4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Anti-killer]

I chose Control simply because:

The Geth survive
Citadel is intact
Relays aren't destroyed as badly as they are in Synthesis/Destroy

the moment EC comes out, Control will be the first ending I choose.

Modifié par Anti-killer, 24 juin 2012 - 08:13 .

[Seival]

Anti-killer wrote...

I chose Control simply because:

The Geth survive
Citadel is intact
Relays aren't destroyed as badly as they are in Synthesis/Destroy

the moment EC comes out, Control will be the first ending I choose.

Also let's not forget about EDI

[Anti-killer]

Seival wrote...

Anti-killer wrote...

I chose Control simply because:

The Geth survive
Citadel is intact
Relays aren't destroyed as badly as they are in Synthesis/Destroy

the moment EC comes out, Control will be the first ending I choose.

Also let's not forget about EDI

Never cared about EDI tbh

now the Geth...those are some real badasses

[TopSun]

I choose control because i can control an army of mighty machines. The power is amazing. I would be the ruler of this galaxy.B)B)

Modifié par Big-Boss687, 24 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[Ageless Face]

Seival wrote...

Synthesis... In my first playthrough I didn't understand that the Catalist's chamber is a giant dialogue-wheel. So after dialogue with the Catalist I just moved forward thinking that I have to interract with some game object in order to trigger dialogue with three final options available... But when I got too close to the pillar of light it was too late...

...You can call that a mis-click. An epic mis-click

Synthesis, huh? My first playthrough I actually pick destroy. I had no idea what the hell happened there, it was all a mess, everything was so fast, couldn't even investigate the catalyst!. Only after seeing it I realised that control was probably better. Just got REALLY confused about the part of only Shepard dying in control and everything okay besides that. Was kind of sure there is also something bad about it that I missed. 


Do you think there will be a catch to control aside from Shepard dying? Control really seems too good to be true for me. The citadel intact, relays aren't completley destroyed, everyone (aside from Shepard) lives, you got reapers doing everything for you, you can advance the civillization to be as advance as the reapers...

So Shepard will die, and if not, will become the new catalyst or something, and will live in some sort of torment or huge boredom. But... That's it? That's the only thing bad about control? Is there something else I might have missed?

Modifié par HagarIshay, 24 juin 2012 - 08:38 .

[Seival]

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Synthesis... In my first playthrough I didn't understand that the Catalist's chamber is a giant dialogue-wheel. So after dialogue with the Catalist I just moved forward thinking that I have to interract with some game object in order to trigger dialogue with three final options available... But when I got too close to the pillar of light it was too late...

...You can call that a mis-click. An epic mis-click

Synthesis, huh? My first playthrough I actually pick destroy. I had no idea what the hell happened there, it was all a mess, everything was so fast, couldn't even investigate the catalyst!. Only after seeing it I realised that control was probably better. Just got REALLY confused about the part of only Shepard dying in control and everything okay besides that. Was kind of sure there is also something bad about it that I missed. 


Do you think there will be a catch to control aside from Shepard dying? Control really seems too good to be true for me. The citadel intact, relays aren't completley destroyed, everyone (aside from Shepard) lives, you got reapers doing everything for you, you can advance the civillization to be as advance as the reapers...

So Shepard will die, and if not, will become the new catalyst or something, and will live in some sort of torment or huge boredom. But... That's it? That's the only thing bad about control? Is there something else I might have missed?

Well, I thought about it for a very long time actually... I think it's clear that Shepard becomes the new Catalist in Control. And the catch is that being the Catalist is not actually a privilege... it's a sacrifice. The most dire sacrifice a human being can make - Shepard literally sacrifices her soul. Her preferences and memories is all that left of her. She can't have living being's feelings and emotions, she has no living being's body anymore. And her soul is forever trapped inside the Citadel... She becomes a being more similar to EDI or Geth, but in much larger scale.

...So, the original Catalist was 100% correct saying "You will die. You will control us, but you will loose everything you have"... A dire, but pure altruistic and noble sacrifice.

Modifié par Seival, 24 juin 2012 - 10:24 .

