not mean they agree with the catlayst, however. And if they do, It's becuase of a reason. Even if we think the catalyst it a crazy racist, it does not necerecly mean he has nothing to base his craziness on.

Even if you don't agree with synthesis, there should not be so much insults over picking it. It's just someone's opinion. 

Though it doesn't change that the base motivation behind synthesis is racism, and imposing this change is completely immoral regardless if you agree with the Catalyst or not.
I've said many times that I'm a transhumanist myself, I find the concept of physical and mental cybernetic augmentation fascinating, and would volunteer for such things myself. However, such augmentation must come by informed choice. Forcing it on all beings is despicable.

[Jamie9]

HagarIshay wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Indeed. Evolution is often classified as a natural evil, as opposed to a moral evil.

If evolution did not happen, the human race would have died out a long time ago. It's required for life to continue, as you very clearly stated.

If you believe in the technological singularity, and you have a prejudice against AI, then synthesis could be perceived as required for life to continue. That's what the Catalyst is ultimately. He's a racist. And if you agree with his logic, then pick synthesis.

Jamie9, There can be people who simply think it's cool to make every person inside a game half synthetic. It does not mean they agree with the catlayst, however. And if they do, It's becuase of a reason. Even if we think the catalyst it a crazy racist, it does not necerecly mean he has nothing to base his craziness on.

Even if you don't agree with synthesis, there should not be so much insults over picking it. It's just someone's opinion. 

I'm calling their fictional character (Shepard) a racist, not them themselves. We all role-play our Shepards to some degree. I have a Shepard who is racist towards AI, I didn't mean to offend anyone personally. I don't know any of you.

Synthesis as an option is designed to solve the Catalyst's problem; the technological singularity. If you pick it "because it's cool to have synthetic parts" you are being very callous in making a decision for the future of a galaxy.

The Catalyst is racist because he believes organics are superior to synthetics, regardless of personality. That is the definition of racism. You can argue that he's right to be racist against AI, but it doesn't change the word's meaning.

[balance5050]

The Angry One wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Indeed. Evolution is often classified as a natural evil, as opposed to a moral evil.

If evolution did not happen, the human race would have died out a long time ago. It's required for life to continue, as you very clearly stated.

If you believe in the technological singularity, and you have a prejudice against AI, then synthesis could be perceived as required for life to continue. That's what the Catalyst is ultimately. He's a racist. And if you agree with his logic, then pick synthesis.

Jamie9, There can be people who simply think it's cool to make every person inside a game half synthetic. It does not mean they agree with the catlayst, however. And if they do, It's becuase of a reason. Even if we think the catalyst it a crazy racist, it does not necerecly mean he has nothing to base his craziness on.

Even if you don't agree with synthesis, there should not be so much insults over picking it. It's just someone's opinion. 

Though it doesn't change that the base motivation behind synthesis is racism, and imposing this change is completely immoral regardless if you agree with the Catalyst or not.
I've said many times that I'm a transhumanist myself, I find the concept of physical and mental cybernetic augmentation fascinating, and would volunteer for such things myself. However, such augmentation must come by informed choice. Forcing it on all beings is despicable.

Yeah, you know there would be some space hippies that would absolutly freak out if they weren't "all natural" anymore.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

Seival wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The ending for ME3 is not complicated. There's nothing to understand. 

But your confusion suggests otherwise.

Do point as to where I'm confused as opposed to stating the facts of the situation.

The very fact that you believe what you're stating are facts is a testament to your confusion.

The Angry One wrote...

You on the other hand have not made a single argument as to why Shepard is ready and worthy to take on the task of controlling the Reapers other than "Shepard's a good person", which has nothing to do with anything.

And just the same you've supplied no evidence of why he/she isn't. There's so much falsity in your arguments because they're based largely on your own assumptions as a product of your obvious negative emotional involvement in the topic, hence your constant petty attacks and insults of the people in this thread. Furthermore, no-one has gotten to the point of actually encountering the Catalyst and utilising the power of the Crucible, therefore your arguments about TIM and other pro-controllers being insane/indocrinated are completely invalid and irrelevant to Shepard.

Beyond all of this, we know Shepard ends the Reaper threat in all three endings. Meaning, once again, he/she is successful, regardless of your own personal need for some further form of cofirmation.

