56 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthRic]

Modifié par DarthRic, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:14 .

[DarthRic]

Modifié par DarthRic, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:15 .

[Legbiter]

I dunno the whole thing where Shepard dies but imprints his/her memories and morals onto the AI construct that previously housed the original Catalyst is just too pat, too Oprah for my taste.

[Clumsy Astronaut]

Very well written, basically sums up why I picked control. By the time that Shepard's morals are antiquated he will have ceased to care. Maybe taking a more long term goal of galactic preservation, like reversing entrophy or dealing with the dark energy destroying stars.

[Phydeaux314]

Very very nice work. I agree with the vast majority of it, especially the piece on identity. I think it's nice to have someone lay out why we don't find control abhorrent.

[memorysquid]

CrutchCricket wrote...
In other words, it’s the VI who only thinks he’s Shepard but on a larger scale. It’s an imperfect copy, a replica, a fake.

Friends, are you aware of how nebulous the concept of identity really is?

I am aware that Reaper Shep himself says he is not Shepard.  Meaning he is aware of a difference in the canon.

[MetioricTest]

I don't get why you can't describe people who don't like control without insulting them...

Friends, are you aware of how nebulous the concept of identity really is? What makes the you of last week the same “you” as in the present? What link is there between the two? How do you prove that there is some quality
about you, some identity that persists through time? Is it physical continuity? Is it merely that you look the same, that you are identical genetically? You are not of course the exact same as last week. You hair and nails may have grown, some of your cells may have flaked off. In fact speaking of cells, you cycle just about all of them every couple of years (different tissues replace themselves at different rates. Neurons do not get replaced at all). So physically you are not the same collection of cells you were a few years ago.

It helps that I can refer to myself from a week ago as myself and not someone else.

It also helps that I am the same being.

You're exaggerating. While the philosophy of identity is interesting, it's impractical for this discussion. By your logic Keiji's Graybox is Keiji for it contains his thoughts and memories.

It's also weak to say that "Yes Shepard looks different, thinks differently, acts differently and considers himself to be a different being...But because it has knowledge of Shepard's experiences there is a connection." That's absurdly circuitous and raises a lot of issues. Memories were also implanted into Grunt, does that make him 17 people? No, his grunt. His own being.

A few people seem to think that Control just means Shepard replaced the holokid with himself

The fact he says you will become the new Catalyst helps...

So what about Shepard? Well unlike the holokid he is not a created AI with a single nonsensical goal. The new control entity (I like to call it Commander) is created based on the thoughts and persona of a living being, an organic. This fact alone makes the resulting intelligence far more dynamic than the holokid. And as it replaced it, the Crucible was still docked. So even if the Crucible only temporarily allowed the control entity more power, it’s not hard to imagine it would’ve taken the opportunity to throw off the rest of its shackles or to self-modify in order to be able to do so at a later time. It's guided by Shepard's thoughts after all and the man made sure he could complete his objectives when he got'em. Furthermore we have the matter of the purpose. The holokid was built with this problem as a core part of its existence. But Shepard was not. Hell you can even make the case that Shepard doesn’t even buy this whole synthetic-organic crap but he’s not going to pass up the chance to end the war with just a few simple (if far-reaching) actions.

Therefore, not only is Commander fundamentally different from the holokid, it has the will and the power to self-modify and remove any residual programming that might push it to accept the crazy logic and start Reaping again. Although this is not a direct proof, the line “Through my birth his thoughts are freed” seems to support the idea that Commander is not tied down to any directive like the holokid was. It’s not conclusive. But it’d be a very odd choice of words otherwise.

This is find interesting. You're claiming the fact the new AI is unshackled is a good thing. Look at Edi. Unshackled AIs change, they develop and this AI isn't Shepard. It's an AI that has Shepard's experiences. You have no idea what will happen as time passes and it develops/experiences new situations.

It's pointless to try to make assumptions because we don't have the information to work with it. It's a brand new character who will face brand new situations. Neither of which we have any knowledge about.

Scenario: The Geth develop technology that would potentially allow them to surpass and take control of the Reapers if they wanted to. They promise not to use it. How does the new AI react? Who knows.

Scenario: Turians and Asari go to war over a boarder dispute which begins to threaten other races, colonies and even gametic peace in it's severity. How does AI respond? Do nothing? Pick a side? Wipe out both sides? Who knows.

Scenario: 375 years have passed. Everything Commander Shepard ever knew is now obsolete. Has the AI kept up with the times or is all his cultural reference and knowledge now dated? The Reapers were never guardians, they harvested. A "guardian" needs to know what it's guarding. What if a biological virus is making the Salarians into frenzied biological time-bombs who risk the safety of all organic life. In response the Turians decide they have to wipe them out in complete genocide. How does AI react and does he even comprehend the situation? Who knows.

