639 réponses à ce sujet

[Pottumuusi]

Eterna5 wrote...

But Refuse is willfully picking Galatic wide extinction....

Well, she shouldn't have dressed like a s***.

Modifié par Pottumuusi, 12 novembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[HellbirdIV]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I really don't want to kill all synthetics...

Well that's too bad, because BioWare will force you to kill all Synthetics if you want to permanently deal with the Reapers, in order to hammer in their tacked-on "Synthetics versus Organics" theme.

Hey, anyone remember the badguy from the first game? An organic-synthetic hybrid who used synthetics and organics alike to further his own ends, seeking to force all life in the galaxy to become hybridized?

And what about the badguys in the second game who were all hybridized, mindless drones serving the giant space squids who, I should add, were also organic-synthetic hybrids? Also, the part in that game where it's stated flat out that synthetics and organics are not predisposed to conflict with eachother, but rather their conflict was the result of the hybrids interfering for their own gain?

Yeah, I don't remember any of those things either. It was always about anti-synthetic sentiment as a standin for racism, and the Final Solution of forcibly converting everyone into a hybrid for great justice because getting along despite our differences is wrong.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I find the assumption that because Shepard uploads himself into an AI he must inevitably go crazy to be sad because it proves the Catalyst was right. Left unchecked organics will always freak out and try to destroy synthetics before the latter do anything wrong.

Control lets Shepard subvert that train of thought by not only sparing synthetics from destruction but by actually becoming one himself. The only legitimate solution to the Catalyst's problem is to refuse to admit it exists and take steps to ensure organics and synthetics live in peace. And what better way to start than by proving that being synthetic does nothing to corrupt you?

That's my headcanon.

I agree that there's no reason to assume that Control!Shepard will go crazy, but that has nothing to do with the Catalyst's problem.

The rationale for the cycle is based on the assumption that we cannot go against our evolutionary imperatives, namely, against the imperative of all life - all species - to expand into spaces they have not previously occupied and just by doing this, with no malicious intent, drive out the other species they may find there should they prove able. We humans are doing this every day on Earth, and there is no reason not to assume it won't eventually be done to us. The ME-specific twist is that it's assumed it will be our own creations who'll eventually do it to us. I don't find this far-fetched at all.

The mistake too many people make when talking about this is to assume some kind of craziness or malicious intent on any side. That's not what is meant. The assumption is that the conflict and eventual extinction of one side will come about as a natural, unavoidable consequence of the way evolution works, a consequence of laws of nature. You may or may not believe in the inevitability of the scenario, but it's very straightforward and not at all "obviously ridiculous".

And people automatically assume that Destroy is the way to go because it liberates the evolution of organics. Well, that could be the ideal path, but it might not be. Nature is brutal. The Leviathans were the result of organic evolution, and they dominated every species they discovered. So much for "freedom".

[Ieldra]

No, I think the preference for Destroy has more to do with the simple fact that people want the Reapers gone.

However, I agree that there appears to be a tendency to equate the "natural" and the "good", with "natural" being defined as "being untouched by human intervention". This tendency has twofold roots: first, it exists because of classic Romanticism, which made nature untouched by the human hand an ideal, where before "nature" was mainly seen as something to be used for the benefit of humans. Second, it exists because the idea of intervention in our own evolution inevitably results in the question "Who does the intervention and who will benefit from it". Almost nothing humans do is ever without ulterior motives, so the implicit consensus is that it's best that nobody does anything so that nobody will inappropriately benefit at the expense of others.

Actually, there is no reason at all to assume that the "natural" as defined above is to be preferred in any way. The whole of human history is based on gaining control over aspects of nature and use them for our benefit. Sometimes that backfired, but most of the time it worked very well. Inevitably, we'll gain some kind of control over our own evolution as well, and that will result in a scenario not too unlike Synthesis though it may be realized in other ways than the integratation of technology. In that way, Destroy just staves off the inevitable.

(Hmm...I may have found a new take on the "Synthesis is inevitable" idea)

[HellbirdIV]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In that way, Destroy just staves off the inevitable [Synthesis]

If we assume that synthesis as a concept is inevitable as a result of organics evolving to the point that they perform it on themselves, that means the Starbrat is wrong in that the inevitable result of organics having free existence will lead to the creation of synthetics that annihilate organics.

