190 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

What are the odds that some previous cycle got as far as Shepard did and chose Control, that the current Starbrat isn't the original one?

[Jenonax]

McFlurry598 wrote...


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.

"To give the many hope for the future,"

"I will rebuild what the Many have lost"

"I will act as Guardian for the Many"

This are direct quotes from Paragon Shep Catalyst.  He absolutely does not say he will protect everyone.  He says he will protect and guard the many.  

So what about the Few?  Presumably Shepard won't protect the ones who oppose him.  I mean, who could possibly want to oppose the Reapers seeing as no one knows theres been a change in management and they are still the same death machines that, I repeat, murdered their children and burned their home planets.

I don't think I misinterpreted anything.

Modifié par Jenonax, 24 février 2013 - 11:30 .

[Crypticqa]

I pick control almost on all my characters except renegade.
The worst people are those who pick destroy just so their Shepard can live. Seems little selfish to me.
Of course, I have nothing against people who pick destroy for other reasons.

[nrobbiec]

Crypticqa wrote...
The worst people are those who pick destroy just so their Shepard can live. Seems little selfish to me.

Damn right, I cried when Kaidan put Shepard's name on the memorial wall. Never again. He lives.

Modifié par nrobbiec, 24 février 2013 - 11:32 .

[Rip504]

What Happens if the Reapers run into a glitch that resets them to a time frame before this cycle?

[Mathias]

For Control i only got one thing to say.

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 24 février 2013 - 11:32 .

[McFlurry598]

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...


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.

"To give the many hope for the future,"

"I will rebuild what the Many have lost"

"I will act as Guardian for the Many"

This are direct quotes from Paragon Shep Catalyst.  He absolutely does not say he will protect everyone.  He says he will protect and guard the many.  

So what about the Few?  Presumably Shepard won't protect the ones who oppose him.  I mean, who could possibly want to oppose the Reapers seeing as no one knows theres been a change in management and they are still the same death machines that, I repeat, murdered their children and burned their home planets.

I don't think I misinterpreted anything.

Read Warlock Adams quote on your post on page 4, second to last, i think that pretty much sums it up

[Dr_Extrem]

Warlock Adam wrote...

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.

you are missing a critical point - this is not about paragon or renegade shepard it is not even about the ai that was build using certain parts of shepards personality.

this is about he peoples perception of the reapers. what do we know about reapers? cunning and deadly machine-entities, that are ruthless in the execution of ther plans.

they kill, build death camps, indoctrinate, turn our own against us - they are generally not great guys to have around. this perception does not change. people will still see them as evil monsters, who killed their families and enslaved the galaxy. people have an established view on the reapers, solidified by months of horror and war.
they dont even know, that shepard is now controling them .. and if they would, they would most likely think: "why the hell are they still around and not flying into the next sun?"


my evaluation of the situation is based on what people know about the reapers, what reapers did the last year and that shep-ai did not indoctrinate every being in the galaxy to suddenly like the reapers.

your on the other hand is based on the assumption, that the shep-ai (that is not your shepard), will not follow its mandate to protect civilisation at all cost (what the original catalyst was basically ordered to do as well).


that is the main problem with the endings. i can interpret them, using a very solid basement. the endings are too open to interpretation.



btw .. i only play paragon shepards - my view on the meu is a paragons view as well.

this post was not made to ****** on your leg - your view is as valid as my evaluation but it shows the weakness of the endings design.

[Crypticqa]

nrobbiec wrote...

Crypticqa wrote...
The worst people are those who pick destroy just so their Shepard can live. Seems little selfish to me.

Damn right, I cried when Kaidan put Shepard's name on the memorial wall. Never again. He lives.

But...think about all the little geth babies  

[Dr_Extrem]

Obadiah wrote...

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.

watch my last post .. i was making an experiment to show the weakness of an "too open ended" ending ... and imo, it worked.


btw .. please look at the posts of several users on this forum - i will not do name calling here but they are very clear when it comes to their "opinion" on people who choose destroy.

a lot of godwin points were already given.

[Jenonax]

Warlock Adam wrote...

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.

Im certainly not kidding, I assure you.