[Jamie9]

balance5050 wrote...
Yeah, you know there would be some space hippies that would absolutly freak out if they weren't "all natural" anymore.

That's the plot to Deus Ex right there. A game that I think did a great job of showcasing both sides, considering I'm transhumanist myself. I could actually relate with the anti-augmentations people in that game.

Of course, the Illuminati are in that game, but I took that out of the equation.

[pistolols]

Jamie9 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument. Evolution has always been forced anyway. Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me. In fact, it's cool. It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

That's not how evolution works. Like I said earlier, mutation of genes happens in the embyonic stages, and so the individuals themselves never change. They are born with slightly different genetics than their parents (very slightly) and they die with those same genes.

Synthesis changes genetics DURING people's lives. They actually experience the change. That is completely different, and in my opinion, morally repungent.

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...


...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument. Evolution has always been forced anyway. Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me. In fact, it's cool. It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

And you didn't understood square 1 either... EVOLUTION IS PART OF BEING AN ORGANIC BEING, SYNTHESIS IS NOT!

The nerve!

Forcing is bad no matter the result

we're just going in cricles now. i have already acknowledged it is not the same as darwinian evolution. In fact, i really wish you guys would just stop bringing up darwinian evolution.. it has nothing to do with this. Natural selection is one form of evolution, synthesis is presented as being another.  You're not gaining any ****ing ground by continually pointing out the difference, lol.  In both cases, we have no choice in the matter so the "lack of consent" argument is irrelevnt.  I under-****ing-stand the change is happening to the current generation during their life rather than slowly over time to their offspring. It's just that i don't really care because to me there is no negatives associated with it a la my give someone a million dollars to instantly evolve them into a rich person analogy.

'Forcing' is not bad no matter the result. I'm not sure how you could have possibly arrived at that conclusion. You were likely forced by law to attend school. The result is you can read and have this awesome discussion. It definitely sucked for 12 years, but it's not bad.

Modifié par pistolols, 31 mai 2012 - 05:59 .

[MegaSovereign]

It means that control is only ever presented as an idea by the indoctrinated and the insanely power hungry.

So Legion was indoctrinated when he claimed that it was possible to repurpose the geth heretics (AKA Control)?

No, it's nonsense because it's the delusional dream of a power hungry ego maniac.

What? That's very close-minded. TIM represents humanity's ambition. For example, when HIS OWN PEOPLE told him that bringing Shepard back to life is not possible, he did it anyway.

He saw the potential that harnessing Reaper tech has.Whether you agree with TIM or not, he believes he is doing the right thing in the long run.

EXCEPT IT WAS. The concept was always there! It was never declared impossible.
Also, the scale difference between saving the Collector base and controlling all Reapers is off the charts.

NO. The game NEVER tells you that controlling the Reapers using the crucible was even possible. You could MAYBE argue that the game hints during Sanctuary that you can control Reaper ground forces via indoctrination. But that's it.

You're now flip-flopping. Earlier you were arguing that Control was NEVER foreshadowed and that there was no reason to believe that it was a viable option.

That's not how indoctrination works. You're lead to believe that your goals and the Reaper's goals are one and the same, as with Saren. For TIM to be indoctrinated he would still have to believe he wants the Crucible intact

The Reapers goals and his goals were one in the same. The Reapers were trying to stop Shepard and company from DESTROYING them, and by twisting TIM's ideals of power/control they can do that. Nevermind the fact that the Reapers believed that Control wasn't even possible, they also knew that TIM could never do it as he was already under their control.

[mauro2222]

balance5050 wrote...

Yeah, you know there would be some space hippies that would absolutly freak out if they weren't "all natural" anymore.

And you have to respect that opinion... some people may freak out, others as me, see them as not necessary. I'm fine as I am but I also see the benefits of them...  I simply don't choose to use them.

[Jamie9]

pistolols wrote...

we're just going in cricles now. i have already acknowledged it is not the same as darwinian evolution. In fact, i really wish you guys would just stop bringing up darwinian evolution.. it has nothing to do with this. Natural selection is one form of evolution, synthesis is presented as being another. You're not gaining any ****ing ground by continually pointing out the difference, lol. I under-****ing-stand the change is happening to the current generation during their life rather than slowly over time to their offspring. It's just that i don't really care because to me there is no negatives associated with it a la my give someone a million dollars to instantly evolve them into a rich person analogy.