Even so, the magical mint-flavored laser that forcibly converts everyone in the galaxy into a cyborg against their will is not inevitable. It can very much be stopped, and it should be.

Regardless of what you believe about synthesis as a concept being inevitable, you have to concede that it is something that should be done by people to themselves, never forced upon them. To do otherwise is to be a presumptous, arrogant bigot of the same type as those who spread their beliefs "By the Sword" (Christianity and Islam are most guilty of this in recent history) because you believe that it is the only right way.

If Synthesis is indeed inevitable, then choose Destroy and give people the freedom to choose their own path. To do otherwise - to force fundamental changes upon them because their beliefs are different from yours - is evil.

[Ieldra]

@Hellbird:
I concede that it should ideally be done by every individual and not be forced on them. However, the assumption is that the conflict will result in extinction before the synthesis can ever happen naturally. "Inevitable" is implicitly contingent on survival. Also, there are the Reapers to consider, not as only enemies, but as avatars of past civilizations. As I've repeatedly said, Synthesis as realized by the Crucible is not a course of action I would consider in any other circumstances than those we find ourselves in at the end of ME3, but within the constraints of the situation I find it justifiable.

(Besides, you can always headcanon that people who *really* don't care for the change find a way to undo the changes to themselves. After all, the knowledge about the technology that made the Crucible will likely be available to civilization post-Synthesis. It may even be the post-Synthesis civilization's doomsday weapon everyone does their utmost to not see being used, as the nukes of today)

Edit:
I should add that I don't exactly appreciate that I have to force a global change in order to get the kind of future I find preferable. My ideal ending would be one where only Shepard is synthesized and connected to the knowledge of the Reapers, and then lives on to use the insights gained to convince the rest of the galaxy, with the epilogue implying he's been largely successful. My version of the Destroy-er's "The geth don't die" alternative ending I guess.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 novembre 2012 - 10:23 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

My qualm with the other endings, is they require you to disregard previously events throughout the series. Allow us a brief overview:

Destroy
Does precisely what is advertised on the tin; Reapers go boom, crisis averted.

Control
Not only is this choice championed by TIM. There are numerous of AIs going hostile due to binary coding. In fact, we have an entire DLC dedicated to this.

Synthesis
Essentially borders on what Saren wanted. Never mind the process, as it is currently depicted, is physically impossible devoid of "a wizard did it."

Destroy is not without its drawback. Despite how utterly arbitrary and contrived their representation, the end-result provides us with the greatest assurance the Reapers have been defeated. We are not required to speculate or headcanon anything, be it you fancy the IT or simply wish to ignore the abrupt genocide BioWare throws at you. Take Destroy at point blank and you still have a plausible outcome, albeit in spite of poor writing.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 12 novembre 2012 - 10:52 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
As for ElSuperGecko: again, I'm the source of the indoctrination, and with my body disintegrated, I'll no longer be subject to it anyway in any conventional sense. When I've become the Catalyst, I'll control the Reapers utterly and my will will be my own for eternity, or at least as long as the Citadel stands. So I'm not worried about that. As for alarm bells, I'm sorry, but the guaranteed genocide of all synthetic life is a bigger one than any of the others. So, that combined with my previous post... sums up my response to that argument.

OK.  So your response is purely headcanon unsupported by any in-game lore, background or any of the empirical evidence present within the Mass Effect series then.  That's fine, no further need for debate on the subject.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:48 .

[Ieldra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
As for ElSuperGecko: again, I'm the source of the indoctrination, and with my body disintegrated, I'll no longer be subject to it anyway in any conventional sense. When I've become the Catalyst, I'll control the Reapers utterly and my will will be my own for eternity, or at least as long as the Citadel stands. So I'm not worried about that. As for alarm bells, I'm sorry, but the guaranteed genocide of all synthetic life is a bigger one than any of the others. So, that combined with my previous post... sums up my response to that argument.

OK.  So your response is purely headcanon unsupported by any in-game lore, background or any of the empirical evidence present within the Mass Effect series then.  That's fine, no further need for debate on the subject.

And people call the Indoctrination Theory fan fiction...

That comparison is flawed. The Control ending is specifically designed to perpetuate the agency of the protagonist in a roundabout way. The fact that there is a Paragon and a Renegade variant is proof enough of that. It is not for you to say what another's player character does after the story has ended, nor how they are affected by the situation they find themselves in.