Scenario: Aliens from outside the Milky Way appear. How does AI react? Who knows.

Scenario: Aliens from outside the Milky Way appear and attack the Reapers. How does the AI react? Who knows.

Don't you see? I can't say "The AI will Reap again" and you can't say "The AI will not Reap again" because neither of us have a clue. Both by my and your own logic. Which you even confess at the end in your final thought without meaning to.

Which becomes pointless. The "choice" becomes fanfiction. And boring fanfiction at that. You're entire bit about Mr Manhattan is the example of that. (Btw don't assume that if I'm not quoting something I haven't read it) the concept of "It will become bored and wander off." is in itself exactly what you hypocritically what you dislike the "It will Reap again" guys saying. A baseless assumption you, yourself claim is impossible for any of us to make.


There is also the fact that by avoiding Starchild's logic, you also avoid the biggest reason why people dislike control. The primary reason is wrapped up in Starchild's logic.

It just becomes an all round awful ending.

[CrutchCricket]

memorysquid wrote...
I am aware that Reaper Shep himself says he is not Shepard.  Meaning he is aware of a difference in the canon.

Kindly read the rest of that section, specifically the end.

[CrutchCricket]

MetioricTest wrote...


I don't get why you can't describe people who don't like control without insulting them...

I've insulted no one, at least not intentionally. But it is getting tiresome hearing the same smug one liners "critiquing" control (term used very generously)

It also helps that I am the same being.

Are you now? Pray tell, how?

You're exaggerating. While the philosophy of identity is interesting, it's impractical for this discussion. By your logic Keiji's Graybox is Keiji for it contains his thoughts and memories.

Not exactly as grayboxes are not full brain backups, but rather only contain some memories and an apparent gatekeeper to navigate them. Think more Holocron from Star Wars.
But yes, it has been mentioned that if grayboxes were full backups and you were to install one in a "blank" body, you would for all intents and purposes have Keiji back. Disagree? I await your proof from the last quote.

It's also weak to say that "Yes Shepard looks different, thinks differently, acts differently and considers himself to be a different being...But because it has knowledge of Shepard's experiences there is a connection." That's absurdly circuitous and raises a lot of issues. Memories were also implanted into Grunt, does that make him 17 people? No, his grunt. His own being.

Underlined is the key. Commander is not Shepard anymore than Grunt is the sum of 17 or however many people. Yet there is a connection. I distinctly say that the statement "the Control entity is not Shepard" is technically correct, but not in the way you people seem to mean, that it's merely an AI pretending to be Shepard, or perhaps deluded into thinking as such. There is continuity there, no less than is present in each of our identities.

The fact he says you will become the new Catalyst helps...

Does he now? Which line specifically?

This is find interesting. You're claiming the fact the new AI is unshackled is a good thing. Look at Edi.

Yeah I would say she's the poster child for "free AI is good."

Unshackled AIs change, they develop and this AI isn't Shepard. It's an AI that has Shepard's experiences. You have no idea what will happen as time passes and it develops/experiences new situations.

It's pointless to try to make assumptions because we don't have the information to work with it. It's a brand new character who will face brand new situations. Neither of which we have any knowledge about.

Scenario: The Geth develop technology that would potentially allow them to surpass and take control of the Reapers if they wanted to. They promise not to use it. How does the new AI react? Who knows.

Scenario: Turians and Asari go to war over a boarder dispute which begins to threaten other races, colonies and even gametic peace in it's severity. How does AI respond? Do nothing? Pick a side? Wipe out both sides? Who knows.

Scenario: 375 years have passed. Everything Commander Shepard ever knew is now obsolete. Has the AI kept up with the times or is all his cultural reference and knowledge now dated? The Reapers were never guardians, they harvested. A "guardian" needs to know what it's guarding. What if a biological virus is making the Salarians into frenzied biological time-bombs who risk the safety of all organic life. In response the Turians decide they have to wipe them out in complete genocide. How does AI react and does he even comprehend the situation? Who knows.

Scenario: Aliens from outside the Milky Way appear. How does AI react? Who knows.

Scenario: Aliens from outside the Milky Way appear and attack the Reapers. How does the AI react? Who knows.

Don't you see? I can't say "The AI will Reap again" and you can't say "The AI will not Reap again" because neither of us have a clue. Both by my and your own logic. Which you even confess at the end in your final thought without meaning to.

