1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

I have several problems with control (even though paragon control is still my second favorite ending).

- I don't exactly know what will be left of Shepard in control (especially when Shep makes the choice, it becomes a bit clearer in the epilogue).

- Shepard will be wielding unlimited power for eternity, that gives lots of oportunities to twist her morals (what if CatalystShep feels she needs more reapers to get the job done? What happens if one or more species rebel against Shepards omnipotent police force? What happens if the reapers are forced to compete with other races (for example Eezo)). Or maybe CatalystShep just goes crazy because she is truly immortal. It's a risky choice IMO.

- I think it is also possible that many races will stagnate in control because they completely rely on CatalystShep, while they end up surpassing the Reapers' technological abilities in Destroy.

- And I am a bit selfish too...Shepard promised Liara to always come back. OK, it will take a few more years to rebuild Thessia, Earth or the relays. But I think Shepard has done enough

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

[Steelcan]

Two reasons.

1. I told Miranda I would find her.

2. I would have been fine with Control, had it been the same manner of Control as presented by Cerberus/TIM, Control without interacting with Glowstick. It would have been grounded in the game, would have validated Cerberus in ME3, and it wouldn't require Shepard's death.

[JasonShepard]

Xariann wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

Also, I'll agree with you about the hindsight issue: I picked Destroy on my very first run, however - because it was impossible in pure single player back then - I didn't get the breath scene. I switched to Control only a few days later, realising that I couldn't live with sacrificing EDI and the Geth. My original issue was the Illusive Man association - standard plotline mechanics are telling you that Control is the wrong choice! But yes, even though the pre-EC endings revealed very little, I still made my canon decision 'after the fact'.

As for the controlling synthetics issue - it's true that there's some ambiguity there, but I've never interpreted it as controlling anything more than the Reapers. Even if it is then, as you say, what is controlled can be released.

Yep, I agree. It's easy when you know everything. So your final decision is Control?

Yup, Control through and through. I'm in progress on writing an ending fic set after Control, tidying up loose ends like the Leviathans and the Reaper fleet. It'd be framed around the story of what happens when the Shep-AI finally comes home.
It's taking a while though, especially since I have a few other writing projects and I've never quite cracked the ability to write more than a few hundred words of fiction at a time.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 19 décembre 2012 - 03:20 .

[tanisha__unknown]

I like the way the control ending is done and I chose it for my renegade Shep. However, I have my doubts that over centuries, what remains of Shepard will be corrupted.

[shodiswe]

Paragon control is the only way to defeat the reapers with no repercusions or sacrifises, other than Shepards life.

The Destroy people either things Geth are "Robots" and therefor not alive. or two, a risk that they can do without, or they simply don't care about other people as long as they can kill their enemy. And then there are those who pick it just because they want Shepard to survive and be happy with his or her LI. I think that covers 99% of the destroy crowd.

Synthesis isn't that bad in the way it was depicted, imo. It doesn't brain wash people, it just gives them access to more knowledge and interaction.. Like the printingpress and later the internet.

[JasonShepard]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

also, because I don't give a fu*k about singularity.

thousands years from now super-synthetics will destroy every organics life? Unlykely, but even if it's true, who cares?

one day the stars will die and/or the universe will collaps or something like that... and every organics will die for real.

I had this kind of mentality about my refuse thread the other day. I was going to put it into words, but I'd just be called a monster for it.

The philosophy of "It's going to happen in the far off future, so we shouldn't worry about it." is an interesting one, with points on both sides of the debate. If you do solve a problem that wasn't going to be dangerous for thousands of years, then you've presumably just saved the lives of a bunch of theoretical people that you'll never meet. And if the solution is costly in and of itself... well, why not hope that someone will find a better solution further down the line? Just because you couldn't doesn't mean no-one could (take that, Starkid...)

On the other hand, if we wind the clock forwards those few thousand years, and the problem is now acute and dangerous, then the people suffering would have a legitimate complaint against everyone that had let time slip by. That said, there's not necessarily anything to stop them employing the costly solution then - although it may be too late. (In the case of Mass Effect, this would be when a Synthetic race is in a position to, and has decided to, wipe out an organic race. Maybe even all organics.)

[jtav]

Because I'm weak.

Shepard becomes a god far beyond his former friends. Even if he were inclined to make himself known (and it's heavily implied he isn't) they are as far below him as my dog is me. He has no other entities on his level that he might call friends and comrades. Even if he were to ascend the LI, it's a desperately lonely existence. Forever. And if he isn't lonely, he's not an entity I want around. The thought of my mShep not loving Miranda anymore terrifies me.

Death is better.

[CrutchCricket]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

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

Twinzam.V wrote...

Uncertainty. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.

Applepie_Svk wrote...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Jere85 wrote...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think you're wasting your time Ieldra. Even putting aside the "brilliant" replies above, it's clear very few people actually read the OP carefully enough.

Out of the more thoughtful answers a lot of people are saying:
-They don't personally feel comfortable with the idea.
-They don't personally feel comfortable with the presentation
-They wonder if it'll work as intended
-They worry about their Shepard's morals afterwards
-Talk about unrelated concerns: holokid bull****, other endings etc.
-Association fallacy.

None of which address the point at all: the morality of the choice itself. Though some of those issues are more valid than others, none of them are about the ethics of choosing control at all. Whether you personally like the idea or presentation has nothing to do with the ethics of it. Whether it works as intended is also irrelevant to the question "is it right to choose control?".

The morals of your Shepard after control are really outside the bounds of this discussion as well although I will say I find people who question this are missing the point from two perspectives; one, it's your Shepard, you decide whether he has suffcient moral fiber according to your standards for what's needed for control and two, the control entity Shepard becomes is necessarily outside the scope of any morality you define by virtue of being a higher intelligence (check the sig).