I find myself continually flabbergasted by people's attempts to tell me what happens in my endings when the game epilogue says nothing about it. It's annoying in general, but for Control it gets ridiculous.

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
That comparison is flawed. The Control ending is specifically designed to perpetuate the agency of the protagonist in a roundabout way. The fact that there is a Paragon and a Renegade variant is proof enough of that. It is not for you to say what another's player character does after the story has ended, nor how they are affected by the situation they find themselves in.

I find myself continually flabbergasted by people's attempts to tell me what happens in my endings when the game epilogue says nothing about it. It's annoying in general, but for Control it gets ridiculous.

....did you read the full conversation  we were having before commenting?  Or just the last post?

[Ieldra]

I recall you already started with a false assertion - that contact with Reaper tech inevitably causes indoctrination. So..what about EDI, the Thanix cannon and suchlike? Why hasn't the complete Normandy crew and team been indoctrinated as early as the end of ME2? Indoctrination is a specific technology, not an attribute of "everything Reaper". In fact, strictly spoken there isn't even any such thing as "Reaper technology", there's only "technology that happened to be invented or used by the Reapers". Or should I say the Catalyst...

From that, you continue with another arbitrary and implausible assertion: that the future Reaper boss will be affected by its subjects' indoctrination, as the former boss was not.

As I said, don't tell others what happens in their endings. If you don't have hard evidence, whatever you assume only counts for your ending, not others'. I don't care if your Shepard would end up indoctrinated at the end of ME3. You can believe what you want. But the mental processes of my protagonist are perfectly ok, thank you very much, and remain ok in the case of choosing Control. Because Control is the ending that perpetuates my agency. Actually, if I want a Synthesis future, roleplaying-wise it might be advisable to start with Control since only then you can, well, control the process and ensure it doesn't end up where you don't want it to go. In the game, I just choose Synthesis for thematic reasons and assume everything goes mostly right - and I can do that because it's my prerogative to determine what happens after the end in my own games.

Again, unless it's spelled out or shown in the game, it's not for you to tell others what happens in their games. As opposed to TIM's direct mental control, indoctrination - which is a very different beast - is never spelled out or shown to affect Shepard. But the post-Control and post-Synthesis futures of the galaxy, they are shown and spelled out. If you have to disregard the complete epilogue for two of the endings as unreal in order for your hypothesis to work out, then you need truly extraordinary evidence to make any sort of case.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I recall you already started with a false assertion - that contact with Reaper tech inevitably causes indoctrination. So..what about EDI, the Thanix cannon and suchlike? Why hasn't the complete Normandy crew and team been indoctrinated as early as the end of ME2? Indoctrination is a specific technology, not an attribute of "everything Reaper". In fact, strictly spoken there isn't even any such thing as "Reaper technology", there's only "technology that happened to be invented or used by the Reapers". Or should I say the Catalyst...

From that, you continue with another arbitrary and implausible assertion: that the future Reaper boss will be affected by its subjects' indoctrination, as the former boss was not.

As I said, don't tell others what happens in their endings. If you don't have hard evidence, whatever you assume only counts for your ending, not others'. I don't care if your Shepard would end up indoctrinated at the end of ME3. You can believe what you want. But the mental processes of my protagonist are perfectly ok, thank you very much, and remain ok in the case of choosing Control. Because Control is the ending that perpetuates my agency. Actually, if I want a Synthesis future, roleplaying-wise it might be advisable to start with Control since only then you can, well, control the process and ensure it doesn't end up where you don't want it to go. In the game, I just choose Synthesis for thematic reasons and assume everything goes mostly right - and I can do that because it's my prerogative to determine what happens after the end in my own games.

**rolls eyes**

So.... you're attempting a rebuttal of my argument by starting with a false assertation with regards to Reaper tech. EDI and the Thanix cannons are not Reaper tech. They were created by organics from information gleaned from reverse engineered Reaper tech. There's a big difference.

From there, you continue on with another arbitrary and implausible assertation - that the organic mind of Shepard will not be affected by indoctrination when it becomes directly plugged into the Reaper conciousness, when every other organic being that has had extended contact with the Reapers has.  Seems legit.