Its a very strange word choice if that's what the problem is.  If he means everyone say everyone, he doesn't.  He divides people, into the Many and into the Few.  Why not say 'I'll protect everyone' or 'I'll protect everything Shepard fought to save.'

I'm analysing what I'm given.  They may well have not meant to say it that way.  But they did.  To say Many is to indicate the presence of the Few and I'm questionning (and am uncomfortable by) the notion of why Paragon Shepard who always stood up for the opressed, the unseen - the Few is suddenly excluding them.  I want to know who they are. 

Oh don't get my banner wrong.  I don't pick Refuse. I just like Shepard's speech and giving the Catalyst the middle finger.

[Jenonax]

McFlurry598 wrote...

Read Warlock Adams quote on your post on page 4, second to last, i think that pretty much sums it up

I did and I replied.

Im not interested in a pissing contest over this.  I just like debating stuff.  I have an interpretation of Control and you have yours.  I'm not trying to be fasicous or change your point of view I just like talking about it.

[Warlock Adam]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

you are missing a critical point - this is not about paragon or renegade shepard it is not even about the ai that was build using certain parts of shepards personality.

this is about he peoples perception of the reapers. what do we know about reapers? cunning and deadly machine-entities, that are ruthless in the execution of ther plans.

they kill, build death camps, indoctrinate, turn our own against us - they are generally not great guys to have around. this perception does not change. people will still see them as evil monsters, who killed their families and enslaved the galaxy. people have an established view on the reapers, solidified by months of horror and war.
they dont even know, that shepard is now controling them .. and if they would, they would most likely think: "why the hell are they still around and not flying into the next sun?"


my evaluation of the situation is based on what people know about the reapers, what reapers did the last year and that shep-ai did not indoctrinate every being in the galaxy to suddenly like the reapers.

your on the other hand is based on the assumption, that the shep-ai (that is not your shepard), will not follow its mandate to protect civilisation at all cost (what the original catalyst was basically ordered to do as well).


that is the main problem with the endings. i can interpret them, using a very solid basement. the endings are too open to interpretation.



btw .. i only play paragon shepards - my view on the meu is a paragons view as well.

this post was not made to ****** on your leg - your view is as valid as my evaluation but it shows the weakness of the endings design.

I'm kinda losing track of what you're saying. But the Shepard AI IS my Shepard--that's the whole point. It was based on his thoughts, his morals, his ideals. His original purpose--protecting the galaxy, as a human and a hero--is still the same, which he says verbatim. "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."

I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's some "mandate" built in there, to follow the original Catalyst's programming. The Catalyst even says, "We will be yours to control and direct as you see fit." Shepard is COMPLETELY REPLACING it.

And if the scenario you're outlining were to happen, and people were to rebel, my Shepard would send the Reapers into another galaxy or into a black hole rather than repeat the cycles over. He's here to rebuild the Mass Relays and the civilizations, and protect them from the Leviathans, and THAT's IT.

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like you're manufacturing a danger that isn't there for many Shepards. Irregardless, we should probably agree to disagree and move on. 

Modifié par Warlock Adam, 24 février 2013 - 11:43 .

[nrobbiec]

Crypticqa wrote...

nrobbiec wrote...

Crypticqa wrote...
The worst people are those who pick destroy just so their Shepard can live. Seems little selfish to me.

Damn right, I cried when Kaidan put Shepard's name on the memorial wall. Never again. He lives.

But...think about all the little geth babies  

I have ways of headcanoning/technobabbling the Geth into survivng destroy. The Catalyst is known for being wrong.

[McFlurry598]

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

Read Warlock Adams quote on your post on page 4, second to last, i think that pretty much sums it up

I did and I replied.

Im not interested in a pissing contest over this.  I just like debating stuff.  I have an interpretation of Control and you have yours.  I'm not trying to be fasicous or change your point of view I just like talking about it.

As do I, nice to see someone civil on  BSN

[Warlock Adam]

Jenonax wrote...

Im certainly not kidding, I assure you.