Which becomes pointless. The "choice" becomes fanfiction. And boring fanfiction at that. You're entire bit about Mr Manhattan is the example of that. (Btw don't assume that if I'm not quoting something I haven't read it) the concept of "It will become bored and wander off." is in itself exactly what you hypocritically what you dislike the "It will Reap again" guys saying. A baseless assumption you, yourself claim is impossible for any of us to make.

All these scenarios you mention fall into headcanon, yes. They are also highly dependent on what Shepard was played like. But if you want to assume the worst, that's your problem.

Where I differ is that I don't inject new variables like specific conflicts or intergalactic aliens at random. My predictions of indifference are arrived at from logically following what we currently know.
1.One entity, not shackled and bound by the bull**** logic of its predecessor with limitless processing power (see that linked post in the OP for the estimated intelligence of just one Reaper) free within the universe.
2. The utter insignificance of organics on the cosmic scale.
3.Entity's perception extends far beyond irrelevant organics.
4. Indifference/Disconnect inevitable.

And quote what you want, but don't misrepresent my words. Boredom has nothing to do with it. Do you get bored of looking at ants? Or did you never really care to look at them at all?

Pro tip: The final thought refers to assertions made about the nature of the entity, particularly after the disconnect. We can't concieve of it. Can't really concieve of it before the disconnect either, but at least then it's still dealing on our level somewhat, if it interacts with us.

There is also the fact that by avoiding Starchild's logic, you also avoid the biggest reason why people dislike control. The primary reason is wrapped up in Starchild's logic.

It just becomes an all round awful ending.

You don't have to buy its logic to pick control. I don't thus I ignore it (and am quite happy as a result). If your biggest complaint about control is holokid logic, this thread isn't the place for you.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 juillet 2012 - 12:15 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Very interesting thread, CrutchCricket! This actually makes Control more appealing to me.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:00 .

[ManiacG]

[Eterna]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Very interesting thread, CrutchCricket! This actually makes Control more appealing to me.

Control is the best option imo. 

You're not funny, infact your post only proves you lack the attention span to read a theory. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:46 .

[drgSebi]

CrutchCricket wrote...

A Look At Control  <-apparently you can't center in these threads but this is the title lol


In light of the EC I’m seeing a lot of doom and gloom threads popping up about Control . Some people are freaking out that Shepard will go crazy and start Reaping, others are just mindlessly quoting the tired old Acton cliché and just about everybody seems fond of saying “oh it’s not Shepard, it’s just the holokid with Shepard’s face” or something to that extent.

I wanted to compile all my thoughts on the matter in order to a) focus discussion of these issues in one place and have something to point to when this inevitably comes up again. I’m getting real tired of typing the same thing over and over.

 

Disclaimer: I am looking at the consequences of Control alone. I am not discussing the ending in general and/or how it relates to the rest of the series. I’m also not discussing the holokid’s “logic” and in fact have done my best to ignore it both in this, hopefully impartial perspective and in my personal headcanon.

The contents of this post are largely extrapolations derived from what we’ve seen in Control. None of the  conclusions described are seen in-game. However I have tried to follow a logical progression in coming up with
this that should hopefully give it more weight than just “some dude’s headcanon”.

 

Summary: i.e. where I’m going with this. If you read nothing else take the following as the key topic of this thread:

 

By picking control, Shepard is ascending as an individual. He is stripped of his humanity and corporeal form and becomes something more. The new entity is not Shepard the human but there is continuity of persona.  One does not simply end and the other begins. It is a transformation. The new entity is fundamentally different than the Catalyst (referred to as the holokid always, at least by me). It is a higher intelligence able to perceive and comprehend more than organic minds can imagine. As a result of this expanded awareness, the new entity further disconnects from his organic roots and becomes indifferent to lifeforms beneath it. Therefore at some point in the future the new entity will ignore organics, perhaps going so far as to physically remove itself from their midst in the pursuit of whatever unknowable goals such an intelligence would have.

 And now onto the detailed points:


Shepard vs not-Shepard.

How many times have you gone on a thread discussing Control and referred to the new control entity as “Shepard”, for convenience’s sake? Invariably as soon as you did some wise-ass would immediately attempt to
correct you: “That’s not Shepard. Shepard’s dead. That’s just an AI,” they’d intone, with the same righteous matter-of-factness as a career bureaucrat denying a slightly erroneous application. What may be most irritating is that technically they’re correct (the best kind of correct if the Central Bureaucracy is to be believed).

