1388 réponses à ce sujet

[OdanUrr]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Never mind the fact that the mission leading to the ending should haven't even started if the game had a narrative consistency with the rest of the trilogy. Like that little detail in ME1, where it's told that the Reapers can shut down or at least control the entire mass relay network via the Citadel.

The Keepers are blocking their access to the mass-relay network.

So says Patrick Weekes.

Are the Keepers preventing the Reapers from attacking the Citadel as well?

[legion999]

scyphozoa wrote...

Yeah, I don't know why control is viewed so negatively. No one is more qualified than my Shepard to be a galactic overlord. Shep earned that by saving trillions of lives and being in the position to make that choice. If someone else were more qualified, they would have been there instead of Shep.

This is also why I choose House in FONV. He is an autocrat who has demonstrated his competence and earned his right to rule. People think the idea of freedom is paramount, but freedom in a crumbling society is meaningless.

No one is qualified to be a galactic overlord. And that doesn't make sense. Surely Mordin would be more qualified or someone nearly as intelligent would fit the bill.

And House has signs that he may be losing it. Just saying.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's notable that if you go Intimidate to TIM from Mars on out, Shepard never explicitly dismisses Control as an option to stop the Reapers, (s)he just sort of yells at him for not working cooperatively with the rest of them.


So, no, Shepard does not "canonically" reject Control.

In the final argument with TIM he does.

Not if you Renegade persuade. That's more "If you're so sure, do it."

Ieldra likes to use that as a specious argument for an in-game pro-Control Shepard.  I'm not sure if you're trying to make the same argument, but it's baloney.  That's just Shepard calling TIM's bluff, not an endorsement of Control.

Modifié par clennon8, 19 décembre 2012 - 04:57 .

[legion999]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Never mind the fact that the mission leading to the ending should haven't even started if the game had a narrative consistency with the rest of the trilogy. Like that little detail in ME1, where it's told that the Reapers can shut down or at least control the entire mass relay network via the Citadel.

The Keepers are blocking their access to the mass-relay network.

So says Patrick Weekes.

How? Why? When?

I hate Twitter sometimes.

[JasonShepard]

clennon8 wrote...

jtav wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's notable that if you go Intimidate to TIM from Mars on out, Shepard never explicitly dismisses Control as an option to stop the Reapers, (s)he just sort of yells at him for not working cooperatively with the rest of them.


So, no, Shepard does not "canonically" reject Control.

In the final argument with TIM he does.

Not if you Renegade persuade. That's more "If you're so sure, do it."

Ieldra likes to use that as a specious argument for an in-game pro-Control Shepard.  I'm not sure if you're trying to make the same argument, but it's baloney.  That's just Shepard calling TIM's bluff, not an endorsement of Control.

Not necessarily. First, it isn't a bluff - TIM genuinely believes he can Control the Reapers, but he is clearly indoctrinated. That line of dialogue essentially demonstrates to TIM that he's indoctrinated - although he angrily argues against it.

In any case, it may not be an endorsement of Control, but it isn't rejecting Control like some of the Paragon responses do.

[MegaSovereign]

Control is the most practical ending. And the fact that option exists does help outline that TIM definitely wasn't entirely crazy.

But after playing ME2 and seeing how the Reapers are created, it's REALLY hard for me NOT to choose Destroy. The choice itself isn't unethical, but justifying the Reapers' existence is.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:02 .

[Someone With Mass]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Twitter canon to the rescue. 


Sounds like a ******-poor excuse to me though. If Sovereign could use a sleeper agent to bypass the keepers and give him back direct control over the Citadel, than what's stopping Harbinger or any other reaper from doing the same?

Or just kill all the dysfunctional Keepers and take over manually?

Also, when I need an external and not so easily accessible source (he did make his Twitter feed private for quite some time and I was not a passionate follower of it even when it was open) to learn something that's crucial to the plot, I'd say it's really bad conveyance and that the plot is rather poorly structured.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:02 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Twitter canon to the rescue. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]


Sounds like a ******-poor excuse to me though. If Sovereign could use a sleeper agent to bypass the keepers and give him back direct control over the Citadel, than what's stopping Harbinger or any other reaper from doing the same?

*Interview canon. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]


It is quite possible they were counting on TIM to do that for them as well, but he was still kind of fighting them before he's apprehended by Shepard. The issue of the keepers would undoubtedly be fixed though if the Reapers won.