Its a very strange word choice if that's what the problem is.  If he means everyone say everyone, he doesn't.  He divides people, into the Many and into the Few.  Why not say 'I'll protect everyone' or 'I'll protect everything Shepard fought to save.'

I'm analysing what I'm given.  They may well have not meant to say it that way.  But they did.  To say Many is to indicate the presence of the Few and I'm questionning (and am uncomfortable by) the notion of why Paragon Shepard who always stood up for the opressed, the unseen - the Few is suddenly excluding them.  I want to know who they are. 

Oh don't get my banner wrong.  I don't pick Refuse. I just like Shepard's speech and giving the Catalyst the middle finger.

*sigh*

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with that kind of argument. If I were fighting a war, and said, "let's evacuate the people in this village," the reponse wouldn't be "well, you didn't mention those OTHER people so you must be excluding them."

That type of logic--if you don't explicitly state that you're for it, you must be against it--is inherently flawed, simply because it's impossible to bring up every conceivable issue in any kind of statement, discussion, or argument. Shepard isn't excluding anyone from his protection, except maybe the Leviathans--Paragon Shepard is hostile towards NO ONE in his speech. I'm sorry, but I think you're only seeing what you wish to see.

I don't see myself changing your mind and we're kinda moving off topic, so we should probably just drop it there.

Modifié par Warlock Adam, 24 février 2013 - 11:49 .

[Jenonax]

McFlurry598 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I did and I replied.

Im not interested in a pissing contest over this.  I just like debating stuff.  I have an interpretation of Control and you have yours.  I'm not trying to be fasicous or change your point of view I just like talking about it.

As do I, nice to see someone civil on  BSN

Why thank you, I do try.  Though I've blown up in the past on here.  The problem is the ending deal with such terrible atrocities its impossible to not have an emotional reaction to it.

My standpoint is that all three have horrible, horrible consequences and its a matter of pick your poison in a flavour that seems less evil to you.  But thats just me.  I'm glad people have different opinions.  It would be very very boring around here if we didn't.

[Reorte]

Warlock Adam wrote...

I'm kinda losing track of what you're saying. But the Shepard AI IS my Shepard--that's the whole point. It was based on his thoughts, his morals, his ideals.

You hope that he is. You have no way of knowing that he is.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's some "mandate" built in there, to follow the original Catalyst's programming. The Catalyst even says, "We will be yours to control and direct as you see fit." Shepard is COMPLETELY REPLACING it.

Does that seem likely to happen?

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like you're manufacturing a danger that isn't there for many Shepards. Irregardless, we should probably agree to disagree and move on.

The danger is there, there's not enough information to rule it out and the most likely explanations of what happened (i.e. is it likely that the Catalyst would just step aside and let Shepard take over, that there's a rather crude-looking destructive process that can scan Shepard accurately enough to reproduce him, and that the Catalyst's hardware can accurately simulate a human being when it most likely wasn't ever designed to do any such thing?)  should leave anyone worried that it might go wrong. We don't know that it will for certain but don't pretend that it isn't a possibility.

[iSousek]

Why are you assuming that an Enlightened Dictator will remain just and enlightened forever? Will he be enlightened in all of the specific instances?

Much like with any supposed enlightened dictator in human history, you can't forsee how are they going to react to future events. Assuming that you can when it comes to Shepard is foolish in my opinion.

[Crypticqa]

nrobbiec wrote...

I have ways of headcanoning/technobabbling the Geth into survivng destroy. The Catalyst is known for being wrong.

Fair enough.  

[Random Geth]

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.

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.

Well, Shep choosing control also chooses to ignore how every single person who has ever tried to control the Reapers -- without exception -- has fallen victim to their way of thinking, and Shep is an exception for reasons unknown.  But hey, I'm sure for no reason at all, Shep's mind will be unaffected when uploaded to the Reaper hivemind, right?

[Obadiah]

Did Shep "ignore" it, or was that perhaps part of the consideration of what option to pick you think?

[Kel Riever]

*Sigh*

The game has an atrocious ending because basically the ending choices are basically all the same, and all of them ignore information provided to you in the same game itself that happened no longer than 10 minutes before the ending(s)

So, a false sense of choice fails long before story failure and autodialogue.

