Reorte wrote...
There is a Renegade Control ending...The Grey Nayr wrote...
Though I wouldn't have minded a renegade variant for the Control choice, which has Shepard conquer the galaxy and rule with a totalitarian iron fist. lol
Actually, I promised myself I wouldn't discuss the ending again lol... It's just never ends with so many people and opinions. OK. I love everyone ^^ Just want ME4 with new customizable patagonist we will be able to transfer through ME4, ME5 and ME6 and choices, and new squadmates, and new adventures in this universe. Sequel please though ^^Our_Last_Scene wrote...
I'm shocked, there seems to be actual conversation in this thread between to opposing sides.
The Grey Nayr wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
or shepard is heaving vivid dreams caused by bloodloss and trauma and the real ending is still coming ... (speculation on my side)The Grey Nayr wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
The Grey Nayr wrote...
IsaacShep wrote...
And it's one of the very few remaining questions post-EC and post-Levi. Regardless of everything, Bioware did actually fix most of the issues with the Catalyst with added explanations & lore in EC and Levi. Nobody can really say "I still don't get Catalyst at all". After EC, we now know his history, how he thinks, why he did what he did (regardless if we agree with him or not). That was the biggest issue of the original ending.Dr_Extrem wrote...
all those wild specualtions on this board like: "if the catalyst was on the station all along, why did it not do xyz, during me 1-2-3?" are useless and could have been avoided.
Well to be fair, even if the Catalyst didn't exist, you could ask the same question about the Reapers, if they built the Citadel, it's only logical they would have as much control over it as the Catalyst *should*. Along with "How can everybody be on a station made of Reaper tech and not become indoctrinated?" And a couple of other things.
The answers to these questions are implied through the answers to other questions.
The Citadel is likely a Leviathan construction. It is to the Catalyst what the Normandy is for EDI in Mass Effect 2. A house for it's functions while it works. The chamber is likely the Catalyst's AI core. And going on that logic, the Catalyst is likely shackled to prevent it from accessing certain functions on the Citadel, like the controls, which is why they used the Keepers as a proxy.
If you notice, the Catalyst doesn't control the platform which took Shepard into its chamber. As evidenced in the Low EMS conversation where the first words it utters are "Why are you here?" meaning it doesn't even know how Shepard got there.
Interesting notion. But who did?
Prothean VI perhaps? It said on Thessia is was designed to assist with the Crucible and interface with the Catalyst -- or at least what they believed to be the Catalyst, the Citadel.
Or maybe when the Crucible docked, the surge of energy being transmitted activated the lift involuntarily.
Or perhaps the Crucible was designed by a past cycle to open the path to the chamber so it could be activated.
Or hell, maybe when Shepard passed out he fell on the pressure plate, a sensor saw his presence, believed that someone wanted to go up, and did it's function.
All theories of course, but it fits the implications we're given.
having*
Devs already said they aren't expanding the ending again. They poured a lot of resources into doing it once and giving it away for free only for some people to spurn it. So they likely just gave up on you guys.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Shepard being able to squeeze out a dose of Medi-gel in between his ascent and his arrival in the Catalyst's chamber.
His Omni-tool was intact enough to communicate with Anderson and Admiral Hackett. And medi-gel, outside of gameplay, doesn't completely heal a person. It's a local anesthetic, disinfectant, coagulant, and painkiller. It would stop Shepard's bleeding and numb the pain enough to stabilize him.
Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:08 .
I never said that it would be bad, just that it very well could be. You raise possible reasons why it might not be and yet those remain merely possible reasons. There are possible reasons it might turn out badly, and those are merely possible reasons too. Hence it's a bloody dangerous gamble.IsaacShep wrote...
It's you who has no evidence to claim that Shep-AI's gonna be evil and stuff (let's be honest, that's the entire argument, Destroy fans and people who want happy ending want Control to be bad ending)
Modifié par Reorte, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:04 .
Our_Last_Scene wrote...
I'm shocked, there seems to be actual conversation in this thread between to opposing sides.
Tigerman123 wrote...
From the me1 artbook
Our_Last_Scene wrote...
I'm shocked, there seems to be actual conversation in this thread between to opposing sides.
Dr_Extrem wrote...
The Grey Nayr wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
or shepard is heaving vivid dreams caused by bloodloss and trauma and the real ending is still coming ... (speculation on my side)The Grey Nayr wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
The Grey Nayr wrote...
