1388 réponses à ce sujet

[fiendishchicken]

Volc19 wrote...

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.

Good work picking Destroy fellow destroyer.

[AlanC9]

Aren't point 1 and point 3 essentially the same? Usually someone goes from "Shepard has too much power" to "Shepard will do something awful with the power" in a sentence or two.

And 4 is a subcategory of 3; it takes a different form when we argue it since Shepard isn't intending any bad action and we can argue about whether the consequence of his action is actually bad, but it's still Shepard doing a "bad" thing with the power.

2's the outlier, since it's a metagaming/artistic argument as opposed to anything real within the ME universe.

Looks like your hypothesis turned out fairly well.

[M Hedonist]

How is "no single man should have so much power" not an ethical perspective? It's one of the principles that modern governments are based on. Having all kinds of institutions and oppositions that keep the powers in check.
In Control, Shepard's holding all the reins by himself and there's nobody who can keep him in check. It's almost like a dictatorship, in a certain sense. Even in Paragon, I'd say Shepard is like a (truly) benevolent dictator, even though that sounds like an oxymoron. Wait, no, after some quick searching, I realized that is actually a real concept.

Modifié par Sauruz, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:09 .

[AlanC9]

Sauruz wrote...

How is "no single man should have so much power" not an ethical perspective? It's one of the principles that modern governments are based on. Having all kinds of institutions and oppositions that keep the powers in check.

That is a question of practical politics, not ethics.

Looks like we can't actually have an ethical discussion about Control since we can't agree on what the Control choice does.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:13 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

merylisk wrote...
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.

I don't think that's true at all. The Crucible, not Cerberus technology, is what allows you to control the Reapers. The Control ending shows that TIM was full of crap with all his high-minded talk about "sacrifices that had to be made" - even if he's sincere about it, he's factually incorrect, because (a) there was another way to do it (building the Crucible) and ( he hasn't been successful since the Reapers are still controlling him.

I don't think choosing Control means saying that any method that could potentially be used to achieve it is justified. If Shepard had been given the choice during the Horizon mission to either (a) help the Cerberus experiments continue or ( forfeit the possibility of Control, I'd choose forfeiting the possibility in a heartbeat.

Modifié par FlyingSquirrel, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:14 .

[Eterna]

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.

TIM was not right. His ideals and morals were completely wrong, the only thing he was right about was the fact you can control the Reapers. You aren't validating TIM by saying that line.

[jtav]

Another reason it might be unpopular is that it doesn't offer much in the way of rewards for playing the game well: no maskless quarians or futuristic cities or breathing Shepards so it feels less like you won.

[Volc19]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

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."

[legitimate critisizm for Control]. That, HOWEVER, will not stop me from picking the best ending.

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

Good work picking Destroy fellow destroyer.

I was reffering to Control, actually.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Ieldra2 wrote...
(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.

To be fair, I don't think the argument there is exactly that "power is bad," but rather that no one individual (whether organic or AI) can be trusted with too much of it.

[CosmicGnosis]

jtav wrote...

Another reason it might be unpopular is that it doesn't offer much in the way of rewards for playing the game well: no maskless quarians or futuristic cities or breathing Shepards so it feels less like you won.

I was about to say that. When it comes to rewards, it's the least interesting choice. At the same time, however, I guess it's the most flexible. The tone of the ending is influenced by Shepard's morality, what he chose to do with the genophage cure, and who the krogan leader is.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[Eterna]

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

[M Hedonist]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

How is "no single man should have so much power" not an ethical perspective? It's one of the principles that modern governments are based on. Having all kinds of institutions and oppositions that keep the powers in check.

That is a question of practical politics, not ethics.

Looks like we can't actually have an ethical discussion about Control since we can't agree on what the Control choice does.

I don't want to say Control necessarily turns the galaxy into a police state, the fact alone that one man has the power to potentially do so is already just wrong.
I guess Shepard could just do nothing at all with the Reapers, or send them into the next sun, but that's simply not what happens in the epilogue.

[Fixers0]

Control is a naturally unattractive options caused by certain narrative elements, that were placed into the story in order form the central conflict of the Cerberus plot: Shepard vs TIM, Destroy vs control, black vs white. It's all so laughable simple, yet the narrative initially presents TIM's control ideals as not viable as their downright impossible, but near the end, controlling the Reapers is suddenly possible, with no literary or lore reason to back up this fact, which intially conisderd as impossible.

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...
Aren't point 1 and point 3 essentially the same? Usually someone goes from "Shepard has too much power" to "Shepard will do something awful with the power" in a sentence or two.

And 4 is a subcategory of 3; it takes a different form when we argue it since Shepard isn't intending any bad action and we can argue about whether the consequence of his action is actually bad, but it's still Shepard doing a "bad" thing with the power.

Hmm...you have a point. I'll try to summarize things better next time.