OdanUrr wrote...

Are the Keepers preventing the Reapers from attacking the Citadel as well?

Why would they attack the Citadel? Shepard's fleet had them distracted as it were. They don't know when, exactly, the Crucible is going to be deployed.

[CronoDragoon]

legion999 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Never mind the fact that the mission leading to the ending should haven't even started if the game had a narrative consistency with the rest of the trilogy. Like that little detail in ME1, where it's told that the Reapers can shut down or at least control the entire mass relay network via the Citadel.

The Keepers are blocking their access to the mass-relay network.

So says Patrick Weekes.

How? Why? When?

I hate Twitter sometimes.

I don't think it was Twitter or anything official. Patrick was kind enough to chat with fans after PAX and the announcement of the EC, and a fan transcribed (loosely) his responses to casual, verbal questions from fans. I think the line went, "asked about why the Reapers didn't shut down the relay network, something about Keepers blocking the signal, not sure."

In other words, he could have just been spitballing and I don't really count it as an official answer.

Edit: Here's the link: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11154234

Notice some things he says (the implication that the relays are gone and spaceflight continues using faster FTL) are contradicted by the EC, so some of this is really just ideas he was tossing around before they even solidifed answers.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[jtav]

Shepard can also ask Hackett "Well what if it's possible to control the Reapers?" Hackett gets livid, but Shepard doesn't. The man can come just shy of defending Sanctuary. So the game certainly provides enough RP space to play a Shepard who likes the idea in theory but doesn't believe it's possible until the endgame.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

legion999 wrote...

How? Why? When?

I hate Twitter sometimes.

Oh please.

How did the Keepers control the Citadel for the Reapers before when ME1 reveals it? Why can they control it? How and why did the Protheans override their control?

If you can't answer those questions, don't act like you actually care about "how" or "why."

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[3DandBeyond]

JasonShepard wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...


I rather think it was a case of TIM was decieved into considering Control the only solution: "Destroying the Reapers is the greatest mistake we could ever make" or something like that. He just doesn't seem to notice that a worse mistake is letting the Reapers carry on harvesting - and that's presumably the indoctrination talking.

As Para-Shep points out, TIM's indoctrination is about him fighting against the Allies - "They've got us fighting each other, instead of fighting them." So the deception used a bit of truth - Control was indeed possible - and combined it with TIM's narrow-mindedness and megalomania.

Sure, TIM is being deceived.  That's a big part of the problem.  In one minute Shep understands that TIM is delusional through this deception and has been consumed, but in the next minute the same freak that made TIM believe he could control them, is telling Shepard the same thing.  And, he's telling Shepard that TIM could never control them because he was controlled.  What moron would not ask the question, "how can I believe you are not trying to control me now"?  Sure, I can see the differences, but BW created enough references to instill a lot of doubt within Shepard and as many love to say, Shepard is badly beaten up and weary.  Shepard has been questioning him/herself and what and who s/he really is since Cerberus got hold of him/her.  It's not logical to think that seeng TIM and knowing what has happened that control would be a viable consideration with no validation.  In fact, it invalidates any choice in many ways. 

The reapers have never fully just allowed anyone to make a choice to help them-they have always forced people to do so.  Not one person including the geth helped them totally willingly and free of some duress.  They've used mostly indoctrination to force organics to believe control and synthesis were both possible.  And, guess what, they used coercion and promises and more (appearing as almost a deity or some form of salvation) to convince the geth that they could destroy their problems.  So, all along they've been deceiving people into thinking they could do what the kid now says Shepard could freely choose to do. 

Well, I'll agree that there's sufficient cause for Shepard to question himself. I guess it comes down to whether or not you can trust the Catalyst, which is another debate. I personally believe you have to, since if you can't trust one thing Space-kid says, you can't trust any of it. (As someone said earlier in the thread- there's nothing to say shooting the tube won't blow up the Crucible.) But I see your point.

I appreciate your last sentence more than you know.  I'm not saying that someone else's opinion of it all is not valid.  I am only saying that there are many valid views of it all.  And BW created this situation.  They made it possible for my opinion to be just as valid as yours, but whereas you might like Control and can choose it, I have no way out of this-I have no choice.  Just as the OP has one that fits with what he thinks and can live with, I do not.  And BW set this up.  I always will say that this is what my Shepard says, because that's not true of someone else's I know.  But, what often happens is people will say that it doesn't matter what my Shepard would think or has done, because theirs is fine with it all.  That's the problem.  I am glad for people that find something that fits with the character they played.  Great.  But my experience was different and Bioware did not create an ending for me-for the character they created that I was allowed the option to play.

