1388 réponses à ce sujet

[sr2josh]

Actually, Synthesis is the least popular choice by far because it's utterly ridiculous.

[geceka]

Ieldra2 wrote...

However, this is easily countered: even if you believe you can't handle that responsibility, you can still send the Reapers into a black hole and essentially get the result of Destroy minus the death of the synthesics and with the Citadel remaining intact.

Not so easily countered: Even if a controlling Shepard plans to immediately dispose of the Reapers, they (and their underlying purpose) are taken out of the picture entirely, without addressing the original catalyst's goals of mediating the synthetic/organic situation. In the status quo, the original catalyst serves these duties, and if a Shepard believes that these duties have a merit, controlling to destroy the Reapers is just as ethically wrong for them: You can't kill the janitor without finding someone to clean the room for in his place.

For such a Shepard, Synthesis would probably make the most sense, spreading the burden (and potential) of building a viable future on top of the Reapers' advancements across the many, rather than the singular guardian.

[huntrrz]

Choosing Control requires you to believe the Catalyst. "Here, grab these two high-power conduits and be painfully disintegrated. You'll gain control of the entire Reaper force. It'll obey you without question, for the rest of eternity."

"...I can't BELIEVE that worked! He BOUGHT it!!!"

Shepard has no reason to believe his enemy, who uses deception and manipulation as its primary weapons. The players know from observation that Control works, but at the time Shepard and the players don't - and have no reason to trust that it will.

[BonFire5]

Control is what I chose by accident. Then I chose it for real because I like it. I wasn't allowed to agree with TIM. Because he went from a dude with a plan, to dude who wants to rule the galaxy because, heh.

[Noblewolf]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Noblewolf wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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

Why does that matter? More to the point: why does that matter in the face of the absence of any tangible ethical downside?

Noblewolf wrote...
did you even hear how evil and pissed off reaper-shep sounded? that just has bad news written all over it....

I didn't hear anything "evil and pissed-off" in the Paragon version. Quite the opposite, in fact. "I will ensure that all have a say in their future" - how exactly is that bad?

@Uncle Jo:
Maybe, but it is odd that this has such a big influence in a decision you really should think about somewhat before you make it.

I know but just way he says it sends shivers down my spine...also the main reason i didnt pick it was reaper-shep came from a humen a humen with emotions and this one humen/reaper hybrid more or less is incontrol of the most powerful force in the galaxy so what happends when reapershep gets angry......

That's interesting. Would I be correct in paraphrasing this as "My Shepard is a man who wouldn't trust himself with that kind of power, and that distrust is stronger than my ethical concerns about the ending I chose in the end"?

Edit:
It wasn't said explicitly, but I think it was implied that the Control Entity would have less immediacy of emotion than the Shepard it was based on.

But we dont know how much of shep is in there and we have no way of knowing where the reaper starts and sheps ends, sure it might seem okay now but how long till reaper-shep starts reflecting in more deph about the last 3 years all the times sheps been beat down step'd on, spat in the face by the very people he was trying to save, all the friends that died, how do we know that self control and being able to distinguish between good and evil is still in there.

[Wulfram]

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

[Ieldra]

geceka wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

However, this is easily countered: even if you believe you can't handle that responsibility, you can still send the Reapers into a black hole and essentially get the result of Destroy minus the death of the synthesics and with the Citadel remaining intact.

Not so easily countered: Even if a controlling Shepard plans to immediately dispose of the Reapers, they (and their underlying purpose) are taken out of the picture entirely, without addressing the original catalyst's goals of mediating the synthetic/organic situation. In the status quo, the original catalyst serves these duties, and if a Shepard believes that these duties have a merit, controlling to destroy the Reapers is just as ethically wrong for them: You can't kill the janitor without finding someone to clean the room for in his place.

For such a Shepard, Synthesis would probably make the most sense, spreading the burden (and potential) of building a viable future on top of the Reapers' advancements across the many, rather than the singular guardian.

All right. My main point was to pit Control vs. Destroy, since the latter is the most popular choice. If you dispose of the Reapers post-Control, you still have the result of Destroy minus the ethical downsides. So it could be argued that Control is an objectively better choice than Destroy.
To this point, it was all independent of your belief in the organic/synthetic problem. The thing is, if you add that as a real consideration, things get even worse for Destroy.

