56 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

Bill Casey wrote...

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...

Comes another... who didn't read the OP.


3DandBeyond: Holy ****, you mean all that is just on the intro? That's... unexpected. Reading...

Ok despite the clarity and detail of your post it's still apparent you didn't read the real meat of mine. I will respond to some of you ideas but I would encourage you to read the rest of my post as it goes in a quite different direction from most common Control debates.

I realize not everyone writes walls of text, but by that same token it is not reasonable to merely plop down a one-liner (repeated ad nausem to boot) and expect all your meaning to be understood (and by extention to not come off as a smug ******). Especially when that one liner does not apply. The Acton line refers to human tendencies. In the original context Acton was talking about monarchs and other human leaders. Humans who have opinions and preferences, humans who still have needs. Commader is none of these things. It needs nothing. It wants nothing. More to the point, it is not human. It is a mind far beyond organics. So forget even debating whether a higher level machine intelligence can be corrupted. Instead ask yourself this: Do you think our limited human perspective is enough to even define what corruption at that level is? I think not.

The mechanics of how Control works fall more under suspension of disbelief. You can't fully expain everything in ME using real-world knowledge (hence science-fiction). So why is it so hard to accept uploading Shepard's mind into the Reaper systems when you've already accepted mass effect fields, relays, distributed processing AIs, quantum blue box (whatever that is) AIs etc. They were presented to you the same way Control is- somebody in the story either told you or showed you. This is the same thing. The Reapers are more advanced than anything else we've seen in the story. So why couldn't they perfectly preserve a transferred consciousness? Are we not told this is their job, to be preservers? There is an upper limit to suspension of disbelief obviously, but the mechanics of Control do not exceed those.

The rest of your points I believe are already addressed in the OP. If you wish to discuss it further I'll be around.

[CrutchCricket]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
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.

I'm pretty sure some fully mature adults don't really appreciate the implications of control. It's why I wrote this thread, primarly to save myself retyping the same thing over and over.

[KaiserShep]

Good post, I enjoyed reading it.

 

I dislike the endings myself but with the choices I'm given I choose Control.

 

I wish Control was more popular. From what I gathered around these forums, it seems Control is the least popular ending. Even less popular than Synthesis despite how much hate it gets.

 

It's understandable that Control would face a bit more opposition. The game itself spends a great deal of time pushing against it, and the one and only positive example of Control in the entire ME franchise prior to making the decision is EDI's hold over the Eva mech. Everything else is basically used for evil in some way, or simply had disastrous results.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I agree with the concept of Control, but I don't agree with the execution or context in Mass Effect. As time has gone on, there's a small bit of the three non-destroy endings that I agree with, but put into what they are, and in the meaning of the ending (which I still deride as terribly executed and inappropriate in concept, theme, and narrative), High EMS Destroy really only works for me.

 

Headcanon is that I'm basically refusing to accept the predicate of the Catalyst and its perspective as the relevant problem at hand, and use high ems destroy to enact the destruction of the Reapers so that I can eventually use their tech to make a galaxy based around more subtle control towards a synthesis-esque conclusion and beyond.

[Iakus]

It's understandable that Control would face a bit more opposition. The game itself spends a great deal of time pushing against it, and the one and only positive example of Control in the entire ME franchise prior to making the decision is EDI's hold over the Eva mech. Everything else is basically used for evil in some way, or simply had disastrous results.

 

For those who have seen the latest Captain America movie, Control reminds me of Project Insight.

[Supremocognito]

Good Post.

 

Control is a better than destroy especially before the EC came out, imo.  Control is my favorite as the galaxy stays the same for the most part and the reapers can rebuild everything way faster than any organic race due to how long they have been around. Shepard gives every race a chance at redemption why not give the Reapers one too, as in a way they are slaves of the catalyst, and never had free will to begin with. Also someone needs to keep the Leviathans from enslaving the galaxy again returning to the 1st apex race, as they planed to do once the Reapers weren't a threat.