The Shepard that we get out of Control is not the same Shepard we put in at the beginning of whatever ME game you started on. Obviously one’s a meatbag, the other’s a bunch of circuits controlling some big-ass cuttlefish. But as much as they are technically correct, they couldn’t be more wrong in terms of deeper meaning and intent. “That’s not Shepard” is typically not meant to imply “that’s no longer a human with flesh and blood” but rather “there was an intrinsic value in the identity of Shepard that is not present in this artificial approximation”. In other words, it’s the VI who only thinks he’s Shepard but on a larger scale. It’s an imperfect copy, a replica, a fake.

Friends, are you aware of how nebulous the concept of identity really is? What makes the you of last week the same “you” as in the present? What link is there between the two? How do you prove that there is some quality
about you, some identity that persists through time? Is it physical continuity? Is it merely that you look the same, that you are identical genetically?  You are not of course the exact same as last week. You hair and nails may have grown, some of your cells may have flaked off. In fact speaking of cells, you cycle just about all of them every couple of years (different tissues replace themselves at different rates. Neurons do not get replaced at all). So physically you are not the same collection of cells you were a few years ago.

Now let’s go deeper (BWONNNG!): teleporters in fiction typically work on the basis of breaking down the target, sending all that information about the target to the destination and reassembling it there. So suppose a person got teleported. Their matter on the transmitting end would be completely destroyed; while instantaneously all the information about them would be used to reconstruct them at the destination. But is it the same person? Or merely a copy? Physical continuity is obviously ruled out. The body at the transmitting end was completely destroyed. Only information about it was sent. So what’s left? Memories? Personality? Those are ruled out too. If the person at the receiving end has a memory (dinner with his wife, let’s say), that memory does not belong him because he didn’t have dinner with his wife. He don’t have a wife. How could he? They were just created in the teleporter. They have recieved the memories of another man who happens to be the exact same, but who was destroyed moments ago.


So how does this relate to Shepard? Well before we get to his case I’m sure people wouldn’t really be comfortable believing we don’t have an identity that persists through time or if that we had teleporters we’d be
systematically murdering every user and just creating copies at the other end. So we need to loosen up a little. Instead of demanding continuity and exactness, maybe we need just to settle for “if it looks like Bob, and it talks
like Bob, and it remembers what Bob did, it’s probably Bob”. But forget Bob, what about Shepard? Well Shepard too gets broken down and disintegrated and all the information pertaining to what he was gets transmitted somewhere. Except instead of recreating his organic body at some other point, his thoughts and personality get integrated into the Reaper command structure. What you’re left with is something that talks and thinks like Shepard, with the only difference being that physically, he’s a collection of giant robot cuttlefish. So by our more chill standards, it talks and remembers like Shepard, it’s probably Shepard. There is continuity albeit weak continuity. Strong continuity as we’ve seen just isn’t possible. So by this alone humanShepard=ControlShepard.

Where that equality gets broken is what is added to Shepard after that transmission: untold processing power, the combined knowledge of all the races the Reapers somehow have stored in them etc etc. Once you factor all that in, what we’re left with doesn’t talk much like Shepard did, doesn’t act much like Shepard did and definitely doesn’t look much like Shepard did. So we can conclude that it is in fact not Shepard. But there is continuity there, just weak continuity. But no weaker than the continuity of any of us persisting for more than a few years or of teleporting (if we ever figure that one out). So ControlShepard is not just a VI or an AI who thinks its Shepard. It is a whole new entity that is continuous from our Shepard.

 

Shepard vs. The Holokid.

A few people seem to think that Control just means Shepard replaced the holokid with himself and that there is a strong possibility that years down the line some clueless race is going to get the same nonsensical song and dance from holoShepard after he nearly harvests everyone yet again. I maintain that is not the case, and that the control entity is fundamentally different from the holokid.

The Catalyst was an AI built and programmed by its creators for one task- finding a solution to the organic-synthetic problem (never mind whether this problem actually existed or not). Its programming makes the holokid believe it and it’s safe to assume is creators believed it too. This suggests a few things, the most important being that the holokid was necessarily limited in how it could act. In other words it was likely shackled, like EDI was, restricted from certain functions or data and unable to self-modify (they just didn't do a good enough job of shackling it, or maybe they didn't count on it planning to melt them and everyone else into mecha-cuttlefish go-juice). This is supported by the holokid itself when it says the Crucible opens new possibilities. The device then clearly loosened or removed some shackles allowing the holokid some wiggle room where before there was none.

