1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

clennon8 wrote...

Any Shepard who was truly that trustworthy wouldn't choose to appoint himself as Eternal Galactic Dictator.

Douglas Adams would approve. Anyone who wants absolute power, shouldn't be let anywhere near it.

[Rifneno]

jtav wrote...

Flaws are just that--flaws. They are not virtues in disguise. We should aspire to be rid of them.

And the Shepard I have in mind is one who chose Control as a means to avoid drastic change. Very Paragon who regards the Reapers as a safety valve.

It doesn't matter what your Shepard wants or thinks.  Your Shepard is dead.  The new Reaper you created is a separate entity and will do as it please.  Woe be to the galaxy.

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
I think the argument that is being made is "I don't trust any human being who lives, has ever lived, or could
conceivably live, to be granted Godlike power and the mandate to rule
the galaxy for the rest of time. And I especially don't trust a
digitized copy of said person to do it."

Frankly it's a great argument, and it seems fantastically naive to gainsay it.

It is an argument. It does, however, not make an ethical point because it disregards one important thing: there is a reason why humans who hold power often tend to misuse it. People who do things For The Evulz are rare. Control!Shep doesn't have rivals to fear, doesn't have mates to win, he's free of much of our stone age heritage. The thematic question of Control is "Yes, you cannot trust a human with that power [as if that was ever in question]? But can you trust an AI god, provided it's programmed with human values?"

There is no right or wrong answer to that. It's a philosophical question. There is no evil or good inherent in any answer. And more than that I've never claimed in this thread.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rifneno wrote...

jtav wrote...

Flaws are just that--flaws. They are not virtues in disguise. We should aspire to be rid of them.

And the Shepard I have in mind is one who chose Control as a means to avoid drastic change. Very Paragon who regards the Reapers as a safety valve.

It doesn't matter what your Shepard wants or thinks.  Your Shepard is dead.  The new Reaper you created is a separate entity and will do as it please.  Woe be to the galaxy.

And yet, still not a worse fate than harvest-cycle.

[Rifneno]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

jtav wrote...

Flaws are just that--flaws. They are not virtues in disguise. We should aspire to be rid of them.

And the Shepard I have in mind is one who chose Control as a means to avoid drastic change. Very Paragon who regards the Reapers as a safety valve.

It doesn't matter what your Shepard wants or thinks.  Your Shepard is dead.  The new Reaper you created is a separate entity and will do as it please.  Woe be to the galaxy.

And yet, still not a worse fate than harvest-cycle.

It's cute that you think it's NOT the harvest-cycle.

[Dr_Extrem]

jtav wrote...

Flaws are just that--flaws. They are not virtues in disguise. We should aspire to be rid of them.

And the Shepard I have in mind is one who chose Control as a means to avoid drastic change. Very Paragon who regards the Reapers as a safety valve.

i never stated, that they were virtues in disguise. while we can try to get rid of them, they will still shape our personality and will always be a part of us.

there is no such thing as a perfect personality ... outside the fibonacci number.

[Ieldra]

Rifneno wrote...

jtav wrote...

Flaws are just that--flaws. They are not virtues in disguise. We should aspire to be rid of them.

And the Shepard I have in mind is one who chose Control as a means to avoid drastic change. Very Paragon who regards the Reapers as a safety valve.

It doesn't matter what your Shepard wants or thinks.  Your Shepard is dead.  The new Reaper you created is a separate entity and will do as it please.  Woe be to the galaxy.

The Control ending specifically makes the point that it does matter - and in the epilogue, not just in the words of a character you might distrust. I'm not saying this often, but your opinion is wrong.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 décembre 2012 - 06:13 .

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
Any Shepard who was truly that trustworthy wouldn't choose to appoint himself as Eternal Galactic Dictator.

Not even to avoid killing off a whole domain of life or changing the biochemistry of all life in the galaxy?

[jtav]

Yeah "They guide me now, give me reason, direction." Control also has the most variable narration, the only where Shepard's morality makes a difference.