2's the outlier, since it's a metagaming/artistic argument as opposed to anything real within the ME universe.

And this topic is the most interesting. I have no idea how Bioware intended the choices to come across, but am seeing a subversion of the usual story conventions. You are making a decision endorsed by a major antagonist - and it turns out as described, and nothing bad happens. I love it! Sloppy work on the foreshadowing though. It exists, but feels like an afterthought. I really can't fault players for rejecting it based on "my allies don't like it, my enemies do".

[Twinzam.V]

Eterna5 wrote...

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

Is Superman a human?

[The Night Mammoth]

Twinzam.V wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

Is Superman a human?

Does superman actually f*cking exist? 

What a f*cking stupid analogy. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:29 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Another reason it might be unpopular is that it doesn't offer much in the way of rewards for playing the game well: no maskless quarians or futuristic cities or breathing Shepards so it feels less like you won.

That depends on whether you find something worthwhile in the existence as an AI god. Debatable of course - and a topic for a separate thread. I value the maskless quarians and the krogan renaissance highly, but the Control epilogue is awesome in its own way. 

[cyrexwingblade]

Control is only unpopular because they successfully villified the concept for 3 straight games. Yes, the third included, because up to the choice being handed to you, Control is still 'a bad idea TIM was obsessed with'.

I choose it generally for my main Shep for 2 reasons: 1) She's single, and has no LI to hurt, 2) it's the only way not to undo half of her work bringing the galaxy together despite their differences.

And yeah, benevolent dictorator is basically it as Paragon. Most effecient form of government, but power does corrupt.

Honestly though, as a player and a story-teller myself, I just head-canon destroy. Like Shep, Geth/Edi are hurt/damaged, but not wiped/killed. I like Shep still being herself, but if she survived where the Geth and Edi died... she... would be broken. Perhaps not suicidal, but she'd never recover.

[fr33stylez]

Eterna5 wrote...

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

The problem with control doesn't really have to do with the notion 'power corrupts' as we're talking about an AI. It has more with what Imentioned a few pages back:

Why would Shepard think it's a good idea to simply assume the role of the Starchild right after the Starchild tells you it concluded using AI logic that liquefying all organics was an acceptable solution to its mandate of protecting organics?

The Catalyst was programmed to protect organics/achieve peace. It concluded the best way to do this was by turning organics into smoothies for the past billion years. Why? Because its an AI and cannot appreciate that organics find such a solution appalling and undesrible, nor does it care. This was the best solution the AI could think of.

Nothing stops Shepard after assuming the role as the new Catalyst from using similar AI reasoning that is unaccpetable to organics. The issue with this 'power' the Catalyst holds is that when an AI has made such a decision, we will have to fight tooth and nail to stop it, like we did in the ME trilogy.

[M Hedonist]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

Is Superman a human?

Does superman actually f*cking exist? 

What a f*cking stupid analogy. 

Oh come on, it's not that stupid. It actually made me think about it for a while.

[The Night Mammoth]

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

Is Superman a human?

Does superman actually f*cking exist? 

What a f*cking stupid analogy. 

Oh come on, it's not that stupid. It actually made me think about it for a while.

What was your conclusion? 

[Dr_Extrem]

have not read the entire thread ... i hope its not derailed.


why does my shepard not choose control ... (since shepard is my avatar, this formulation is valid)

my shepard does not choose control, because she knows her own weaknesses. despite the fact that she is a paragon and war hero, she knows, that she can do horrible things ... she killed sgt. cathka, threated the blue suns mercs and is instantly pi+*ed, the moment udina enters the room. she has breakdowns, shouts at joker (over a bad jike) and needs pep talks just like everyone else.

she is just a human and humans can have weak moments. my shepard knows this only too good and would not trust herself to have no weak moments in the future ...

power does not corrupt - weak moments do.


eternity is a long time and it is possible, that the shepard-ai is the last sentient being, when its "lights out" in our galaxy. empires rise and fall ... civilisations prosper only to degrade later ... species evolve and die out ... and the shepard-ai will be the only constant, within an ever-changing cosmos.


who wants to live forever?

[Twinzam.V]

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

Is Superman a human?

Does superman actually f*cking exist? 

What a f*cking stupid analogy. 

Oh come on, it's not that stupid. It actually made me think about it for a while.

Really? Then what about a real life analogy? Wouldnt that be more accurate?

[hukbum]

Maybe, one day, when I think a police state is a good idea and when I'm stupid enough to belief a 30 yo human has enough experience to lead a galaxy for ever, I'll choose control.

[clennon8]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

To all the people saying having too much power is a bad thing and that it corrupts: Is Superman a bad guy?

Is Superman a human?

Does superman actually f*cking exist? 

What a f*cking stupid analogy. 

Oh come on, it's not that stupid. It actually made me think about it for a while.

What was your conclusion? 

lol.  I like you.