As I said (and provided hard evidence for) in my original discussion with Xilizhra, you have no reason to believe that choosing Control or Synthesis will be doing anything other than submitting to the Reapers when making your final decision.  If you can't back up your headcanon with hard facts and evidence from within the Mass Effect universe, if you cannot support your decision with anything other than speculative optimism, then all you are doing is indulging in wishful thinking.

Which is perfectly fine, of course - it's your Shepard, you can roleplay as you please - just don't expect others to take your arguments seriously.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:48 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Eterna5 wrote...

But Refuse is willfully picking Galatic wide extinction....

It's standing up for your beliefs and not caving to threats and bullying. Shepard, doesn't know the outcome of her actions refusing the Catalyst, she believes in the united galaxy. She ends up being wrong but saying it's willfully picking extinction's kinda ingnorant. Shep doesn't metagame nor does she have some sort of clairvoyance allowing her to see where this decison will end up. She just knows, the Reapers are manipulative and picking either of the presented options violates who she is and what she stands for despite whatever assurances glow boy gives her that these are the best she can hope for.

[Xilizhra]

If Synthesis is indeed inevitable, then choose Destroy and give people the freedom to choose their own path. To do otherwise - to force fundamental changes upon them because their beliefs are different from yours - is evil.

The most fundamental change of them all is death, and Destroy forces that upon far too many. I would never pick it in ten thousand years.

From there, you continue on with another arbitrary abnd implausible assertation - that the organic mind of Shepard will not be affected by indoctrination when it becomes directly plugged into the Reaper conciousness, when every other organic being that has had extended contact with the Reapers has. Seems legit.

Shepard is no longer an organic being in this scenario; lacking an ordinary physical body, she's no longer physiologically vulnerable to indoctrination.

As I said (and provided hard evidence for) in my original discussion with Xilizhra, you have no reason to believe that choosing Control or Synthesis will be doing anything other than submitting to the Reapers when making your final decision. If you can't back up your headcanon with hard facts and evidence from within the Mass Effect universe, if you cannot support your decision with anything other than speculative optimism, then all you are doing is indulging in wishful thinking.

I have every reason to believe so, namely my extreme skepticism that this whole thing is a trap when I could be very easily killed with far less effort (say, by turning off the mass effect field in the room and dumping me into hard vacuum). For this area to be a trap somehow is a gigantic waste of time if it would only get one person.

Which is perfectly fine, of course - it's your Shepard, you can roleplay
as you please - just don't expect others to take your arguments
seriously.

Many see Control as immoral, but relatively few see it as entirely false (when it's blatantly shown not to be). I'd say my arguments are taken rather more seriously, overall, than yours.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 novembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[Ieldra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
So.... you're attempting a rebuttal of my argument by starting with a false assertation with regards to Reaper tech. EDI and the Thanix cannons are not Reaper tech. They were created by organics from information gleaned from reverse engineered Reaper tech. There's a big difference.

EDI says her design included parts from the wreck of Sovereign. Conclusion: EDI contains Reaper technology.

From there, you continue on with another arbitrary abnd implausible assertation - that the organic mind of Shepard will not be affected by indoctrination when it becomes directly plugged into the Reaper conciousness, when every other organic being that has had extended contact with the Reapers has.  Seems legit.

As per the description, Shepard will cease to be an organic.

As I said (and provided hard evidence for) in my original discussion with Xilizhra, you have no reason to believe that choosing Control or Synthesis will be doing anything other than submitting to the Reapers when making your final decision.

The thing is, you didn't provide hard evidence, you provided speculation which would be somewhat plausible, would it not require that you dismiss everything that happens after as a delusion *and* dismiss everything the Catalyst says as meaningless. As Xilizhra has said, there were far easier methods to get rid of Shepard, so the assumption that this is all a trap makes no sense. Also, you may not recognize an exposition dump when you see it, but I do. If the only alternative explanation for taking things at face value is that the writers are lying to you, including a lengthy sequence of scenes about the outcome, then I'm sorry, I'd require quite a bit more than mere speculation to believe that.

While I'm at it: do you have any indication that shooting the tube will destroy anything but the Crucible? The weapon you built to defeat the Reapers and which you might reasonably expect them to want destroyed? I know very well why I don't usually bring that argument up in debates about the endings. It totally misses the point. The ending scenario is badly designed with little regard for roleplaying and full of symbolism which shouldn't be there. I concede that this is reason for skepticism, but if the only self-consistent alternative explanation is that Bioware gave us an incomplete story and that nothing of it really happens, then again, sorry, I won't follow you there.

