350 réponses à ce sujet

[G Kevin]

Simple reason for me.

Control makes Shepard, in essence, a God.

I don't like the thought of any mortal ascending higher up compared to everyone else to essentially attain the status of a God. There is bias and I don't see how having that much power wouldn't change Shepard.

They say absolute power corrupts, so I am not exactly trusting of control.

At least if makes more sense to me than synthesis.

[Darth_Trethon]

I think it's more popular than you realize....the EC control is hands down badass and awesome. With that said most people will likely always choose destroy(myself included) for one simple reason: Shepard lives in his/her own body and a party reunion is pretty much implied.

[Haseeo]

D24O wrote...

Haseeo wrote...

I picked Destroy and my Shepard was paragon throughout all three games. It fit in the most with the over all theme of the series and even by what is said we can repair everything lost meaning the Geth and Edi to.

Control was not a option to me, your Shepard dies no if or buts he is gone and whats left is a AI of you. yes it's based on you but how long can that AI stay true to your human idles in the face of such power it has. Whats to say it doesn't like a AI come to a logical choice that what the star child AI did was right and start the whole cycle again?

You are what says whether he goes crazy or not.

Thats not true really since you wouldn't have contorl of that thing since thats not shepard you were shepard in the story yes, this thing is not shepard only based on him/her

[ObserverStatus]

Baldavin wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Also, if you guys believe that Shepard requires a popular vote to legitimize his rules, keep in mind that the intelligent minds that have been assimilated into the Reaper Fleet probably outnumber organic minds a thousand to one.

So now we let the reapers decide our fate... it keeps getting better and better.

I think you missed my point, in a true democracy, there would nothing to prevent the majority reaper voters from taking away the rights of the minority organic voters.  That's why the galaxy needs a benevolent dictator like my Shepard to maintain the balance between the will of the many and the rights of the few.

[Baronesa]

From the polls I have seen... Control and Synthesis are on equal footing... surprisingly Refuse is the second most popular option, and no surprise at all.. Destroy is the king of the popularity contest.


I don't know why others don't like control, but I can tell you whyit rubs me the wrong way without a very long explanation.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." - Lord Acton, in a letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), published in Historical Essays and Studies (1907).

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Control = the perfect ending for my hetero renegade femShep who romanced Jacob in ME2 because Kaiden died on Virmire because I needed Ashley's firepower. Why? Because it is the perfect middle finger to BioWare for giving the middle finger to hetero femShepards. The Comrade Shepard AI to watch over all and destroy anyone who dares challenge its authority. It's better than refuse. It involves no principles.

And who said benevolent dictator. Mine is a totalitarian dictator.

I might feel different if they put a renegade option to let Dr. Cole take a bullet during that evac mission, or to screw up fixing one of the AA towers.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:01 .

[Phydeaux314]

Meh, I don't see why there can't be a reunion party for Control and Synthesis - one would have a memorial plaque on the wall, the other would have construct that Reaper!Shepard was ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL of in order to visit.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Baldavin wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Also, if you guys believe that Shepard requires a popular vote to legitimize his rules, keep in mind that the intelligent minds that have been assimilated into the Reaper Fleet probably outnumber organic minds a thousand to one.

So now we let the reapers decide our fate... it keeps getting better and better.

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Baldavin wrote...
How about the people who have to live in the same galaxy as the Shepard?

And how will they enforce this descision ?

That's why it is a somewhat problematic situation to have a being with virtually unlimited power. If it does not want to agree with the many, there is no way you can force it to.

Exactly the only way you would be able to get rid of him is to build another crucible and go through the entire reaper war all over again. This eliminates control as a viable option so that leaves us only with synthesis and destroy and because synthesis is stupid on a whole different level the only choice is destroy.

[Baldavin]

bobobo878 wrote...
I think you missed my point, in a true democracy, there would nothing to prevent the majority reaper voters from taking away the rights of the minority organic voters.  That's why the galaxy needs a benevolent dictator like my Shepard to maintain the balance between the will of the many and the rights of the few.

As I said in my original post, I belive that control can work. But it can also very easily go horribly wrong if the dictator is not benevolent. And even if the Shepard is a benevolent dictator, it can still commit atrocities in the name of the greater good.

Modifié par Baldavin, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:10 .

[D24O]

Baronesa wrote...

From the polls I have seen... Control and Synthesis are on equal footing... surprisingly Refuse is the second most popular option, and no surprise at all.. Destroy is the king of the popularity contest.


I don't know why others don't like control, but I can tell you whyit rubs me the wrong way without a very long explanation.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." - Lord Acton, in a letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), published in Historical Essays and Studies (1907).

