1388 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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. 

But there's nothing for a high EMS (Destroy) or getting the best outcome on Tuchanka/Rannoch (Synthesis). It feels very middling. At it's worst, it's not as bad as Destroy but I also feel no motive to do my best.

[Isichar]

hukbum wrote...

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.

Age does not necessarily determine wisdom.

[Ieldra]

I should mention that I like the personal accounts in this thread. It's like people's Shepards are coming alive to some degree. I find it's usually much easier to understand and accept another's decision as valid with such an account, even if I could never adopt the same perspective for my own Shepards.

[hukbum]

Isichar wrote...

hukbum wrote...

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.

Age does not necessarily determine wisdom.

I've not been talking about wisdom

[Eryri]

I don't choose it, because from an, in-game perspective, Shepard has no reason to trust the word of this entity. An entity that's just appeared from nowhere and claimed, without offering much in the way of proof, to rule the Reapers.

I don't know much about military strategies or tactics, but I doubt that many wars have been won by committing suicide at the behest of one's enemy.

Modifié par Eryri, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[JamieCOTC]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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".

In the original script Shepard is told that controling the Reapers would mean that she would continue to seek out a solution to the problem of oragincs vs synthetics. That is never mentioned in the game, so you have to assume, like in destroy, that problem still exists and one day synthetics wil rise up again (if the Catalyst is to be believed). What will ControlShepard do about it?  You say nothing bad happenes and I would argue that the potential for bad things to happen is very real. 

[M Hedonist]

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?

I'm actually not sure yet.
Superman doesn't control giant death machines...?
There's also the fact that Superman was born the way he is and didn't choose to be that way. Which can be said of almost all super heroes with supernatural powers, I don't think any of them ever chose to get their powers. The characters who choose to be super humans are generally villains.
I'm not knowledgeable at all about super heroes though, so please don't ask me to back up my claims with examples, lol.
I mean, I guess I could tell you about that one thing that happened on that Batman cartoon I watched once... or that other thing... but it's all kinda fuzzy in my memory.

Modifié par Sauruz, 19 décembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Eterna]

Ieldra2 wrote...

 Actually, I am firmly convinced those who do choose Control are doing the same, it's just not that easy to prove.

I chose Control because I firmly believe there needs to be a force or entity that can prevent war before it begins. Some people may call that robbing organics of free will, but personally I believe that the ability to commit war on a large scale is not a right worth having. 

In the original ending I was thrilled that this option became available. Although I didn't agree with the Illusives mans intentions for it, I saw the potential in Controlling the Reapers. As a result, when the EC came out I was thrilled and it turned out my Paragon control hit everything I wanted from Controlling the Reapers. It gave the galaxy a strong deterrent from war so they could instead end conflicts peacefully, it ensured that everyone, even the smaller powers, could not be silenced by more powerful nations.

Basically it gave galaxy wide peace, I've always wanted world peace in the real world, for various reasons this isn't possible. In the Mass Effect world it is and I chose it. 

[Eterna]

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. 

SHepard doesn't exist either, and upon becoming the new catalyst is no longer human. 

[Isichar]

hukbum wrote...

Isichar wrote...

hukbum wrote...

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.

Age does not necessarily determine wisdom.

I've not been talking about wisdom

I would imagine your wisdom in knowing how to use the Reapers effectively would determine how well control would end up been.

[Meltemph]

I dunno... I mean, I see people saying all those points you mentioned, but honestly, I think people with my perspective is a pretty common theme as well, only not one people mention right away. The dislike for most of the endings is that they change what people came to love about the setting. With destroy you can rationalize that eventually everything goes back to normal, you cant do that with the other endings.

So essentially, don't choose control not out of some hate or that particular ending(even though this is what they say) but because of the realization that the Mass Effect universe that many have come to enjoy would be forever changed by just about all the choices. Almost all the complaints I see about the endings, almost all of them have a tinge of a complaint about how it changes the setting or removes parts of what made it so enjoyable.

[MegaSovereign]

The "absolute power corrupts" doesn't actually apply here considering Shepard in the Control ending is no longer organic.

[PnXMarcin1PL]

I like control cutscene but only destroy ending gives me satisfaction.

[Ieldra]

JamieCOTC wrote...
In the original script Shepard is told that controling the Reapers would mean that she would continue to seek out a solution to the problem of oragincs vs synthetics. That is never mentioned in the game, so you have to assume, like in destroy, that problem still exists and one day synthetics wil rise up again (if the Catalyst is to be believed). What will ControlShepard do about it?  You say nothing bad happenes and I would argue that the potential for bad things to happen is very real.

There are a number of nonviolent possibilities for a solution. The main problem is: should Control!Shepard be proactive and influence the cultural climate of civilization, which would interfere in the development of civilization unnecessarily if the problem would otherwise never manifest, or wait and see if the problem manifests, at the risk of having to do something drastic? I think nobody with power and responsibility, AI or human, will ever be able to keep their hands clean, because there will always be situations where if you don't interfere, you act irresponsibly, and if you do interfere, you do something morally questionable. The important thing is to balance the means against the outcomes. 
If you go from the possibility that the problem manifests, then Control is still better than Destroy because there is a power that can moderate or intervene. Synthesis might be still better, but with a different risk attached.

[M Hedonist]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The "absolute power corrupts" doesn't actually apply here considering Shepard in the Control ending is no longer organic.

As I see it, he's either still human enough to make mistakes, or he's lost his empathy.
The concept of an AI only with the best characteristics of humanity just seems too far-fetched to me.
Heh, but so does most of the stuff that happens in the endings...

