223 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonShepard]

@3DandBeyond:

          Okay, first off, those last few paragraphs were a well written piece. In fact, from a dramatic point of view, I quite like the idea of setting a couple of stories in that universe. I doubt we'll see a game though (but on the other hand, if you can't pick the best ending because nobody agrees on it, why not pick the worst one? It worked for Nier, being a worst case scenario sequel to Drakenguard).

          However, onto specifics, and why I disagree with your painted police-state future being the inevitable ending to Control (it certainly didn't happen in my  Post-Control Mass Effect Universe...)

In Control what was Shepard no longer exists and the idea that the kid is being honest about Shepard controlling things is a bridge too far for me.  The ominous vibe of it all as well as the "I'm not myself and not alone" voice of Shepard is enough to indicate things will not go well in reaperville.

          First off, if you're not going to trust what the kid says about Control, why are you trusting him about Destroy? How do you know shooting that tube wouldn't blow up the Crucible? We have no choice but to trust the Catalyst, unless you're going to pick refuse. Furthermore, if the Catalyst wanted to trick Shepard, then (A)'Why?' and (B)"Why not just send a couple of Marauders to abduct him while he's lying unconscious next to Anderson and TIM? Stick him inside Harbinger for a week or so, and he'll do whatever you want..."
          "I'm not myself and I'm not alone" never gets said in the Control Epilogue. "I am alive and I'm not alone" is the closest I can find, but that's EDI in Synthesis. The ominous vibe - well yeah, we are talking about controlling and utilising Reapers, so it's not exactly sunshine, roses and rainbows. Doesn't mean that things will definitely go badly though.

Of course, I've stated before that it's something I don't think a rational Shepard would do because it forces people to live with people sucking monsters as a part of their reality.

          I agree with the psychological stuff in the rest of this paragraph - people really would not like to see Reapers hanging around and helping them out. BUT Control does not necessarily force the galaxy to live with the Reapers. That's down to the individual Shepard. You can argue the EC epilogue indicates it - I'd agree. That is metagaming though (and it's the thing I most dislike about the EC). But I would argue that there's still a fair bit of leeway in what's said and seen in that epilogue. Look at it from the point of view of a Shep-AI that intends to just take the Reapers and leave: While repairing the mass relays, he/she sees a galaxy in mourning, a galaxy struggling to repair. He/she would want to offer help before leaving. Whether or not this help gets accepted is a separate question (I'm guessing not) but I can see someone in that mindset saying the things said in the Paragon-Control ending.

It's also the case that the Shepard I played would never want that kind of power-she just argued with TIM regarding the wrongheadedness of just such a thing.  No one should have that kind of power.

          I agree. But I place the survival of the Geth, EDI, and any other synthetics out there above that concern. If the Shep-AI intends to help the galaxy rebuild - even if just the relays - and then dismantle the Reaper fleet/leave the galaxy/guard the galaxy from the outside against external threats, then my concern is somewhat alleviated.

          The rest of your post paints a grim dystopia of a galaxy under the heel of amoral Reapers. As I said at the start of this post - as an author, I like it, but I don't view it as a foregone conclusion. Is it a possible outcome from Control? Yes - particularly Renegade Control. But at the end of the day, picking Control comes down to how much you trust your Shepard - or how much Shepard trusts him/herself.


          One final point - I view the ending of Mass Effect as an invitation. An invitation to decide for yourself what comes next. In a game about crafting your own version of the central character and of the universe surrounding him/her, I like that in an ending. Your own post-ending headcanon is just as valid as anyone else's.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 27 mars 2013 - 07:13 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Obadiah wrote...

@Applepie_SVK
It's selfish to bring about galactic peace and ensure that all have a say in their future? Ok then.

"A path to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Obadiah]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@Applepie_SVK
It's selfish to bring about galactic peace and ensure that all have a say in their future? Ok then.

"A path to hell is paved with good intentions."

So is the path to peace and enlightenment. What's your point?

[Applepie_Svk]

Obadiah wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@Applepie_SVK
It's selfish to bring about galactic peace and ensure that all have a say in their future? Ok then.

"A path to hell is paved with good intentions."

So is the path to peace and enlightenment. What's your point?

Path of being a dictator, if you like it or not Shepard by control choose his 1984 "big brother" desire, which was just 5 minutes ago against Shepard´s opinion... while as a paragon you would be more like a benevolent fat police officer as a Renegade you will be pretty much space Stalin, if we are taking a premise that Shepalyst has the same way of thinking like Shepard and execution unlimited as a Catalyst does .

[Ieldra]

robertthebard wrote...
Mission accomplished, and the galaxy's fate is it's own to decide, instead of me deciding at some undisclosed time in the future that my will is more important than free will.  This means, in complete context, that some civilization, at some point may even be wiped out by synthetics that they create.  Again, however, it is free will.

As is free will that Control!Shepard may guide the galaxy towards a bright future with a light hand. Also, setting autonomy as an absolute value is misguided. There isn't a dichotomy of "free will" vs "no free will", and whichever freedom you have is protected - and limited - by an instance more powerful than you. Whether you have a hand in its setup has no bearing on any merits and flaws of its rule.  