I don't think people should have to try to fit their Shepard into the story mine was in, but I do think since BW created all of this, they should have realized that some of their creations were left out at the end.

[JasonShepard]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Are the Keepers preventing the Reapers from attacking the Citadel as well?

Why would they attack the Citadel? Shepard's fleet had them distracted as it were. They don't know when, exactly, the Crucible is going to be deployed.

During the rest of the game, too, then the Citadel is probably the most defended location AND is able to lock itself down if the Reapers did attack. (Frankly, I'm amazed Cerberus was able to mount an attack, but then, they did have inside help. And when the Reapers eventually did conquer the Citadel... so did they.)

Modifié par JasonShepard, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:08 .

[Dendio1]

at this point, the only reason I don't choose control is because I want my shepard to live his victory, even at the cost of all synthetic life.

[Someone With Mass]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Why would they attack the Citadel? Shepard's fleet had them distracted as it were. They don't know when, exactly, the Crucible is going to be deployed.

Why wouldn't they attack and take over the Citadel? They'd only be able to cut off the head of their enemies' advance and make the harvesting much easier for themselves.

"The Keepers--"

So you're telling me that this yay-high green bug is more powerful than the cuttlefish that's about as big as a small town, has literally billions of minds at his disposal and created aforementioned bug? Okay. That's just stupid beyond belief, but okay.

Also, the Reapers could just starve out the people aboard the Citadel if they closed it.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:10 .

[legion999]

CronoDragoon wrote...
I don't think it was Twitter or anything official. Patrick was kind enough to chat with fans after PAX and the announcement of the EC, and a fan transcribed (loosely) his responses to casual, verbal questions from fans. I think the line went, "asked about why the Reapers didn't shut down the relay network, something about Keepers blocking the signal, not sure."

In other words, he could have just been spitballing and I don't really count it as an official answer.

Edit: Here's the link: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11154234

Ah. I spoke too quickly about Twitter it seems. Sorry.

If accurate it's still a weaksauce excuse though.

[OdanUrr]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Are the Keepers preventing the Reapers from attacking the Citadel as well?

Why would they attack the Citadel? Shepard's fleet had them distracted as it were. They don't know when, exactly, the Crucible is going to be deployed.

Most of the galaxy believes the Reapers are a myth in ME2, even after the events of ME1. The Reapers could've easily attacked and conquered the Citadel first, which would've been thoroughly underprotected for a Reaper attack, shut down the relay network, and culled the galaxy one system at a time.

What do they do instead? They decide to ignore their already foolproof plan to eradicate all life in the galaxy and attack Earth instead.

[3DandBeyond]

jtav wrote...

Shepard can also ask Hackett "Well what if it's possible to control the Reapers?" Hackett gets livid, but Shepard doesn't. The man can come just shy of defending Sanctuary. So the game certainly provides enough RP space to play a Shepard who likes the idea in theory but doesn't believe it's possible until the endgame.

Yes, but see what Bioware did was allow you to think Shepard might ultimately be ok with it, but also to allow me to think there's no way Shepard would be.  I don't think it's wrong for people to actually consider the character they played would make any choice-some didn't care about EDI and the geth, so destroy is fine with them.  But, the thing is, it should be just as fair to see that I could play the game and interpret it all differently.  That the hero someone who didn't compromise on things, might see things differently in my game.  Bioware created this as a possibility, but for you there is an ending, a choice, for me there isn't.  I'm only ever arguing what I see as true for my character-your story is different.

The point here is that for some the decision is easy and makes a lot of sense, for others any decision is difficult and is between tough choices with some down sides, while for many others there is no choice.  This was a game that had no canon, so no choice was the wrong one, but at the end for many, all choices are the wrong ones, but for some any choice would work. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:13 .

[Xandurpein]

Instinctively and emotionally I choose Destroy, but I was purely intellectual about it. I might consider chosing Control and then bring the Reapers into Dark Space. If I return after 1000 years or so, technology should have evolved to the point where the Galaxy could easily defeat the Reapers. Then I can keep everyone alive, and still avoid becoming dictator. Of course there's no room for that in the epilogues, so I would have to headcanon it.

