689 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

Destroy is the only option so yes you have me in your group.

[Vox Draco]

Jamie9 wrote...
What if the Catalyst is right? Yes, we're aware his logic is circular, and we hate his character, but what if technological singularity is a real threat? He's presumably been around for hundreds of millions of years. Is it not naive to just ignore him?
So in control I would propose taking the Reapers into Dark Space, and then listening to all the communications of the galaxy (because we know they did that from Legion), and if any synthetics try to wipe out all life, I can ride in and destroy the synthetics, allowing the organics to try again.
Thoughts? Are you willing to bet humanity's existence on the Catalyst being completely wrong?

Well...just because it is old doesn't necessarily means he is right, or wise. Also he has never witnessed such a point where synthetics wipe out all (!) organics, or otherwise he and us wouldn't be there. So all this milllion year old being is basing his ideas on is: Speculations.

Now you take the risk and believe him, and you also leave the Reapers alive. What happens if your Shepard, after millions of years without a human body, human needs, feelings eventually speculates the same and returns to meddle in intergalactic affairs on behalf of the Reaper's logic? Better not to stop synthetics, because the organics wil lonly build new ones. The only way is to preserve the organics to save them (After all, being a reaper isn't that bad, shepard might think?) And we have the Reaper-Wars all over again for sure...

So the question is rather (for me at least) are you willing to bet human's existence on mere speculation that the catalyst is right, and therefore spare the Reapers, even when you might have chance to get rid of them once and for all now? Especially when you only have this sparse amount of information from the catalyst, while on the other hand you have tons of information from previous games that the catalyst is more likely wrong or off point?

My favorite thought referring to control: You are essentially playing a game, with the galaxy at stake, the catalyst dealing you the cards, and also only he knows the rules...I don't think it is wise to play the control-game. The odds don't seem to be in favor of mere mortals, as far as I am concerned.

[lDonutsl]

I hate the catalyst and everything he stands for, so picking destroy is like slapping him in the face.

[nicksmi56]

Does anyone else realize that a broken and bleeding out Shep buried in the middle of rubble with nobody knowing where he/she is isn't likely to survive more than 5 minutes? XD I have no qualms with destory people though, even though I chose control. You have your choice, I have mine

[MeldarthX]

wow this is still actually being debated? Destroy is where its at; its the only ending the game actually gives a damn about - Proven...

Its the only ending the game does a checksum for post dlc......fact - game doesn't care about Control or Syth as it looks at them the same....

Thirdly - we're here to destroy the damn Reapers - you can't control them; syth is want Sarin wanted........thus ending with those two at indoctrinations.....

So I clearly cannot chose the wine in front of me.

[Siibi]

For me Destroy is the only option, I don't believe a word that "kid" says.

[Vox Draco]

nicksmi56 wrote...

Does anyone else realize that a broken and bleeding out Shep buried in the middle of rubble with nobody knowing where he/she is isn't likely to survive more than 5 minutes? XD I have no qualms with destory people though, even though I chose control. You have your choice, I have mine

So? I'll use the optimistic viewpoint of "controllers" and see it like this: A Geth-Dropship flies into the scene, EDI gets out and tends Shepard's wounds, but they are not that severe, because her fully intact synthetic implants have made sure she is okay...

Hey, that kind of thinking isn't so bad after all! And I get to take revenge on the Reapers, too! Oh and look, the Geth are helping to salvage the destroyed Reapers, as they are the most advanced and experienced with Reaper-tech! They quickly use their technology to repair the Relays or use their FTL-Drives, and within weeks or months everybody is home, and the Asari begin to build Mass relays on their own now.

Shepard has of course the honour to be the first one to use it, on her wedding-trip to Eden Prime with her Kaidan!

Yeah, thinking like a controller has benefits!

[MeldarthX]

Jamie9 wrote...

I'd like to post a theory that goes against destroy. I'm posting it here and not in the control thread because I want people to show me the opposing argument, and not agree with me outright. If you don't wish to get involved don't respond, I won't be offended.

Well, my opinions on control and destroy change slightly every week or so with the myriad of new opinion I read on this lovely BSN. Last night, I was just thinking:

What if the Catalyst is right? Yes, we're aware his logic is circular, and we hate his character, but what if technological singularity is a real threat? He's presumably been around for hundreds of millions of years. Is it not naive to just ignore him?

