1388 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
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.

Mmm-hmm.  I'd still rather hear from the people I'm trying to save than the AI I (supposedly) become.

Hackett's narrative in Destroy is given from the perspective of a being living in the post-ending galaxy.  the narrative given by the AI in Control is not.  You have no way of knowing for sure how the survivors view that scenario.

[Xilizhra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
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.

Mmm-hmm.  I'd still rather hear from the people I'm trying to save than the AI I (supposedly) become.

Hackett's narrative in Destroy is given from the perspective of a being living in the post-ending galaxy.  the narrative given by the AI in Control is not.  You have no way of knowing for sure how the survivors view that scenario.

I can infer. Also, you have no way of knowing how anyone aside from Hackett views Destroy either, it's just the easiest to immediately comprehend, hence it seems the safest.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
I can infer. Also, you have no way of knowing how anyone aside from Hackett views Destroy either, it's just the easiest to immediately comprehend, hence it seems the safest.

Yes, you can headcanon to make you feel better about your choice, but you don't know because - once again - the Control ending is delivered entirely from the AI's point of view.

Hackett is a voice for the survivors.  The AI is not.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 24 décembre 2012 - 01:35 .

[Xilizhra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I can infer. Also, you have no way of knowing how anyone aside from Hackett views Destroy either, it's just the easiest to immediately comprehend, hence it seems the safest.

Yes, you can headcanon to make you feel better about your choice, but you don't know because - once again - the Control ending is delivered entirely from the AI's point of view.

Hackett is a voice for the survivors.  The AI is not.

Again, I can see the state of the galaxy via the ending slides, unless you suggest that I'm outright hallucinating.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
Again, I can see the state of the galaxy via the ending slides, unless you suggest that I'm outright hallucinating.

And again, I'm saying you see the state of the galaxy from the perspective of the AI, NOT from the people who are actually living in it.  This is really not a difficult concept to grasp, Xilizhra (unless of course you actively don't want to).

[Xilizhra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Again, I can see the state of the galaxy via the ending slides, unless you suggest that I'm outright hallucinating.

And again, I'm saying you see the state of the galaxy from the perspective of the AI, NOT from the people who are actually living in it.  This is really not a difficult concept to grasp, Xilizhra (unless of course you actively don't want to).

If I'm seeing the actual physical images that are present in the galaxy, it doesn't matter whose perspective they're from; all that matters is what's really there. Shepard isn't talking directly about them, I don't have to draw inferences from dialogue alone; I can see what's going on independently of Shepard (similarly, I doubt Hackett is touring every single ending slide in Destroy, nor is EDI in Synthesis).

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
If I'm seeing the actual physical images that are present in the galaxy, it doesn't matter whose perspective they're from; all that matters is what's really there. Shepard isn't talking directly about them, I don't have to draw inferences from dialogue alone; I can see what's going on independently of Shepard (similarly, I doubt Hackett is touring every single ending slide in Destroy, nor is EDI in Synthesis).

You appear to be deliberately missing the point.

The "actual physical images" you see in the ending slides in Control are supported only by the narrative of a being which is completely removed from them and disassociated from them by nature of it's very existence (an immortal, infinite, eternal AI which may or may not be Shepard).

The "actual physical images" you see in Destroy are backed up by the narrative from Hackett - a survivor who lives on in that particular scenario.

Hence the Destroy ending > Control ending, in terms of affirmation of the status and way of life of the survivors.  You can relate to the survivors in the Destroy ending in a way you cannot in the Control ending.

[Xilizhra]

The "actual physical images" you see in the ending slides in Control are supported only by the narrative of a being which is completely removed from them and disassociated from them by nature of it's very existence (an immortal, infinite, eternal AI which may or may not be Shepard).

So what you're saying is that Shepard is hallucinating?

[Dr_Extrem]

Xilizhra wrote...

