1388 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

Synthesis isn't "kicking us out of the nest." It's skipping past all the lessons that should have been learned along the way to maturity. "Here's your distant future now, and you didn't even have to work for it!" :yay:

[TopSun]

Control rulezzzzzzzzzz!

[Yate]

Big-Boss687 wrote...

Control rulezzzzzzzzzz!

[Yate]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

This is all the arguments against Control and Synthesis in one sentence, and it makes me mad. It's not valid reasoning at all.

[JamieCOTC]

I have two Shepards who did chose control. The Paragon chose it as a lesser evil hoping that her essence will be able to guide the Reapers away from the galaxy and thereby maintaining a status quo. The Renegade chooses control in order to lead the Reapers straight into the nearest planetless star. Neither work out that way.

For my main Shepard, she chose synthesis despite of what the Catalyst tells her. To her mind, he is a nut, he is broken, he is an abomination the civilizations that had become the Reapers due to this "thing" deserved a chance at redemption. Also, she hated TIM and Cerberus and the thought of doing the same as TIM is too bitter a pill to swallow, and that is a flaw in her character. (BW's auto-dialogue be damned I'm going to role play my Shepard the way I want ;P). To my mind she should have been able to refute the Catalyst, (Synthesis can't be forced, but it's inevitable, but let's force it anyway because ... ), but that's another thread.

The rest of my Shepards chose destroy, with some feeling that it was simple, we destroy them or they destroy us. Others saw it as a lesser evil, that the cost of EDI and the Geth were acceptable loses to wiping out both the Reapers and the Catalyst.

On a side note, in an earlier draft of the script control had Shepard-Catalyst continuing to seek an answer to the problem of organics vs synthetics.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

You seem to be an active member here Ieldra. People have been saying repeatedly why they choose X ending over Y or Z ending. Either you made this thread to bash on people picking destroy or refuse, or you have been completely oblivious to all the repeating discussions we had for 10 months now.

[M Hedonist]

No single man should have this much power.
Shepard is a swell dude and all, but he's still human, and as they say, "to err is human".
Of course, that is assuming the Reapergod-Shepard is more human than AI. If he's more AI than human I would be concerned, as well, for obvious reasons.
Can the Reapergod-Shepard have the best of both worlds? For some reason, I just find that to be too optimistic, and I'm someone who says the Refuse ending doesn't necessarily imply every species was entirely wiped out by the Reapers. Maybe it's the fact that it requires me to put my faith into a device that was built by someone "I would not know", while for the Refuse ending I have to put my faith into the galaxy I know.

[clennon8]

Yate wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

This is all the arguments against Control and Synthesis in one sentence, and it makes me mad. It's not valid reasoning at all.

Finn was a bit too glib, but what he says is, in fact, valid.  It goes toward the narrative and thematic consistency that I like to talk about.  Everything about the first 2.99 games seems to be telling us that forced Synthesis and Control are BAD.  And then we're expected to accept a complete reversal of that in the last 10 minutes of a 100-hour journey.  Based on what?  The unsubstantiated word of our enemy. An enemy who makes a living off of f*cking with people's heads.  *sigh*  It's so effing absurd, that I simply can't accept it as anything other than an indoctrination attempt.  If, on the other hand, the writers really, truly hand-of-God meant for all of the endings to be "real," then it's the most egregious collapse that I've ever seen in any medium.  A monumental failure, deserving of everlasting scorn and derision.

[The Night Mammoth]

clennon8 wrote...

Yate wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

This is all the arguments against Control and Synthesis in one sentence, and it makes me mad. It's not valid reasoning at all.

Finn was a bit too glib, but what he says is, in fact, valid.  It goes toward the narrative and thematic consistency that I like to talk about.  Everything about the first 2.99 games seems to be telling us that forced Synthesis and Control are BAD.  And then we're expected to accept a complete reversal of that in the last 10 minutes of a 100-hour journey.  Based on what?  The unsubstantiated word of our enemy. An enemy who makes a living off of f*cking with people's heads.  *sigh*  It's so effing absurd, that I simply can't accept it as anything other than an indoctrination attempt.  If, on the other hand, the writers really, truly hand-of-God meant for all of the endings to be "real," then it's the most egregious collapse that I've ever seen in any medium.  A monumental failure, deserving of everlasting scorn and derision.

Truth. 

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
@iakus

And right about now "freedom" looks like "the freedom to be stupid and cruel, to keep repeating the same mistakes because doing otherwise is just too much work and to crush each other to scramble for power and advance our own agendas. I'll take my chances with the machine. I know what we can do.

