190 réponses à ce sujet

[Warlock Adam]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

this assumption is certain .... until shep-ai decides, that life is a threat to itself.

the catalyst took some years to realise that as well. 

mass effect 3 showed us one thing with a 100% certainty - history does repeat itself. every 50k years, the test tubes are flushed, every cycle has a splinter group, that tries to control the reapers, every attempt to uplift a species failed. history will repeat itself ...

...I'm just going to quote myself from earlier in the thread.

Warlock Adam wrote...

Everyone compares Control-Shepard to the Catalyst, saying "he'll go crazy." And everyone forgets that the Catalyst's logic was flawed from the very beginning. Whereas Shepard's is fully dependent on how you played him--if you were nice he'll be nice, if you were domineering he'll be domineering. The Catalyst didn't change his logic after millions of years, and I sincerely doubt Shepard will change his.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I picked control and think the ending was a pile of ****. Guess that makes me quite the special snowflake.

[archangel1996]

Warlock Adam wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

this assumption is certain .... until shep-ai decides, that life is a threat to itself.

the catalyst took some years to realise that as well. 

mass effect 3 showed us one thing with a 100% certainty - history does repeat itself. every 50k years, the test tubes are flushed, every cycle has a splinter group, that tries to control the reapers, every attempt to uplift a species failed. history will repeat itself ...

...I'm just going to quote myself from earlier in the thread.

Warlock Adam wrote...

Everyone compares Control-Shepard to the Catalyst, saying "he'll go crazy." And everyone forgets that the Catalyst's logic was flawed from the very beginning. Whereas Shepard's is fully dependent on how you played him--if you were nice he'll be nice, if you were domineering he'll be domineering. The Catalyst didn't change his logic after millions of years, and I sincerely doubt Shepard will change his.

The evolution is Paragon-Renegade-Catalyst
You are nice, then people starts wars or try to destroy the reapers(people like Javik for example?)
New solution, instaurate a regime, they must do as Shep-Catlyst say
they will not, so the only way is......
An IA in the same postion of another IA will arrive at the same conclusion, one IA could like it the other not, doesn't matter, that is the conclusion

Modifié par archangel1996, 24 février 2013 - 10:50 .

[Konfined]

Dr_Extrem wrote...


this assumption is certain .... until shep-ai decides, that life is a threat to itself.

the catalyst took some years to realise that as well. 

mass effect 3 showed us one thing with a 100% certainty - history does repeat itself. every 50k years, the test tubes are flushed, every cycle has a splinter group, that tries to control the reapers, every attempt to uplift a species failed. history will repeat itself ...

This needs a good quoting for truth.  So I'm going to go ahead and quote this for truth.  Because a post like this should be quoted, for truth.

[McFlurry598]

Why does everyone think that renegade shep will continue the cycle? I dont think he would go through all that just to continue it. Sure ren shep is terrible, but i still cant see him destroying everone..

[noobcannon]

Lizardviking wrote...

I picked control and think the ending was a pile of ****. Guess that makes me quite the special snowflake.

[archangel1996]

McFlurry598 wrote...

Why does everyone think that renegade shep will continue the cycle? I dont think he would go through all that just to continue it. Sure ren shep is terrible, but i still cant see him destroying everone..

The Renegade Shepard of ME3? Yes, he will
Because for most of ME3 Renegade=sick freak

[McFlurry598]

archangel1996 wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

Why does everyone think that renegade shep will continue the cycle? I dont think he would go through all that just to continue it. Sure ren shep is terrible, but i still cant see him destroying everone..

The Renegade Shepard of ME3? Yes, he will
Because for most of ME3 Renegade=sick freak

Ive never played ren shep, i dont think i could bring myself to doing it lol

[Warlock Adam]

archangel1996 wrote...