The "actual physical images" you see in the ending slides in Control are supported only by the narrative of a being which is completely removed from them and disassociated from them by nature of it's very existence (an immortal, infinite, eternal AI which may or may not be Shepard).

So what you're saying is that Shepard is hallucinating?

no .. but his/her/it pov could vary from the pov of the survivors.

in addition, during the slides, you cant see any spaceships of survivors origin. only reapers.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
So what you're saying is that Shepard is hallucinating?

No.  I have no idea where you got that from, since Shepard is not present in either the Control or the Destroy endings (unless of course you're talking about the breath scene).

I'm saying that the AI - being "immortal, infinite, eternal" - will percieve things much differently to the survivors of the war.

The Control ending is voiced over by the AI, the Destroy ending is voiced over by a survivor of the war.  I believe the survivor is a better judge of the feelings, attitude and prospects of it's fellow survivors than an "immortal, infinite, eternal" AI, and as such,the survivor's perspective is much more valuable as a result.

[The Heretic of Time]

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.

I wonder if Eisenhower, Lee, or any other warhero you can name would still have sent thousands to their death if they were presented with 2 alternatives that doesn't require a single life to be sacrificed. You know, like Shepard also had 2 alternative options that doesn't require a single life to be sacrificed, other than his own. 

Think about that for a moment, and realize that all your analogies are massively flawed.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 décembre 2012 - 03:16 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I wonder if Eisenhower, Lee, or any other warhero you can name would still have sent thousands to their death if they were presented with 2 alternatives that doesn't require a single life to be sacrificed. You know, like Shepard also had 2 alternative options that doesn't require a single life to be sacrificed, other than his own. 

I guess that would depend on whether they had enough assurances that the other alternatives would work, and whether they took the leader of their enemies at their word when they were offered them.

I have just argued against Control and don't believe that amount of power should be wielded by one individual - the decisions the Catalyst has made and the lack of morality it has shown during it's existence proves this to me.  In any case, I find it hard to believe I can Control anything if I'm dead.  I also have severe reservations about the idea of rewriting the genetic structure of every living being in the entire galaxy, and am not going to make a decision that will irrevocably change every living entity at a fundamental level without knowing precisely what the consequences will be.

Think about that for a moment, and realize that all your analogies are massively flawed.

Think about the above for a moment, and you'll realise that your rebuttal is desperately flawed.

[The Heretic of Time]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

To put it simply:

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

Bull-f*cking-****. We see the same slides in Control as we do in Destroy and Synthesis. In Control we still see the krogan being very happy if you cured the genophage. In Control we still see the quarians chilling on rannoch (if you saved the quarians), we still see Samara chilling with her daughter and we still see Jack with her students (either death or alive, depending on your choices).
In addition, in Control, we see the geth still alive and well in the Control epilogue (unlike in the Destroy ending), we see Miranda studying reaper tech with Oriana (implying that God Emperor Shepard shares the knowledge and tech of the reapers freely with the galaxy), we see the Citadel fully in tact guarded by reapers, after we see the reapers rebuilding the mass relays and helping with rebuilding earth.

[ElSuperGecko]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Bull-f*cking-****. We see the same slides in Control as we do in Destroy and Synthesis. In Control we still see the krogan being very happy if you cured the genophage. In Control we still see the quarians chilling on rannoch (if you saved the quarians), we still see Samara chilling with her daughter and we still see Jack with her students (either death or alive, depending on your choices).
In addition, in Control, we see the geth still alive and well in the Control epilogue (unlike in the Destroy ending), we see Miranda studying reaper tech with Oriana (implying that God Emperor Shepard shares the knowledge and tech of the reapers freely with the galaxy), we see the Citadel fully in tact guarded by reapers, after we see the reapers rebuilding the mass relays and helping with rebuilding earth.

Somebody obviously needs to read the full discussion, and learn about the argument of perspective.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 24 décembre 2012 - 03:32 .