'Forcing' is not bad no matter the result. I'm not sure how you could have possibly arrived at that conclusion. You were likely forced by law to attend school. The result is you can read and have this awesome discussion. It definitely sucked for 12 years, but it's not bad.

You said that you weren't concerned with the forcing part and then made a comparison to darwinian evolution. You had to expect me to go into that. Your posts gave me the impression that you didn't quite understand, so I clarified. There's no need to curse.

There are actually people who would rather die than be "upgraded". Just as there are people that don't agree with donating organs to medical science after death. Now surely donating those organs would help people out? No negatives there?

Morals. Some people don't agree with it. You have to respect people's right to choose.

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So Legion was indoctrinated when he claimed that it was possible to repurpose the geth heretics (AKA Control)?

Geth are not Reapers.

What? That's very close-minded. TIM represents humanity's ambition. For example, when HIS OWN PEOPLE told him that bringing Shepard back to life is not possible, he did it anyway.

That changes the fact that he's a power-hungry maniac how?

He saw the potential that harnessing Reaper tech has.Whether you agree with TIM or not, he believes he is doing the right thing in the long run.

So did all of our worst dictators and war criminals.

NO. The game NEVER tells you that controlling the Reapers using the crucible was even possible. You could MAYBE argue that the game hints during Sanctuary that you can control Reaper ground forces via indoctrination. But that's it.

Javik flat out says that Prothean factions wished to use the Crucible to control the Reapers.

You're now flip-flopping. Earlier you were arguing that Control was NEVER foreshadowed and that there was no reason to believe that it was a viable option.

I said that control was never foreshadowed as an option that Shepard would take, because we are never allowed to roleplay Shepard in that direction, research into it or gain any perspective on it other than "control = indoctrinated = bad"

The Reapers goals and his goals were one in the same. The Reapers were trying to stop Shepard and company from DESTROYING them, and by twisting TIM's ideals of power/control they can do that. Nevermind the fact that the Reapers believed that Control wasn't even possible, they also knew that TIM could never do it as he was already under their control.

If TIM doesn't BELIEVE that his goals are viable and working then indoctrination has failed.
The reason Saren cooperates with Sovereign is because he believes he's saving his people and resisting indoctrination. Once he realises this isn't so he shoots himself.
Therefore, actively sabotaging the Crucible and preventing it's connection doesn't make sense. He flat out says he needs the Crucible, so he needs to believe  he's going to use it for his own ends.

[Ageless Face]

The Angry One wrote...

Though it doesn't change that the base motivation behind synthesis is racism, and imposing this change is completely immoral regardless if you agree with the Catalyst or not.
I've said many times that I'm a transhumanist myself, I find the concept of physical and mental cybernetic augmentation fascinating, and would volunteer for such things myself. However, such augmentation must come by informed choice. Forcing it on all beings is despicable.

I don't know about that. I personally don't think synthesis is the morally right, but does every person who choose it believe that the catalsyt is right, and organics should merge with synthetics because otherwise, the galaxy will be overrun by synthetics? I don't believe so. Some, like I said, thinks the option itself is interesting and worth picking even for the story itself. Some think upgrading the organics is worth it. Some probobly DO think the catalyst is right, of course. But racism does not have to be part of anything here.

Jamie9 wrote... 
I'm calling their fictional character (Shepard) a racist, not them themselves. We all role-play our Shepards to some degree. I have a Shepard who is racist towards AI, I didn't mean to offend anyone personally. I don't know any of you. 

Synthesis as an option is designed to solve the Catalyst's problem; the technological singularity. If you pick it "because it's cool to have synthetic parts" you are being very callous in making a decision for the future of a galaxy.

The Catalyst is racist because he believes organics are superior to synthetics, regardless of personality. That is the definition of racism. You can argue that he's right to be racist against AI, but it doesn't change the word's meaning.

 

Then I'm sorry for interpreting what you said in the wrong way.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 31 mai 2012 - 06:09 .

