314 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. But you not understanding the point of this question.

Nope, you've asked me it a lot. 

The very fact you think it's open to interpretation kind of undermines any meaning you might have. 

It means you have to trust the starchild on what will happen bsed on this vague statement that will mean any thing.

Nope. 

You don't know what it means  and yet you ignore it as a hazard?

Pretty much. I have no idea what it means, no idea to find out, and it's very open to speculation, so the sentence is frankly irrelevant. 

2.But you putting your self indanger of being control by it...Just Like TIM.

Maybe, but that's complete speculation. 

1. The very fact you can give a clear explintion of it's meaning and the factit's vague makes it open to interprtation.
2.It relevent. The are machines with a history of great deception. The hazards are always relevent.
3.No, these are machine with a history of great deception. It's not a speculation tha trust the reapers is a hazard. Even you said you can't trust them.

Modifié par dreman9999, 30 mai 2012 - 06:59 .

[Candidate 88766]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I might have been able to agree if we could pinpoint exactly what Control and Synthesis does.

Until then, it's too easy to argue against the "we should use the Reaper tech for our own purposes" without a solid foundation of how we are actually using the tech.

Destroy is more blunt than the other two options. We have a less-vague jist of what happens with it. It requires less head-canon than the other two. (Throw in the bonus of the breath scene and it's quite easily a popular winner -- not necessarily the "right" or "best" choice, but the most popular.)

This is a great post, but it actually highlights why I personally prefer control and synthesis - because its so vague, there's much more room for imagination to take over.

For example, its never really made clear how synthesis changes people. However, given that EDI and Joker still showed affection towards each other, I assume that everyone keeps what makes them unique and is simply 'upgraded' via the synthesis. There's nothing to prove I'm wrong, and it paints a relatively happier picture of the galaxy's future than the other two endings. Well, in my opinion anyway. Take destroy for example: the Reapers and synthetic life are gone, but what you're left with is species that have been brought to their knees by war and then cut off from one another, and from their own worlds. Thats not a particularly happy ending (I know none of them are, and I think thats kind of the point of them, but destroy seems particularly bleak). The uncertainty around what synthesis does to people allows your imagination to take over, and the uncertainty of what level of control over the Reapers Shepard now has also allows room for imagaination. 

[dreman9999]

Lord Goose wrote...

They're all arbitrary choices that the player must rationalize afterwards because there is nothing really to base the decision on at the moment.

Allow me to disagree. I actually choose Control, because I was playing paragon and got used to sacrifice myself to save someone else.
The goal was to PROTECT THE GALAXY. If could be protected with less sacrifices, I thought, why shouldn't it be done?
So, no, your theory isn't applicable to reality. At least in my case.

1.your right, every choice is bad. but destroy is less bad.

Why so? Because I choose to be real backstabber and kill those who were on my side?

1. You not seeing that you may have let your self become controled by the reapers?
2. It's better then inslaving them or changing them complety and inslaving them.

[antares_sublight]

Lord Goose wrote...

They're all arbitrary choices that the player must rationalize afterwards because there is nothing really to base the decision on at the moment.

Allow me to disagree. I actually choose Control, because I was playing paragon and got used to sacrifice myself to save someone else.
The goal was to PROTECT THE GALAXY. If could be protected with less sacrifices, I thought, why shouldn't it be done?
So, no, your theory isn't applicable to reality. At least in my case.

Through the whole series you're instructed that control is not something you can do or want to do. Then at the last moment "Oh, TIM was right? Maybe I will try it after all, ignore everything that came before." That's all you have to base your decision on. All the choices are arbitrary. You made an arbitrary choice and are defending it as if it's part of your personality. Whatever reason you had for choosing it, it was an arbitrary choice within the game because there is nothing supporting rationalization of any of the choices at decision time (though less so Control & Synthesis).

[Lord Goose]

well for one shepard hasent been injected with reaper nanites and trasformed into a half glowing husk.

Reapers indoctrination could last for years, without actually being noticed.

and bioware said we would be seeing thinks from shepards point of view... so your not meant to be "controling shepard" you ARE shepard.

We could be Reaper and see things from his perspective.

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

1.your right, every choice is bad. but destroy is less bad.

Why so? Because I choose to be real backstabber and kill those who were on my side?

sysnthesis: reapers goal from the begining. reapers win.
control: shepard becomes new starbrat. possiblity of starbrat lying. sheoard becomes assimilated with reaper tech. (starbrat said this)
destroy: your goal since me1, while yes you will also destroy the other AI's, EDI and she would rather die that conform with the reapers. nobile sacrifice.