[JA Shepard]

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Synthesis... In my first playthrough I didn't understand that the Catalist's chamber is a giant dialogue-wheel. So after dialogue with the Catalist I just moved forward thinking that I have to interract with some game object in order to trigger dialogue with three final options available... But when I got too close to the pillar of light it was too late...

...You can call that a mis-click. An epic mis-click

Synthesis, huh? My first playthrough I actually pick destroy. I had no idea what the hell happened there, it was all a mess, everything was so fast, couldn't even investigate the catalyst!. Only after seeing it I realised that control was probably better. Just got REALLY confused about the part of only Shepard dying in control and everything okay besides that. Was kind of sure there is also something bad about it that I missed. 


Do you think there will be a catch to control aside from Shepard dying? Control really seems too good to be true for me. The citadel intact, relays aren't completley destroyed, everyone (aside from Shepard) lives, you got reapers doing everything for you, you can advance the civillization to be as advance as the reapers...

So Shepard will die, and if not, will become the new catalyst or something, and will live in some sort of torment or huge boredom. But... That's it? That's the only thing bad about control? Is there something else I might have missed?

Well, I thought about it for a very long time actually... I think it's clear that Shepard becomes the new Catalist in Control. And the catch is that being the Catalist is not actually a privilege... it's a sacrifice. The most dire sacrifice a human being can make - Shepard literally sacrifices her soul. Her preferences and memories is all that left of her. She can't have living being's feelings and emotions, she has no living being's body anymore. And her soul is forever trapped inside the Citadel... She becomes a being more similar to EDI or Geth, but in much larger scale.

...So, the original Catalist was 100% correct saying "You will die. You will control us, but you will loose everything you have"... A dire, but pure altruistic and noble sacrifice.

That's kind of where I thought they may go with it. Shepard, as the catalyst, would still know and remember who she was and the people she cared about but will have no emotional connection at all. The Shepard that was will only be a fact or piece of information that Catalyst Shepard is fully aware of. She may understand the importance but only for the purposes of prioritizing functions. If that turns out to be the case, that's going to be painful to watch. If they are going for bittersweet, that would get it.

[Seival]

JA Shepard wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Synthesis... In my first playthrough I didn't understand that the Catalist's chamber is a giant dialogue-wheel. So after dialogue with the Catalist I just moved forward thinking that I have to interract with some game object in order to trigger dialogue with three final options available... But when I got too close to the pillar of light it was too late...

...You can call that a mis-click. An epic mis-click

Synthesis, huh? My first playthrough I actually pick destroy. I had no idea what the hell happened there, it was all a mess, everything was so fast, couldn't even investigate the catalyst!. Only after seeing it I realised that control was probably better. Just got REALLY confused about the part of only Shepard dying in control and everything okay besides that. Was kind of sure there is also something bad about it that I missed. 


Do you think there will be a catch to control aside from Shepard dying? Control really seems too good to be true for me. The citadel intact, relays aren't completley destroyed, everyone (aside from Shepard) lives, you got reapers doing everything for you, you can advance the civillization to be as advance as the reapers...

So Shepard will die, and if not, will become the new catalyst or something, and will live in some sort of torment or huge boredom. But... That's it? That's the only thing bad about control? Is there something else I might have missed?

Well, I thought about it for a very long time actually... I think it's clear that Shepard becomes the new Catalist in Control. And the catch is that being the Catalist is not actually a privilege... it's a sacrifice. The most dire sacrifice a human being can make - Shepard literally sacrifices her soul. Her preferences and memories is all that left of her. She can't have living being's feelings and emotions, she has no living being's body anymore. And her soul is forever trapped inside the Citadel... She becomes a being more similar to EDI or Geth, but in much larger scale.

...So, the original Catalist was 100% correct saying "You will die. You will control us, but you will loose everything you have"... A dire, but pure altruistic and noble sacrifice.

That's kind of where I thought they may go with it. Shepard, as the catalyst, would still know and remember who she was and the people she cared about but will have no emotional connection at all. The Shepard that was will only be a fact or piece of information that Catalyst Shepard is fully aware of. She may understand the importance but only for the purposes of prioritizing functions. If that turns out to be the case, that's going to be painful to watch. If they are going for bittersweet, that would get it.