[Jamie9]

HagarIshay wrote...

Then I'm sorry for interpreting what you said in the wrong way.

No problem. It's very difficult to interpret the intents of posts on the internet. I should've made it more clear.

Though I understand what you mean - that people may choose synthesis for the benefits of the tech. Another point of view, I'll store it here in my brain. I like new perspectives. I eat 'em up.

[vallore]

pistolols wrote...

'Forcing' is not bad no matter the result. I'm not sure how you could have possibly arrived at that conclusion. You were likely forced by law to attend school. The result is you can read and have this awesome discussion. It definitely sucked for 12 years, but it's not bad.

Hmm,some people have myopia. They can use glasses or contact lenses to correct it. But now there is also the option of corrective surgery. The later releases the person of the need to use either glasses or contact lenses. In theory, it looks as a positive change.

Yet, not every person that could do it would do it. Would it be right to force them to do it? Just because we assume they would have a better life for it?

Just because one individual may not see downsides in a specific change of what another person is, it doesn’t mean the one changed won’t. For the one changed, “your” opinion is irrelevant, “his” own opinion is the only that matters. So, what right do “you” have to force such change?

None, in my book.

[The Angry One]

HagarIshay wrote...

I don't know about that. I personally don't think synthesis is the morally right, but does every person who choose it believe that the catalsyt is right, and organics should merge with synthetics because otherwise, the galaxy will be overrun by synthetics? I don't believe so. Some, like I said, thinks the option itself is interesting and worth picking even for the story itself. Some think upgrading the organics is worth it. Some probobly DO think the catalyst is right, of course. But racism does not have to be part of anything here.

Again the player choosing synthesis may not be racist but the fact remains that the Catalyst is, and the Catalyst desires synthesis above all else.
In any case the point is it's immoral because it's such an imposition. Regardless of what the individual player things is best, it doesn't change that Shepard is no one to make this decision for every being in the galaxy.

Now, a lot of people have chosen synthesis without understanding the implications, which isn't surprising. The ending is such a mess and the player is left feeling so shocked at what's just happened that they may not know what's happening. It doesn't help that the choices are set up so you will most likely stumble into synthesis by randomly walking about (gee I wonder why).

So in the end, I'd say choosing synthesis doesn't make you anything. Defending synthesis on the other hand..

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[MegaSovereign]

Geth are not Reapers.

And? My original point was the theme of control/destroy of a synthetic race was foreshadowed and used before. You were saying some BS about how it's "negative foreshadowing" which makes no sense. With the context given, plenty of people chose to repurpose the Geth despite Shepard and the crew initially thinking that it would be unethical.

So did all of our worst dictators and war criminals.

He's not a good guy, but his logic isn't as evil as you're trying to make it sound. You can disagree with his methods but his goals were always to stop the Reapers and secure human dominance. By controlling them, he can hit two birds with one stone. The Reapers used this ideal against him in order to make him turn on Shepard.

Javik flat out says that Prothean factions wished to use the Crucible to control the Reapers.

Yea, indoctrinated factions. No one even knew what the Crucible would do. We only know for sure that Control is possible right after the Catalyst himself tells us so and points us in the direction to do so.

I said that control was never foreshadowed as an option that Shepard would take, because we are never allowed to roleplay Shepard in that direction, research into it or gain any perspective on it other than "control = indoctrinated = bad"

Controlling your enemies and or their technology WAS foreshadowed in previous games. In ME2 you could role-play shepard into controlling both the Geth and the Collector Base. Sure this time around the scale is bigger but the idea remains the same. Either way control never does conflict with Shepard's established goal of STOPPING (not necessarily destroying) the Reapers that was set way back in ME1.

If TIM doesn't BELIEVE that his goals are viable and working then indoctrination has failed.
The reason Saren cooperates with Sovereign is because he believes he's saving his people and resisting indoctrination. Once he realises this isn't so he shoots himself.
Therefore, actively sabotaging the Crucible and preventing it's connection doesn't make sense. He flat out says he needs the Crucible, so he needs to believe he's going to use it for his own ends

Anndd so does TIM? He shoots himself as soon as you make him realize that he wasn't fullfilling his goals of controlling the Reapers. Besides at this point TIM has passed the "subtle indoctrination" phase CLEARLY since he looks like a goddamn husk during that scene.