Modifié par Sauruz, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The "absolute power corrupts" doesn't actually apply here considering Shepard in the Control ending is no longer organic.

How about "To err is human, to really screw up you need a computer"? 

[hukbum]

Isichar wrote...

hukbum wrote...

Isichar wrote...

hukbum wrote...

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.

Age does not necessarily determine wisdom.

I've not been talking about wisdom

I would imagine your wisdom in knowing how to use the Reapers effectively would determine how well control would end up been.

Aha ... and what do we know about the reapers and how we use them "effectively" in the end of the game?

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 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. 

SHepard doesn't exist either, and upon becoming the new catalyst is no longer human. 

And that somehow makes the asinine analogy better. 

[Ieldra]

Meltemph wrote...
I dunno... I mean, I see people saying all those points you mentioned, but honestly, I think people with my perspective is a pretty common theme as well, only not one people mention right away. The dislike for most of the endings is that they change what people came to love about the setting. With destroy you can rationalize that eventually everything goes back to normal, you cant do that with the other endings.

So essentially, don't choose control not out of some hate or that particular ending(even though this is what they say) but because of the realization that the Mass Effect universe that many have come to enjoy would be forever changed by just about all the choices. Almost all the complaints I see about the endings, almost all of them have a tinge of a complaint about how it changes the setting or removes parts of what made it so enjoyable.

Interesting. That's exactly why I like the endings. I want things to change. Going back to how it was is almost the least desirable outcome for me. There we have stopped the harvesting cycle, which held the galaxy in thrall for perhaps a billion years, and then nothing changes? How utterly boring. I didn't do all those things just to see civilization stay the same. It's one reason I like Synthesis: the post-Synthesis future is exotic and radically different from what came before. I even find the dark age scenario interesting, as long as it's an option I can avoid or take, unlike in the original endings.

[Eryri]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The "absolute power corrupts" doesn't actually apply here considering Shepard in the Control ending is no longer organic.

Isn't that rather having things both ways? If Shepard retains his human perspective including his morality and mores, then he is just as capable as any other human of making moral mistakes, and of being corrupted by power.  

If on the other hand, as you say, this copy of Shepard is no longer susceptible to such human frailty, then he must surely have lost that human perspective. Then he becomes something beyond our understanding, with thought processes and actions we can no longer predict. Something operating without human morality, and which may make a cold, rational calculation that the cycles must begin again to serve some perceived "greater good".

Either way, Control is not an option that appeals to me, for this and other reasons.

[Paranoidal nemesis]

Might sound dumb, but for me, there is one part of control in the ec that I found really, really moving. So much so in fact that it rekindled the small ember of faith I had put into the writers.

The scene where the Shepard VI says "I will protect, defend; I will destroy those who threaten the future of the many. And throughout it all, I will never forget; I will remember the ones who sacrificed themselves so that the many could survive. And I will watch over the ones who live on / And I will keep a watchful eye over the ones who live on; those who carry the memory of the man/woman I once was, the man/woman who gave up his/her life / who fought to become the one who could save/lead the many." While the music is getting louder and louder.

Control is the only ending that made me feel like the sacrifice is worth it, and that what I did mattered. In Synthesis (I have a fanatical hatred for it) Shepard doesn't exist anymore, the only record of his sacrifice is EDI's frowny face. I watched in horror as the people I died to save became different life forms. I would never consider dying to save my arch enemy.

Destroys potential is, for me, ruined by the writers suggestion that it may have been Shepards last breathe at the end.

[Dr_Extrem]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The "absolute power corrupts" doesn't actually apply here considering Shepard in the Control ending is no longer organic.

the reason my shep does not choose control is already posted. (page 12)


what i find interesting - personally - is how the catalyst started its existance .. what did it try to solve the leviathans problems before it decided to harvest them? how long did it "try to do good", before it "cracked". what was the reason, the catalyst decided to start the cycles in the first place? 

my shepard would not choose control, because she knows, that she has weaknesses, breakdowns and that she would kill, without a second thought (if necessary) - and she is a paragon. she has the fear, to become the catalyst some day.


from the perspective of a spectator, i can only say, that i have to stop the idea of controling the reapers for the entire game - there is almost no buildup to this outcome.
we talk tim into suicide, because he wants to control the reapers.
we want tim to join OUR side and abandon his ways.
during the dialogue with hackett, femshep sounds very worried, that tim could be right.
after horizon, we can acknowledge, that cerberus got the job done - but not that thea are right.


the buildup during the course of the game is very weak to nonexistant and the only real driving force to choose control, comes from the mind of the player - if i would be nitpicky, i could say, that shepard has to act ooc and generates a plothole in the course.

this is very sad and another evidence, that the game was rushed. i feel for the controlers, who have no real chance ingame, to let their shepards follow the players ideas.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:18 .

[mass perfection]

Here are some reasons why you shouldn't pick Control (I like my Renegade Control though)

1.The blueness of the ending is way creepier then the redness and greeness of the others.
2.Its theme is very creepy and sinister
3.Even during the Paragon version,some things in the speech are pretty scary
4.Reapers themselves are scary

I think this all foreshadows something......scary.

Modifié par mass perfection, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:25 .

[MegaSovereign]

So it's too good to be true............. "It's too good to be true" is the epitaph of the Paragon way.

[Iakus]

Eryri wrote....  

If on the other hand, as you say, this copy of Shepard is no longer susceptible to such human frailty, then he must surely have lost that human perspective. Then he becomes something beyond our understanding, with thought processes and actions we can no longer predict. Something operating without human morality, and which may make a cold, rational calculation that the cycles must begin again to serve some perceived "greater good".

Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.