IsaacShep wrote...
And it's one of the very few remaining questions post-EC and post-Levi. Regardless of everything, Bioware did actually fix most of the issues with the Catalyst with added explanations & lore in EC and Levi. Nobody can really say "I still don't get Catalyst at all". After EC, we now know his history, how he thinks, why he did what he did (regardless if we agree with him or not). That was the biggest issue of the original ending.Dr_Extrem wrote...
all those wild specualtions on this board like: "if the catalyst was on the station all along, why did it not do xyz, during me 1-2-3?" are useless and could have been avoided.
Well to be fair, even if the Catalyst didn't exist, you could ask the same question about the Reapers, if they built the Citadel, it's only logical they would have as much control over it as the Catalyst *should*. Along with "How can everybody be on a station made of Reaper tech and not become indoctrinated?" And a couple of other things.
The answers to these questions are implied through the answers to other questions.
The Citadel is likely a Leviathan construction. It is to the Catalyst what the Normandy is for EDI in Mass Effect 2. A house for it's functions while it works. The chamber is likely the Catalyst's AI core. And going on that logic, the Catalyst is likely shackled to prevent it from accessing certain functions on the Citadel, like the controls, which is why they used the Keepers as a proxy.
If you notice, the Catalyst doesn't control the platform which took Shepard into its chamber. As evidenced in the Low EMS conversation where the first words it utters are "Why are you here?" meaning it doesn't even know how Shepard got there.
Interesting notion. But who did?
Prothean VI perhaps? It said on Thessia is was designed to assist with the Crucible and interface with the Catalyst -- or at least what they believed to be the Catalyst, the Citadel.
Or maybe when the Crucible docked, the surge of energy being transmitted activated the lift involuntarily.
Or perhaps the Crucible was designed by a past cycle to open the path to the chamber so it could be activated.
Or hell, maybe when Shepard passed out he fell on the pressure plate, a sensor saw his presence, believed that someone wanted to go up, and did it's function.
All theories of course, but it fits the implications we're given.
having*
Devs already said they aren't expanding the ending again. They poured a lot of resources into doing it once and giving it away for free only for some people to spurn it. So they likely just gave up on you guys.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Shepard being able to squeeze out a dose of Medi-gel in between his ascent and his arrival in the Catalyst's chamber.
His Omni-tool was intact enough to communicate with Anderson and Admiral Hackett. And medi-gel, outside of gameplay, doesn't completely heal a person. It's a local anesthetic, disinfectant, coagulant, and painkiller. It would stop Shepard's bleeding and numb the pain enough to stabilize him.
the devs might rethink this, because if the new game is a sequel, they are going to have a hard time writing a plot that does not retcon the different endings.
an arrival-like dlc is the best option to avoid new problems and it could even be done with style.
but ... not evereyone will be happy - no matter what they do - or do not.
p.s. .. about the typo .. english is not my first language. please take this into consideration.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Yaos wrote...
I'm glad for him, and the fact that he played EC Omega AND Leviathan before finishing the game may have had its impact, but still, I feel a bit sorry for myself and my game experience. I rarely immersed myself like in Mass Effect series, and I felt betrayed at the ending, like many here at BSN.
That was pretty much my first suspicion when I read that he liked it.
People are not going to like me saying this, but IMO, many discontented fans made up their minds since March... after completing the game, and then after hearing EC would not (completely) change the endings. Put the Leviathan mission and EC in main game, and I think the catalyst is not even half as reviled as he is now. At worst, he's a Cerberus/TIM-caliber annoyance.
People can deny that all they want and insist it would make no difference. Don't care. I'll take an example from a fresh set of eyes looking at the game, not a pair firmly covered by "The Ending Sucks" specs.
The Grey Nayr wrote...
Our_Last_Scene wrote...
I'm shocked, there seems to be actual conversation in this thread between to opposing sides.
Wow, you're right. This is awesome. Keep it up, guys.
Reorte wrote...
I never said that it would be bad, just that it very well could be. You raise possible reasons why it might not be and yet those remain merely possible reasons. There are possible reasons it might turn out badly, and those are merely possible reasons too. Hence it's a bloody dangerous gamble.IsaacShep wrote...