[balance5050]

Controlling the Geth backfires because they still end up joining the reapers. It doesn't always work to force something on someone does it?

[Ageless Face]

The Angry One wrote...

Again the player choosing synthesis may not be racist but the fact remains that the Catalyst is, and the Catalyst desires synthesis above all else.
In any case the point is it's immoral because it's such an imposition. Regardless of what the individual player things is best, it doesn't change that Shepard is no one to make this decision for every being in the galaxy.

Now, a lot of people have chosen synthesis without understanding the implications, which isn't surprising. The ending is such a mess and the player is left feeling so shocked at what's just happened that they may not know what's happening. It doesn't help that the choices are set up so you will most likely stumble into synthesis by randomly walking about (gee I wonder why).

So in the end, I'd say choosing synthesis doesn't make you anything. Defending synthesis on the other hand..

Yet the catalyst is controling the reapers, so choosing to do that will also make Shepard a racist. And destroy is killing synthetics, saying they are not important enough to save them. Also, quite racist.

Really, all the options are have a racist sort of thinking to it. It's all comes to what you believe is the least racist, or bad, or stupid, etc. 

And I'll agree with you on the mess of the ending. Synthesis is too much of an unkown to make anything out of it, aside from green eyes. 

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

And? My original point was the theme of control/destroy of a synthetic race was foreshadowed and used before. You were saying some BS about how it's "negative foreshadowing" which makes no sense. With the context given, plenty of people chose to repurpose the Geth despite Shepard and the crew initially thinking that it would be unethical.

Come on now, saying that controlling the Geth (strictly speaking, rewriting the heretics is not this but let's assume it is for the sake of argument) is like one human controlling the Reapers is like saying my housecat is proof that I can train and control a pride of lions.

He's not a good guy, but his logic isn't as evil as you're trying to make it sound. You can disagree with his methods but his goals were always to stop the Reapers and secure human dominance. By controlling them, he can hit two birds with one stone. The Reapers used this ideal against him in order to make him turn on Shepard.

I never said his logic was evil, I said it was power hungry, selfish and - for all the game tells us right up until the end - completely misguided.

Yea, indoctrinated factions. No one even knew what the Crucible would do. We only know for sure that Control is possible right after the Catalyst himself tells us so and points us in the direction to do so.

The idea was there. Therefore, with the IDEA, Shepard should be able to express interest in it.
The fact is, Anderson/Hackett say destroy is the only option. Shepard agrees with them. If they want control as a viable option, why not have Shepard argue for it?

Controlling your enemies and or their technology WAS foreshadowed in previous games. In ME2 you could role-play shepard into controlling both the Geth and the Collector Base. Sure this time around the scale is bigger but the idea remains the same. Either way control never does conflict with Shepard's established goal of STOPPING (not necessarily destroying) the Reapers that was set way back in ME1.

The scale is all important! Controlling the Reapers should be an incredible undertaking, not just "Oh hey you can control all Reapers now".
The other situations aren't even the same. YOU do not control the Geth. You do not control Collectors (you kill them and take their stuff). Hell, Overlord is an entire DLC storyline about how having a human attempting to control Geth goes horribly, horribly wrong.

Anndd so does TIM? He shoots himself as soon as you make him realize that he wasn't fullfilling his goals of controlling the Reapers. Besides at this point TIM has passed the "subtle indoctrination" phase CLEARLY since he looks like a goddamn husk during that scene.

How about all the times before that he's actively sabotaging Crucible construction?
The difference between Saren and TIM is that up until Saren shoots himself, you can see how he deluded himself into thinking he was prevailing, because everything was going according to his plan anyway.
TIM? He's going against his own plan from the very beginning. He shouldn't have needed Shepard to convince him of anything, he was shooting himself in the foot long before then.

[MegaSovereign]

balance5050 wrote...

Controlling the Geth backfires because they still end up joining the reapers. It doesn't always work to force something on someone does it?

It backfires on the Quarians. If you choose peace however the amount of war assets basically remain the same. If you side with the Geth, you get the maximum amount of Geth war assets.

[The Angry One]

HagarIshay wrote...

