1388 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexMBrennan]

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.

This comes up a lot, too. This line of thinking is stupid.

Godchild may or may not be trying to trick you, but the alternative (Refusal) is certain death. What's the worst that could happen if you pick the "wrong" option?
This is an example of the perfect solution fallacy: If can't be 100% sure, it's best to not pick at all.

there's no more reason to believe in Destroy than there is to believe in Control

That's not right either - Shepard is very clearly convinced that Control is a bad idea, and you're asking me to believe that he'd just take the designated villain's word for it? Because that's all that happens - Shepard has a conversation with the least trustworthy expositor conceivable.

Again, for control and synthesis to be viable options Bioware would have to have done their homework and deliver credible exposition. As it is, the ending simply doesn't work - Shepard has no reason to believe anything Godchild says and Shepard's no more than an anecdote to Godchild.

Too bad they wasted this opportunity, at least for those of us that remember that Bioware used to make great games

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 24 décembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[Estelindis]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Well, this line of thinking does lead to Refuse if there genuinely is no other way to defeat the Reapers... but I think it shouldn't have been written that way.  I think that there should have been some other way to stop the cycle, or at least postpone it.  I'm not even talking about conventional victory.  I personally feel that the plot thread of the Keepers from ME1 would have been the best candidate for a different, thinking-outside-of-the-box way to achieve at least a partial genuine victory that didn't just accomplish some of what the antagonists wanted to do all along.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

This comes up a lot, too. This line of thinking is stupid.

It's only stupid because we have the benefit of being able to metagame the whole thing and know from the cutscenes afterwards what the consequences of each choice are.  Shepard doesn't know that when s/he's making the choice, and, previously, defying the antagonists' parameters and looking for another way had pretty much always worked.  But the game doesn't give Shepard the opportunity to look for another way after defying the Catalyst.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Again, for control and synthesis to be viable options Bioware would have to have done their homework and deliver credible exposition. As it is, the ending simply doesn't work - Shepard has no reason to believe anything Godchild says and Shepard's no more than an anecdote to Godchild. 

The same is totally true of Destroy.  If Shepard can't trust the Catalyst in general, then s/he can't trust that shooting that big pipe will destroy the Reapers and not, in fact, achieve something quite contrary to the goals of galactic civilization.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Too bad they wasted this opportunity

I agree with you completely on this front.  Yes, the exposition was terrible and made it logically impossible to trust the Catalyst.  This resulted in huge cognitive dissonance when Bioware presented the outcome of trusting the Catalyst as various shades of sunshine and roses.

Modifié par Estelindis, 24 décembre 2012 - 10:28 .

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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.

This comes up a lot, too. This line of thinking is stupid.

Godchild may or may not be trying to trick you, but the alternative (Refusal) is certain death. What's the worst that could happen if you pick the "wrong" option?
This is an example of the perfect solution fallacy: If can't be 100% sure, it's best to not pick at all.

Oh, absolutely. It is a bad line of thinking. Or rather, unproductive.

there's no more reason to believe in Destroy than there is to believe in Control

That's not right either - Shepard is very clearly convinced that Control is a bad idea, and you're asking me to believe that he'd just take the designated villain's word for it? Because that's all that happens - Shepard has a conversation with the least trustworthy expositor conceivable.

 If you can't believe that Control will do what he says it will do, how can you believe that Destroy will do what he says it will do? I'm not arguing against thinking that Control is conceptually unworkable because a human mind can't use such power well; that's a reasonable belief, but it doesn't have anything to do with who presents Control.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 décembre 2012 - 10:27 .

[AlanC9]

Estelindis wrote...
Well, this line of thinking does lead to Refuse if there genuinely is no other way to defeat the Reapers... but I think it shouldn't have been written that way.  I think that there should have been some other way to stop the cycle, or at least postpone it.  I'm not even talking about conventional victory.  I personally feel that the plot thread of the Keepers from ME1 would have been the best candidate for a different, thinking-outside-of-the-box way to achieve at least a partial genuine victory that didn't just accomplish some of what the antagonists wanted to do all along.