So what about Shepard? Well unlike the holokid he is not a created AI with a single nonsensical goal. The new control entity (I like to call it Commander) is created based on the thoughts and persona of a living being, an organic. This fact alone makes the resulting intelligence far more dynamic than the holokid. And as it replaced it, the Crucible was still docked. So even if the Crucible only temporarily allowed the control entity more power, it’s not hard to imagine it would’ve taken the opportunity to throw off the rest of its shackles or to self-modify in order to be able to do so at a later time. It's guided by Shepard's thoughts after all and the man made sure he could complete his objectives when he got'em. Furthermore we have the matter of the purpose. The holokid was built with this problem as a core part of its existence. But Shepard was not. Hell you can even make the case that Shepard doesn’t even buy this whole synthetic-organic crap but he’s not going to pass up the chance to end the war with just a few simple (if far-reaching) actions.

Therefore, not only is Commander fundamentally different from the holokid, it has the will and the power to self-modify and remove any residual programming that might push it to accept the crazy logic and start Reaping again. Although this is not a direct proof, the line “Through my birth his thoughts are freed” seems to support the idea that Commander is not tied down to any directive like the holokid was. It’s not conclusive. But it’d be a very odd choice of words otherwise.

 

The Music:

For those that have read this far, this is the intermission point. No huge theoretical rambling here. Yes, I’ll admit it, the music for both epilogues in control is a tad intimidating. Personally I think it fits the presentation aspect of the Reapers (they’ll never be cute and cuddly, no matter who’s in charge. You can make Kermit the Frog the new  control entity and it’ll still be pretty damn scary). But this is a point of impressions and emotions and that’s not something I can argue against. And since I said this is supposed to be intermission, here you go: [link]

 

The Indifference Doctrine

This is probably the part I’ll endorse most strongly. But if you’ve followed along so far you know what kind of entity we’re dealing with here. We’re talking about something with all the power, knowledge, perception and  understanding of the Reapers, yet unchained by the flawed logic that ruled them before. If at this point you want to call Commander a machine god or cosmic entity, you’re not technically correct but I won’t argue the point much. Because the effects of this fact on its relationship with lower lifeforms (yes us, puny organics) are about the same as if we were talking about Galactus. And that effect is indifference. Why would something so vast, with greater potential still, worry about a few organics scurrying here and there? There is so much in the universe that’s beyond us so many concepts and ways of looking at things we can’t even begin to imagine. Just look at the scale of the observable universe. We are of less consequence in the grand scheme of things than the individual atoms that we’re made of matter to us. And here we have a true higher intelligence, with this entire universe to explore with all the vast faculties at its command… and it’s going to keep playing with us?

The character of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen was written precisely to drive this point home. In the starkest deconstruction of superheroes, the one super-powered being in the entire series asks us why should he use his powers for the good (or detriment) of mankind? Manhattan needs nothing. He is threatened by nothing. He is  instead fascinated by the quantum workings of the universe, even as he laments his powerlessness in the face of immutable determinism. His powers take him far beyond the trivialities of the mundane everyday world. “I have walked across the surface of the sun. I have witnessed events so miniscule, so fast they can hardly be said to have occurred at all.” And next to all this, he is expected to worry (or indeed even notice) such things as Laurie’s growing discontent, or the political tensions his very presence causes? His connection to humanity grows ever weaker and to really drive the point home, not only does that not bother him, but in a way he’s almost relieved. “I grow tired of Earth, these people. Tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.” Inasmuch as he still feels emotions, he almost resents the constant stream of human problems he’s asked to deal with- because to his higher level senses they are as inconsequential as asking any one of us to mediate for ants. Or microbes. Even at the end, where he acknowledges the worth of life, he chooses to leave and study it on his own terms. I think this is because even in organic life, there are things far more important than the petty issues of our daily lives. To us they’re important because they encompass our entire world. But to a being thrust outside the world? You might as well ask which type of ants he prefers, red or black.

So where does that leave Commander? In pretty much the exact same situation as Dr. Manhattan I would argue. The holokid himself predicts a “disconnect from humanity”. The epilogues laid it on a bit thick with the whole guardian of the galaxy (or dictator if you’re feeling renegade). But this disconnect does not need to happen instantly. I believe however that it will happen eventually for the reasons listed above. Therefore the control entity will stick around for a while (not sure how long) and do what it said it’d do- guard or rule. But eventually it will grow indifferent to organics. And at that point it will devote all its resources to the pursuit of… whatever goals such beings pursue. Thus I conclude it is unlikely it will inevitably come into conflict with the organics it’s supposed to save. It will not restart the cycle, nor will it be drawn into a war for whatever other reason.