Yet the catalyst is controling the reapers, so choosing to do that will also make Shepard a racist. And destroy is killing synthetics, saying they are not important enough to save them. Also, quite racist.

Really, all the options are have a racist sort of thinking to it. It's all comes to what you believe is the least racist, or bad, or stupid, etc.

I never said any of the endings were particularily good or viable.

And I'll agree with you on the mess of the ending. Synthesis is too much of an unkown to make anything out of it, aside from green eyes. 

No, and that's another problem. But the principles behind synthesis are all too clear, and that's what's so disturbing about it.

[MegaSovereign]

@The Angry One

You're now headcanoning and assuming that Shepard loses control and it all backfires. The game suggests through it's epilogue that Shepard does in fact retain control (or at the very least, the reapers stop reaping).

You have failed. This exchange is over.

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

@The Angry One

You're now headcanoning and assuming that Shepard loses control and it all backfires. The game suggests through it's epilogue that Shepard does in fact retain control (or at the very least, the reapers stop reaping).

You have failed. This exchange is over.

I'm not assuming anything. I am stating that Shepard's readiness to control the Reapers is not properly established during the game. I am not talking about the ending's effects.
The game itself utterly FAILED to demonstrate that control could work.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 06:40 .

[balance5050]

MegaSovereign wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Controlling the Geth backfires because they still end up joining the reapers. It doesn't always work to force something on someone does it?

It backfires on the Quarians. If you choose peace however the amount of war assets basically remain the same. If you side with the Geth, you get the maximum amount of Geth war assets.

DERP.

By control I thought you were referring to overriding the code on the Geth heretics and not destroying them in ME2. If you choose to override the code (force the code upon them) they end up joining the reapers anyway. but if you destroy them it's all good....

Modifié par balance5050, 31 mai 2012 - 06:46 .

[killage_wizard]

MegaSovereign wrote...

@The Angry One

You're now headcanoning and assuming that Shepard loses control and it all backfires. The game suggests through it's epilogue that Shepard does in fact retain control (or at the very least, the reapers stop reaping).

You have failed. This exchange is over.

The epilogue does nothing of the sort.  It shows the Reapers leaving the planet, the citadel closing, and the mass relay exploding (the explosion is not as big as the other endings, but its still an explosion).  That's all we know.  No post mini scene if your EMS is high enough showing the Reapers flying into the sun, fixing the relays, or leaving the galaxy.  Nothing.  The foreshadowing, up until a character who randomly pops into the game in its last ten minutes, always suggested that attempting to control the Reapers will only result in one being indoctrinated.

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

@The Angry One

You're now headcanoning and assuming that Shepard loses control and it all backfires. The game suggests through it's epilogue that Shepard does in fact retain control (or at the very least, the reapers stop reaping).

You have failed. This exchange is over.

I'm not assuming anything. I am stating that Shepard's readiness to control the Reapers is not properly established during the game. I am not talking about the ending's effects.
The game itself utterly FAILED to demonstrate that control could work.

There was nothing to suggest that the Crucible would succeed in doing anything. No other cycle has successfuly deployed it. You're acting as if taking RISKS = BROKEN PLOT.

The ending is weak for other reasons. You're nitpicking at the themes (Control vs Destroy) when they clearly aren't the problem. Also what the hell does Shepard's readiness have to do with anything. All you need is a non-indoctrinated and strong willed individual utilizing a successfully constructed Crucible to control them. You're reading into things and trying to find problems WHERE THEY DON'T EXIST.

The epilogue does nothing of the sort.  It shows the Reapers
leaving the planet, the citadel closing, and the mass relay exploding
(the explosion is not as big as the other endings, but its still an
explosion).  That's all we know.  No post mini scene if your EMS is high
enough showing the Reapers flying into the sun, fixing the relays, or
leaving the galaxy.  Nothing.  The foreshadowing, up until a character
who randomly pops into the game in its last ten minutes, always
suggested that attempting to control the Reapers will only result in one
being indoctrinated.

Stargazer scene set thousands of years into the future + endgame text-box says otherwise. Go head and headcanon the Reapers rebelling and reaping again, it's your speculationz.

I'm gonna go by what's given.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 31 mai 2012 - 07:05 .