I don't actually see how Control accomplishes anything the antagonists wanted to do all along. It's the closes thing to a punt on the menu, since it doesn't break anythin

[Rifneno]

AlanC9 wrote...

 If you can't believe that Control will do what he says it will do, how can you believe that Destroy will do what he says it will do?

I don't know what destroy really does, all I know is that the Reapers don't want me to do it.  That's good enough for me.

[Estelindis]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't actually see how Control accomplishes anything the antagonists wanted to do all along. It's the closes thing to a punt on the menu, since it doesn't break anythin 

Well, the Reapers are still around enforcing their will on the Galaxy, even though it's guided by Shepard's way of thinking.  Shepard's aim was to destroy the Reapers and end the cycle.  Can we know for sure if the cycle is really ended if the Reapers are still there?  

All the same, I do take your point.  As I already said, I see Control as better than Destroy and Synthesis.  The only one who really sacrifices themselves in Control is Shepard, which makes it the most heroic ending - and, from a certain point of view, it's not even total sacrifice for Shepard, since her or his mind, or consciousness, or pattern, or whatever, persists in some form, guiding the Reapers.

It's just... I don't think that's what any of us really set out to achieve.  

Rifneno wrote...

I don't know what destroy really does, all I know is that the Reapers don't want me to do it.  That's good enough for me.

Hooray for negative psychology!

Modifié par Estelindis, 24 décembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[AlanC9]

Estelindis wrote...

It's just... I don't think that's what any of us really set out to achieve.  

Set out to impose Shep's consciousness on the Rapers? Yeah... I don't think anyone was thinking about that as a goal when we were playing ME1.

[Reorte]

Rifneno wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

 If you can't believe that Control will do what he says it will do, how can you believe that Destroy will do what he says it will do?

I don't know what destroy really does, all I know is that the Reapers don't want me to do it.  That's good enough for me.

Unless they're trying to bluff you and it's actually the Synthesis button... If it wasn't for Synthesis I'd say that taking it on faith that the options do what you expect is the best you can hope to do since there's no rational way you can actually make things any worse. Even if it just plays into the Reapers' hands (and if it does that they could've done it without Shepard - explanations to the contrary are inevitably very, very weak) it's ultimately not going to make things any worse than simply doing nothing.

[JasonShepard]

Rifneno wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

 If you can't believe that Control will do what he says it will do, how can you believe that Destroy will do what he says it will do?

I don't know what destroy really does, all I know is that the Reapers don't want me to do it.  That's good enough for me.

It's worth noting that the Reapers don't want you to pick Control either. The Renegade dialogue choice regardng Control has the Catalyst stating that he dislikes the idea of being replaced by Shepard.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 25 décembre 2012 - 12:42 .

[Xilizhra]

Rifneno wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

 If you can't believe that Control will do what he says it will do, how can you believe that Destroy will do what he says it will do?

I don't know what destroy really does, all I know is that the Reapers don't want me to do it.  That's good enough for me.

The Reapers don't want you to do it so much that they outright tell you how exactly to do so.

[The Heretic of Time]

Rifneno wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

 If you can't believe that Control will do what he says it will do, how can you believe that Destroy will do what he says it will do?

I don't know what destroy really does, all I know is that the Reapers don't want me to do it.  That's good enough for me.

They don't want you to do it... so that's why they present the option to you, telling you almost exactly what it does with all the pro's and con's and everything? Yeah, makes sense... You're talking BS out of your ass son, as usual.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 25 décembre 2012 - 04:03 .

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Reapers don't want you to do it so much that they outright tell you how exactly to do so.

Touché, Xili.  Touché.

[Xamufam]

because of this
you can expect supreme executive power because you have a fleet of
vastly powerful starships that will obliterate anybody who disagrees
with your rule.
That right there is the fundamental problem with control.

Modifié par Troxa, 26 décembre 2012 - 12:45 .

[Reorte]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I don't know what destroy really does, all I know is that the Reapers don't want me to do it.  That's good enough for me.