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
Any Shepard who was truly that trustworthy wouldn't choose to appoint himself as Eternal Galactic Dictator.

Not even to avoid killing off a whole domain of life or changing the biochemistry of all life in the galaxy?

You know my answer to that.

[Rifneno]

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
Any Shepard who was truly that trustworthy wouldn't choose to appoint himself as Eternal Galactic Dictator.

Not even to avoid killing off a whole domain of life or changing the biochemistry of all life in the galaxy?

You risk a hell of a lot more than the geth and EDI.  Both of which have specifically stated they're willing to die to rid the galaxy of the Reapers.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rifneno wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

jtav wrote...

Flaws are just that--flaws. They are not virtues in disguise. We should aspire to be rid of them.

And the Shepard I have in mind is one who chose Control as a means to avoid drastic change. Very Paragon who regards the Reapers as a safety valve.

It doesn't matter what your Shepard wants or thinks.  Your Shepard is dead.  The new Reaper you created is a separate entity and will do as it please.  Woe be to the galaxy.

And yet, still not a worse fate than harvest-cycle.

It's cute that you think it's NOT the harvest-cycle.

Last I checked, there were no Reaper creations in Control epilogue.

The rebuttal from nay-sayers boils down to, among other things, "oh noez Shepard sounds (vaguely) like Harby!"

So basically, hysteria. An exaggerated fear response. Synthesis gets it too.

[Rifneno]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Last I checked, there were no Reaper creations in Control epilogue.

The rebuttal from nay-sayers boils down to, among other things, "oh noez Shepard sounds (vaguely) like Harby!"

So basically, hysteria. An exaggerated fear response. Synthesis gets it too.

Show me dead geth in destroy and we'll talk.

[jtav]

The wasteland of Rannoch that, in the other two endings, has geth instead.

[Rifneno]

jtav wrote...

The wasteland of Rannoch that, in the other two endings, has geth instead.

Because geth don't generally stick to their space stations or anything.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rifneno wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Last I checked, there were no Reaper creations in Control epilogue.

The rebuttal from nay-sayers boils down to, among other things, "oh noez Shepard sounds (vaguely) like Harby!"

So basically, hysteria. An exaggerated fear response. Synthesis gets it too.

Show me dead geth in destroy and we'll talk.

I can't show you dead geth, for the same reason I can't show you anything inherently bad going on in the other two.

The original ending was hated for basically spelling out a really sucky post-war period in just about every way. EC was fan-service. The whole point was to make the ending not suck as much, of course they're going to leave out the depressing ish.

Besides which, there's an epilogue slide of empty Rannoch if you let the quarians die in the war. No dead geth, explicitly, but obvious implications are obvious. Like Jack at the cemetery, you only get it if you send her students to the frontlines.

[Rifneno]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Last I checked, there were no Reaper creations in Control epilogue.

The rebuttal from nay-sayers boils down to, among other things, "oh noez Shepard sounds (vaguely) like Harby!"

So basically, hysteria. An exaggerated fear response. Synthesis gets it too.

Show me dead geth in destroy and we'll talk.

I can't

Exactly.

[Ieldra]

Rifneno wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Last I checked, there were no Reaper creations in Control epilogue.

The rebuttal from nay-sayers boils down to, among other things, "oh noez Shepard sounds (vaguely) like Harby!"

So basically, hysteria. An exaggerated fear response. Synthesis gets it too.

Show me dead geth in destroy and we'll talk.

Show me the tangible evil in Control and we'll talk...

Edit:
Quoting another's post in a misleading way is intellectually dishonest.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 décembre 2012 - 06:34 .

[cyrexwingblade]

I find it interesting how much people try to defend these choices. The truth is, all three options have horrendous problems. Moral, practical, etc. They all cause major issues.

I only choose Control because it's major issues are acceptable to me whereas the other two are not. That's subjective. I respect people who are willing to sacrifice sentient races to make sure the Reapers are permanently resolved, I just can't do it myself. I respect people who want to take advantage of the resources provided in Synthesis or value the concept as an ideal. Just can't don't share that perspective.