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...

geceka wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

However, this is easily countered: even if you believe you can't handle that responsibility, you can still send the Reapers into a black hole and essentially get the result of Destroy minus the death of the synthesics and with the Citadel remaining intact.

Not so easily countered: Even if a controlling Shepard plans to immediately dispose of the Reapers, they (and their underlying purpose) are taken out of the picture entirely, without addressing the original catalyst's goals of mediating the synthetic/organic situation. In the status quo, the original catalyst serves these duties, and if a Shepard believes that these duties have a merit, controlling to destroy the Reapers is just as ethically wrong for them: You can't kill the janitor without finding someone to clean the room for in his place.

For such a Shepard, Synthesis would probably make the most sense, spreading the burden (and potential) of building a viable future on top of the Reapers' advancements across the many, rather than the singular guardian.

All right. My main point was to pit Control vs. Destroy, since the latter is the most popular choice. If you dispose of the Reapers post-Control, you still have the result of Destroy minus the ethical downsides. So it could be argued that Control is an objectively better choice than Destroy.
To this point, it was all independent of your belief in the organic/synthetic problem. The thing is, if you add that as a real consideration, things get even worse for Destroy.

That´s a very big "if", and nothing in the slides points to it (and Renegade actually does the opposite). There´s also the issue that it´s such huge power for someone to have, and that ShepAIrd´s vision of some issues have changed with the new senses s/he has. It´s basically a mortal upgraded to God level. You can headcanon good things out of it, but I think by default most of us would mistrust such a thing.

[Wulfram]

As far as the whole fly the reapers into the sun thing:

1. The extended cut makes it pretty clear Shepard isn't doing that.
and
2. It is just Destroy without the bad bits, which makes it feel kind of cheap. It pretty clearly wasn't intended by the writers, it's just a way for us to cheat outselves out of a hard choice. Though pre-EC I took it, and reasoned Shepard was just outsmarting that Catalyst dude.

[jstme]

I do not choose control because i see nothing good coming out of it.
If it will be a virtual simulation of Shepard replacing Catalyst in controlling the reapers and co - human mind does not have the tools to cope with and manage amount of information and devices that is above and beyond capabilities of even the Geth consensus. So either virtual Shepard will instantly loose control over the reapers or go nuts. What is square root of 912.04? It all seemed harmless...

And even if it is more like plugging simulation of Shepard as some kind of control unit into fully functional Catalyst network - virtual Shepard will have to continue to choose options presented by same Catalyst,due to same lack of capabilities to directly deal with vast amount of information and directly control numerous complex machines. Catalyst will be grey cardinal behind the throne.

But even if it will be overcome by Catalyst suddenly becoming just a simplifying interface with no intelligence of its own, flesh and blood Shepard will always differ in the long run even from perfectly copied virtual Shepard.Really, flesh and blood teen Shepard will make different decisions then 120-year old flesh and blood Shepard. Who knows what undead simulation will become in just a few centuries of unlimited power.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Implications - unpleasant.

[Darth_Trethon]

Different motives really but it comes down to:

1) Too great a risk that it can all go wrong, the reapers are too big of a threat.
2) Shepard only really survives if you pick destroy....the control bit is badass but unconvincing imo.
3) Spent three whole games firmly standing against synthesis and control so all of a sudden changing our stand on those issues in the last 60 seconds for no apparent reason other than "a reaper said it would work" seems about stupid.

[Kataphrut94]

Regarding the whole "fly the Reapers into the sun" business, it seems like an easy cheat, but I think we're meant to make the assumption that if you Control the Reapers, you'd want to make use of them. At the very least, you'd need to fix the mass relays so everybody doesn't starve to death.

The implication that Shepard would go kill-crazy and restart the harvest never held water to me since the Shepard AI is meant to be based off Shepard's personality and Shepard has spent the whole trilogy fighting against this cycle and never expresses any sign of agreeing with the Catalyst when the reveal happens. So the idea that he'd go right back to the flawed Reaper solution or even consider the synthetic/organic war to be a genuine issue strikes me as being very out of character.

[andy6915]

Simple. No one person or AI should be allowed to control and rule the entire galaxy. Every single time a person or nation became too powerful and started being the sole authority has ended in a dictatorship. The galaxy would never be free ever again with an AI enforcing their ideas and morals on the rest of society at Reaper-point (gun-point).