So in control I would propose taking the Reapers into Dark Space, and then listening to all the communications of the galaxy (because we know they did that from Legion), and if any synthetics try to wipe out all life, I can ride in and destroy the synthetics, allowing the organics to try again.

Thoughts? Are you willing to bet humanity's existence on the Catalyst being completely wrong?

Problem is - we know the Catalist is lieing - proof? - No single geth is seen to die or be destroyed even after it says they would along with EDI.

Another fact - EDI stepping out of the normady isn't a bug - she survives.....again proving casper the lieing catalist is just that lieing.

Besides - its all just a dream.......or is it...

[LTKerr]

lDonutsl wrote...

I hate the catalyst and everything he stands for, so picking destroy is like slapping him in the face.

This. Also the destroy ending is the least worst one.

[nicksmi56]

@Vox Draco Not "controllers" but essentially everyone due to the way the ending is laid out. In each ending you have to imagine that everything is ok even though there are multiple arguments against each. Ugh wow saying that just revived my hate :/

[RokenR]

Shepard lives, Reapers/Catalyst Die


Really couldn't ask for more!

[Vigilant111]

nicksmi56 wrote...

@Vox Draco Not "controllers" but essentially everyone due to the way the ending is laid out. In each ending you have to imagine that everything is ok even though there are multiple arguments against each. Ugh wow saying that just revived my hate :/

Hate? that is something u don't wanna put out to the universe

[Shaani]

Jamie9 wrote...
What if the Catalyst is right?

Destroy means that organic and synthetic life are free to find out for themselves rather he's right or not, and free ot find their own solution, instead of having a brutal solution forced upon them by an outside power.

[Vigilant111]

Shaani wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
What if the Catalyst is right?

Destroy means that organic and synthetic life are free to find out for themselves rather he's right or not, and free ot find their own solution, instead of having a brutal solution forced upon them by an outside power.

Well said, the consequences of control/synthesis are PRE-SET, guided by Catalyst's hands

Where did Catalyst go after control/synthesis is chosen?

Modifié par Vigilant111, 28 mai 2012 - 01:00 .

[milena87]

I would pick Destroy even with the assurance that the Catalyst isn't lying.

[vixvicco]

o Ventus wrote...

The ending where Shepard can survive is an ending I'm willing to pick, all the time. /support

Exactly. I agree 100%. Don't know why you would choose anything else.

[Vigilant111]

vixvicco wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

The ending where Shepard can survive is an ending I'm willing to pick, all the time. /support

Exactly. I agree 100%. Don't know why you would choose anything else.

Need to point out if the survival scene is real (could not confirm but very likely), and it is indeed Shepard, we must emphasize on the fact that he or she is fully human that he or she retains the most authentic self, because synthesis/control supporters might argue that Shepard also survived, just in different forms in their endings

Modifié par Vigilant111, 28 mai 2012 - 01:07 .

[Vigilant111]

Now they found a new word for synthesis - upgrading, I thought that's only for synthetics

[Majin Paul]

I imagine that I'll always choose Destroy. Eliminating the reapers permanently is the best way to go imo and since my Shepard always survives, I like to think the Geth and EDI can survive as well.

[Vox Draco]

nicksmi56 wrote...

@Vox Draco Not "controllers" but essentially everyone due to the way the ending is laid out. In each ending you have to imagine that everything is ok even though there are multiple arguments against each. Ugh wow saying that just revived my hate :/

I agree. But what makes me think now:

In blue and especially green the "good" outcome as well as a "bad one" are both based on headcanon or wishful thinking. You can twist it in both ways if you like...either you accept that Shepard stays in control and use the Reapers for good or destroy them...or you don't.

In destroy, however, many of the consequences are clearly laid out. Geth, EDI, synthetics will be destroyed, facts from our beloved child. Maybe even synthetic parts in organics are affected. That is one point in favor of destroy: It is not as vague, the results are made clear to us, for both good (Reapers dead) and bad (Geth,EDI, maybe you). Headcanon really is only required if you like the Geth and EDI.