The evolution is Paragon-Renegade-Catalyst
You are nice, then people starts wars or try to destroy the reapers(people like Javik for example?)
New solution, instaurate a regime, they must do as Shep-Catlyst say
they will not, so the only way is......
An IA in the same postion of another IA will arrive at the same conclusion, one IA could like it the other not, doesn't matter, that is the conclusion

Uhhh maybe for another Shepard. The beauty of Control is that every Shepard is unique, so every Shepard will do different things.

Your Shepard is your Shepard, my Shepard is my Shepard. If you want to assume that yours will dominate the organic races if they "rebel," fine. I can assume that mine would rather send the Reapers out of the galaxy than harm another organic being.

The only thing we know for certain is that ME3 Control ends with Shepard in control. Everything after that, whether it's defending the many or enacting your own vision on the galaxy or becoming a mechanical tyrant, is up to your own Shepard. Please don't presume that my Paragon Shepard, who never stopped sacrificing for others and united every organic race, would become a monster.

Actually, we know something else. We know that in the future a man is telling a child a story about the heroic figure known as "the Shepard," and the peaceful galaxy that he left behind. Doesn't sound like he became a dictator to me.

[McFlurry598]

Warlock Adam wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

The evolution is Paragon-Renegade-Catalyst
You are nice, then people starts wars or try to destroy the reapers(people like Javik for example?)
New solution, instaurate a regime, they must do as Shep-Catlyst say
they will not, so the only way is......
An IA in the same postion of another IA will arrive at the same conclusion, one IA could like it the other not, doesn't matter, that is the conclusion

Uhhh maybe for another Shepard. The beauty of Control is that every Shepard is unique, so every Shepard will do different things.

Your Shepard is your Shepard, my Shepard is my Shepard. If you want to assume that yours will dominate the organic races if they "rebel," fine. I can assume that mine would rather send the Reapers out of the galaxy than harm another organic being.

The only thing we know for certain is that ME3 Control ends with Shepard in control. Everything after that, whether it's defending the many or enacting your own vision on the galaxy or becoming a mechanical tyrant, is up to your own Shepard. Please don't presume that my Paragon Shepard, who never stopped sacrificing for others and united every organic race, would become a monster.

Actually, we know something else. We know that in the future a man is telling a child a story about the heroic figure known as "the Shepard," and the peaceful galaxy that he left behind. Doesn't sound like he became a dictator to me.

[L2 Sentinel]

I am a hardcore Destroyer and I'm content with the ending I got. The breath scene is the only bit I found unsatisfying (if Shepard's LI or best buddy reached out a hand and Shepard grabbed it, that scene would be all I needed). For the most part, though, I'm fine with it. Unless you are talking about all endings as a total package. Then I have issues. I don't like Control, and I absolutely loathe Synthesis.

Modifié par Rauhel, 24 février 2013 - 11:09 .

[Thrazesul]

I picked destroy. I don't LOVE the ending but... I'm fine with it.

[shodiswe]

Argolas wrote...

No OP, the hardcore ending haters are refusers.

Anyway, have fun with the resistance.

Agreed, Destroyers are second rate haters.... Except for a few ofcourse, there will always be a few who loves it or really hates it and still does it for the sake of it..

I picked control, I'm not that happy with the endgame and endings, but mostly it's the priority earth mission that bugs me. Even if the ending or rather the way it was given/presented feelt a little less than good imo. I can certainly live with it by now and accept it but I won't pretend it was good. Synthesis is my second favrite ending, after that destroy and Refues is kind of a non ending.. But at the same time I can appreciate that Refuse was added since, the fact that it exists adds value to the other options.

Modifié par shodiswe, 24 février 2013 - 11:09 .

[Jenonax]

McFlurry598 wrote...
]Shepard says he will help rebuild that the many have lost. He says he will defend the entire galaxy. He helps rebuild the mass relays. I don't know where you came up with him enslaving the galaxy. That wasn't even thought, better yet mentioned, in the ending 

Oh the many.