That's a valid interpertation, although I subscribe to the interpertation that he is beyond emotion, and is less corruptable because of it. A member, Crutch Cricket (?) wrote up an interesting take on the implications of the choice that I think are also very valid.

[Uncle Jo]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

I think it's more popular than you realize....the EC control is hands down badass and awesome. With that said most people will likely always choose destroy(myself included) for one simple reason: Shepard lives in his/her own body and a party reunion is pretty much implied.

Don't trivialize. I chose destroy to get rid of the worst trolls in the galaxy's long, long history. Once and for all.
I don't give a damn about Shep dying or meeting his/her LI afterwards.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:03 .

[gosimmons]

Incinerating yourself aside, it goes against the point of TIM's story in ME3. Morally gray thought is lost for Cerberus's story at this point, and they're used over and over again to emphasize that we shouldn't play with Reaper tech and power that's beyond us.

It may have been a more interesting option if ME3 wanted to characterize TIM as more than just an insane puppet. But nope, he's crazy, and you're forced to kill him, only to potentially agree with his solution a few minutes later.

Yet I still like it more than Synthesis. >>

[ObserverStatus]

Baldavin wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
I think you missed my point, in a true democracy, there would nothing to prevent the majority reaper voters from taking away the rights of the minority organic voters.  That's why the galaxy needs a benevolent dictator like my Shepard to maintain the balance between the will of the many and the rights of the few.

As I said in my original post, I belive that control can work. But it can also very easily go horribly wrong if the dictator is not benevolent.

but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

[Baldavin]

bobobo878 wrote...
but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

And that is were you begin to discard the rights of others. According to your logic, Shepard could define continuation of the cycle as benevolent.

Modifié par Baldavin, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:10 .

[G Kevin]

bobobo878 wrote...

but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

So if Shepard felt like doing something similar to the Reaper cycle, then what?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

bobobo878 wrote...

but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

That depends upon Shepard. Colonist, Ruthless? Renegade? I don't think so.

[Flashflame58]

Oh come on, we all know the best ending is the refuse ending.

[D24O]

G Kevin wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

So if Shepard felt like doing something similar to the Reaper cycle, then what?

That would depend on a lot. How long from now might it happen, did Shepalyst decomission any Reapers and if so, how many? Also, how advanced is the Galactic community, and what millitary tools would they have at their disposal? IMO it can really be a fun ending because there are a lot of disparate variables that end up being up to the individual, could be decent fanfic matereal I suppose.

[Baronesa]

bobobo878 wrote...

but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

Basically...

Might makes right...

If Shepard said genocide is ok, then it would be ok... if Shepard tell someone to sacrifice their only begotten son then it would be a moral act...

Mmmhmmm

I can see where this is going

[ObserverStatus]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...
Exactly the only way you would be able to get rid of him is to build another crucible and go through the entire reaper war all over again. This eliminates control as a viable option so that leaves us only with synthesis and destroy and because synthesis is stupid on a whole different level the only choice is destroy.

What good would that do? Even after building the Crucible, Shepard was still left only with choices offered to him by his predecessor.  If someone built another crucible and Shepard was the new Catalyst, rather than offering them the "Control Synthesis Destroy and Reject" options, if Shepard knows that he doesn't need to step down, he could simply give his successor the options of "Sit on a Dragon Tooth and Spin" and "Sit there waiting for more choices until you die of old age."

[noobcannon]

Flashflame58 wrote...

Oh come on, we all know the best ending is the refuse ending.

i dont have a problem with the refusal ending, but im still going to pick destroy evey time though.

Modifié par noobcannon, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:12 .

[Phydeaux314]

You mean the critical mission failure with a cutscene?

I kid, I kid. Mostly.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

bobobo878 wrote...

Baldavin wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
I think you missed my point, in a true democracy, there would nothing to prevent the majority reaper voters from taking away the rights of the minority organic voters.  That's why the galaxy needs a benevolent dictator like my Shepard to maintain the balance between the will of the many and the rights of the few.

As I said in my original post, I belive that control can work. But it can also very easily go horribly wrong if the dictator is not benevolent.

but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

And you don't see a problem with that?

[ObserverStatus]

G Kevin wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

but as I said in an older post, that wouldn't be a problem because as a living god, Shepard would define benevolence.

So if Shepard felt like doing something similar to the Reaper cycle, then what?

That certainly would suck but that would be a moot point because the Star Child has already figured out that the Reaper cycle doesn't work, and to try it again would be Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.  I'm pretty sure that as an all powerful fleet of reapers, Shepard would know better than to try the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

[Uncle Jo]

Flashflame58 wrote...

Oh come on, we all know the best ending is the refuse ending.

Well Shep's speech and attitude were pretty cool and fit much more to the character, ...well before she realized that the brat was actually serious...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:18 .