1388 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

StayFrosty05 wrote...

The green shiz all over their bodies and through their bodies...synthetic intrusion....is the disfigurement....Force turning someone into half robot is taking away their freedom of choice.

Euh no. You only took away their freedom of choice for that particular choice. Sure, you forced synthesis on the galaxy, I don't deny that. But the epilogue does not give me the impression that the galaxy no longer has their free will and freedom of choice in tact. Everyone seems quite happy and content in the synthesis epilogue. Maybe being half-cyborg isn't so bad? In fact, I think it could be a vast improvement.

If being a cyborg truly is objectively better, is it still amoral to force this upon the galaxy? I don't think so. I don't see Synthesis as "raping the galaxy". I see Synthesis as a free gift to the galaxy, something that might possibly be the best thing that ever happened to us.

So your suggesting no one ever changes their opinion or outlook?...Paragon Shep will always be a Paragon soul for all eternity?...He can't eventually change his values?...That a hell of a lot of faith in an eternal entity, I certainly wouldn't be so uttely confident.

The previous Catalyst was all the same for all eternity, wasn't he? He certainly didn't change, not until Shepard docked the Crucible that is. The Catalyst didn'tchange his values until Shepard attached the Crucible to him. Why would the Shepard Catalyst be any different?

We clearly see the Shepard Catalyst as a nobel guardian entity from the beginning till the end of the epilogue. The epilogue shows us a timespan of how many centures? Quite a lot I guess. And even in Grandpa Stargazers time, the Shepard Catalyst is still the same.


But sure, the Shepard Catalyst might change his opinions and values over time. But to pull a complete 180 turn? That seems rather unlikely. You need a lot more faith to believe the Shepard Catalyst will all of the sudden make a face-heel turn than to believe he'll stay mostly the same Paragon entity as he was at the beginning.

Paragon Shep is naive and too idealistic in many cases yes, but he isn't completely stupid....he still knows when his back is against the wall.

His back was against the wall in ME1 when Sovereign was about to unleash the reaper armada on the galaxy, yet that didn't stop him from wasting time and resources on saving the Council. So yeah, go figure...


And in the ending of ME3 your back isn't even against the wall. Like I said, there are 2 other options that are way more in line with the Paragon train of thought. Both end the Reaper war without needing to commit genocide. Yet you choose the most Renegade ending option of them all and keep convincing yourself that it's the Paragon thing to do. Stop fooling yourself.

There is nothing wrong wit the Destroy option, but at least be a man and admit that it's the Renegade thing  to do. There is no shame in choosing the Renegade option once in a while. I actually play Renegade almost all the time.

Heretic_Hanar wrote: "We do this clean, not quick". Paragon follows the path with the least amount of casualties. 

StayFrosty05 wrote: That is the ideal...not always possible, but is the main objective...but it's not always an option.

Yet in the ending it is  possible and it is  an option. You even have 2 options that follow this ideal.

Control does not end the Reaper threat...the Reapers remain a threat so long as they continue to exist....The Reapers are a whole lot more of a threat than a few Colonists or a big bug will ever be.

Yes it does. it clearly does. You let fear compromise who you are. Ironic, because that's a quote from Paragon Shepard: "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Yet that is EXACTLY what almost every Paragon player does at the end of ME3. You let your fear for the reapers and their very existence compromise your Paragon ideals. You're willing to take the Renegade choice and commit genocide on the geth because of your irrational fear for the reapers.

Listen pall, the reapers are only a threat under the banner of the old Catalyst. His agenda made them a threat to us. Without the Catalyst leading them, they're no longer a threat, not necessarily, as is clearly shown int he Control and Synthesis epilogues.


Consider this: A gun is only a threat to you if the gun in the hands of your enemy, not when it's you who's holding the gun.


PS: I only responded to the parts of your comment that were relative to the general discussion about the endings and Paragon v.s Renegade. I have a whole lot of things to say to you about the final decision of ME1, but that's rather off-topic. Still, I can assure you, that saving the Council is the single most dumbest Paragon choice in the Mass Effect trilogy. Seriously, I can't even get my head around how dumb that option is. But we can talk about that in a PM or a new topic if you wish.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 23 décembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[Nerevar-as]

Irrational fear of the Reapers? Irrational? And fear it´s not something to completely ignore, you accept it, and listen to it, and it keeps you alive. You just don´t let it control you. Yeah, I really liked Dragon Head.