[antares_sublight]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
This is a great post, but it actually highlights why I personally prefer control and synthesis - because its so vague, there's much more room for imagination to take over.
...
The uncertainty around what synthesis does to people allows your imagination to take over, and the uncertainty of what level of control over the Reapers Shepard now has also allows room for imagaination. 

Staring at a blank piece of paper gets you the same result.

[dreman9999]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

I might have been able to agree if we could pinpoint exactly what Control and Synthesis does.

Until then, it's too easy to argue against the "we should use the Reaper tech for our own purposes" without a solid foundation of how we are actually using the tech.

Destroy is more blunt than the other two options. We have a less-vague jist of what happens with it. It requires less head-canon than the other two. (Throw in the bonus of the breath scene and it's quite easily a popular winner -- not necessarily the "right" or "best" choice, but the most popular.)

This is a great post, but it actually highlights why I personally prefer control and synthesis - because its so vague, there's much more room for imagination to take over.

For example, its never really made clear how synthesis changes people. However, given that EDI and Joker still showed affection towards each other, I assume that everyone keeps what makes them unique and is simply 'upgraded' via the synthesis. There's nothing to prove I'm wrong, and it paints a relatively happier picture of the galaxy's future than the other two endings. Well, in my opinion anyway. Take destroy for example: the Reapers and synthetic life are gone, but what you're left with is species that have been brought to their knees by war and then cut off from one another, and from their own worlds. Thats not a particularly happy ending (I know none of them are, and I think thats kind of the point of them, but destroy seems particularly bleak). The uncertainty around what synthesis does to people allows your imagination to take over, and the uncertainty of what level of control over the Reapers Shepard now has also allows room for imagaination. 

That's the hazard of the choice...What you imation is irrlivent. Why? Because what is important is the starchilds interprtation because he is the one appling the choice of your actions. Wha tyou imation is pointless because it's not what being used...It's what the starchild decides...

[DeathScepter]

this is why i choose purple and NOT green, blue or red.

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

well for one shepard hasent been injected with reaper nanites and trasformed into a half glowing husk.

Reapers indoctrination could last for years, without actually being noticed.

and bioware said we would be seeing thinks from shepards point of view... so your not meant to be "controling shepard" you ARE shepard.

We could be Reaper and see things from his perspective.

maybe... but i find it unlikley- not saying your wrong, just that i dont see it happening. 

[antares_sublight]

Regarding the OP:

You're simply implying that you should go along with and be good buddies with anyone and everyone more advanced than you. That's your actual point.

[T-Raks]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

My Shepard is not the type to give in. Pro synthesis/control talk gets old to him. Nuff said!

He is if you choose to give in, that's the beauty of choice and of this game.  But my Shep chose not to give in!

No he just let emotion blind him to the situation at hand, like a bull in the arena. 

I see it the other way around, that destroy Sheps are staying the course and do what fits their character throughout the series, while control/synthesis Sheps get too emotional about sacrificing machines.

Not to stir a controversy here: I' not saying that players taking synthesis/control can't/shouldn't be happy with their choice (of course they can, that's why they choose to play their Sheps this way in the first place), I'm just saying that out of the story we get told, to me "destroy" is the only option.

I'm not making any threads to try to convince other people about this though and all I'm asking is "do we really need every five seconds a new thread where someone wants to convince people that destroy is bad and synthesis or control is the best?"

I mean even if by destroying the reapers all organics get wiped out by some mysterious synthetic race not known/build so far - that's our own damn business! And we take full responsibility for that. If we are too dumb to build synthetics that do what they are build for - helping us - and instead end up killing us, that's how it will be. I have hope though, that no synthetic threat in the future will wipe all of us out...

And I ask the Catalyst: what's the problem for him when all organic life is wiped out by their own mistake? The chaos will be gone...:innocent:

Modifié par T-Raks, 30 mai 2012 - 07:14 .

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The very fact you can give a clear explintion of it's meaning and the factit's vague makes it open to interprtation.

Okay. 

Your point? I'm not denying that. 

2.It relevent. The are machines with a history of great deception. The hazards are always relevent.

Hazards are present, but this isn't one of them. 

3.No, these are machine with a history of great deception. It's not a speculation tha trust the reapers is a hazard. Even you said you can't trust them.

It's speculation to believe Shepard suddenly come under Reaper control by choosing this option. 

I never said it was wrong. 

[Lord Goose]

Through the whole series you're instructed that control is not something you can do or want to do.