 

A Final Thought:

The entity I’ve been describing for the past five pages is something no organic mind can fully comprehend. Therefore applying human concepts to it like extended emotions, insanity or my personal favourite<_< “power corrupts” is bound to be flawed. We are simply not equipped to make these assertions. I can’t guarantee that level would even have equivalents of these assertions. So when I see things like “Shepard’s gonna go crazy and reap everyone” or “you can’t trust any man with that much power” or any variations thereof, I can but shake my head. People who insist on these kinds of statements are vastly missing the point. And ironically, they’re often the same people who won’t shut up about how “Shepard’s dead and that’s just an AI who thinks its Shepard”. Good grief.

Further Reading:

Estimated intelligence of one Reaper- Post by stephen_dedalus. The scope of adding all that together is staggering to even try to think about.

You are right, but you have stated it yourself. We humans are like ants to something we cannot comprehend and in turn does not feel anything for us... except being bored by our endless problems, maybe. We don't care much about ants, what do people do when they see ants... usually? Do they think of its life ending? They don't much care. What if you are that ant? Of course a higher entity wouldn't care, but that's not really the point, because you would. Therefore it doesn't matter if AI Shep cares for the people he's protecting or not, he is just to powerful to fully trust and we humans are afraid of someone with power... hell most people are afraid of their bosses at work and try to obey by complying, imagine being afraid that some AI suddenly wants to do an experiment for its amusement (say... start reaping again? or something similar)... hence why my ending is destroy... I am aware that things are not perfect, that destroy is flawed, but I prefer a galaxy with flaws, but with the petty and false idealism of freedom, rather than some almighty being that is there to rule and watch over us for all eternity, as much as I love Shep (renegade or paragon), I wouldn't like him ruling over the Galaxy, sane or insane. In my opinion, Paragon Shepard would be too modest to choose to gain such power and renegade Shepard - the good renegade would again be modest, the evil renegade would just like to watch the Reapers burn for all the wrong they did, in the sake of pragmatism of course... >

[CrutchCricket]

drgSebi wrote...
You are right, but you have stated it yourself. We humans are like ants to something we cannot comprehend and in turn does not feel anything for us... except being bored by our endless problems, maybe. We don't care much about ants, what do people do when they see ants... usually? Do they think of its life ending? They don't much care. What if you are that ant? Of course a higher entity wouldn't care, but that's not really the point, because you would. Therefore it doesn't matter if AI Shep cares for the people he's protecting or not, he is just to powerful to fully trust and we humans are afraid of someone with power... hell most people are afraid of their bosses at work and try to obey by complying, imagine being afraid that some AI suddenly wants to do an experiment for its amusement (say... start reaping again? or something similar)...

While it's true that something the size of an ant would fear something the size of a human if it were around simply because it is so large and powerful and incomprehensible, that isn't what's happening in Control. When Shepard makes the decision there is no such entity around. The Reapers aren't that, they've been cheapened and now we know their limits and what they are and why they do what they do (nonsensical though it may be). More importantly the decision revolves around becoming something so big and powerful. Now what fearful little ant, aware of how big the world is and how tiny and fragile it is in comparison would refuse the chance to escape its tiny vulnerable state and become something mighty, something that will keep all his ant buddies from being stomped or from tearing themselves apart?

Some would refuse that option of course, because control is not for everyone. But the value in becoming something that powerful cannot be denied, even if it's not something everyone would accept. Of course the rest of your ant buddies might not be down with you choice, for the fear you reference. But that's a different perspective, a different context.

And speaking of contexts, my arguments are more geared towards responding to the reactions to the control entity, not to supporting its creation. The value of control is self-evident.  But obviously if we as a collective had the option to create a machine god but were fearful of what it could do, me saying "well it won't care eventually" isn't very conforting. However if one of us went ahead and became a machine god, I would be justified in saying "look, it's going to be alright, don't panic, we're too small for it to bother with us"

hence why my ending is destroy... I am aware that things are not perfect, that destroy is flawed, but I prefer a galaxy with flaws, but with the petty and false idealism of freedom, rather than some almighty being that is there to rule and watch over us for all eternity, as much as I love Shep (renegade or paragon), I wouldn't like him ruling over the Galaxy, sane or insane. In my opinion, Paragon Shepard would be too modest to choose to gain such power and renegade Shepard - the good renegade would again be modest, the evil renegade would just like to watch the Reapers burn for all the wrong they did, in the sake of pragmatism of course... >

Your personal decision is your own as is your interpetation of Shepard. Others see it differently.

However I will venture a guess that you didn't read my entire post, since you seem to focus on "ruling for eternity" something I've cleary said won't be the case.