I'm sure this is what BioWare really meant. In Control Shepard becomes an "AI with Shepard's way of thinking". Some time ago I thought that it can be called "Shepard survived". But now I understand that becoming the new Catalist means... how to say it more correctly... "Giving a birth to a new being (which will inherit your way of thinking and memories), and die in the process".

Modifié par Seival, 24 juin 2012 - 10:44 .

[Seival]

...Or even more correctly: "Only Shepard's personality survives the process of transformation into the Catalist".

Modifié par Seival, 25 juin 2012 - 10:38 .

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

Seival wrote...

Testing new banner

Completely forgot about the border... Fixed:

Destroyers also acted in defence

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

Seival wrote...

Testing new banner

Completely forgot about the border... Fixed:

Destroyers also acted in defence

Reaper Destroyers never acted in defence. With the original Catalist in charge Reapers could only harvest.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

Seival wrote...

Testing new banner

Completely forgot about the border... Fixed:

Destroyers also acted in defence

Reaper Destroyers never acted in defence. With the original Catalist in charge Reapers could only harvest.

By destroyers, I meant people who chose to destroy the Reapers.

Modifié par KingZayd, 25 juin 2012 - 10:47 .

[Seival]

I see

[Ieldra]

@HagarIshay:
You asked what the downside of Control was, apart from Shepard's losing all connections to their former lives. Here's what I think:

By choosing Control, you save galactic civilization, but it remains bound to the shape the Reapers have given it by placing the relays and the Citadel. Whether or not that's a bad thing is a matter of interpretation, but I think it's meant to be taken into consideration when making the decision. Ultimately, the final choice is a choice about the shape you want future galactic civilization to have: Destroy, embrace the "chaos of organic evolution" and reject the Reapers' legacy completely, thereby resetting civilization, Control, let civlization be guided by "the perfection of the machines" and embrace the Reapers' legacy, thereby preserving galactic civilization in its old form, Synthesis, transcend the old order and bring about a new age, thereby making civilization take a giant leap into an unknown future.

Which is best should be a matter of personal ideology. Unfortunately, things like Shepard's survival, a desire for revenge, the Reapers "abomination aesthetic" and the association fallacy of thinking Control is bad because TIM wanted it, all that skews the statistics greatly in favor of Destroy.

Edit:
Note that I support this thread. Judged in immediate objective benefits and downsides, Control may be the wisest decision that leaves many options open for the future. I am seriously confused about why more people don't choose Control. I don't because I'm attracted to the idea of making peace with the Reapers and understanding them, of the idea of taking that giant leap into an unknown future, but I never expected to be other than a minority in that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 juin 2012 - 11:32 .

[Erixxxx]

And a lot of people are pissed because none of the choices are inherently black or white... Personally I think it's refreshing we have a video game that actually makes you think.

And Ieldra2, you make some excellent points on the downside of Control. All three choices have HUGE consequences attached to them. Which is what I really, really love about this.

Modifié par Erixxxx, 25 juin 2012 - 11:37 .

[Wowky]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am seriously confused about why more people don't choose Control.

Honestly, because from the very beginning Shepard's goal was to **** them Reapers up. I didn't want to diverge from that goal (which I'd spent over 100 hours reaching) in the last five minutes of the game, no matter how tempting the other options may have sounded at first.

And personally, I saw more uncertainty in control than destroy. In destroy, the Reapers are dead. They can't come back. The end. In control, what's to say **** doesn't go sideways in the future and they somehow break free of Shepard's command?

Plus then there's the whole IT as well.

Modifié par Wowky, 25 juin 2012 - 11:41 .