Now when you take into consideration the past games and experiences with the Reapers, I see control shift from "positive" vagueness" rather towards "negative vagueness", as it is a risk I am unwilling to take.

*sigh* And yes, I hate those endings. Why not jsut have us kill the damn Reapers, see if our EMS is high enough, and have a big celebration in the end...instead of this big pile of speculation-bullshiat

[Sal86]

Jamie9 wrote...

I'd like to post a theory that goes against destroy. I'm posting it here and not in the control thread because I want people to show me the opposing argument, and not agree with me outright. If you don't wish to get involved don't respond, I won't be offended.

Well, my opinions on control and destroy change slightly every week or so with the myriad of new opinion I read on this lovely BSN. Last night, I was just thinking:

What if the Catalyst is right? Yes, we're aware his logic is circular, and we hate his character, but what if technological singularity is a real threat? He's presumably been around for hundreds of millions of years. Is it not naive to just ignore him?

So in control I would propose taking the Reapers into Dark Space, and then listening to all the communications of the galaxy (because we know they did that from Legion), and if any synthetics try to wipe out all life, I can ride in and destroy the synthetics, allowing the organics to try again.

Thoughts? Are you willing to bet humanity's existence on the Catalyst being completely wrong?

Well, if you put it like that then yes, I am. But it's not that simple. Wall of text inc.

You're right, I don't believe that synthetics wiping out all organics is a serious threat. The only argument that can be made for it in the ME games is an appeal to authority and yadda yadda. But really, it comes down to my gut reaction. I place a greater value on self-determinism than on a nebulous claim of saving 'organic life as a whole.'

I also have a couple of problems with the control scenario that you describe. How are you going to quantify 'trrying to wipe out all life'? Is there a certain percentage of life that it's acceptable to kill or does one synthetic killing one organic doom it's entire race? Additionally, this scenario seems to place a higher value on organic life than on synthetic life (yes I do consider the Geth to be life, though I know not everyone does). What if it isn't as cut-and-dry as 'evil synthetics rise up and butcher innocent organics'? Are the organics inherrently more worthy of salvation, in any situation? I don't think so personally.

Then there is the question of tech singularity actually happening. Well, it's bad for the organics being killed, no argument there, but in the grand scheme of things, is that the only thing that matters? If we create a synthetic race that ends up destroying us all? Well, that's terrible, but them's the breaks. If it's the natural orger of the galaxy then so be it. They wouldn't be wiping out all life in the galaxy, just their creators (and possibly extended to all sentient organics). There would still be life in the galaxy, just a different balance.

Even if synthetics did wipe out their creators and indeed killed all sentient organic life in the galaxy (for reasons unknown), they have to stop somewhere. Are they going to move from system to system carefully destroying every ameoba? I doubt it. There are many advanced organic species in the ME galaxy, all evolved from different roots, I don't see why new intelligent life couldn't evolve to fill the whole left by the Humans/ Turians/Asari etc. You can't keep organics down forever.

I don't consider the reapers to be preserving organics when they 'uplift' them into reaper form. It doesn't matter to me what exactly the reapers do with the billions of organic minds they are 'preserving'. From what we can see, the reapers generally have similar personalities (arrogant, dismissive, pernicious). Whatever state the organic minds are in (my personal interpretation is that the reapers simply use what was organic minds as 'hardware' for extra processing power), the reaper personality is the dominant one. If the minds are aware, then either everything that made them unique is gone or they are only able to watch in horror. As such, none of the possibilies are preferable to death imho. What's my point here? Well, it's about suffering. The reapers are made of dead or suffering organics, some of which have been around for milennia (if the catalyst is to be believed). In other words, I see the red ending as euthanasia. If we end up being destroyed by synthetics? Well, one brutal flurry for us is preferable to an interminable and infinite existence 'trapped' inside a reaper for the races we'd be leaving there in blue or green. Besides, organics will be back, come what may (as in above paragraph).

To pose a similar question on control: Is it not naive to believe that one human can crontol an incredibly advanced race indefinitely? If the Geth find reaper thoughts to be too vast, how is one single human mind supposed to be able to handle it? Shepard almost certainly couldn't communicate with the reapers in a way that was meaningful to them. It would be like trying to explain calculus using only 'blink once for yes, twice for no.' Even if Shepard has some degree of control over the reapers, I don't belive that they woldn't be able to subvert her.