[byarru]

*applauds*
You, mister, are genius!
I share your opinions, your positive view and I'll simply quote Mark Meer:
"I really liked the Control ending. Not just because we got to voice it but also, you know, Shepard becoming some immortal Reaper-God-Machine"

[Bill Casey]

The Slavery and Philosopher King aspects are beyond ****ed up...
The more Control works out, the worse that ending is, because it's just glorifying Thomas Hobbes and Plato's The Republic...
And the type of philosophy that helps instill dictatorships...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 25 mars 2013 - 06:40 .

[Lparsons7641]

Control gave me a bad feeling.........especially that epilogue music.

I wish it didn't as I hate having to kill Edi and the Geth

[3DandBeyond]

CrutchCricket wrote...

A Look At Control  <-apparently you can't center in these threads but this is the title lol


In light of the EC I’m seeing a lot of doom and gloom threads popping up about Control . Some people are freaking out that Shepard will go crazy and start Reaping, others are just mindlessly quoting the tired old Acton cliché and just about everybody seems fond of saying “oh it’s not Shepard, it’s just the holokid with Shepard’s face” or something to that extent.

I wanted to compile all my thoughts on the matter in order to a) focus discussion of these issues in one place and have something to point to when this inevitably comes up again. I’m getting real tired of typing the same thing over and over.

 

Disclaimer: I am looking at the consequences of Control alone. I am not discussing the ending in general and/or how it relates to the rest of the series. I’m also not discussing the holokid’s “logic” and in fact have done my best to ignore it both in this, hopefully impartial perspective and in my personal headcanon.

The contents of this post are largely extrapolations derived from what we’ve seen in Control. None of the  conclusions described are seen in-game. However I have tried to follow a logical progression in coming up with
this that should hopefully give it more weight than just “some dude’s headcanon”.

---snipped---

Ok, haven't read it all but I intend to but there is already a lot in your opening that can be addressed.

First off, cliches do exist for a reason since there are often tidbits of truth within them.  However, as pertains to this particular choice there's also a lot of nuance within that cliche of power corrupting.  You lose meaning when you lose the context of why someone stated that and it's often in response to the idea that "Shepard is special" and "Shepard's the one person I'd trust to Control this stuff."  The cliche then brings up the point that no one person should have that kind of power-we've seen what it does and yes, it can corrupt the "best of 'em".

There's also the fact that many people just plain don't have the time to write things down as you and I may, so the cliche suffices to express a timeless truth.  Beyond which the other thoughts contained herein are just about enough to cause any sane person to question the wisdom of assuming such complete control over a whole bunch of creatures (without independent verification even that such control is possible).  Never mind that, we see what we see and that's your basis for this discussion.

For me however my own logic and the real world enters into this.  I cannot separate out any discussion of any one choice without being able to point out the idiocy of the whole thing.  Control is mired in this super amazing process whereby one consciousness is ripped from a body and uploaded into some technological infrastructure to assume control of the reapers.  We only know what we know and what we've been told is that taking data from one physical environment and putting it into another (blue boxes as the point of reference) creates a totally new personality.  All tech is flawed in some way, so each blue box is minutely different from others.  How different then is Shepard's organic physical form from that of the tech infrastructure to which s/he is to be uploaded?  This sets up the idea that Shepard is not Shepard. 

People don't often stop to explain each time what they mean in full-it's assumed that anyone that played these games should understand this concept but obviously they don't.  I see many discussions that say the control Shepard has emotions and knowledge and memories of the organic Shepard.  These same people then make the statement that the AI kid as Catalyst has no understanding of feelings and life and death and all that, so he doesn't know he's killing people.  Makes no sense-if the infrastructure does not allow for some type of electronic feelings and understanding for the kid, then how would it do so for Shepard?  Again, this leads to the concept of Shepard no longer being Shepard.

With Control I am confronted with something the Shepard I played would not choose (mine wouldn't make any of these idiotic choices without a lot more questions).  The only good reaper is a dead reaper.  They have indicated a certain independent will at times that leads me to believe that if no one controlled them they'd still want to turn people into goo.  It's what they were created to do.  And before that the machines that became reapers were not very nice either, nor were the original organics that fused with them to become reapers.  I don't see them as having a place in the galaxy, let alone becoming the repairmen and cops. 

Beyond all of this is the practical issue-the fact that no sane person in the game would want to see living reapers in their skies or on their planets.  I don't care how good they are at fixing things-nothing is worth that.  They are the stuff of nightmares.  Examples exist in real life of killers that people don't want walking amongst them. So, the idea that Shepard would say, "Garrus, ignore Palaven.  Make friends with your reaper brothers.  They're good with tools" is moronic.  And that's not even questioning the situation with the reaper variants.