[Estelindis]

I have not read all 54 pages of this thread, but...

If my Shepard felt she knew that the starbrat was telling the truth (which I don't see how she could, but hey), then she would pick Control as the lesser of the various evils on offer. Her life is sacrificed, but the geth live, and every person in the galaxy gets to keep their distinctiveness without being forced into machine-organic synthesis. If it was possible, she would have made the Reapers fly into a sun and followed them once their destruction was sure.

All in all, I think that Control is the least evil of the three options. But I just don't see why Shepard would ever believe the Catalyst without looking for another option.

[The Heretic of Time]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I wonder if Eisenhower, Lee, or any other warhero you can name would still have sent thousands to their death if they were presented with 2 alternatives that doesn't require a single life to be sacrificed. You know, like Shepard also had 2 alternative options that doesn't require a single life to be sacrificed, other than his own. 

I guess that would depend on whether they had enough assurances that the other alternatives would work, and whether they took the leader of their enemies at their word when they were offered them.

You say this as if the Destroy option gives you mroe assurances that it works than Control or Synthesis. That's of course bullcrap. Nothing is sure and nothing will surely work. Whatever you choose, you'll always take a gamble.

You want the option with the least amount of unknown variables? Go for Refuse, not Destroy. Destroy has just as many unknown variables as Control and Synthesis have.

Refuse is the only option Eisenhower, Lee and others in human history had, or more precisely, they didn't have 3 choices, so they had nothing to refuse, conventional war is all they had. So comparing our human warheros with the Destory option is just retarded.

I have just argued against Control and don't believe that amount of power should be wielded by one individual - the decisions the Catalyst has made and the lack of morality it has shown during it's existence proves this to me.  In any case, I find it hard to believe I can Control anything if I'm dead.  I also have severe reservations about the idea of rewriting the genetic structure of every living being in the entire galaxy, and am not going to make a decision that will irrevocably change every living entity at a fundamental level without knowing precisely what the consequences will be.

No, instead you shoot a red tube with explosive liquid without knowing precisely what the consequences will be.

The rest of what you just said here is merely your opinion. An opinion I do not share.

Think about the above for a moment, and you'll realise that your rebuttal is desperately flawed.

No it isn't. My rebuttal still stands very strong. Your rebuttal of my post failed and my rebuttal still stands.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 décembre 2012 - 03:46 .

[The Heretic of Time]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Bull-f*cking-****. We see the same slides in Control as we do in Destroy and Synthesis. In Control we still see the krogan being very happy if you cured the genophage. In Control we still see the quarians chilling on rannoch (if you saved the quarians), we still see Samara chilling with her daughter and we still see Jack with her students (either death or alive, depending on your choices).
In addition, in Control, we see the geth still alive and well in the Control epilogue (unlike in the Destroy ending), we see Miranda studying reaper tech with Oriana (implying that God Emperor Shepard shares the knowledge and tech of the reapers freely with the galaxy), we see the Citadel fully in tact guarded by reapers, after we see the reapers rebuilding the mass relays and helping with rebuilding earth.

Somebody obviously needs to read the full discussion, and learn about the argument of perspective.

I've read the full discussion and I was not impressed by your nonsensical "argument of perspective".

A cube is a cube, no matter from what perspective you look at it and no matter who you are. Same goes for the ME3 EC epilogue slides. Whatever the opinion of the God Emperor Shepard might be on the state of the galaxy, we still clearly see the krogan cheering with smiles on their faces, we still see Samara chilling with her daughter and we still see the mass relays, the citadel and Earth being rebuilt with the help of the reapers.

And we don't even see it from a reaper perspective, because if we did, we would see everything from a top-down perspective. Instead, we see everything from a regular human perspective. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

no .. but his/her/it pov could vary from the pov of the survivors.

in addition, during the slides, you cant see any spaceships of survivors origin. only reapers.