Who are the many?  To be a 'Many' there must be a 'Few' otherwise they'd be called the 'All.'

Shepard in Control goes on a lot about the Many, protecting them, rebuilding for them - but what about the Few?  Where do they come in?  Are the Few excluded from this protection and new life under our dear and fluffy Lord Shepard?  You cannot assume that the Few are the bad apples, what if they oppose the Reapers for the 'they murdered our children and blew up our home planet' reasons?  

The new Shep-Catalyst makes it very clear that he'll protect the many, I'm just not comfortable with the notion of doing it at the expense of the few.

[Dr_Extrem]

Warlock Adam wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

this assumption is certain .... until shep-ai decides, that life is a threat to itself.

the catalyst took some years to realise that as well. 

mass effect 3 showed us one thing with a 100% certainty - history does repeat itself. every 50k years, the test tubes are flushed, every cycle has a splinter group, that tries to control the reapers, every attempt to uplift a species failed. history will repeat itself ...

...I'm just going to quote myself from earlier in the thread.

Warlock Adam wrote...

Everyone compares Control-Shepard to the Catalyst, saying "he'll go crazy." And everyone forgets that the Catalyst's logic was flawed from the very beginning. Whereas Shepard's is fully dependent on how you played him--if you were nice he'll be nice, if you were domineering he'll be domineering. The Catalyst didn't change his logic after millions of years, and I sincerely doubt Shepard will change his.

the dialogue is nearly identical ... what is the difference between guarding and supressing? ... the people will not see the difference, because their view is limited.
nobody knows that its shep-ai controling the reapers. shepard is no longer and the ai has no ties to the civilisdation it is protecting.

both shep-ais make it clear, that they will protect civilisation/life at all cost and that no one will dare to oppose its army. the catalyst does the same ... it protects life - its method is the only difference - not the mindset.


paragon shep-ai will make sure, that everybody will have a voice - how? .. by indoctrinating the side who wants to keep the smaller ones down? even if not .. people know, that reapers indoctrinate - even if they dont do it, people are a paranoid bunch ... especially after the events of the war (inviting leaders for negotiation . shortly after that, those leaders declared martial law). everybody who acts strange or not, will be seen as indoctrinated - out of fear. the result is a new witchhunt.

this is backed by what we know about reapers - ingame lore. it leaves out shepards style of "command" .. but there are two sides .. one that tries to do the right thing and the side, that is intimidated by the reapers presence alone. what happens, if people start to act strange? how will paragon shep-ai (without emotions) react to this?  it may decide, that it is time to protect civilisation from itself. the thought is not that far fetched.

[SyK18]

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...
]Shepard says he will help rebuild that the many have lost. He says he will defend the entire galaxy. He helps rebuild the mass relays. I don't know where you came up with him enslaving the galaxy. That wasn't even thought, better yet mentioned, in the ending 

Oh the many.

Who are the many?  To be a 'Many' there must be a 'Few' otherwise they'd be called the 'All.'

Shepard in Control goes on a lot about the Many, protecting them, rebuilding for them - but what about the Few?  Where do they come in?  Are the Few excluded from this protection and new life under our dear and fluffy Lord Shepard?  You cannot assume that the Few are the bad apples, what if they oppose the Reapers for the 'they murdered our children and blew up our home planet' reasons?  

The new Shep-Catalyst makes it very clear that he'll protect the many, I'm just not comfortable with the notion of doing it at the expense of the few.

Well said. Bravo.  