[CronoDragoon]

I might be missing something here as a non-codex/ME1 expert, but why wouldn't they just say Vigil's virus also blocks the signal to shut the relays down? Or corrupted it? Or something?

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

Shepard can also ask Hackett "Well what if it's possible to control the Reapers?" Hackett gets livid, but Shepard doesn't. The man can come just shy of defending Sanctuary. So the game certainly provides enough RP space to play a Shepard who likes the idea in theory but doesn't believe it's possible until the endgame.

Are you talking about that exchange where Shepard says "The Illusive Man thinks controlling the Reapers is how we win this."  And Hackett replies "He's wrong. Dead Reapers are how we win this?"

If that's not the one, then someone please send me a youtube link.

Modifié par clennon8, 19 décembre 2012 - 05:13 .

[legion999]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

legion999 wrote...

How? Why? When?

I hate Twitter sometimes.

Oh please.

How did the Keepers control the Citadel for the Reapers before when ME1 reveals it? Why can they control it? How and why did the Protheans override their control?

If you can't answer those questions, don't act like you actually care about "how" or "why."

They didn't control it, they maintained it. The Protheans made it so that the Reapers signal to open the Dark Space relay didn't make the Keepers open the relay.

And I'm curious, where is this correlation that if I can't answer your questions then I don't care? If I didn't care I would have not asked.

[kal_reegar]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Control is a more secure and permanent solution. In Control we have the reapers as our guardians. Under Shepards command they'll protect us against future threats.

The only real permanent solution seems to be Sythesis, as much as I hate to admit it (I really don't like Synthesis).

nothing is permanent. The variables always change.

what if a race starts starts to build synthetics and doesn't give a fu*k about god-shepard paternalistic warnings? Sure, shepard can stop them. 
what if another race starts to cause troubles? And another one? Shepard stops them. One time. Two time. A thousand time. God Shepard can protect everybody against major threats. But, like the catalyst and/with the reapers, not forever.
But eventually the status quo will change. God-Shepard is not really GOD, he's is fallible as the catalyst and anyone else.
Other problems will arise, and new solutions will be required.

Same with syntesis. You may have find a permanent "solution" for the organics-synthetics conflict, but not for future threats and other type of conflicts (like a syntesized-krogan rebellion).


destroy, control and synthesis are all partial and temporary "solutions", on the long term..
other things should matter. More concrete choices and less speculative consequence. For example: do you want the geth to be destroyed? Do you want shepard to surive? Do you want men and sexbots to have children? Do you want revenge against the reapers?

[JasonShepard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

Well, I'll agree that there's sufficient cause for Shepard to question himself. I guess it comes down to whether or not you can trust the Catalyst, which is another debate. I personally believe you have to, since if you can't trust one thing Space-kid says, you can't trust any of it. (As someone said earlier in the thread- there's nothing to say shooting the tube won't blow up the Crucible.) But I see your point.

I appreciate your last sentence more than you know.  I'm not saying that someone else's opinion of it all is not valid.  I am only saying that there are many valid views of it all.  And BW created this situation.  They made it possible for my opinion to be just as valid as yours, but whereas you might like Control and can choose it, I have no way out of this-I have no choice.  Just as the OP has one that fits with what he thinks and can live with, I do not.  And BW set this up.  I always will say that this is what my Shepard says, because that's not true of someone else's I know.  But, what often happens is people will say that it doesn't matter what my Shepard would think or has done, because theirs is fine with it all.  That's the problem.  I am glad for people that find something that fits with the character they played.  Great.  But my experience was different and Bioware did not create an ending for me-for the character they created that I was allowed the option to play.

I don't think people should have to try to fit their Shepard into the story mine was in, but I do think since BW created all of this, they should have realized that some of their creations were left out at the end.

I'm in the same boat about respecting other people's opinions - that's why that sentence was there 
And although it's less extreme for me (I just have to use copius amounts of headcanon after Control, in order to undo much of what the epilogue implies) Bioware didn't exactly hand me my ending on a silver plate either. So you have my sympathy.
In part, this is why I'd be behind an ending DLC even if it didn't benefit me personally - so that other people can get their ending. Just as long as it left in some of the required sacrifice such that Control wasn't completely invalidated. After all, if Destroy was cost-free, the ending choice would be a no-brainer. And oddly enough, I don't want that.