If someone thinks synthesis doesn´t rewrite thinking processes (aka brainwashing), then they really know nothing of how we work.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 23 décembre 2012 - 01:18 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Irrational fear of the Reapers? Irrational? And fear it´s not something to completely ignore, you accept it, and listen to it, and it keeps you alive. You just don´t let it control you. Yeah, I really liked Dragon Head.

You misunderstand. Yes, the reapers under the control of the current Catalyst are something to be feared. But under the control of a more benevolent entity, such as the Paragon Shepard Catalyst, there is no reason to fear them. Even less so in Synthesis, where the reapers essentially become a part of us.

If someone thinks fear doesn´t rewrite thinking processes (aka brainwashing), then they really know nothing of how we work.

Brainwashing doesn't exist, so you're talking nonsense. There is no such thing as "brainwashing". It's scientifically disproven.

Fear however does temporarly alter our decision-making capabilities, that's for sure. We can clearly see this in the Paragon players, who are willing to throw their ideals out of the window and choose the most Renegade ending option, just to be sure the reapers are gone (the ironic part of this is that the reapers aren't gone in the Destroy ending, they're just simply disabled).

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 23 décembre 2012 - 01:24 .

[Ieldra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
And Ieldra, using Javik's arguments now? Somehow didn't picture you sharing his PoV.

Lack of diffentiation again. I can share his viewpoints on honor without sharing his viewpoints on synthetics.

It's mind-boggling how stubbornly people assume that just because I like one thing a character says, I have to like everything he says. Association fallacies have to be the most prevalent debating flaw on BSN.

Not that that's not a valid point, but that specific line was made in advocating a course of action you are specifically arguing against in this thread you made. 

Still, something to bear in mind I suppose.

I am actually not arguing against anything. I think all three main endings are good endings and I have no problem at all arguing in favor of Destroy, just not on an ethical basis. That I don't like it has different reasons, rooted neither in ethics nor in military rationale.

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
And Ieldra, using Javik's arguments now? Somehow didn't picture you sharing his PoV.

Lack of diffentiation again. I can share his viewpoints on honor without sharing his viewpoints on synthetics.

It's mind-boggling how stubbornly people assume that just because I like one thing a character says, I have to like everything he says. Association fallacies have to be the most prevalent debating flaw on BSN.

Not that that's not a valid point, but that specific line was made in advocating a course of action you are specifically arguing against in this thread you made. 

Still, something to bear in mind I suppose.

I am actually not arguing against anything. I think all three main endings are good endings and I have no problem at all arguing in favor of Destroy, just not on an ethical basis. That I don't like it has different reasons, rooted neither in ethics nor in military rationale.

OK, "a course of action the ethical soundness of which you are specifically arguing against" then.

[Ieldra]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I don't see Synthesis as "raping the galaxy". I see Synthesis as a free gift to the galaxy, something that might possibly be the best thing that ever happened to us.

Indeed. The difference in perception is rooted in the "sacred nature" theme. There exists an intuition that our "natural" bodies are to be held sacred (not necessarily in a religious sense). If this intuition takes up a large space in your mind, you'll perceive Synthesis as an abomination.

Apart from that, I don't believe it's exactly moral to force such a change even if it can reasonably be said to be an improvement. It does, become more justifiable if the alternatives have significant downsides.

BTW; I would appreciate if we discussed Synthesis in a Synthesis thread. This one is about Control.

[Ieldra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
And Ieldra, using Javik's arguments now? Somehow didn't picture you sharing his PoV.

Lack of diffentiation again. I can share his viewpoints on honor without sharing his viewpoints on synthetics.

It's mind-boggling how stubbornly people assume that just because I like one thing a character says, I have to like everything he says. Association fallacies have to be the most prevalent debating flaw on BSN.

Not that that's not a valid point, but that specific line was made in advocating a course of action you are specifically arguing against in this thread you made. 

Still, something to bear in mind I suppose.

I am actually not arguing against anything. I think all three main endings are good endings and I have no problem at all arguing in favor of Destroy, just not on an ethical basis. That I don't like it has different reasons, rooted neither in ethics nor in military rationale.

OK, "a course of action the ethical soundness of which you are specifically arguing against" then.