The question about "what to do with Reapers" is never brought up in table before third game. In the first game Shepard must not allow them to enter Galaxy via Citadel. In the second he must not let the Collectors to gather enough humans and we still have no idea what to do with them.

It's only third game, when we have to decide what to do with them.

Then at the last moment "Oh, TIM was right? Maybe I will try it after all, ignore everything that came before."

I actually never specified what I exactly wanted to do with Reapers in first two games. And even in the third one I was more concerned with gathering enough resources to complete the Crucible. I didn't know what it would be able to do and was only hoping what it can somehow stop the Reapers.

And it worked.

[Candidate 88766]

antares_sublight wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
This is a great post, but it actually highlights why I personally prefer control and synthesis - because its so vague, there's much more room for imagination to take over.
...
The uncertainty around what synthesis does to people allows your imagination to take over, and the uncertainty of what level of control over the Reapers Shepard now has also allows room for imagaination. 

Staring at a blank piece of paper gets you the same result.

I'm not saying I prefer a story entirely of my own imagining to being told a story. I just normally spice up the stories I'm being told with my own imagination. Thats why I can so easily overlook plotholes in stories. Bioware set up the universe, the characters, and most of the story, but my mind fills in the blanks. I mean, ME3's story doesn't actually happen over 30 hours. Shepard doesn't land on Rannoch and solve the conflict within an hour or two. You play a sort of 'highlights reel' of the story. I always assumed other people do this, but whenever I'm playing a game like ME my mind is always fleshing it out and expanding on it. Less so with books and films, but the interactive nature of games is perfect for this imo.

[Apocaleepse360]

In my mind, I took control of the Reapers. I commanded them to rebuild the Mass Relays, which allowed everyone to return to their homes. I then sent the Reapers on a one-way course towards the sun. I also pictured my Shepard having a conflict of conscience similar to how the protagonist does at the end of Prey.

[The Night Mammoth]

T-Raks wrote...

I see it the other way around, that destroy Sheps are staying the course and do what fits their character throughout the series, while control/synthesis Sheps get too emotional about sacrificing machines.

Going all emotional is a hyperbloic way of putting it. 

I'd rather not slaughter a whole species of sate my illogical need to destroy the enemy. 

Not to stir a controversy here: I' not saying that players taking synthesis/control can't/shouldn't be happy with their choice (of course they can, that's why they choose to play their Sheps this way in the first place), I'm just saying that out of the story we get told, to me "destroy" is the only option.

Sure, I agree. 

I'm not making any threads to try to convince other people about this though and all I'm asking is "do we really need every five seconds a new thread where someone wants to convince people that destroy is bad and synthesis or control is the best?"

Do we need the opposite?

I mean even if by destroying the reapers all organics get wiped out by some mysterious synthetic race not known/build so far - that's our own damn business! And we take full responsibility for that. If we are too dumb to build synthetics that do what they are build for - helping us - and instead end up killing us, that's how it will be. I have hope though, that no synthetic thread will wipe all of us out...

Sure, I let that happen with control as well. 

[dreman9999]

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

In my mind, I took control of the Reapers. I commanded them to rebuild the Mass Relays, which allowed everyone to return to their homes. I then sent the Reapers on a one-way course towards the sun. I also pictured my Shepard having a conflict of conscience similar to how the protagonist does at the end of Prey.

But what's in you mind is not lore. What is import is what the star child imations.

[Lord Goose]

destroy: your goal since me1, while yes you will also destroy the other AI's, EDI and she would rather die that conform with the reapers. nobile sacrifice.

Destroying the Reapers was never my goal from the very beginning. My goal was to keep the galaxy safe. Destroying them was only mean to achieve it. If there are other means, they should at least be taken into account, rather than outright dissmissed.

And if Catalyst is lying, where is no point to choose anything. Let's be logical here: he may have portraited destroy in positive light (Reapers would be destroyed) to achieve his own agenda.

That's your actual point.

I think he rather meant, what using the Reapers technology is not a crime, since we use it all the way.

[antares_sublight]

Lord Goose wrote...

Through the whole series you're instructed that control is not something you can do or want to do.

The question about "what to do with Reapers" is never brought up in table before third game. In the first game Shepard must not allow them to enter Galaxy via Citadel. In the second he must not let the Collectors to gather enough humans and we still have no idea what to do with them.

It's only third game, when we have to decide what to do with them.

Then at the last moment "Oh, TIM was right? Maybe I will try it after all, ignore everything that came before."