Strange how from this perspective Control and Synthesis look like polar opposites: here the cynical choice, based on the idea that we're unable to govern ourselves without destroying ourselves, there the idealistic choice which empowers even the most jaded individual in the hope something better will emerge from it overall. 

As I see it, there is an evolutionary trend to more co-operation. Society grows more interdependent, what we do is becoming more complex. As a species, we are as children and we need to grow up. Eventually, some of the old mindsets will die out. Whether we need a more heavy-handed guide until we get to that point is an open question. Control asserts yes and keeps us in the nest for a while. Synthesis throws us out of the nest, kicking and screaming, into a bigger reality. The open question here is whether we can survive that.

Synthesis is, in a way, the polar opposite of Control.  It's the forced uplifting of all life, all people, everywhere at once.  Whether they are ready or not.  As has been shown in the past, this tends to lead to disasterous, if unintended,  consequences.  If Synthesis is indeed "inevitible" then it should happen at its own pace.  Not use Reaper tech as a shortcut.

One is not enough freedom. One is too much

[jtav]

Actually, it feels like each game is an argument for one of the three main options. Destroy in the first game where the geth are really just a bunch of sadistic bastards. ME2 brings you TIM and his desire for power which you can agree with or not and Liara co-opting the yahg's network for her own purposes. And in 3, we have Legion enacting a crude Synthesis.

Sorry, back of napkin rambling. I'll flesh it out more later.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I won't choose it for the following reasons:

1. I wouldn't trust myself with that much power.
2. I definitely wouldn't trust my personality uploaded into a cold logical AI with that much power because I would have no moral control over it, because I would be dead.
3. The reapers are still around and thus a threat to everyone.
4. I'd rather keep my own form. I refuse this option.

I fight for freedom. Mine and everyone's, and the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you, and I'll die free.

Agree with your reasons against Control, but that doesn't improve the argument for refuse.

But this will: it permanently removes Hackett's DNA from the galactic gene pool.

[M Hedonist]

clennon8 wrote...

Yate wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

This is all the arguments against Control and Synthesis in one sentence, and it makes me mad. It's not valid reasoning at all.

Finn was a bit too glib, but what he says is, in fact, valid.  It goes toward the narrative and thematic consistency that I like to talk about.  Everything about the first 2.99 games seems to be telling us that forced Synthesis and Control are BAD.  And then we're expected to accept a complete reversal of that in the last 10 minutes of a 100-hour journey.  Based on what?  The unsubstantiated word of our enemy. An enemy who makes a living off of f*cking with people's heads.  *sigh*  It's so effing absurd, that I simply can't accept it as anything other than an indoctrination attempt.  If, on the other hand, the writers really, truly hand-of-God meant for all of the endings to be "real," then it's the most egregious collapse that I've ever seen in any medium.  A monumental failure, deserving of everlasting scorn and derision.

Actually, Synthesis requires a reversal in like less than 10 seconds, what with the Catalyst actually telling you that Synthesis is something that can't be forced, and that every time he tried in the past, it failed. Seriously, I am quoting the Catalyst almost word for word.
"We have tried... a similar solution in the past. But it has always failed. [...] Because the organics were not ready. It is not something that can be... forced."
It's like that part was written by someone who didn't know Synthesis was a valid ending decision.

Modifié par Sauruz, 19 décembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[SpamBot2000]

CrutchCricket wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Gee, thanks for correcting us Mister! There people were, answering the title question of the thread, stupidly assuming they were meant to do that, instead of answering a different, yet related question. We R so dum LOL!

Ieldra2 wrote...
What this is about:
I'm making this thread to present my hypothesis that ethical considerations play a smaller role in people's final choice than they claim, and to ask people why they don't choose Control.

Oops. Care to try again?

Um, Ieldra2 is presenting a hypothesis about ethical considerations. He is gathering data about why people don't choose Control to see if a lot of them cite ethical considerations. How the hell is the question not a straightforward: 'Why not control?', to be answered in whatever way you think is accurate?

Was this a good enough try, or shall we keep doing this?

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 19 décembre 2012 - 08:19 .

[merylisk]

I'm planning to pick it for my current Renegade playthrough!

The main issue with Control is that it kind of forces you to admit that TIM was right, and that his methods of figuring out how to control the Reapers (Horizon, etc.) were all ultimately worth it. It's definitely a bitter pill to swallow.

But that being said, I think it's a great and interesting ending. Since you sort of become a God Emperor of Dune type figure, there's a ton of moral ambiguity there, and Shepard essentially becomes the very thing she's been fighting. Even for a Paragon Shepard, it's a pretty dark ending. But that's what I really like about it! I actually kind of think it's my favorite, in a way, despite the fact that I picked Destroy for my Paragon canon.