Edit:
ITers powers of dismissal are beginning to rival the Turian Councilor's.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 novembre 2012 - 01:53 .

[Xilizhra]

Maybe it's just me, but if I were designing some kind of devilish trap at the culmination of the organics' Crucible plot, I'd put in... disappearing atmosphere, or maybe a few hidden guns, or having the room temperature rise high enough to incinerate anyone in it, or if I really wanted to be tricky, an Object Rho-esque indoctrination device tuned to extremely high power so that it would melt the brains of anyone who came in. What I would not do is construct an exposition-heavy three-part choice where one out of three of the presented choices would kill off my entire species.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Don't really see the need for head cannon after the EC. The ending tells you everything there is to know, about these new changes to the galaxy?

[GreyLycanTrope]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Don't really see the need for head cannon after the EC. The ending tells you everything there is to know, about these new changes to the galaxy?

Any of the following would do it: what's there sucks so I have to imagine something better/ a certain aspect really bugs me because it was left ambigious so I have to decide what's happened/ I really want to like a particular ending so I'm going to draw some conculsions about it that work for me and my interpretation.

Also since you said head cannon this is now obligatory.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:12 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
Shepard is no longer an organic being in this scenario; lacking an ordinary physical body, she's no longer physiologically vulnerable to indoctrination.

Mmm-hmm.  So basically you're saying your making your decision based on the fact that it's Shepard that will be controlling the Reapers, then going on to say that Shepard no longer needs to fear indoctrination because Shepard is no longer Shepard after you choose Control.

Are you trying to have it both ways, here, maybe?

Like it or not, the being that controls the Reapers in the Control ending is not your Shepard.  That Shepard is dead.  The brain and body that gave life to your Shepard's mind and thought processes was blasted out of existence when you chose to grab hold of the Control handles.  What is controlling the Reapers is an AI construct that is based on your Shepard's mind and personality.  Nothing but a collection of data strings and elaborate code.

Now, you can roleplay it differently if you wish, but your only fooling yourself.  Ou've replaced an AI with an AI, that's all you've done.  The Reapers still exist, and they're still under the control of a single artificial entity.

Of course, this is all by the by - in regards to your point, Shepard no longer being an organic being and lacking a physical body is not proof against indoctrination.  The Geth are not organic beings and lack physical bodies but have been affected by Reaper indoctrination.  Surely you haven't forgotten the entire mission on Rannoch we went through which dealt with this?

I have every reason to believe so, namely my extreme skepticism that this whole thing is a trap when I could be very easily killed with far less effort (say, by turning off the mass effect field in the room and dumping me into hard vacuum). For this area to be a trap somehow is a gigantic waste of time if it would only get one person.

Who said anything about it being a trap?  Go back to my original post, read it over again, make sure you understand what I'm saying because you are either misunderstanding the argument or deliberately and wilfully ignoring it because you can't resolve it with your own, personal headcanon.

But to once again shake my head at your logic, even if the entire area IS a trap, it wouldn't just "get one person", would it?  You're making a choice for the entire galaxy.  If you make the wrong decision in the Catalyst chamber, then the ENTIRE GALAXY will feel the effects.  Destroy, Refuse, Control, Synthesis, they affect EVERYONE.

Many see Control as immoral, but relatively few see it as entirely false (when it's blatantly shown not to be). I'd say my arguments are taken rather more seriously, overall, than yours.

Justify your decision to yourself however you want.

[Eryri]

[quote]ElSuperGecko wrote...


Of course, this is all by the by - in regards to your point, Shepard no longer being an organic being and lacking a physical body is not proof against indoctrination.  The Geth are not organic beings and lack physical bodies but have been affected by Reaper indoctrination.  Surely you haven't forgotten the entire mission on Rannoch we went through which dealt with this?

[/quote]

Edi also states that she fears being corrupted and rewritten by the Reapers in a similar fashion to organic indoctrination. Synthetic beings are by no means immune to manipulation.

[/quote]

Modifié par Eryri, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:19 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
EDI says her design included parts from the wreck of Sovereign. Conclusion: EDI contains Reaper technology.

