1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Well said!

[blackashes411]

Because Control is associated with the Illusive Man, and most of us dislike the Illusive Man.

[Xilizhra]

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.

It's not a matter of what we deserve or not (and I personally disagree that we deserve such self-determination until we can do something as simple as stopping killing each other, say), it's a matter of which one of three iffy paths to take. It's not Control vs. nothing.

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.

I would like it, but Shepard's is only one death, compared to billions if I chose Destroy. The choice on that note seems clear.

[Steelcan]

blackashes411 wrote...

Because Control is associated with the Illusive Man, and most of us dislike the Illusive Man.

. TIM idea of Control is very different than what we see in the decision chamber.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

I would like it, but Shepard's is only one death, compared to billions if I chose Destroy. The choice on that note seems clear.

. Millions, not billions.  There aren't that many geth.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

I would like it, but Shepard's is only one death, compared to billions if I chose Destroy. The choice on that note seems clear.

. Millions, not billions.  There aren't that many geth.

Maybe not after you killed millions in ME2. I personally did not.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

I would like it, but Shepard's is only one death, compared to billions if I chose Destroy. The choice on that note seems clear.

. Millions, not billions.  There aren't that many geth.

Maybe not after you killed millions in ME2. I personally did not.

The description of Rannoch places estimates of numberif geth run times in the high millions or single digit billions, likely to be fewer after the Quarian attack.

[Xilizhra]

Either way, it's more than one.

[fiendishchicken]

Xilizhra wrote...

Either way, it's more than one.

And I'm willing to sacrifice them to beat the Reapers.

Just as Eisenhower was willing to send thousands to their death to stop the ****'s.

Just as Lee sent thousands to take Little Round Top. Just as Meade sent thousands to flank and hold them from the south.

Just as the Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington sent thousands to capture Plancenoit.

The Geth and EDI are numbers. Realize that. If victory, and freedom, from the cycle of the Reapers requires the deaths of billions, I take that and don't flinch, or hold remorse, or guilt. They're death achieved survival for the rest of us. This is a galactic extermination, where if we fail, everyone will be slaughtered by the Reapers anyway. Whatever the cost of stopping the Reapers once and for all is nothing to the cost failure.

Shoot the tube.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[AlanC9]

fiendishchicken wrote...
 If victory, and freedom, from the cycle of the Reapers requires the deaths of billions, I take that and don't flinch, or hold remorse, or guilt.

Only problem is, victory and freedom don't actually require that.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Control seemed like a troll attempt:

Catalyst: "By doing the Control option... you will die. You will lose everything you have... everything".

Shepard: ".... but the Reapers will obey me?"

Catalyst: ".... Yeah sure, but you'll be completely dead... electrocuted to death."

Shepard: "...But I'll control them after that right?"

Catalyst: //slaps forehead

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:29 .

[fiendishchicken]

AlanC9 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...
 If victory, and freedom, from the cycle of the Reapers requires the deaths of billions, I take that and don't flinch, or hold remorse, or guilt.

Only problem is, victory and freedom don't actually require that.

Victory and freedom requires the Death of the Reapers. I won't have any half-measures. They die, or we die. 

Any scenario where the Reapers live is not freedom to me.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:31 .

[AlanC9]

fiendishchicken wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...
 If victory, and freedom, from the cycle of the Reapers requires the deaths of billions, I take that and don't flinch, or hold remorse, or guilt.

Only problem is, victory and freedom don't actually require that.

Victory and freedom requires the Death of the Reapers. I won't have any half-measures. They die, or we die. 

If it helps your Destroy Sheps sleep at night, by all means have them believe that. But don't pretend it's actually true.

[fiendishchicken]

AlanC9 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...
 If victory, and freedom, from the cycle of the Reapers requires the deaths of billions, I take that and don't flinch, or hold remorse, or guilt.

Only problem is, victory and freedom don't actually require that.

Victory and freedom requires the Death of the Reapers. I won't have any half-measures. They die, or we die. 

If it helps your Destroy Sheps sleep at night, by all means have them believe that. But don't pretend it's actually true.

Why isn't it true? Why should I believe the catalyst is any more than a Reaper trick designed to make me feel false pity for them? Why should I question what the trilogy built up to until the final minutes that ending them finishes this forever, even having been told by the Reapers themselves that the only plans they have for us is to wipe us out?

