This image says that Control wouldn't work for Shepard because it didn't work for TIM. It's stated that Control only works for those who are not controlled by the Reapers. TIM was indoctrinated, that's why it didn't work for him. It works for Shepard. Therefore the reasoning is wrong.
Also, this idea that 'that action is evil because the evil man wanted to do it!' is rubbish.
People are evil because of their actions, not the other way around. Using the anti-control logic, you could say that having black hair is evil, a certain historical figure had black hair, didn't he? Also, people need to understand that the 'Shepard would never do that' argument is flawed as well. People can change their minds! Major events can change people's outlook on things, and what events were more major than those of ME3? I'm mostly just ranting because I actually like the Control ending, I think the rigid 'I'll stick to my guns and ignore any revelations I learn!' mantra is flawed. I thought that synthetics deserved to live, and a benevolent order by my paragon Shepard seemed like a good idea, at least synthetics and Shepard (sort of) survive, that way.
At the end of the day, I think all three endings (yes, refusal doesn't count!) have their pros and cons, and hopefully, ME-don't-call-it-ME4 will clarify a bit.OK, I promise never to mention the ME3 endings ever again.
Retour en haut