I actually never specified what I exactly wanted to do with Reapers in first two games. And even in the third one I was more concerned with gathering enough resources to complete the Crucible. I didn't know what it would be able to do and was only hoping what it can somehow stop the Reapers.

And it worked.

So just like I said, a brand new, arbitrary choice thrust upon you at the last moment for which you have nothing to base a decision on. Choose what you want and you win, but any rationalization is purely personal headcanon/fan fiction.

[dreman9999]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
This is a great post, but it actually highlights why I personally prefer control and synthesis - because its so vague, there's much more room for imagination to take over.
...
The uncertainty around what synthesis does to people allows your imagination to take over, and the uncertainty of what level of control over the Reapers Shepard now has also allows room for imagaination. 

Staring at a blank piece of paper gets you the same result.

I'm not saying I prefer a story entirely of my own imagining to being told a story. I just normally spice up the stories I'm being told with my own imagination. Thats why I can so easily overlook plotholes in stories. Bioware set up the universe, the characters, and most of the story, but my mind fills in the blanks. I mean, ME3's story doesn't actually happen over 30 hours. Shepard doesn't land on Rannoch and solve the conflict within an hour or two. You play a sort of 'highlights reel' of the story. I always assumed other people do this, but whenever I'm playing a game like ME my mind is always fleshing it out and expanding on it. Less so with books and films, but the interactive nature of games is perfect for this imo.

But that doesn't mean you ignore a hazard of a choice. Do you understand what the hazards are with a vague statement of "You will die. You can control us but lose everything you have"?

[Vox Draco]

T-Raks wrote...
I'm not making any threads to try to convince other people about this though and all I'm asking is "do we really need every five seconds a new thread where someone wants to convince people that destroy is bad and synthesis or control is the best?"

Maybe it is more about covincing themselves than convincing others...sometimes I get that impression....after all, destroy clearly has the majority, and no matter what issue, if you stand against a majority you often get self-doubts. Sometimes the majority is wrong, of course, and standing up against overwhelming odds is often pretty tough and brave...

So respect for that from me to all non-destroyers, at least to some degree (I really don't like the folks playing down the Reaper's atrocities though, or the ones that think the catalyst is benevolent and just misguided...the are melting people, goddamn!!!)

Yet in this special case, I really don't see how the games up to the end give us any narrative reason/justification to think control will work out as we might hope or synthesis isn't just plain silly and wrong on all moral accounts. Everyone can disagree, but don't expect me to follow you on this path...

[dreman9999]

Lord Goose wrote...

destroy: your goal since me1, while yes you will also destroy the other AI's, EDI and she would rather die that conform with the reapers. nobile sacrifice.

Destroying the Reapers was never my goal from the very beginning. My goal was to keep the galaxy safe. Destroying them was only mean to achieve it. If there are other means, they should at least be taken into account, rather than outright dissmissed.

And if Catalyst is lying, where is no point to choose anything. Let's be logical here: he may have portraited destroy in positive light (Reapers would be destroyed) to achieve his own agenda.

That's your actual point.

I think he rather meant, what using the Reapers technology is not a crime, since we use it all the way.

So submitting to them is a better choice?

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

destroy: your goal since me1, while yes you will also destroy the other AI's, EDI and she would rather die that conform with the reapers. nobile sacrifice.

Destroying the Reapers was never my goal from the very beginning. My goal was to keep the galaxy safe. Destroying them was only mean to achieve it. If there are other means, they should at least be taken into account, rather than outright dissmissed.

And if Catalyst is lying, where is no point to choose anything. Let's be logical here: he may have portraited destroy in positive light (Reapers would be destroyed) to achieve his own agenda.

by lying I actually meant painting destroy in bad light, and favoring the other two. I was looking past the deception in my other post.

[Candidate 88766]

dreman9999 wrote...

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

In my mind, I took control of the Reapers. I commanded them to rebuild the Mass Relays, which allowed everyone to return to their homes. I then sent the Reapers on a one-way course towards the sun. I also pictured my Shepard having a conflict of conscience similar to how the protagonist does at the end of Prey.

But what's in you mind is not lore. What is import is what the star child imations.

But his imagination is perfectly valid here because there is no lore for what happened after ME3. There's nothing to disprove that Shepard commanded the Reapers to rebuild the relays. As long as it doesn't violate any lore, then why is imagining stuff in the story wrong? And at the end of the day, this is our story. Bioware gives us the basic framework, and we get to make choices, but if we don't like something then why shouldn't we change it in our imaginations? It doesn't affect your Mass Effect story. Its a fictional story. Its not gospel or something.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 30 mai 2012 - 07:17 .