Yes, that may be. I don't recall which decision we're talking about, but I use that quote in a more general sense, as a reminder that outcomes are important and sacrificing honor for a better outcome can be a reasonable course of action. It doesn't mean I support the specific decision providing the context for that line.

[Nerevar-as]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Irrational fear of the Reapers? Irrational? And fear it´s not something to completely ignore, you accept it, and listen to it, and it keeps you alive. You just don´t let it control you. Yeah, I really liked Dragon Head.

You misunderstand. Yes, the reapers under the control of the current Catalyst are something to be feared. But under the control of a more benevolent entity, such as the Paragon Shepard Catalyst, there is no reason to fear them. Even less so in Synthesis, where the reapers essentially become a part of us.

If someone thinks fear doesn´t rewrite thinking processes (aka brainwashing), then they really know nothing of how we work.

Brainwashing doesn't exist, so you're talking nonsense. There is no such thing as "brainwashing". It's scientifically disproven.

Fear however does temporarly alter our decision-making capabilities, that's for sure. We can clearly see this in the Paragon players, who are willing to throw their ideals out of the window and choose the most Renegade ending option, just to be sure the reapers are gone (the ironic part of this is that the reapers aren't gone in the Destroy ending, they're just simply disabled).

ShepAIrd is not Shepard. Even Paragon has his/her perceptions chaged by the new senses s/he gets after the copy upload. It´s like a Big Brother god. There´s hoping for the best and there´s being suicidally confident. It´s also really arrogant thinking to have such a power, and that you´ll control it instead of the other way around. That´s not very Paragon IMHO. But there´s no P/R in the endings, just choosing our idea of lesser evil. I also disagree Rnegaes got the short straw during the saga, they got away with virtually everything with nothing worse than a slap in the wrist.

No idea if BW exists in RL, although I think there are examples of mental conditioning. There have also been some behavior experiments with chilling results, but what they mostly proved was that most of us can easily become real bastards. However I meant synthesis instead of fear, I corrected it a few minutes later.

[Steelcan]

Eterna5 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Synthesis is for sure the ideal ending as determined by BW. They address the "problem" unlike destroy and control.

There is no "problem" there is a delusional AI who needs to be shut down, nothing more

No there actually is a problem. You making peace one time doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. 

. Peace is irrelevant.  Letting the quarians win blows his argument to hell.  Hard to argue that creators will always be destroyed by their created.  Throw on "Metacon and Zha'til" and I think the little Glowstick is delusional at best

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Synthesis is for sure the ideal ending as determined by BW. They address the "problem" unlike destroy and control.

There is no "problem" there is a delusional AI who needs to be shut down, nothing more

No there actually is a problem. You making peace one time doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. 

. Peace is irrelevant.  Letting the quarians win blows his argument to hell.  Hard to argue that creators will always be destroyed by their created.  Throw on "Metacon and Zha'til" and I think the little Glowstick is delusional at best

How often must I explain the singularity hypothesis for people to understand that this is simply wrong? Those synthetics weren't past the singularity yet. As aren't the geth until they've finished their Dyson Swarm and stabilized it.

[Dr_Extrem]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Synthesis is for sure the ideal ending as determined by BW. They address the "problem" unlike destroy and control.

There is no "problem" there is a delusional AI who needs to be shut down, nothing more

No there actually is a problem. You making peace one time doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. 

. Peace is irrelevant.  Letting the quarians win blows his argument to hell.  Hard to argue that creators will always be destroyed by their created.  Throw on "Metacon and Zha'til" and I think the little Glowstick is delusional at best

How often must I explain the singularity hypothesis for people to understand that this is simply wrong? Those synthetics weren't past the singularity yet. As aren't the geth until they've finished their Dyson Swarm and stabilized it.

the problem is, that this concept cant be a premise, a "must know", to understand certain parts of the story.

[Steelcan]

So if we prevent them from ever achieving singularity? Apparently it isn't hard to do.

No singularity, we win.

[AlanC9]

Sure. You just have to do it forever.

Forever is a long time.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 décembre 2012 - 05:05 .

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. You just have to do it forever.