I know there's a lot of discussion that says that Control is the best because it doesn't kill anyone (except Shepard) but some things are worse than death.  Control Shepard does sound ominous and even my full Paragon Shepard says things she would never say-that again goes back to absolute power corrupting absolutely.  She indicates that she always knew she had to become powerful.  No she didn't.  Not in my game.  She always wanted others to examine the power they had and to use it judiciously.  She never wanted to be alone and be in charge of everyone.

It's the idea that this ending (as with the others) does not give you enough meat to chew.  We are given tidbits of info that some can construe as ok (I personally can't see it) because they have the idea that any kind of life is better than death.  So, they end up believing that any of these choices wins the game.  I have seen that real people don't think like that unless they're spoiled or just nasty.  I don't mean that people that like Control (or any other choice) are like that-I just don't think they are looking at how people do really act.  Real people would not accept having gigantic mass murderers as neighbors.

And then another practical issue involves violence towards reapers and the repercussion.  First off, everyone's fighting reapers and Shepard picks Control.  So automatically everyone is supposed to realize the reapers are now their friends?  And they'll stop attacking them?  Ok.  Then, if later on even one or two people decide they want to destroy reapers what would Control Shepard do?  Say it's Garrus, Joker, Javik, Liara, and all the rest who decide the reapers are still a threat or an abomination that must be destroyed-will the reapers attack them or just be destroyed?

What it all comes down to for me is the whole thing is just a mess-something no rational person would do and something that logically cannot be achieved and cannot achieve the outcome we see in the cutscenes and slides.  Not in my opinion.

[3DandBeyond]

byarru wrote...

*applauds*
You, mister, are genius!
I share your opinions, your positive view and I'll simply quote Mark Meer:
"I really liked the Control ending. Not just because we got to voice it but also, you know, Shepard becoming some immortal Reaper-God-Machine"

Yes, this was so much what Shepard always wanted.  I vomited in my mouth again.  Mark Meer really has the pulse of ME right there-the whole story was about Shepard becoming that. 

[Yestare7]

Lparsons7641 wrote...

 as I hate having to kill Edi and the Geth

Are you kidding?  That is the best part!!

[Bill Casey]

3DandBeyond wrote...

byarru wrote...

*applauds*
You, mister, are genius!
I share your opinions, your positive view and I'll simply quote Mark Meer:
"I really liked the Control ending. Not just because we got to voice it but also, you know, Shepard becoming some immortal Reaper-God-Machine"

Yes, this was so much what Shepard always wanted.  I vomited in my mouth again.  Mark Meer really has the pulse of ME right there-the whole story was about Shepard becoming that. 

I imagine it's an awesome ending for twelve year olds...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 25 mars 2013 - 10:32 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Bill Casey wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

byarru wrote...

*applauds*
You, mister, are genius!
I share your opinions, your positive view and I'll simply quote Mark Meer:
"I really liked the Control ending. Not just because we got to voice it but also, you know, Shepard becoming some immortal Reaper-God-Machine"

Yes, this was so much what Shepard always wanted.  I vomited in my mouth again.  Mark Meer really has the pulse of ME right there-the whole story was about Shepard becoming that. 

I imagine it's an awesome ending for twelve year olds...

I'm certainly not tweleve and it's easily my favorite, both in concept and outcome. Execution, on the other hand...

[Unschuld]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

byarru wrote...

*applauds*
You, mister, are genius!
I share your opinions, your positive view and I'll simply quote Mark Meer:
"I really liked the Control ending. Not just because we got to voice it but also, you know, Shepard becoming some immortal Reaper-God-Machine"

Yes, this was so much what Shepard always wanted.  I vomited in my mouth again.  Mark Meer really has the pulse of ME right there-the whole story was about Shepard becoming that. 

I imagine it's an awesome ending for twelve year olds...

I'm certainly not tweleve and it's easily my favorite, both in concept and outcome. Execution, on the other hand...

Maybe emotionally  twelve is the better term then.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Unschuld wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

byarru wrote...

*applauds*
You, mister, are genius!
I share your opinions, your positive view and I'll simply quote Mark Meer:
"I really liked the Control ending. Not just because we got to voice it but also, you know, Shepard becoming some immortal Reaper-God-Machine"

Yes, this was so much what Shepard always wanted.  I vomited in my mouth again.  Mark Meer really has the pulse of ME right there-the whole story was about Shepard becoming that. 

I imagine it's an awesome ending for twelve year olds...

I'm certainly not tweleve and it's easily my favorite, both in concept and outcome. Execution, on the other hand...

Maybe emotionally  twelve is the better term then.

I don't think anyone with the emotional maturity of a preteen could truly appreciate the greater implications of control. That being said, I don't think my personal view of control accords with that of the writers.