It's you who has no evidence to claim that Shep-AI's gonna be evil and stuff (let's be honest, that's the entire argument, Destroy fans and people who want happy ending want Control to be bad ending)
Dr_Extrem wrote...
the devs might rethink this, because if the new game is a sequel, they are going to have a hard time writing a plot that does not retcon the different endings.
an arrival-like dlc is the best option to avoid new problems and it could even be done with style.
but ... not evereyone will be happy - no matter what they do - or do not.
p.s. .. about the typo .. english is not my first language. please take this into consideration.
Eterna5 wrote...
Reorte wrote...
I never said that it would be bad, just that it very well could be. You raise possible reasons why it might not be and yet those remain merely possible reasons. There are possible reasons it might turn out badly, and those are merely possible reasons too. Hence it's a bloody dangerous gamble.IsaacShep wrote...
It's you who has no evidence to claim that Shep-AI's gonna be evil and stuff (let's be honest, that's the entire argument, Destroy fans and people who want happy ending want Control to be bad ending)
Everything can be made bad if you nit pick at it enough. Control paragon paints a bright future, why cant you just accept that?
Sure bad things may happen, but may is not will. If I say "Destroy is bad because eventually the Yahg will develop spaceflight and enslave the galaxy", you can't prove me wrong. The endings are open ended enough that anything you speculate could happen.
Saying the Shep AI could/perhaps/maybe destroy everything and everyone isn't a good enough reason to say Control is bad, just like saying the Yahg could/possibly/maybe take over the universe isn't a good enough reason to say that Destroy is bad.
No, because logically it does not paint a guarenteed bright future. We only know that it looks OK in the short term and the voiceover still sounds rather creepy, almost as if it's intended to sow some doubt about the long-term consequences.Eterna5 wrote...
Reorte wrote...
I never said that it would be bad, just that it very well could be. You raise possible reasons why it might not be and yet those remain merely possible reasons. There are possible reasons it might turn out badly, and those are merely possible reasons too. Hence it's a bloody dangerous gamble.IsaacShep wrote...
It's you who has no evidence to claim that Shep-AI's gonna be evil and stuff (let's be honest, that's the entire argument, Destroy fans and people who want happy ending want Control to be bad ending)
Everything can be made bad if you nit pick at it enough. Control paragon paints a bright future, why cant you just accept that?
It's a good enough reason to say that it's dangerous though because it very definitely does not close the door to it being bad, and unlike your yahg example it's a direct consequence of your decision.Sure bad things may happen, but may is not will. If I say "Destroy is bad because eventually the Yahg will develop spaceflight and enslave the galaxy", you can't prove me wrong. The endings are open ended enough that anything you speculate could happen.
Saying the Shep AI could/perhaps/maybe destroy everything and everyone isn't a good enough reason to say Control is bad, just like saying the Yahg could/possibly/maybe take over the universe isn't a good enough reason to say that Destroy is bad.
ld1449 wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Reorte wrote...
I never said that it would be bad, just that it very well could be. You raise possible reasons why it might not be and yet those remain merely possible reasons. There are possible reasons it might turn out badly, and those are merely possible reasons too. Hence it's a bloody dangerous gamble.IsaacShep wrote...
It's you who has no evidence to claim that Shep-AI's gonna be evil and stuff (let's be honest, that's the entire argument, Destroy fans and people who want happy ending want Control to be bad ending)
Everything can be made bad if you nit pick at it enough. Control paragon paints a bright future, why cant you just accept that?
Sure bad things may happen, but may is not will. If I say "Destroy is bad because eventually the Yahg will develop spaceflight and enslave the galaxy", you can't prove me wrong. The endings are open ended enough that anything you speculate could happen.
Saying the Shep AI could/perhaps/maybe destroy everything and everyone isn't a good enough reason to say Control is bad, just like saying the Yahg could/possibly/maybe take over the universe isn't a good enough reason to say that Destroy is bad.
Because of ALL the precedents regarding AI given full control of a situation.
Hal, Skynet, Irobot, the Reapers themselves, there are a myriad of situations that all point out that an AI in full control will eventually lead to destruction.
Not to mention that the Catalyst himself says "There's no guarantee it wont start again" if I'm not mistaken (only played the EC once)
So yeah. Even if you just keep yourself in "in game thinking" which would by the very nature of the ending's so called "intent" (speculation) be impossible it doesn't paint the picture as "the future is bright" it paints the picture of "You have a future. With Reapers watching you."