[Warlock Adam]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the dialogue is nearly identical ... what is the difference between guarding and supressing? ... the people will not see the difference, because their view is limited.
nobody knows that its shep-ai controling the reapers. shepard is no longer and the ai has no ties to the civilisdation it is protecting.

both shep-ais make it clear, that they will protect civilisation/life at all cost and that no one will dare to oppose its army. the catalyst does the same ... it protects life - its method is the only difference - not the mindset.

paragon shep-ai will make sure, that everybody will have a voice - how? .. by indoctrinating the side who wants to keep the smaller ones down? even if not .. people know, that reapers indoctrinate - even if they dont do it, people are a paranoid bunch ... especially after the events of the war (inviting leaders for negotiation . shortly after that, those leaders declared martial law). everybody who acts strange or not, will be seen as indoctrinated - out of fear. the result is a new witchhunt.

this is backed by what we know about reapers - ingame lore. it leaves out shepards style of "command" .. but there are two sides .. one that tries to do the right thing and the side, that is intimidated by the reapers presence alone. what happens, if people start to act strange? how will paragon shep-ai (without emotions) react to this?  it may decide, that it is time to protect civilisation from itself. the thought is not that far fetched.

Everything here is assumption and headcanon. Not that that's a bad thing, it's a perfectly valid interpretation and how most people move on with the story once the choice has been made. But you're treating it like it's infallible, like it's true for every Shepard, and that's simply not the case.

This is the Paragon Control speech for Shepard:

"Eternal. Infinite. Immortal. The man I was used these words, but only now do I truly understand them. And only now do I understand the full extent of his/her sacrifice. Through his death, I was created. Through my birth, his thoughts were freed. They guide me now; give me reason, direction. Just as he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped him achieve his purpose; now my purpose. To give the many hope for a future; to ensure that all have a voice in their future. The man I was knew that he could only achieve this by becoming something greater. There is power in control. There is wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy. I will rebuild what the many have lost; I will create a future with limitless possibilities; I will protect, and sustain; I will act as guardian for the many. And throughout it all, I will never forget; I will remember the ones who sacrificed themselves so that the many could survive. And I will watch over the ones who live on; those who carry the memory of the man I once was, the man who gave up his life to become the one who could save the many."

And this is the Renegade Control speech.

"Eternal. Infinite. Immortal. The man I was used these words, but only now do I truly understand them. And only now do I comprehend the full potential of his decision. Through his death, I was created. Through my birth, his thoughts were freed. They guide me now; give me reason, direction. Just as he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped him achieve his purpose; now my purpose. To provide the many with a powerful leader; to put an end to the bickering of the many; to ensure the strongest are not feared or reviled for their strength. The man I was knew that he/she could only achieve this by becoming something greater. There is power in control. There is wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy. I will restore what the many have fought for; I will lead an army that none will dare oppose; I will protect, defend; I will destroy those who threaten the future of the many. And throughout it all, I will never forget; I will remember the ones who sacrificed themselves so that the many could survive. And I will keep a watchful eye over the ones who live on; those who carry the memory of the man I once was, the man who fought to become the one who could lead the many."

You can see a clear difference between the two. MAYBE I could see your argument and assumptions applying to Renegade Shepard. But Paragon Shepard? Who explicitly says he's going to keep his comrade's sacrifices in mind? That he's not going to suppress or dominate, but REBUILD, and PROTECT, and SUSTAIN? To watch over, and not destroy? No, I don't see that oddly specific scenario you outlined happening. Sorry.

Modifié par Warlock Adam, 24 février 2013 - 11:18 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Warlock Adam wrote...

Please don't presume that my Paragon Shepard, who never stopped sacrificing for others and united every organic race, would become a monster.

Actually, we know something else. We know that in the future a man is telling a child a story about the heroic figure known as "the Shepard," and the peaceful galaxy that he left behind. Doesn't sound like he became a dictator to me.

That´s sound actually like your Shepard´ve ignored those poor synthetics...

As much second paragraph, story - last minutes of Shepard tale is unwkown to everyone aside from Shepard and Catalyst so whatever happened none knew truth, so it could be also stupid fairy-tale told by Stargazer to the children because he either didn´t knew the right answer or the right answer suck.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 24 février 2013 - 11:21 .

[Warlock Adam]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Warlock Adam wrote...