There are also all the reasons of who to trust etc. but just looking at the endings from a more detached, more philosophical stand point, that's how I see it.

TL:DR - The risk of tech singularity is preferable to the reapers cycle imo. I don't believe that Shepard can control the reapers indefinitely and do belive that destroying them is mercy killing.

[frylock23]

kookie28 wrote...

So we hate the endings but now we have support threads for the endings we hate?

I hate all the endings, but Destroy is the only one I'll pick until I get more information.

Basically BioWare designed the Kobayashi Maru of video games. They took away any chance you have to win by making you side with and trust the head of the antagonists of the entire trilogy whether you want to or not. They force you to accept his bogus so-called solutions which your protagonist just tamely does with really no questioning of the situation. AND, they give you three options through the antagonist that are all morally repugnant.

It's no wonder that everyone pretty much hates the endings.

At least in destroy I have the hope that the antagonists burn.

[DOYOURLABS]

I can only pick the destroy ending because each of the other endings represent a previous villain. You even get their eyes when you choose it. Seeing as EDI can survive Destroy, I figure the Catalyst is just lying anyway.

[frylock23]

Jamie9 wrote...

I'd like to post a theory that goes against destroy. I'm posting it here and not in the control thread because I want people to show me the opposing argument, and not agree with me outright. If you don't wish to get involved don't respond, I won't be offended.

Well, my opinions on control and destroy change slightly every week or so with the myriad of new opinion I read on this lovely BSN. Last night, I was just thinking:

What if the Catalyst is right? Yes, we're aware his logic is circular, and we hate his character, but what if technological singularity is a real threat? He's presumably been around for hundreds of millions of years. Is it not naive to just ignore him?

So in control I would propose taking the Reapers into Dark Space, and then listening to all the communications of the galaxy (because we know they did that from Legion), and if any synthetics try to wipe out all life, I can ride in and destroy the synthetics, allowing the organics to try again.

Thoughts? Are you willing to bet humanity's existence on the Catalyst being completely wrong?

You have to prove to me that I'd be able to do that.

I've posted elsewhere why I serious doubts about Shepard's ability to control the Reapers at all for any length of time.

Until we get past that hurdle. Any suppositions about things we might theoretically do after taking control are moot.

As to the tech singularity, since it's patently obvious by the very existence of organic life in the galaxy that such a thing has never occured in the galaxy we're fighting for, the Star Brat should have brought some proof with him beyond just his word. When I was in debate, that's usually what I had to do to back up my arguments. You know provide actual proof  and stuff. Until he can do that, all he has is a cool story.

And please don't construe the proof thing as aimed at you, right now, there is now way you could prove that Shepard could control the Reapers anymore than I could absolutely prove that Destroy would or would not kill the Geth (or even EDI because I don't think has posted absolute proof of her walking out of the Normandy at the end). That's how bad the ending material is. There just isn't any proof beyond how we want to try to interpret the Star Brat's word, and that get into what our personal definitions of "is" happen to be.

Modifié par frylock23, 28 mai 2012 - 01:29 .

[Vox Draco]

Vigilant111 wrote...
Need to point out if the survival scene is real (could not confirm but very likely), and it is indeed Shepard, we must emphasize on the fact that he or she is fully human that he or she retains the most authentic self, because synthesis/control supporters might argue that Shepard also survived, just in different forms in their endings

I do not see Shepard as herself without a body. Humanity is more than just your mind. Love, Hate, Feelings in general are as much body-chemistry as things of the mind.

All I can see with Shepard "surviving" in control are her memories saved on some kind of harddrive. Maybe this will influcence the control-program she has become, but maybe these memories are insignificant for a being that can no longer relate to a physical existence. A being that no longer knows mortality, the fear to die, the joy to love, the pleasure to feel

In the worst case scenrio I see Shepard retain her emotions, together with the knowledge she will never feel again, never touch again, forced to spent eternity as a cold machine in space, with nothing but memories of her former self and what she once had been and sacrificed...

No I made it again, I depressed myself badly...