You rally on the cry of being free to choose what you like, but balk at the fact that that choice may have consequences, and instead of accepting potential consequences

I don't refuse to accept consequences. I refuse to grant people with an anti-X (insert any ending) agenda any say about the validity of any outcome as a potential consequence of X. For the same reason, you won't hear me participating in debates about the possible long-term consequences of Destroy....well....actually, I recall posting a good scenario about that as well a year ago. I'm not measuring with different scales here.
My post-Control and post-Synthesis scenarios aren't perfect, not by any measure, but the story tells me that all endings are meant to be good endings, on the whole, with the possible exception of Renegade Control, and I consider claims to the contrary that attempt to be more than headcanon illegitimate. 

Historically speaking, everything that I stated could happen can happen.  Because, in the history of the galaxy that we are presented with, it has happened.  It's not a statistical impossibility, in fact, it's likely to happen because the Reapers still exist, and they are still controlled by an AI.  The question really isn't if, but when.

Not at all. That it has happened once doesn't mean it will happen again. That's the whole point of choosing Control, and the epilogue tells you this explicitly. How come you deny the consequences of the fact that Shepard's thoughts and memories are now guiding the galaxy, but reduce it scenario to "still controlled by an AI"? How can it be that you simply ignore this in order to promote your galaxy-wide oppression scenario? Also, the post-Control state of things is not for a literal eternity, and it can end in many different ways.

However, to dismiss human nature out of hand because it's not in your head canon makes it seem more like you should be discussing Synthesis.  After all, then everyone is a hybrid, and the human condition really no longer exists, does it?

The Control entity doesn't have a built-in incentive to compete with others of its kind for power, money and mates. Therefor, the "power corrupts" argument has not necessarily any bearing on the scenario. Also, regarding Synthesis, people are still people (read my Synthesis thread), Synthesis may pave the way to transcending the human condition, but in itself, it does not do more to organics than giving them the means to keep up with synthetics. 

All that ShepAI controls is the Reapers.  The rest of the galaxy is free to feel however they want about the Reapers still existing, and frankly, looking at my galaxy map prior to going to London, there's going to be some unhappy people scattered around the galaxy.

I'm not denying that. As I said, my post-Control scenarios aren't perfect. I'm denying that the scenario "Control!Shepard restarts the cycle" is legitimate, and I'm denying that "Control!Shepards starts an oppressive regime" is more than headcanon Destroyers are trying to impose on those who choose Control, in any scenario where it was chosen by a mostly Paragon Shepard. There are of course risks of catastrophic outcomes in any ending, but against any such outcome for ending X, I can set a similarly catastrophic one for ending Y and Z.

As I see it, for any ending, the only really valid interpretations are those created by people who choose it, or at least see some merit in it. You think that would result in all "unicorns and rainbows" scenarios? In that case, just look at the various interpretations. Most of us want *interesting* futures, and perfect futures aren't interesting. As I've repeated often, in my post-Synthesis future there will be new horrors along with the new wonders. Aurora313 has created a post-Synthesis future I wouldn't want to to live in, jtav a post-Control scenario where Control!Shepard selectively indoctrinates people. The difference is: those scenarios aren't made from enmity, and therefore I accept them as valid. They never claim to be more than personal scenarios, never claim to be "objective", but they're created in order to facilitate storytelling. Interpretations made from enmity that claim to be more than headcanon, yes, I feel justified to dismiss them because they are made from enmity. If you want to justify your choice, do it by promoting its merits, and not by denying the merits of others.

Or, even more to the point: tell us why your Shepard doesn't choose X, instead of telling others why their Shepard shouldn't choose X. "My Shepard wouldn't trust himself with that much power" is a completely valid justification. "Your Shepard shouldn't trust herself with that much power" isn't.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 mars 2013 - 06:48 .

[wright1978]

Personally i find control completely unappealing. Renegade version is a police state, while paragon version strikes me as just as good but in a paragon manner. Very much reminds me of the River Tam quote

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome"

If others like it fair enough.

[robertthebard]

Ieldra2 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Mission accomplished, and the galaxy's fate is it's own to decide, instead of me deciding at some undisclosed time in the future that my will is more important than free will.  This means, in complete context, that some civilization, at some point may even be wiped out by synthetics that they create.  Again, however, it is free will.

As is free will that Control!Shepard may guide the galaxy towards a bright future with a light hand. Also, setting autonomy as an absolute value is misguided. There isn't a dichotomy of "free will" vs "no free will", and whichever freedom you have is protected - and limited - by an instance more powerful than you. Whether you have a hand in its setup has no bearing on any merits and flaws of its rule.  