Modifié par merylisk, 19 décembre 2012 - 08:20 .

[Isichar]

I pretty much concluded that logically if I had to choose one of the original endings it would probably be Control. Synthesis is all great and all as you know OP, but the Catalyst fails at explaining it so terribly imo that there is no way I could trust what it calls the best solution, considering what it previously called the best solution...

Since destroy sacrifices the Geth and EDI which I consider unacceptable as long as it can be avoided this is not something I will pick (Must sound funny from someone who really likes refuse lol).

Sure Control is not perfect, but its interesting, gets everyone else out alive, and has a kind of creepy eery feeling to it that is quite appropriate. Its pretty well handled.

Too bad Synthesis fails so badly in its execution in regards to the explanation and source or else it would have been a fairly satisfying ending for me.

Modifié par Isichar, 19 décembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[M Hedonist]

merylisk wrote...

I'm planning to pick it for my current Renegade playthrough!

The main issue with Control is that it kind of forces you to admit that TIM was right, and that his methods of figuring out how to control the Reapers (Horizon, etc.) were all ultimately worth it. It's definitely a bitter pill to swallow.

But that being said, I think it's a great and interesting ending. Since you sort of become a God Emperor of Dune type figure, there's a ton of moral ambiguity there, and Shepard essentially becomes the very thing she's been fighting. Even for a Paragon Shepard, it's a pretty dark ending. But that's what I really like about it! I actually kind of think it's my favorite, in a way, despite the fact that I picked Destroy for my Paragon canon.

Oh yes, I found the ending to be perfectly fitting for my Renegade Shepard. Especially since he was less like a brute, as many Renegade lines and actions would make one out to be, but more like a cold, logical person, who always sought out to increase his own power; for example, I made him save the Council in ME1, because that increased his reputation with the Council. So, in the end, he became the most powerful being in the world, but, in turn, lost his humanity.

[JamieCOTC]

clennon8 wrote...

Yate wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

This is all the arguments against Control and Synthesis in one sentence, and it makes me mad. It's not valid reasoning at all.

Finn was a bit too glib, but what he says is, in fact, valid.  It goes toward the narrative and thematic consistency that I like to talk about.  Everything about the first 2.99 games seems to be telling us that forced Synthesis and Control are BAD.  And then we're expected to accept a complete reversal of that in the last 10 minutes of a 100-hour journey.  Based on what?  The unsubstantiated word of our enemy. An enemy who makes a living off of f*cking with people's heads.  *sigh*  It's so effing absurd, that I simply can't accept it as anything other than an indoctrination attempt.  If, on the other hand, the writers really, truly hand-of-God meant for all of the endings to be "real," then it's the most egregious collapse that I've ever seen in any medium.  A monumental failure, deserving of everlasting scorn and derision.

To the bolded part, pretty much. The endings are meant to be taken at face value. Shepard was supposed come under the control of the Reapers, but it was cut out for technical reasons, however, the ending would have been the same.

As for the other, take the renegade (lower) response after the Catalyst describes control. In the EC he's not crazy about being replaced by Shepard. So you can argue this for synthesis, but not for control.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 19 décembre 2012 - 08:39 .

[CosmicGnosis]

jtav wrote...

Actually, it feels like each game is an argument for one of the three main options. Destroy in the first game where the geth are really just a bunch of sadistic bastards. ME2 brings you TIM and his desire for power which you can agree with or not and Liara co-opting the yahg's network for her own purposes. And in 3, we have Legion enacting a crude Synthesis.

Sorry, back of napkin rambling. I'll flesh it out more later.

Ah, fascinating.

[Ieldra]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...
You seem to be an active member here Ieldra. People have been saying repeatedly why they choose X ending over Y or Z ending. Either you made this thread to bash on people picking destroy or refuse, or you have been completely oblivious to all the repeating discussions we had for 10 months now.

You think so? Note how most of the answers prove the point I was making in the OP. People are saying they're making their decision out of ethical concerns, but mostly that's false. You see, the ethical downsides of Destroy and Synthesis are inherent in the decision: all who Destroy kill the synthetics, all who Synthesize change all life's biochemistry. Control has none of those. Instead, people using mostly these arguments:

(1) No one should have that much power. You may believe that and make your choice based on that belief, but that's all it is: a belief. It would be a valid ethical concern only if power was bad. Power has as much potential for good as it has for bad. We distrust power only because we tend to notice the bad more than the good. We take the good for granted and cry over the bad. This is natural, but gives a dangerously skewed perspective on power.