And as I said earlier, hanging around reverse engineered Reaper tech is not the equivalent of plugging yourself directly into the Reaper conciousness.  What is so difficult to understand about that?

As per the description, Shepard will cease to be an organic.

And as I commented to Xilizhra, the Geth have been affected by Reaper influence, we've fought them over the course of three entire games and played through an entire mission on Rannoch which explains this.  Ceasing to be an organic doesn't leave Shepard any less at risk, in fact, judging from what we saw on Rannoch, it's much more likely that Shepard will end up in even greater jeopardy.

The thing is, you didn't provide hard evidence, you provided speculation which would be somewhat plausible, would it not require that you dismiss everything that happens after as a delusion *and* dismiss everything the Catalyst says as meaningless. As Xilizhra has said, there were far easier methods to get rid of Shepard, so the assumption that this is all a trap makes no sense. Also, you may not recognize an exposition dump when you see it, but I do. If the only alternative explanation for taking things at face value is that the writers are lying to you, including a lengthy sequence of scenes about the outcome, then I'm sorry, I'd require quite a bit more than mere speculation to believe that.

I didn't dismiss everything that happens as a delusion.  I didn't refer to what happens after at all, because unless your Shepard is clairvoyant and can predict the future, "what happens afterward" is meaningless at the time you make the decision.  It's the in-game equivalent of buying a lottery ticket because you already know what the numbers will be.

And I didn't dismiss everything the Catalyst says as meaningless either.  Have you even read my original argument?  Shall I copy and paste it for you?

ElSuperGecko wrote...
OK.  So you're not sure that any of the choices will work .  Fair enough - surely then you must try to minimise the risk of failure?

Let's play devil's advocate here, and assume the choices do exactly what you're told they'll do.  Let's take all other factors out of the equation, assume that there's no manipulation involved and assume that the Catalyst isn't trying to nudge you in one particular direction and away from another.

Destroy - Reapers gone, cycle ends, collateral damage scaled on how well prepared your Shepard is.
Control - Reapers still around, Shepard dead, but Shepard's conciousnes becomes the framework for the new controlling AI.
Synthesis - Reapers still around, Shepard dead, but Shepard's DNA is used to fuse all life into a new universal organic/synthetic framework.

No less than five minutes prior to making your decision, you've argued the case against Control.  Synthesis raises many questions, questions which you're not given the answers to.  How then do you minimise the risk of failure?

You play the odds.  You simply the options, reduce them down to their base components.
Of the three choices - destroying the Reapers once and for all, attempting to control them, or hybridizing all life in existence into a new framework - which raises the least questions?  Which rings the fewest alarm bells?

Reduce the equation further if you have to.  Occam's Razor it.

Destroy = Reapers gone
Control = Reapers persist
Synthesis = Reapers persist

Which, out of those three choices, gives the people you are fighting for the greatest chance of survival?

Pay attention this time, please.

While I'm at it: do you have any indication that shooting the tube will destroy anything but the Crucible?

Read my argument.  "Let's play devil's advocate here, and assume the choices do exactly what you're told they'll do.  Let's take all other factors out of the equation, assume that there's no manipulation involved and assume that the Catalyst isn't trying to nudge you in one particular direction and away from another."

I concede that this is reason for skepticism, but if the only self-consistent alternative explanation is that Bioware gave us an incomplete story and that nothing of it really happens, then again, sorry, I won't follow you there.

Read my argument.  "Let's play devil's advocate here, and assume the choices do exactly what you're told they'll do.  Let's take all other factors out of the equation, assume that there's no manipulation involved and assume that the Catalyst isn't trying to nudge you in one particular direction and away from another."

Also, I'm laughing at the badly designed line.  The "bad writing" defence again. 

ITers powers of dismissal are beginning to rival the Turian Councilor's.

That's very rich coming from someone who appears to be a staunch advocate of the Ostrich Defence Mechanism. 

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:31 .

[Xilizhra]

[quote]Mmm-hmm. So basically you're saying your making your decision based on the fact that it's Shepard that will be controlling the Reapers, then going on to say that Shepard no longer needs to fear indoctrination because Shepard is no longer Shepard after you choose Control.

Are you trying to have it both ways, here, maybe?[/quote]
Shepard is Shepard, just on a different format. One no longer vulnerable to indoctrination.