Forever is a long time.

it is ..

but people would have breaks between the destruction and recreation of synthetics. (if synthetics are ever recreated - but stupidity is limitless within our galaxy)

[noobcannon]

i think most people feel control (or the idea of controling reapers) is an illusion created by the reapers and not really possible based on what we've seen in the series.

it also doesnt help that by the end of the trilogy all the characters who supported control or some type of control are either dead or indoctrinated.

Modifié par noobcannon, 23 décembre 2012 - 05:46 .

[Ieldra]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Synthesis is for sure the ideal ending as determined by BW. They address the "problem" unlike destroy and control.

There is no "problem" there is a delusional AI who needs to be shut down, nothing more

No there actually is a problem. You making peace one time doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. 

. Peace is irrelevant.  Letting the quarians win blows his argument to hell.  Hard to argue that creators will always be destroyed by their created.  Throw on "Metacon and Zha'til" and I think the little Glowstick is delusional at best

How often must I explain the singularity hypothesis for people to understand that this is simply wrong? Those synthetics weren't past the singularity yet. As aren't the geth until they've finished their Dyson Swarm and stabilized it.

the problem is, that this concept cant be a premise, a "must know", to understand certain parts of the story.

Yeah. I wonder why they cut the Codex entry about it and the part of the Catalyst exchange where they talk about it. Instead, we're supposed to take the Catalyst at its word by its status as an "AI god". Hmph.

[Dr_Extrem]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Synthesis is for sure the ideal ending as determined by BW. They address the "problem" unlike destroy and control.

There is no "problem" there is a delusional AI who needs to be shut down, nothing more

No there actually is a problem. You making peace one time doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. 

. Peace is irrelevant.  Letting the quarians win blows his argument to hell.  Hard to argue that creators will always be destroyed by their created.  Throw on "Metacon and Zha'til" and I think the little Glowstick is delusional at best

How often must I explain the singularity hypothesis for people to understand that this is simply wrong? Those synthetics weren't past the singularity yet. As aren't the geth until they've finished their Dyson Swarm and stabilized it.

the problem is, that this concept cant be a premise, a "must know", to understand certain parts of the story.

Yeah. I wonder why they cut the Codex entry about it and the part of the Catalyst exchange where they talk about it. Instead, we're supposed to take the Catalyst at its word by its status as an "AI god". Hmph.

this is where cutting out the wrong part, destroys context and understanding.


the writers of mass effec3 tripped over their own lore far too often.

[kalasaurus]

As far as the end choices go, my "least disliked" to "most disliked" go destroy > control > synthesis > refusal.

Control has its appeals. After all, no one dies and things stay (relatively) normal for all life. There's the exception of Shepard Reapers flying around fixing stuff, but that isn't so bad.

I would even go so far as to say that Control is almost tied to Destroy for me after the Extended Cut DLC (I *loved* Shepard's narration). But, I guess my reasons for picking Destroy deal with me wanting a consistent Shepard. After destroying the Collector Base and telling TIM to go to hell through ME2 and ME3, picking Control would make her a big fat hypocrite. And, to a point, I do believe that humanity isn't ready for the Reaper's "gifts". My reasons for destroying the Reapers are basically the same for blowing up that base.

I don't care that she survived, and I would have picked Destroy even even if another species (including humanity) were destroyed in the process. Ruthless calculus, unfortunately, got the job done. Control seems too risky, and the time scale for the potential consequences for destroy are likely far longer than any organic in this cycle can comprehend.

[AlanC9]

Note that Control becomes a lot less attractive if you fail at Rannoch.

[Necrotron]

Because the catalyst is a creepy and untrustworthy freak wearing the face of a child he murdered who is most widely known for deceiving every character in the Mass Effect story who dealt with him.

I wouldn't trust anything that thing says, especially as the only source of information before you decide to kill yourself in hopes they were indeed being truthful for the first time ever.

Modifié par Bathaius, 23 décembre 2012 - 07:51 .

[AlanC9]

Bathaius wrote...

I wouldn't trust anything that thing says, especially as the only source of information before you decide to kill yourself in hopes they were indeed being truthful for the first time ever.

So you're a Refuser, eh? That gives a nice tragic ending.

[StayFrosty05]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Euh no. You only took away their freedom of choice for that particular choice. Sure, you forced synthesis on the galaxy, I don't deny that. But the epilogue does not give me the impression that the galaxy no longer has their free will and freedom of choice in tact. Everyone seems quite happy and content in the synthesis epilogue. Maybe being half-cyborg isn't so bad? In fact, I think it could be a vast improvement.