[crimzontearz]

a lot of people have issues with following the ideal of a character they were thinking of as the antagonist for two games....

especially when told by their comrade, mentor and friend that that is a bad idea

on top of the fact that Bioware is still trolling us with the breath scene and will not muster the testicular fortitude to actually tell us what happens one way or the other.

[Ageless Face]

Control is the middle option. The option where the Reapers are no longer the threat they once were, but people can always see them as one- something that will never happen in Destroy. And it's also the option where you can keep the technology, and all life will be left unharmed, but nothing new will be gained- Different from Synthesis.

That is my guess as to why Control is the least liked. It's not extreme enough to any side. It doesn't get enough of the upsides there are to Synthesis and Destroy. I also think it means control doesn't get much of their downsides, and that is why I chose it.

[Jadebaby]

Umm... Maybe because the Reapers don't die... I have no intention of letting the Reapers survive. They are disgusting abominations and I loathe their very existence.

I hate them more than Diana Allers.

[Ieldra]

Makai81 wrote...
Actually, Synthesis is the least popular choice by far because it's utterly ridiculous.

Not according to several polls, including the big one from masseffect-universe.de with 20k participants. Only the level of hate among those who don't like it is higher than for Control.

[kal_reegar]

so, Saruman was right after all.

wtf... I spent an entire game harassing TIM because "giving too much power to one man is bad" and "absolute power corrupt absolutely" etc... why should I change my mind? Because the AI that controls the reapers, my arch enemy, tells me "you were wrong, he was mad and indoctrinated but he was right after all, control it's ok, come on, enjoy"??????

I would have felt (not me, my shepard) like a pathetic and insecure fool..

[Pride Demon]

huntrrz wrote...

Choosing Control requires you to believe the Catalyst. "Here, grab these two high-power conduits and be painfully disintegrated. You'll gain control of the entire Reaper force. It'll obey you without question, for the rest of eternity."

"...I can't BELIEVE that worked! He BOUGHT it!!!"

Shepard has no reason to believe his enemy, who uses deception and manipulation as its primary weapons. The players know from observation that Control works, but at the time Shepard and the players don't - and have no reason to trust that it will.

I understand what you say, however I always had a problem with this line of thought because it can not actually be used as a pro or con for any ending... Rather it's the opposite, it puts all endings on the same level...

If you distrust someone, you distrust all the arguments he/she makes equally, you don't give credit to some of his/her arguments more than to others just because it's more convenient that way...
We have no reason to believe the electrified handles will control the reapers, but neither we can be sure if shooting the tube will actually destroy them instead of, more simply, blowing up the crucible...

The "Catalyst lies" line of argument can not be used in favour of any ending over another for that very reason, in fact it's a line of argument against every ending equally as we have only its word for what's going to happen...

Modifié par Pride Demon, 19 décembre 2012 - 12:47 .

[geceka]

Ieldra2 wrote...

All right. My main point was to pit Control vs. Destroy, since the latter is the most popular choice. If you dispose of the Reapers post-Control, you still have the result of Destroy minus the ethical downsides. So it could be argued that Control is an objectively better choice than Destroy.

Ah, I understand your perspective now.

Well, in that case, you could also add to the "pro Control-as-Destroy" list that Shepard as the intermediate catalyst could also spend some resources into figuring out if there is a way to preserve whatever the Reapers are storing of each harvested race before destroying the Reapers themselves, as to ensure that this "essence of a species" is not irrevocably lost. The synthesis epilogue hints at there actually being something worth saving ("we are connected to the culture of those before us").

This has always stricken me as somewhat problematic with vanilla-Destroy, too, that there might actually still be aspects of each cycle present in a Reaper that are worthy to be preserved. Destroying this outright would only put the final nail into the coffins of the previous cycle. Ironically, Shepard et al. believed the Reapers are simply annihilating each cycle, then we learned that they actually mean to preserve them, then in Destroy, Shepard themselves "perfect" their own original terror by being the one to finally eradicate each cycle's heritage completely.

Modifié par geceka, 19 décembre 2012 - 12:49 .

[Twinzam.V]

Uncertainty. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.
How can i be sure something wont go wrong?
Do i have absolute control over the Reapers?
Are the reapers now my slaves?
If one single reaper is a cluster of minds how can i be sure that ill keep them under control and they wont corrupt my mind?

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 19 décembre 2012 - 12:50 .