(2) It is TIM's solution. While awareness of story conventions may point you towards this rationalization, what in fact happens is that the story subverts those conventions. You are called to notice that Control actually doesn't do anything bad. To indicate this subversion visually, TIM's choice is marked blue. The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. You can choose to take the convention at face value, but without a tangible evil manifesting from it, it is no valid ethical concern.

(3) Control!Shep will do <insert anything bad>. Well, people know their Shepards best. If they don't trust them to hold that much power, I won't gainsay them. However, while that may be a valid concern for any individual Shepard, it is no tangible evil that inevitably arises from the decision, unlike the deaths of the synthetics or the biochemical change. The latter *will* happen. The former *may* happen.

(4) Cultural stagnation. Again, a valid concern, but not an ethical one. It cannot be established that stagnation is bad. We usually consider it undesirable (me including), but that's a result of cultural conditioning. There is nothing that says it is morally wrong.

Note that I'm not trying to invalidate those concerns as such, nor am I saying Control is objectively a more desirable choice than the others. I am just saying those concerns are either not ethical at all, or not in the same way intrinsic to the decision as the ethical downsides of the other options. Thus, people who avoid Control (including me, since I tend to choose Synthesis) are making their decision mainly from non-ethical considerations (it is TIM's solution) or from intangibles, most of the time cultural conventions (stagnation is bad) or personal beliefs about what is desirable (nobody should have that much power). Actually, I am firmly convinced those who do choose Control are doing the same, it's just not that easy to prove.

Example: I am choosing Synthesis because I believe the future it brings (as described in my Synthesis interpretation) is desirable. This is a personal belief, but unless I refer to intangible absolutes, I cannot establish that the advancement and ascension it brings is actually good. Note the difference to the ethical downside of Destroy, which can be firmly established as being bad.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 décembre 2012 - 08:58 .

[AlanC9]

JamieCOTC wrote...
To the bolded part, pretty much. The endings are meant to be taken at face value. Shepard was supposed come under the control of the Reapers, but it was cut out for technical reasons, however, the ending would have been the same. 

I concur. From what the devs have said the design intent seems to have always been to have some sort of big morally debatable choice at the ending, even back when they were fooling around with dark energy. 

[Eterna]

Wulfram wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Explain too me how power can corrupt an artificial intelligence? 

Well, an AI has the ability to change itself, so I don't see any reason for it to be immune to the lures of power than a human.  In fact, the superior intelligence it possesses might make it more likely to believe that it must necessarily know best and can therefore justify imposing it's conclusion on everyone else.

But that's not really my point.  My point is, that peoples reasons for being reluctant to pick Control aren't truly rational.  Instead, they're based on the story making it feel wrong, as a conclusion to the tale

AI are driven by their programming, they can change their purpose, but the desire for power requires that you have emotion. It is an organic ideal that synthetics would be unable to understand, it is emotionally driven.

 An AI could program itself to recive positive feedback whenever it gains more power, but even then is it truly corrupted by power? Or is it simply following its programming?

[clennon8]

AlanC9 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...
To the bolded part, pretty much. The endings are meant to be taken at face value. Shepard was supposed come under the control of the Reapers, but it was cut out for technical reasons, however, the ending would have been the same. 

I concur. From what the devs have said the design intent seems to have always been to have some sort of big morally debatable choice at the ending, even back when they were fooling around with dark energy. 

They certainly succeeded in making the ending morally debatable.  What they didn't succeed in (assuming face value interpretation) was making a logically coherent ending.  Or an ending that much of its fanbase found fulfilling or satisfying.

[Volc19]

Common arguments against Control are usually these:

1- Association fallacy: "TIM liked control, TIM is bad, therefor control is bad."

2- Literary inconsistency: "Shepard: Control will never work, TIM, time to die... oh wait, nevermind, it totally works."

3- Indoctrination/trust issues: "Even though I know what happens in the endings, and I know that they all work out in the end, I still think the Catalyst is lying to me."

4- Headcanon: "Shepalyst makes the galaxy into a police state regardless of his moral alignment, and I will think this regardless of evidence to the contrary."

Out of all of them, I think 2 is the most reasonable objection. Without the ability to ever say Control sounds viable, and killing TIM for wanting it, picking Control comes off as hypocritical. That, however, will not stop me from picking the best ending.

EDIT: I totally missed Ieldra's most recent post. Now I feel silly.

Modifié par Volc19, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:03 .

[clennon8]

You should feel silly anyway.