I guess people are so used to having no choice that matters that they start arguing about control vs synthesis or destroy. Since the game failed long before you chose, I find it nothing short of cathartic that people continue to argue over the fake choice that they made. When the producers of Mass Effect 3 completely forgot not only what kind of product they were making, but didn't bother to read their own story in the name of some misguided attempt at emo one-up nonsense to the world of 'art', it shouldn't be a surprise why people have to continue to struggle to make sense of a product that is a failure in making sense.

[Jenonax]

Warlock Adam wrote...

*sigh*

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with that kind of argument. If I were fighting a war, and said, "let's evacuate the people in this village," the reponse wouldn't be "well, you didn't mention those OTHER people so you must be excluding them."

That type of logic--if you don't explicitly state that you're for it, you must be against it--is inherently flawed, simply because it's impossible to bring up every conceivable issue in any kind of statement, discussion, or argument. Shepard isn't excluding anyone from his protection, except maybe the Leviathans--Paragon Shepard is hostile towards NO ONE in his speech. I'm sorry, but I think you're only seeing what you wish to see.

I don't see myself changing your mind and we're kinda moving off topic, so we should probably just drop it there.

Please don't sigh, I'm not a simpleton.

My reasoning comes from my stance on Control and the overwhelming feeling I get that the Reapers should be gone and its not possible to control them.  This is just my opinion and my interpretation.

My logic is that Shepard says 'Many.' That is the exact word that he says.  Many.  Meaning the majority but not all.  I just want to know what happens to the Few.  

I don't for a minute think that people would accept the Reapers in Control.  I think that most of the Galaxy would want them gone for what they've done.  They weren't in the Catalyst chamber, they don't know the inherent problem.  Never do we trust the Galaxy with this information.  People don't know we've given control over to Shepard.  As soon as the Reaper's stop one would think the first plan of action would be to kill them immediately before they had a chance to start up again.  

So I merely muse that that the new Catalyst in his quest to protect and guard the Galaxy may take this assault on his new thralls/slaves/buddies as a bit of an affront.  As conflict.  He doesn't want conflict.  His whole mission is to stop conflict.  

I just want to know what happens to the people who create conflict under this new galactic dictatorship.

[Warlock Adam]

Reorte wrote...

Warlock Adam wrote...

I'm kinda losing track of what you're saying. But the Shepard AI IS my Shepard--that's the whole point. It was based on his thoughts, his morals, his ideals.

You hope that he is. You have no way of knowing that he is.

HE SAYS THAT HE IS.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's some "mandate" built in there, to follow the original Catalyst's programming. The Catalyst even says, "We will be yours to control and direct as you see fit." Shepard is COMPLETELY REPLACING it.

Does that seem likely to happen?

Considering it's EXPLICITLY STATED, I would say so. There's nothing ambiguous about it.

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like you're manufacturing a danger that isn't there for many Shepards. Irregardless, we should probably agree to disagree and move on.

The danger is there, there's not enough information to rule it out and the most likely explanations of what happened (i.e. is it likely that the Catalyst would just step aside and let Shepard take over, that there's a rather crude-looking destructive process that can scan Shepard accurately enough to reproduce him, and that the Catalyst's hardware can accurately simulate a human being when it most likely wasn't ever designed to do any such thing?)  should leave anyone worried that it might go wrong. We don't know that it will for certain but don't pretend that it isn't a possibility.

The Catalyst says, and I quote, "I would not enjoy being replaced by you...but I would be forced to accept it." So yes, stepping aside is exactly what he's doing. He vanishes before our eyes. There's no crude destructive process, there's no "accurate simulation" of a human being or flawed design to worry about as long as you have enough War Assets.

I am pretending nothing. The Catalyst says exactly what will happen: "Your corporeal form will be dissolved, but your thoughts, and even your memories, will continue. Your connection to your kind [his mortality] will be lost, though you will be aware of their existence [he will retain his empathy]."

And we know exactly where the technology came from: the Illusive Man. And he proved it could work on Sanctuary, despite his horrific methods, and the myriad of Shepards who weren't indoctrinated and chose Control proved it could work.