If being a cyborg truly is objectively better, is it still amoral to force this upon the galaxy? I don't think so. I don't see Synthesis as "raping the galaxy". I see Synthesis as a free gift to the galaxy, something that might possibly be the best thing that ever happened to us.

And thats what our 'systhesis' debate boils down to...personal perception and preferences....I'm something of a luddite and Ieldra's responding post has touched on my views also....I am not religious, but I certainly am in the camp of Nature over Tech....Is always interesting to hear alternate points of view though, whether we utlimately agree or not....I can now see where your coming from in your view and respect your opinion on the matter and I just hope you can see the same from mine.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The previous Catalyst was all the same for all eternity, wasn't he? He certainly didn't change, not until Shepard docked the Crucible that is. The Catalyst didn'tchange his values until Shepard attached the Crucible to him. Why would the Shepard Catalyst be any different?

We clearly see the Shepard Catalyst as a nobel guardian entity from the beginning till the end of the epilogue. The epilogue shows us a timespan of how many centures? Quite a lot I guess. And even in Grandpa Stargazers time, the Shepard Catalyst is still the same.


But sure, the Shepard Catalyst might change his opinions and values over time. But to pull a complete 180 turn? That seems rather unlikely. You need a lot more faith to believe the Shepard Catalyst will all of the sudden make a face-heel turn than to believe he'll stay mostly the same Paragon entity as he was at the beginning.

Actually from what I understand from Leviathan, the previous Catalyst remaining the same is a bit hazy and I would have liked more information given on that one, but it wasn't forthcoming....I can understand the Catalysts reasoning behind turning on it's Creators...that was inevitable....but I do question why the Catalysts chose to speed up the process with the Mass Relays....in it's turning on it's Creators and it's Galatic solution I get the cold logic behind that.... though the Catalyst isn't quite logical enough (but that's another dicussion).... and I can see it's solution as a very neutral choice, but when it chose to speed up the process it shifts from a neutral 'morality' into a renegade 'morality'.

The funny thing about morality/ethics is it's perception based, there are never any solid answers only perception....it's easy to get caught up in the moment of the now and our own small world space we inhabit and we tend to set our own ethical standards from that narrowly defined point of view without looking too much beyond our own little sphere of daily reality, it's easy to say that's right and that's wrong from the comfort of our 1st world armchairs because we are not forced to challenge our own ideals or really consider the implications or results behind our little thrones of personal idealisms....And no matter how "Paragon" or "Renegade" we might be in our ideals once (if) our world sphere is expanded our morality must be reassed also to take in the greater picture...an example being, "If a small child were to run onto a road, the parent quickly graps that child to prevent them, chastise's the child and maybe throws in a hard smack for good measure to get the point across fast.....from the childs much smaller world view the parent just committed a very renegade action, from the parents much broader point of view it's a very paragon action.".....Sheps world view by becoming the new Catalyst as such has been expanded a thousand fold.

An ingame example...Lets' just say Paragon Shep spending his eternity looking down at the Galaxy and the going's on and a millenia from the point of Sheps transformation, the Galaxy becomes so over crowded that the civilizations begin to collapse in on themselves....Shep has three choices: Either remain inactive as the Galaxy's inhabtitants go to war killing each other over the little that's left....or Install a regime that demands certain laws/rules are followed (such as China's one child policy)....or He could decide to cull down to a sustainable population....all three of those choices are 'renegade' as such from the perspective of the Galaxies inhabitants, but Shep must choose one...doing nothing is a choice....A Paragon Shep must choose, but any choice he makes will be percieved as renegade....What does that make him...Paragon, Renegade or something else?

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And in the ending of ME3 your back isn't even against the wall. Like I said, there are 2 other options that are way more in line with the Paragon train of thought. Both end the Reaper war without needing to commit genocide. Yet you choose the most Renegade ending option of them all and keep convincing yourself that it's the Paragon thing to do. Stop fooling yourself.

There is nothing wrong wit the Destroy option, but at least be a man and admit that it's the Renegade thing  to do. There is no shame in choosing the Renegade option once in a while. I actually play Renegade almost all the time.