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:39 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Either way, it's more than one.

And I'm willing to sacrifice them to beat the Reapers.

Just as Eisenhower was willing to send thousands to their death to stop the ****'s.

Just as Lee sent thousands to take Little Round Top. Just as Meade sent thousands to flank and hold them from the south.

Just as the Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington sent thousands to capture Plancenoit.

The Geth and EDI are numbers. Realize that. If victory, and freedom, from the cycle of the Reapers requires the deaths of billions, I take that and don't flinch, or hold remorse, or guilt. They're death achieved survival for the rest of us. This is a galactic extermination, where if we fail, everyone will be slaughtered by the Reapers anyway. Whatever the cost of stopping the Reapers once and for all is nothing to the cost failure.

Shoot the tube.

*sarcastic clap*

[fiendishchicken]

pirate1802 wrote...

*sarcastic clap*

Beats 'your life energy, the essence of who you are, will be absorbed then sent out' that synthesis is. 

Can you tell me what that means? 

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[AlanC9]

fiendishchicken wrote...
Why isn't it true? Why should I believe the catalyst is any more than a Reaper trick designed to make me feel false pity for them? Why should I question what the trilogy built up to until the final minutes that ending them finishes this forever, even having been told by the Reapers themselves that the only plans they have for us is to wipe us out?

So you believe Destroy is real but Control isn't? Kind of silly, but let's let that go.

Who's the "I" here? You, or your Shepard? Obviously, your Shep never finds out what happens in Control; if you pick Control, Shep's dead, and if you don't Control happened in some other universe.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:44 .

[fiendishchicken]

You got me there. I was referencing synthesis more than I was control. I don't see how clutching control of two control rods and dying somehow makes me a Reaper God. I don't see how shooting a pipe works either though, but the effect is both the most realistic to me, and the most desirable.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:51 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Did the Catalyst analyze Shepard's electricity-charred remains to do an accurate copy of who Shepard is for this Control Ending? Or is Reaper Shep simply a cruder, but more powerful, approximation than the VI we saw on the Citadel?

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 24 décembre 2012 - 08:21 .

[Jebel Krong]

geceka wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

From no rational ethical viewpoint can Control considered to be morally wrong.

This is not universally true: The success of a "Control" ending depends heavily on Shepard's ability to actually use the Reapers in a way that ensures the continued thriving of the galaxy. Considering that the catalyst's purpose of protecting organics from the annihilation by self-evolving synthetics cannot easily be dismissed, Shepard knows of at least one fundamental conflict they will have to manage in the future in order to be a proper guardian for the galaxy. Even more so, Shepard has personally experienced many other conflicts in which he/she – as the new catalyst – might be obliged to intervene. As an example, would a Shepard catalyst condone or prevent the extinction of a race like the Rachni? How far would he be willing to go in such an intervention? What about another Krogan uprising (under Wreav or whomever).

Thus, being the catalyst involves a lot of moral responsibilities. I can see how someone might think it being "morally wrong" for their Shepard to "control", if they don't think they are up to the task, akin to the notion that picking up any responsibility you can't fulfull is ethically wrong (e.g. pretending to be a, say, doctor when you know nothing about medicine).

Even if you're firmly convinced that "power corrupts" - which isn't a moral argument rather than an ideological one

Also, such an argument doesn't really apply, because we know nothing about the plane of existence Shepard is elevated to.

the fact that you have agency over the future in Control (see below) will let you avoid any projected negative consequences with no side effect.

See my first comment. This postulates that Shepard is actually ethically and morally "advanced" enough to prevent such consequences. With the powers of the catalyst, every mistake can potentially be disastrous.

Another curious aspect is that Control is the only ending where your agency can be said to extend into the future.

This is true, even though said agency will be heavily colored by the advanced intellectual and cognitive capabilities of being the catalyst. Thus, the quality of agency your Shepard will have over the galaxy cannot be compared at all to where you are departing from, so ultimately, "being in power" now becomes meaningless from a player/recipient perspective, as you simply cannot imagine yourself in the shoes of a catalysed Shepard anymore.