Please don't presume that my Paragon Shepard, who never stopped sacrificing for others and united every organic race, would become a monster.

That´s sound actually like your Shepard´ve ignored those poor synthetics...

Accidental word choice. That includes synthetic races, which is one of the major reasons I didn't choose Destroy. I made peace between the Geth and Quarians and united Joker and EDI; no way I was going to throw them under the bus.

[nrobbiec]

I think high EMS EC destroy ending is perfectly fine, I'd like a reunion and stuff like everyone else but I'm too attached to my headcanon so want Bioware to stay away from the endings

[Rip504]

Pointless. Thread is pointless.

[McFlurry598]

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...
]Shepard says he will help rebuild that the many have lost. He says he will defend the entire galaxy. He helps rebuild the mass relays. I don't know where you came up with him enslaving the galaxy. That wasn't even thought, better yet mentioned, in the ending 

Oh the many.

Who are the many?  To be a 'Many' there must be a 'Few' otherwise they'd be called the 'All.'

Shepard in Control goes on a lot about the Many, protecting them, rebuilding for them - but what about the Few?  Where do they come in?  Are the Few excluded from this protection and new life under our dear and fluffy Lord Shepard?  You cannot assume that the Few are the bad apples, what if they oppose the Reapers for the 'they murdered our children and blew up our home planet' reasons?  

The new Shep-Catalyst makes it very clear that he'll protect the many, I'm just not comfortable with the notion of doing it at the expense of the few.

I think you misinterpreted the term 'many'. I think he means, since not ALL lost something, many people did; and he will help those many who have lost something. He will still defend EVERYONE.

Modifié par McFlurry598, 24 février 2013 - 11:21 .

[Obadiah]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@McFlurry598
I too usually pick Control for just this reason.

Also, you many have noticed there is not much of a "discussion" to be had with people that think your choice is SO VERY WRONG.

this argument goes in both directions.

Not really. Take your posts in this thread. You're basically saying that no matter Shep's intentions, he created a Totalitarian regime. Or from the first page, Hexley UK's assertion of enslavement. What's that exchange of ideas supposed to be? "Yes yes yes you did", "No no no I didn't"? K.

Modifié par Obadiah, 24 février 2013 - 11:23 .

[Warlock Adam]

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...
]Shepard says he will help rebuild that the many have lost. He says he will defend the entire galaxy. He helps rebuild the mass relays. I don't know where you came up with him enslaving the galaxy. That wasn't even thought, better yet mentioned, in the ending 

Oh the many.

Who are the many?  To be a 'Many' there must be a 'Few' otherwise they'd be called the 'All.'

Shepard in Control goes on a lot about the Many, protecting them, rebuilding for them - but what about the Few?  Where do they come in?  Are the Few excluded from this protection and new life under our dear and fluffy Lord Shepard?  You cannot assume that the Few are the bad apples, what if they oppose the Reapers for the 'they murdered our children and blew up our home planet' reasons?  

The new Shep-Catalyst makes it very clear that he'll protect the many, I'm just not comfortable with the notion of doing it at the expense of the few.

Are you kidding? You're saying that Shepard's going to lose it because he specifically says "the many?"

It's word choice. Nothing more, nothing less. "The all" sounds too corny, so the writers chose "the many."

If you want to interpret it in those terms, then let's look at Refuse. Shepard sacrifices everyone in the galaxy for his own ideals. That's not trading off the (non-existent) "few" for "the many," that's trading off the "all" for the "one." Which is, logically, a far worse trade.

Keep in mind I have no problem with Refuse, as I see and respect the reasoning behind each ending. But your logic and assumptions are flawed.

[Soul Tumor]

The only thing that bothered me about the ending is that we didn't get a reunion in destroy. I felt a little ripped off. Came to terms with it though. I did like paragon control though. Brought tears to my eyes. My girlfriend cried too and she hates the series.