So to conclude I think Ieldra has made his point. You don't use ethics to dismiss control as much as you think. You only think you do.

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

Because I'm weak.

Shepard becomes a god far beyond his former friends. Even if he were inclined to make himself known (and it's heavily implied he isn't) they are as far below him as my dog is me. He has no other entities on his level that he might call friends and comrades. Even if he were to ascend the LI, it's a desperately lonely existence. Forever. And if he isn't lonely, he's not an entity I want around. The thought of my mShep not loving Miranda anymore terrifies me.

Death is better.

Renegade Control Shep makes his presence known

[Steelcan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I don't hate the idea of Control or find anything ethically wrong with it, but neither do I find anything ethically wrong with Destroy, and Destroy has other aspects which make me prefer it.

Steelcan wrote...

2. I would have been fine with Control,
had it been the same manner of Control as presented by Cerberus/TIM,
Control without interacting with Glowstick. It would have been grounded
in the game, would have validated Cerberus in ME3, and it wouldn't
require Shepard's death.

Yes, this as well. I dislike the implementation to Control rather than the concept of it.

In reality "ethics" have very little to do with the endings.  At least to my Shepards, but then again they are known to shoot hostages.

Modifié par Steelcan, 19 décembre 2012 - 03:31 .

[SpamBot2000]

CrutchCricket wrote...


None of which address the point at all: the morality of the choice itself.

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!

[CronoDragoon]

grey_wind wrote...

I actually like the concept of Control and the idea behind it.

I just hate how ******-poorly it's handled throughout the game.

I agree with this. Mainly, it seems like a bad choice to force Shepard to disagree with Control, both practically and in principle, throughout the game, if you are going to offer it as an ending.

I picked it for my Renegade, but why wouldn't my Renegade options with TIM throughout the game give me a possibility of liking Control, but either being dubious about its practicality or being suspicious of TIM's motivations?

As it stands, there is clearly a Paragon interpretation for picking it, but I don't think it's presented very well.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 décembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[Steelcan]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Out
None of which address the point at all: the morality of the choice itself. Though some of those issues are more valid than others, none of them are about the ethics of choosing control at all. Whether you personally like the idea or presentation has nothing to do with the ethics of it. Whether it works as intended is also irrelevant to the question "is it right to choose control?".

Some of us don't choose Control for those reasons though.  Ethics may not play a part in our decision to not pick Control.

I have no problems with the ethics of this particular ending.  I don't pck it because I find its presentation and explanation to be laughable.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

I always choose control.

Maybe because I made peace with the Geth and Quarians and choosing Destroy after this, and pushing a romance to Joker with EDI, it would be cruel. I would commit Genocide!

[Steelcan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
In reality "ethics" have very little to do with the endings.  At least to my Shepards, but then again they are known to shoot hostages.

If you're talking about Joram Talid, I did that too. Fun times.

And that woman in LotSB, and Oriana at Sanctuary, the hostages died in BDtS, and he's "ruthless" in origin.

[CronoDragoon]

Additionally, Control is the most interesting future scenario to me, mainly because as a Dune fan I've seen the concept of a God Emperor explored before to incredible effect. My ideal ME4 would be a group of rebels trying to overthrow a Shepard-Reaper who has begun to experience glitches and corruptions in his programming that lead to evil acts.

[clennon8]

*Spends entire game railing against Control*
*Kills Illusive Man over it*
*Listens to Reaper Overlord blather for a couple of minutes*
*Chooses Control*

Seems legit.

[Barquiel]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

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

Twinzam.V wrote...

Uncertainty. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.

Applepie_Svk wrote...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Jere85 wrote...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I suppose you don't believe in a system of checks and balances?

[Obadiah]

To me, before we see the epilogues, Control is the option to embrace power and potentially use these giant robot killing machines for something good, and to avoid catastrophic collateral damage. That's why I usually pick it. I find it intriguing because it is a bit of a head-spinner on what the Illusive Man was fighting for, but not quite, since Shep doesn't survive, and my Shep will definitely not be elevating humanity above other races with it.

CrutchCricket is largely correct. The responses against Control can usually be reduced to pointed one-liners about trusting the Catalyst, and potential corrupting power, totalitarianism, and tyranny (sometimes given as troll responses), that aren't terribly compelling to me.

The more compelling arguments I see against Control are that Destroy is a better option. Pro-Destroyers can lay that argument out better than I can. I just don't want to sacrifice EDI and the Geth for it.

[Someone With Mass]

Considering how unstable Shepard is at times, I find him to be a rather unfit foundation for a "god".

[CronoDragoon]

Obadiah wrote...
CrutchCricket is largely correct. The responses against Control can usually be reduced to pointed one-liners about trusting the Catalyst, and potential corrupting power, totalitarianism, and tyranny (sometimes given as troll responses), that aren't terribly compelling to me.

They seem compelling to me, especially when you look at the Catalyst. No one programmed evil into the Catalyst. But he took a set of premises and spit out a conclusion that, considering his amorality, seem perfectly legit to him. This brings up the fascinating question of "What IS Shepard now?" The way Shepard-AI talks, it identifies itself as different from the man/woman from which it came. Shepard's beliefs and moral values have been codified and prioritized. To what extent can we trust that this set of priorities will always come to the same conclusion your Shepard would?

I think it's an interesting question. I don't think it destroys Control as an option, but it is something that makes me hesitate in the same way that the Reapers being "free" makes me hesitate in Synthesis.

[The Heretic of Time]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

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

How is TIM the main antagonist? Aren't the reapers supposed to be the main antagonist of the trilogy?