[Ieldra]

Kataphrut94 wrote...
Regarding the whole "fly the Reapers into the sun" business, it seems like an easy cheat, but I think we're meant to make the assumption that if you Control the Reapers, you'd want to make use of them. At the very least, you'd need to fix the mass relays so everybody doesn't starve to death.

Yes, we see that in the epilogue. Thematic considerations point to Shepard keeping the Reapers around, but those are exactly not ethical considerations. Which is my point.

The implication that Shepard would go kill-crazy and restart the harvest never held water to me since the Shepard AI is meant to be based off Shepard's personality and Shepard has spent the whole trilogy fighting against this cycle and never expresses any sign of agreeing with the Catalyst when the reveal happens. So the idea that he'd go right back to the flawed Reaper solution or even consider the synthetic/organic war to be a genuine issue strikes me as being very out of character.

I agree with the other parts, but the organic/synthetic problem makes perfect sense (I'll get to that in another thread). Finding a less drastic means to solve that is one point of choosing Control.

[spirosz]

I never liked the idea of my Shepard "ruling" or "looking over" the galaxy, in whatever shape or form.

[Twinzam.V]

Pride Demon wrote...

huntrrz wrote...

Choosing Control requires you to believe the Catalyst. "Here, grab these two high-power conduits and be painfully disintegrated. You'll gain control of the entire Reaper force. It'll obey you without question, for the rest of eternity."

"...I can't BELIEVE that worked! He BOUGHT it!!!"

Shepard has no reason to believe his enemy, who uses deception and manipulation as its primary weapons. The players know from observation that Control works, but at the time Shepard and the players don't - and have no reason to trust that it will.

I understand what you say, however I always had a problem with this line of thought because it can not actually be used as a pro or con for any ending... Rather it's the opposite, it puts all endings on the same level...

If you distrust someone, you distrust all the arguments he/she makes equally, you don't give credit to some of his/her arguments more than to others just because it's more convenient that way...
We have no reason to believe the electrified handles will control the reapers, but neither we can be sure if shooting the tube will actually destroy them instead of, more simply, blowing up the crucible...

The "Catalyst lies" line of argument can not be used in favour of any ending over another for that very reason, in fact it's a line of argument against every ending equally as we have only its word for what's going to happen...

And that's why i hate the endings. If they're all true they can be all false. 
Basic philosophy.

[Ieldra]

geceka wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

All right. My main point was to pit Control vs. Destroy, since the latter is the most popular choice. If you dispose of the Reapers post-Control, you still have the result of Destroy minus the ethical downsides. So it could be argued that Control is an objectively better choice than Destroy.

Ah, I understand your perspective now.

Well, in that case, you could also add to the "pro Control-as-Destroy" list that Shepard as the intermediate catalyst could also spend some resources into figuring out if there is a way to preserve whatever the Reapers are storing of each harvested race before destroying the Reapers themselves, as to ensure that this "essence of a species" is not irrevocably lost. The synthesis epilogue hints at there actually being something worth saving ("we are connected to the culture of those before us").

This has always stricken me as somewhat problematic with vanilla-Destroy, too, that there might actually still be aspects of each cycle present in a Reaper that are worthy to be preserved. Destroying this outright would only put the final nail into the coffins of the previous cycle. Ironically, Shepard et al. believed the Reapers are simply annihilating each cycle, then we learned that they actually mean to preserve them, then in Destroy, Shepard themselves "perfect" their own original terror by being the one to finally eradicate each cycle's heritage completely.

Actually, Shepard is never forced to say anything about the nature of the Reapers, and there is real evidence from a third party (Legion) that one Reaper is "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined in an immortal machine body". I've always suspected that ever since Sovereign said "each of us is a nation", and it's the only way the Reaper construction can need complete organic individuals instead of just cloned cells. I've made this argument ever since the end of ME2, but arguing against the "genetic goo" faction has been somewhat tiresome.
This is one of two main reasons why I choose Synthesis. I won't go into that here though, since this is about Control. If you want to talk about it further, there's my Synthesis thread.

With Control, as you say, there is the possibility to preserve whatever might be worth preserving of the Reapers, without going the whole way and setting them free. That's another favorite headcanon scenario, btw.. Check what's in the Reapers' mind and act according to what you find. That way you can make a choice based on knowledge instead of -*cough*- speculation. Without the thematic considerations, Control would probably be my preferred choice. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 décembre 2012 - 01:03 .