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@HagarIshay:
You asked what the downside of Control was, apart from Shepard's losing all connections to their former lives. Here's what I think:

By choosing Control, you save galactic civilization, but it remains bound to the shape the Reapers have given it by placing the relays and the Citadel. Whether or not that's a bad thing is a matter of interpretation, but I think it's meant to be taken into consideration when making the decision. Ultimately, the final choice is a choice about the shape you want future galactic civilization to have: Destroy, embrace the "chaos of organic evolution" and reject the Reapers' legacy completely, thereby resetting civilization, Control, let civlization be guided by "the perfection of the machines" and embrace the Reapers' legacy, thereby preserving galactic civilization in its old form, Synthesis, transcend the old order and bring about a new age, thereby making civilization take a giant leap into an unknown future.

Which is best should be a matter of personal ideology. Unfortunately, things like Shepard's survival, a desire for revenge, the Reapers "abomination aesthetic" and the association fallacy of thinking Control is bad because TIM wanted it, all that skews the statistics greatly in favor of Destroy.

We should not forget that in case of Destroy we will have entire worlds full of dead Reaper bodies. And in ME2 we've already seen what dead Reapers are capable of. I doubt that noone will try to stady the Reapers' remains and build some "new" technologies based on that stady... I'm afraid that the Reaper's legacy will not be destroyed if you choose Destroy. Moreover, this legacy will be completely uncontrolled... This can cause thousands of "new TIMs" to rise from the different races. The consequences of that is completely unknown...

Modifié par Seival, 25 juin 2012 - 11:50 .

[Erixxxx]

Wowky wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am seriously confused about why more people don't choose Control.

Honestly, because from the very beginning Shepard's goal was to **** them Reapers up. I didn't want to diverge from that goal (which I'd spent over 100 hours reaching) in the last five minutes of the game, no matter how tempting the other options may have sounded at first.

And personally, I saw more uncertainty in control than destroy. In destroy, the Reapers are dead. They can't come back. The end. In control, what's to say **** doesn't go sideways in the future and they somehow break free of Shepard's command?

Plus then there's the whole IT as well.

Destroy also pushes the galaxy back to the technological level of Earth in the 21st century. Lots of people are gonna die because they simply don't have the means to replace their other tech in short order.

And that's one of the downsides of Control. But are you going to sacrifice billions and billions of sentient beings on the off-chance that Control may somehow go wrong in future?

Control gives people another chance. One they haven't had ever. Think of the technological advancements made in the past couple of thousand of years. Think of how insaely much progression the galaxy will go through. Even if Shepard somehow loses control of the Reapers in 50.000 years, the galaxy will be more than able to fend them off at that point.

[Wowky]

Erixxxx wrote...

Wowky wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am seriously confused about why more people don't choose Control.

Honestly, because from the very beginning Shepard's goal was to **** them Reapers up. I didn't want to diverge from that goal (which I'd spent over 100 hours reaching) in the last five minutes of the game, no matter how tempting the other options may have sounded at first.

And personally, I saw more uncertainty in control than destroy. In destroy, the Reapers are dead. They can't come back. The end. In control, what's to say **** doesn't go sideways in the future and they somehow break free of Shepard's command?

Plus then there's the whole IT as well.

Destroy also pushes the galaxy back to the technological level of Earth in the 21st century. Lots of people are gonna die because they simply don't have the means to replace their other tech in short order.

And that's one of the downsides of Control. But are you going to sacrifice billions and billions of sentient beings on the off-chance that Control may somehow go wrong in future?

Control gives people another chance. One they haven't had ever. Think of the technological advancements made in the past couple of thousand of years. Think of how insaely much progression the galaxy will go through. Even if Shepard somehow loses control of the Reapers in 50.000 years, the galaxy will be more than able to fend them off at that point.

True, but I went into the game expecting there would be losses/sacrifices right up until the end. I didn't feel good about the things that happened as a result of choosing Destroy, but I did feel good knowing that the threat was over, once and for all. Even Garrus says it: "ruthless calculus of war". It doesn't feel good, but it's a reality.

As for the losing control - it might happen in a week. It might happen in a day. The fact that it might happen is enough for me to stay away from it. I like certainty, even if it results in some serious costs at the outset.

I guess that's one place I think the endings did shine - different endings suit different people.

[Erixxxx]

Wowky wrote...