[Rifneno]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Last I checked, there were no Reaper creations in Control epilogue.

The rebuttal from nay-sayers boils down to, among other things, "oh noez Shepard sounds (vaguely) like Harby!"

So basically, hysteria. An exaggerated fear response. Synthesis gets it too.

Show me dead geth in destroy and we'll talk.

Show me the tangible evil in Control and we'll talk...

Jesus.  I can't believe anyone can miss the point that far.  Okay, listen very closely.  THAT. WAS. THE. POINT.  Not everything bad is shown, but only hinted at.  Destroy doesn't see dead geth the same way control doesn't see the monster you foolishly created murdering people thousands at a time.

[clennon8]

*shrug* While otherwise mostly taking Rifneno's side, I think the geth are dead in the Destroy ending.

[Rifneno]

clennon8 wrote...

*shrug* While otherwise mostly taking Rifneno's side, I think the geth are dead in the Destroy ending.

I'm not saying they aren't.  I'm saying that the negative parts of our choices are only implied rather than directly shown.  Which is why we don't see Shepbinger harvesting Palaven.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

*nvm*

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 22 décembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[Ieldra]

Rifneno wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Last I checked, there were no Reaper creations in Control epilogue.

The rebuttal from nay-sayers boils down to, among other things, "oh noez Shepard sounds (vaguely) like Harby!"

So basically, hysteria. An exaggerated fear response. Synthesis gets it too.

Show me dead geth in destroy and we'll talk.

Show me the tangible evil in Control and we'll talk...

Jesus.  I can't believe anyone can miss the point that far.  Okay, listen very closely.  THAT. WAS. THE. POINT.  Not everything bad is shown, but only hinted at.  Destroy doesn't see dead geth the same way control doesn't see the monster you foolishly created murdering people thousands at a time.

Destroy tells you the geth are dead. Paragon Control tells you Control!Shep will act as a benevolent guardian of the galaxy who will enure that all have a say in their future. It goes out of its way to deny specifically the "evil" most people are seeing here.

I can't believe anyone is unable to see the disctinction.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 décembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[The Heretic of Time]

clennon8 wrote...

I've posted this before.  In this very thread, I believe.  Let's examine the options:
A) Vaporize yourself.
Vaporize yourself.
C) Shoot a tube.

Yeah, Shepard *might* die as a consequence of shooting the tube, especially since Bioware decided to dramatize the cinematic by having him stupidly walk right up to the tube as he's shooting it, but he might live.  

You're deliberately leaving out vital context.

In Control Shepard knows he will die. He has been told this by the Starchild. But he also knows why he has to die, why he has to place his hands on the control rods. Shepard has to place his hands on the rods to upload himself to the reapers collective consiousness. His corporal form will vanish, but his mind will in charge of the reapers.

Whether you trust the Starchild on this is your choice, but at least we know what is supposed to happen, we know WHY we're placing our hands on the control rods and we know WHY we have to die.

Same can be said for Synthesis, although jumping into a beam is a bit more far-fetched than placing your hands on 2 control rods, I agree. Still, we know what happens and we know why we have to do it.

However, the same cannot be said for Destroy. Why the f*ck are we shooting an explosive tube on the Citadel? How does this activate the Crucible? And how is this supposed to destroy the reapers? The Starchild doesn't tell us any of this. All we know that we have to shoot a tube, the thing explodes and all of the sudden the Crucible fires and the reapers are deactivated (yes, DEACTIVATED, they're not even completely destroyed). How the hell does this work? It almost seems like magic.  And why does the Starchild not explain us how Destroy works? He explains us how Control and Synthesis works. In both of the endings we know what we can expect and we know why Shepard has to die. The same can't be said for Destroy.



At least you do admit that BioWare clearly cares more about drama than coherent writing. Shepard walking towards the explosive tube while shooting at it is pretty retarded, but OMG THE DRAMA! IT'S SO SAD! CRY DAMNIT, CRY!

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 22 décembre 2012 - 06:40 .