[quote]Like it or not, the being that controls the Reapers in the Control ending is not your Shepard. That Shepard is dead. The brain and body that gave life to your Shepard's mind and thought processes was blasted out of existence when you chose to grab hold of the Control handles. What is controlling the Reapers is an AI construct that is based on your Shepard's mind and personality. Nothing but a collection of data strings and elaborate code.[/quote]
Potentially philosophically true, but the precedent in the ME universe is that dying and then being reborn on a significantly altered vessel of consciousness (Shepard's brain, while vaguely intact, couldn't possibly have remained unchanged from dying, decaying for two years and then being revitalized) still leaves one the same person. Space magic? Maybe, but that's the precedent.

[quote]Now, you can roleplay it differently if you wish, but your only fooling yourself. Ou've replaced an AI with an AI, that's all you've done. The Reapers still exist, and they're still under the control of a single artificial entity.[/quote]
I play as the AI. I see nothing of fooling myself there.

[quote]Of course, this is all by the by - in regards to your point, Shepard no longer being an organic being and lacking a physical body is not proof against indoctrination. The Geth are not organic beings and lack physical bodies but have been affected by Reaper indoctrination. Surely you haven't forgotten the entire mission on Rannoch we went through which dealt with this?[/quote]
In point of fact, you're wrong. Indoctrination only works on organics. The geth had to deliberately submit to the Reapers and were implanted with Reaper code that allowed the destroyer on Rannoch to control them, first through Legion aboard the geth dreadnaught, but when that was destroyed, the destroyer had to take direct control. And when the destroyer was killed, all of the geth in the vicinity were freed; this isn't how conventional indoctrination, used on organics, works at all. If there's an analogy here, when the Catalyst dies, Shepard should be free from all controlling it.[/quote]

[quote]Who said anything about it being a trap? Go back to my original post, read it over again, make sure you understand what I'm saying because you are either misunderstanding the argument or deliberately and wilfully ignoring it because you can't resolve it with your own, personal headcanon.[/quote]
If its function is to indoctrinate me and have the Reapers do the same thing they were doing anyway, then it's a trap.

[quote]But to once again shake my head at your logic, even if the entire area IS a trap, it wouldn't just "get one person", would it? You're making a choice for the entire galaxy. If you make the wrong decision in the Catalyst chamber, then the ENTIRE GALAXY will feel the effects. Destroy, Refuse, Control, Synthesis, they affect EVERYONE.[/quote]
If it's a trap, the entire galaxy is doomed anyway and it doesn't matter what I pick. If the Catalyst was lying about me actually being in control, I have no reason to believe that it's telling the truth about anything at all, and that it's likely that any choice I make will just kill me. The only way to make a meaningful choice is to either assume that you're fighting hallucinatory indoctrination, which I don't, or to believe that the Catalyst is telling the truth.

[quote]Read my argument.  "Let's play devil's advocate here, and assume the
choices do exactly what you're told they'll do.  Let's take all other
factors out of the equation, assume that there's no manipulation
involved and assume that the Catalyst isn't trying to nudge you in one
particular direction and away from another."[/quote]
In that case, none of them have any potential for failure and it's all down to moral preference.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[Ieldra]

Read my argument. "Let's play devil's advocate here, and assume the choices do exactly what you're told they'll do. Let's take all other factors out of the equation, assume that there's no manipulation involved and assume that the Catalyst isn't trying to nudge you in one particular direction and away from another."

All right, in that case the only reason why I would not choose Control or Synthesis over Destroy is that I want to live as a human and neither die nor ascend to become an AI god. Roleplaying aspects would likely draw me towards Control. After all, the Catalyst tells me the Reapers will obey me and I'll take the place of the Catalyst so that's what will happen. I would be drawn to Synthesis, but possibly reject it for the reason that I couldn't control aspects of the outcome in case something went wrong. I would see the case for Destroy but would not find it compelling enough.

No, your scenario does not lead me towards one specific decision. I can still see the rationale for each one. The only thing I can say with conviction is that I would never, ever choose Refuse.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:59 .

[clennon8]

Ieldra and X lean very, very heavily on the "Bad Writing" and "Stupid Shepard" Theories.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...
No, your scenario does not lead me towards one specific decision. The only thing I can say with conviction is that I would never, ever choose Refuse.

I find low-EMS destroy even worse than refuse.