I'm a woman actually (old duck in fact.......)....From my above posts on Synthesis and Control do you now see where I am coming from?....And I am not saying Destoy is necessarily the Paragon choice to make, what I am saying is it isn't necessarily not a Paragon choice either.....it all depends on why you choose 'Destroy', 'Synthesis' or 'Control'....I refuse to include 'Refuse' as an option, because that's just insanely ridiculous.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Yes it does. it clearly does. You let fear compromise who you are. Ironic, because that's a quote from Paragon Shepard: "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Yet that is EXACTLY what almost every Paragon player does at the end of ME3. You let your fear for the reapers and their very existence compromise your Paragon ideals. You're willing to take the Renegade choice and commit genocide on the geth because of your irrational fear for the reapers.

Listen pall, the reapers are only a threat under the banner of the old Catalyst. His agenda made them a threat to us. Without the Catalyst leading them, they're no longer a threat, not necessarily, as is clearly shown int he Control and Synthesis epilogues.


Consider this: A gun is only a threat to you if the gun in the hands of your enemy, not when it's you who's holding the gun.

A gun is always a threat no matter who's hand it is in....there are many reasons for holding a gun...some not so healthy for the holder....depending on what you have in mind.

The Reapers remain a threat in their very existance, it doesn't matter who's holding their reins or the intentions that person has....and the rest has been answered above.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
PS: I only responded to the parts of your comment that were relative to the general discussion about the endings and Paragon v.s Renegade. I have a whole lot of things to say to you about the final decision of ME1, but that's rather off-topic. Still, I can assure you, that saving the Council is the single most dumbest Paragon choice in the Mass Effect trilogy. Seriously, I can't even get my head around how dumb that option is. But we can talk about that in a PM or a new topic if you wish.

PM is usually the better choice as discussion often gets muddied with interference in an open debate.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Bathaius wrote...

Because the catalyst is a creepy and untrustworthy freak wearing the face of a child he murdered who is most widely known for deceiving every character in the Mass Effect story who dealt with him.

I wouldn't trust anything that thing says, especially as the only source of information before you decide to kill yourself in hopes they were indeed being truthful for the first time ever.

I think one of the basic premises of the endings is that Shepard can non longer affect the outcome of the war conventionally. Therefore it doesn't matter if he kills himself because the onlly alternative to using one of the objects presented is standing around being useless.

[Sapeinus]

Control is my favorite for moral reasons. It seems like the fairest and most reasonable solution.

However, I never quite agreed with the writers' intentions, nor how they framed the moral questions. My guess is that the writers intended control to be the least ethical. I don't accept that indoctrination and role play the game a bit differently to my own liking.

So I think it depends on whether or not the player agrees with how moral themes are presented in the game.

Also, many other players play to 'beat the game' by decoding the story and BioWare's intentions and guessing what BioWare meant as the best solution. Not me. I tried to play as if my character were more real and everything everyone else said were just their opinions and not written into the game by godwriters.

Remember, Shep is not aware of BioWare!

[Nightwriter]

Paragon Control is cool and all, but it is nothing compared to the idea of throwing away supremacist control entirely and taking our first steps out into a new universe where no one decides our fates but us, daring ourselves to be good enough to deserve that freedom for the first time in eons.

That's where it's at. Break the enslavement of the Matrix. Throw away the Adjustment Bureau's plan and write our own. Replacing the Architect (and the Chairman) just isn't as satisfying. The Catalyst's system is like the Berlin Wall. TEAR. IT. DOWN. WE DON'T NEED YOUR STINKING WALL NO MORE.

Of course, none of the choices really capitalize on this which is a big bummer. Destroy lets you destroy the Catalyst's system but you also kill the geth, so I guess that would be like tearing down the Berlin Wall but also destroying East Germany. Missing the point of the entire wall-demolishing effort really... just depressing...

Add in the fact that I don't want to have my mind ripped from my body, turned into a quasi-consciousness, and thrown into a giant graveyard spaceship of a dead civilization, and Control ends up not appealing to me all that much. I'm a selfish player. I pretty much want Shepard's life to continue. I enjoy a sense of wellbeing, call me crazy.

Oh and I never cared about all that "Shepard has no place to decide" business. I ran out of decision humility fifty gajillion huge game decisions ago. Now it's just, "All right, what reality changing choice must I make this time?"