True, but I went into the game expecting there would be losses/sacrifices right up until the end. I didn't feel good about the things that happened as a result of choosing Destroy, but I did feel good knowing that the threat was over, once and for all. Even Garrus says it: "ruthless calculus of war". It doesn't feel good, but it's a reality.

As for the losing control - it might happen in a week. It might happen in a day. The fact that it might happen is enough for me to stay away from it. I like certainty, even if it results in some serious costs at the outset.

I guess that's one place I think the endings did shine - different endings suit different people.

I guess Javik's comment about asking the ashes of a trillion dead souls if honor matters because painstakingly relevant again. Because that's what Destroy really is. It indeed is the ruthless calculus of war. You sacrifice everything you stand for in order to make sure the threat never comes back.

Unless you played the game as a total **** and wiped out some races here and there. Then I guess Destroy is cool with your Shepard. Which is why it's labelled as being majorly Renegade I guess. Seeing as it fits perfectly with an all-Renegade playstyle. 

[Ageless Face]

@Ieldra2

I see your point. While I don't see letting the reapers and their technology stay as part of the galaxy as bad things, I understand why other people might.

Erixxxx wrote...

And a lot of people are pissed because none of the choices are inherently black or white... Personally I think it's refreshing we have a video game that actually makes you think.
.

 

That's why the choices are one of the things I liked about the ending, and was a little annoyed throughout the game how close minded Shepard and his/her friend were. "We destroy them or they destroy us" never seemed appealing to me. I think it's nice we have choices that let us see them as more than "good" and "bad". The three ending choices made me think much more than that, and I like it.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 25 juin 2012 - 12:05 .

[Erixxxx]

HagarIshay wrote...

@Ieldra2

I see your point. While I don't see letting the reapers and their technology stay as part of the galaxy as bad things, I understand why other people might.

It's most definitely not outright bad, but it does lock the galaxy into that pre-determined path the Reapers always went on about. There won't be any individuality amongst the species. One example is that humanity was researching their own version of FTL prior to discovering the Prothean ruins on Mars. After they did and learned from the archives, they never looked back. They abandoned all old attempts, because they suddenly had tech on hand that did roughly the same thing as what they wanted. Why research something new when what you have already works fine.

[Ieldra]

Wowky wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am seriously confused about why more people don't choose Control.

Honestly, because from the very beginning Shepard's goal was to **** them Reapers up. I didn't want to diverge from that goal (which I'd spent over 100 hours reaching) in the last five minutes of the game, no matter how tempting the other options may have sounded at first.

I'm seeing this argument a lot, but it isn't true. That "stopping the Reapers" means blowing them up is *your* interpretation. It's never been said in ME1 and ME2, and even in ME3 Shepard's occasional focus on destroying the Reapers means nothing more that for a long time it looks like the only viable option. 

My Shepards are willing to re-evaluate their methods based on new information.

[Wowky]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Wowky wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am seriously confused about why more people don't choose Control.

Honestly, because from the very beginning Shepard's goal was to **** them Reapers up. I didn't want to diverge from that goal (which I'd spent over 100 hours reaching) in the last five minutes of the game, no matter how tempting the other options may have sounded at first.

I'm seeing this argument a lot, but it isn't true. That "stopping the Reapers" means blowing them up is *your* interpretation. It's never been said in ME1 and ME2, and even in ME3 Shepard's occasional focus on destroying the Reapers means nothing more that for a long time it looks like the only viable option. 

My Shepards are willing to re-evaluate their methods based on new information.

And that's the great thing about ME - my interpretation is ultimately what drives my decisions

I'm not saying that people who chose Control or Synthesis were wrong, I'm just saying that was the way I interpreted things and that was why I chose NOT to go for Control.

[Ieldra]

Wowky wrote...
And that's the great thing about ME - my interpretation is ultimately what drives my decisions

I'm not saying that people who chose Control or Synthesis were wrong, I'm just saying that was the way I interpreted things and that was why I chose NOT to go for Control.

Ah...in that case, I agree. Your stance is a possible interpretation of things. Sorry if I misinterpreted.