No, because logically it does not paint a guarenteed bright future. We only know that it looks OK in the short term and the voiceover still sounds rather creepy, almost as if it's intended to sow some doubt about the long-term consequences.
It's a good enough reason to say that it's dangerous though because it very definitely does not close the door to it being bad, and unlike your yahg example it's a direct consequence of your decision.
You say "may is not will" and I never claimed it is, just that "may" is a good reason to worry. That's two posters now who have interpreted me saying "there's a risk" as "It'll turn out badly." I find this odd.
Modifié par Eterna5, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:31 .
Both parts exist though. Why else have the scary tone at all? There's some of Shepard in there. There's also some of something else. None of us can say for certain how that'll turn out.Eterna5 wrote...
Not really. If you listen to it Shepards voice sounds terrifying, as the speech goes on though the voice becomes more and more human, until at the end it sounds exactly like Shepard. It's meant to show you that your Shepard lives on in some shape and form, that the new AI is still at its core, Shepard.
Eterna5 wrote...
Everything can be made bad if you nit pick at it enough. Control paragon paints a bright future, why cant you just accept that?
That is not a direct result of your decision, and in any case the yahg are massively out-teched by the rest of the galaxy, even if they need a few decades to rebuild. Plus it's just as possible to speculate that the final nail in the coffin for everyone else are the yahg husks.Eterna5 wrote...
Driving a car has a chance to be dangerous, you do it anyways. And the Yahg are a direct example of your decision, you got rid of the reapers, the only thing that could protect against a race going on a galatic wide conquest.
A very big assumption.Why worry though, it's everything your shepard was minus its connection to the people it once knew. It's only a worry if you feel as though your Shepard is easily corrupted.
IMO the uncertainty and strange tone are supposed to be the downside to Control, and a much more convincingly handled one at that (the EC nailed it perfectly).Dr_Extrem wrote...
in paragon control, everything is rebuild by the reapers and the only "bad" side is, that shepard looses the body. according to a lot of people here, shepard could even be able communicate with the old friends.
Our_Last_Scene wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
the devs might rethink this, because if the new game is a sequel, they are going to have a hard time writing a plot that does not retcon the different endings.
an arrival-like dlc is the best option to avoid new problems and it could even be done with style.
but ... not evereyone will be happy - no matter what they do - or do not.
p.s. .. about the typo .. english is not my first language. please take this into consideration.
Not really, they could create ME4 far enough into the future that it would only need to take into consideration the major decisions.
For example if you picked Synthesis, characters would just need a texture overlay and some adjusted dialogue occasionally (something that's possible even on this gen), and you could see Reapers flying around occasionally and maybe have a conversation with one.
With Control it could be the same as Synthesis bar the texture overlay and with different dialogue.
Destroy could just remove the Reapers.
If it's far enough into the future you could pretty much reduce everything to a few choices, and I guess the only ending that wouldn't be canon, that no one would mind, would be low EMS ones. That way Liara and EDI could still be present.
Reorte wrote...
Both parts exist though. Why else have the scary tone at all? There's some of Shepard in there. There's also some of something else. None of us can say for certain how that'll turn out.Eterna5 wrote...
Not really. If you listen to it Shepards voice sounds terrifying, as the speech goes on though the voice becomes more and more human, until at the end it sounds exactly like Shepard. It's meant to show you that your Shepard lives on in some shape and form, that the new AI is still at its core, Shepard.
A very big assumption.
Modifié par Eterna5, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:44 .
Reorte wrote...
IMO the uncertainty and strange tone are supposed to be the downside to Control, and a much more convincingly handled one at that (the EC nailed it perfectly).Dr_Extrem wrote...
in paragon control, everything is rebuild by the reapers and the only "bad" side is, that shepard looses the body. according to a lot of people here, shepard could even be able communicate with the old friends.
They could say that most of what it does (whatever the hell that is) has been done anyway by a certain point in the future so that it happens no matter what. It would really annoy a lot of people though.Dr_Extrem wrote...
well .. synthesis gives a lot of problems - everybody will be connected and the pinnacle of evolution is achieved. the whole civilisation has been changed - everybody understands everything.
synthesis is far more than a simple texture overlay ...
reducing the choices and outcoms of the series to a texture overlay and some altered dialogue would be almost insulting to the game.
the endings represent major changes to culture and lifestyle.
Retour en haut