I find that baffling. It makes no sense. Clearly, if people avoid Control, tangible ethical downsides can't be the reason

You need to factor in that "Control" is presented as the Illusive Man's choice: Associating an opinion with a controversial avatar has been a rhetoric (and polemic) trick for thousands of years, first being documented in ancient Greek tomes about the art of rhetorics. Also compare "Godwin's law".

Thus, if people do not put that much thought in their choice by themselves, but rather go along with how the game presents the choice, I'd postulate that "Control" appears less desirable than, say, "Destroy", which is associated with Anderson.

there can be no doubt at all that you have more impact on the future than in the other endings.

Again, universal responsibility isn't necessarily desirable for everyone, if they do not feel up for the task. Remember that throughout the game, the doubts if "we are ready" to control the Reapers ("But what if you cannot control them!") are Shepard's main line of argumentation against TIM. "Not be able to control them" doesn't necessarily mean the physical ability to exert control over them, but can also refer to the ethical and intellectual ability to use them in a meaningful, appropriate way.

This. Plus effectively enforcing choices on the galaxy based on whatever rules and/or morals the combined entity represents seems like a sure recipe for repression followed by rebellion ~ enforced freedom is not freedom at all.

[AshenSugar]

Bear in mind that it's potentially not just the Geth and Edi who are going to be wiped out if Destroy is chosen.

Consider that only a tiny fraction of the galaxy has been explored, mapped, contacted and catalogued within the Mass Effect universe. There are still countless star systems, which remain completely unknown. Who knows how many of these contain sentient life, and of those who do, how many conceivably contain advanced synthetic races?

Choosing Destroy could potentially annihilate giga-quadrillions of unknown, uncontacted lives. It could consign innumerable species to extinction; most of whom would have no knowledge or understanding of the factors behind their species' destruction - all as a result of one distant human's decision not to 'risk' the Control option.

Modifié par AshenSugar, 24 décembre 2012 - 01:27 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Because the Control endings are voiced over by an AI-like being that was created from the memories and personality of Shepard, and so we only see those particular endings from the perspective of that AI. Not from the beings that will be living/suffering under it's shadow, and the shadow of the Reapers it Controls.

Conversely, the Destroy ending is voiced over by Hackett - who is an independent party to the player, and a voice for the races of the galaxy.

To put it simply:

Destroy - we know how the galaxy feels about the situation following Shepard's decision.
Control - we do not.

[Xilizhra]

Because the Control endings are voiced over by an AI-like being that was created from the memories and personality of Shepard, and so we only see those particular endings from the perspective of that AI. Not from the beings that will be living/suffering under it's shadow, and the shadow of the Reapers it Controls.

Incorrect; we see the ending slides of several other people. They seem to be living normally enough.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
Incorrect; we see the ending slides of several other people. They seem to be living normally enough.

Incorrect.  I never once mentioned the ending slides; I was talking about the narration - which is entirely from the AI's perspective.  However now you mention it, as the narration is delivered entirely from the AI's perspective I see no reason to believe that the endings slides in Control are anything but the AI's perspective as well.

Now if we'd heard Hackett, or Liara, or Joker, or anyone for that matter say how the galaxy was moving on, how they had a bright and hopeful future ahead of them under infinite, immortal, eternal ReaperShep and his invincible armada of doom, then maybe that argument would have some weight.

But we don't, do we?  We don't hear from anyone other than the AI.  Go figure.

[Xilizhra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Incorrect; we see the ending slides of several other people. They seem to be living normally enough.

Incorrect.  I never once mentioned the ending slides; I was talking about the narration - which is entirely from the AI's perspective.  However now you mention it, as the narration is delivered entirely from the AI's perspective I see no reason to believe that the endings slides in Control are anything but the AI's perspective as well.

Now if we'd heard Hackett, or Liara, or Joker, or anyone for that matter say how the galaxy was moving on, how they had a bright and hopeful future ahead of them under infinite, immortal, eternal ReaperShep and his invincible armada of doom, then maybe that argument would have some weight.

But we don't, do we?  We don't hear from anyone other than the AI.  Go figure.

Because it's not a freaking conversation; none of the epilogues can be. It's a narrative device used because the person most people will be interested in is Shepard, because that's whose perspective has changed the most. It's got nothing to do with any sort of subliminal screwing over of the player for making said choice.