They don't want you to do it... so that's why they present the option to you, telling you almost exactly what it does with all the pro's and con's and everything? Yeah, makes sense... You're talking BS out of your ass son, as usual.

The cons don't sound exactly convincing. The option is presented to make the others easier to swallow, they give credibility to the Catalyst's alternatives. The best lying tricks have a dose of truth mixed in to help the lies go down better.

[xMellowhype]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

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

Lol so what?  Shepard was only against it because (s)he didn't think it was possible.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Crucible turned Shepard into a VI or was even able to copy Shepard further than his appearance and voice.

It seemed like it was just a device to kill Shepard. Why couldn't I just tell the Catalyst what to do? Why go through the Crucible ceremony? The Catalyst already controlls the reapers... so why even use a relay-destroying shockwave?

[ElSuperGecko]

Estelindis wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
The Reapers don't want you to do it so much that they outright tell you how exactly to do so.

Touché, Xili.  Touché.

...only they don't, do they?  The Catalyst never actually tells Shepard how to do it at all.  It simple says the option is "within our grasp".  Unless of course you believe it is projecting the vision of Anderson shooting the tubes into Shepard's head.  Which leads to all kinds of disturbing implications if it can influence Shepard's mind that much.

[Massa FX]

Shepard as a character wouldn't have gone with control. Control is the antithesis of Shepardism.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Massa FX wrote...

Shepard as a character wouldn't have gone with control. Control is the antithesis of Shepardism.

Refusing to hurt innocents and taking on the responsibility for the future? Sounds pretty Shepard-like to me.

[Andromidius]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

Shepard as a character wouldn't have gone with control. Control is the antithesis of Shepardism.

Refusing to hurt innocents and taking on the responsibility for the future? Sounds pretty Shepard-like to me.

By letting the moral enemies of all life, organic and synthetic, continue to operate?  To justify their actions and existance?  To become one of them?

Yeah, that TOTALLY sounds like the Shepard who's been fighting to rid the galaxy of Reapers all this time.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Andromidius wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

Shepard as a character wouldn't have gone with control. Control is the antithesis of Shepardism.

Refusing to hurt innocents and taking on the responsibility for the future? Sounds pretty Shepard-like to me.

By letting the moral enemies of all life, organic and synthetic, continue to operate?  To justify their actions and existance?  To become one of them?

Yeah, that TOTALLY sounds like the Shepard who's been fighting to rid the galaxy of Reapers all this time.

Point of order: they don't 'continue to operate'. They stop the reaping and switch to being helpful.

[Ieldra]

Andromidius wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

Shepard as a character wouldn't have gone with control. Control is the antithesis of Shepardism.

Refusing to hurt innocents and taking on the responsibility for the future? Sounds pretty Shepard-like to me.

By letting the moral enemies of all life, organic and synthetic, continue to operate?  To justify their actions and existance?  To become one of them?

Yeah, that TOTALLY sounds like the Shepard who's been fighting to rid the galaxy of Reapers all this time.

Control justifies the Reapers' actions.....exactly how?
Also, refusing to sacrifice a species and taking on responsibility for the future is a forward-looking decision. The cycle is stopped, and that's the important point. The future of the galaxy is more important than getting back at the Reapers. It's a perfectly reasonable stance.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 décembre 2012 - 03:50 .

[L2 Sentinel]

Because I promised Kaidan that I'd make it out alive, and Destroy is the only ending that even entertains that possibility (barely, but still).

[Massa FX]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

Shepard as a character wouldn't have gone with control. Control is the antithesis of Shepardism.

Refusing to hurt innocents and taking on the responsibility for the future? Sounds pretty Shepard-like to me.

A trillion murdered souls cry out. Let us rest in peace. Destroy the Reapers. (my opinion)

[DeinonSlayer]

Rauhel wrote...

Because I promised Kaidan that I'd make it out alive, and Destroy is the only ending that even entertains that possibility (barely, but still).

If you're only doing it so Shepard can live, you're doing it for the wrong reasons (and metagaming, besides).