And Hacketts pov might also vary from the pov of the krogan, the quarians or the salarians. Especially the krogan if you didn't cure the genophage or when Wreav is on top. So that argument is invalid.


Also, you don't see any spaceships of survivors origin in the Destory slides either. You don't see any spaceship in any slide of any ending at all.

[The Heretic of Time]

Not to mention that the whole ME trilogy was just a bedtime story from grandpa Stargazer to his grandson. So I could just as easily say that we don't really know Shepard or any of his crew members, because we're only told about Shepard from the point of view from grandpa Stargazer. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 décembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Hence the Destroy ending > Control ending, in terms of affirmation of the status and way of life of the survivors.  You I  can relate to the survivors in the Destroy ending in a way you cannot in the Control ending.

Fixed.

Though if  someone wants to headcanon that the Control ending slides aren't as real as the same or similar slides are in the other endings, it can't be logically disproven any more than full-blown IT could.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 décembre 2012 - 04:53 .

[AlanC9]

Estelindis wrote...

I have not read all 54 pages of this thread, but...

If my Shepard felt she knew that the starbrat was telling the truth (which I don't see how she could, but hey), then she would pick Control as the lesser of the various evils on offer. Her life is sacrificed, but the geth live, and every person in the galaxy gets to keep their distinctiveness without being forced into machine-organic synthesis. If it was possible, she would have made the Reapers fly into a sun and followed them once their destruction was sure.

All in all, I think that Control is the least evil of the three options. But I just don't see why Shepard would ever believe the Catalyst without looking for another option.

This has come up a few times. The standard response is that there's no more reason to believe in Destroy than there is to believe in Control, so this line of thinking leads to Refuse.

[ElSuperGecko]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I've read the full discussion and I was not impressed by your nonsensical "argument of perspective".

A cube is a cube, no matter from what perspective you look at it and no matter who you are. Same goes for the ME3 EC epilogue slides. Whatever the opinion of the God Emperor Shepard might be on the state of the galaxy, we still clearly see the krogan cheering with smiles on their faces, we still see Samara chilling with her daughter and we still see the mass relays, the citadel and Earth being rebuilt with the help of the reapers.

And we don't even see it from a reaper perspective, because if we did, we would see everything from a top-down perspective. Instead, we see everything from a regular human perspective. 

Spoken like the ultimate literalist!  What would you make of Aesop's fables, I wonder?  Would the Tortoise and the Hare merely be a quaint little tale about two animals having a race with an unlikely outcome?  No deeper meaning than that?  Because what you see is what you get, right? 

What a lot of claptrap you continue to write, Hanar.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...


Spoken like the ultimate literalist!  What would you make of Aesop's fables, I wonder?  Would the Tortoise and the Hare merely be a quaint little tale about two animals having a race with an unlikely outcome?  No deeper meaning than that?  Because what you see is what you get, right? 

What a lot of claptrap you continue to write, Hanar.

Hey, you're the one trying to force an interpretation on the Control ending that's the opposite of what it's supposed to mean.

And you know it.

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
Hey, you're the one trying to force an interpretation on the Control ending that's the opposite of what it's supposed to mean.

And you know it.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone.  I'm simply pointing out that We don't actually hear from any of the surviving races in the Control ending, as it is narrated entirely from an AI's point of view.

If Bioware had wantd us to know what the survivors thought of the Control ending, they would have had Joker, or Liara, or Chakwas or Garrus voice it over.  They didn't, they had an AI that doesn't even consider itself to be Shepard do it.  They probably would have chosen some less ominous sounding music as well.

Take from that what you will, but it's hardly "the opposite of what it's supposed to mean". 

[AlanC9]

Oh, just deconstructionism? Yeah yeah, been there, read that.

Sure, if you want a perverse interpretation, feel free. It ain't ruled out, yep. Feel free to interpret that the Catalyst was right and Destroy Shepards have just doomed all organics, too.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:38 .