You rally on the cry of being free to choose what you like, but balk at the fact that that choice may have consequences, and instead of accepting potential consequences

I don't refuse to accept consequences. I refuse to grant people with an anti-X (insert any ending) agenda any say about the validity of any outcome as a potential consequence of X. For the same reason, you won't hear me participating in debates about the possible long-term consequences of Destroy....well....actually, I recall posting a good scenario about that as well a year ago. I'm not measuring with different scales here.
My post-Control and post-Synthesis scenarios aren't perfect, not by any measure, but the story tells me that all endings are meant to be good endings, on the whole, with the possible exception of Renegade Control, and I consider claims to the contrary that attempt to be more than headcanon illegitimate. 

Historically speaking, everything that I stated could happen can happen.  Because, in the history of the galaxy that we are presented with, it has happened.  It's not a statistical impossibility, in fact, it's likely to happen because the Reapers still exist, and they are still controlled by an AI.  The question really isn't if, but when.

Not at all. That it has happened once doesn't mean it will happen again. That's the whole point of choosing Control, and the epilogue tells you this explicitly. How come you deny the consequences of the fact that Shepard's thoughts and memories are now guiding the galaxy, but reduce it scenario to "still controlled by an AI"? How can it be that you simply ignore this in order to promote your galaxy-wide oppression scenario? Also, the post-Control state of things is not for a literal eternity, and it can end in many different ways.

However, to dismiss human nature out of hand because it's not in your head canon makes it seem more like you should be discussing Synthesis.  After all, then everyone is a hybrid, and the human condition really no longer exists, does it?

The Control entity doesn't have a built-in incentive to compete with others of its kind for power, money and mates. Therefor, the "power corrupts" argument has not necessarily any bearing on the scenario. Also, regarding Synthesis, people are still people (read my Synthesis thread), Synthesis may pave the way to transcending the human condition, but in itself, it does not do more to organics than giving them the means to keep up with synthetics. 

All that ShepAI controls is the Reapers.  The rest of the galaxy is free to feel however they want about the Reapers still existing, and frankly, looking at my galaxy map prior to going to London, there's going to be some unhappy people scattered around the galaxy.

I'm not denying that. As I said, my post-Control scenarios aren't perfect. I'm denying that the scenario "Control!Shepard restarts the cycle" is legitimate, and I'm denying that "Control!Shepards starts an oppressive regime" is more than headcanon Destroyers are trying to impose on those who choose Control, in any scenario where it was chosen by a mostly Paragon Shepard. There are of course risks of catastrophic outcomes in any ending, but against any such outcome for ending X, I can set a similarly catastrophic one for ending Y and Z.

As I see it, for any ending, the only really valid interpretations are those created by people who choose it, or at least see some merit in it. You think that would result in all "unicorns and rainbows" scenarios? In that case, just look at the various interpretations. Most of us want *interesting* futures, and perfect futures aren't interesting. As I've repeated often, in my post-Synthesis future there will be new horrors along with the new wonders. Aurora313 has created a post-Synthesis future I wouldn't want to to live in, jtav a post-Control scenario where Control!Shepard selectively indoctrinates people. The difference is: those scenarios aren't made from enmity, and therefore I accept them as valid. They never claim to be more than personal scenarios, never claim to be "objective", but they're created in order to facilitate storytelling. Interpretations made from enmity that claim to be more than headcanon, yes, I feel justified to dismiss them because they are made from enmity. If you want to justify your choice, do it by promoting its merits, and not by denying the merits of others.

Or, even more to the point: tell us why your Shepard doesn't choose X, instead of telling others why their Shepard shouldn't choose X. "My Shepard wouldn't trust himself with that much power" is a completely valid justification. "Your Shepard shouldn't trust herself with that much power" isn't.

More than 85% of my Shepards die in London, because there are no good choices.  The ones that didn't chose Destroy, because that is the ending that does what I set out to do with 100% certainty, it stops the Reapers.  You can see that dying in London is my ending of choice by simply reading my sig.  However, the in context with this post, the topic title is Control is the ONLY ending.  I am currently running my Canon Shepard through ME 2, and the intent is to die in London.  To me, that is the ONLY ending.  It avoids the DeM of surviving being nuked by Harbinger, and it sticks to the theme that my Shepard has had since she learned of the Reapers:  I'm going to stop them, or die trying.  Control doesn't stop them, it stops the harvests, for now, but they are still there.  Synthesis is the same.  Refusal is of course Game Over, and Destroy makes sure that they are never a threat to anyone again.

Pick your poison, it's all the same to me.  My contention is with, as you put it, the Butterflies and Rainbows scenarios that people try to paint it to be.  ShepAI is self aware, that much is evident from the Control ending.  Being self aware, it will have a self preservation, and instinct is probably the right word here, considering how it was made, and since it does, it will respond to acts of aggression accordingly, or else how is it really going to protect anyone.  Again, this is not taken from anyone's head canon, nor is it my own.  In my finished games, all 3 of them, out of at least 12 games, and those only because I wanted to replay that particular Shepard, there are no Reapers, there is no Shepard AI, and EC notwithstanding, Shepard is very likely dead anyway.  I don't have to worry about how your world turns out, it's a SP game.  I am not a Pro X Ending for any of them, unless, of course, they would agree to add a Legend save at the beam in London.  So I'm not going on and on about "your ending sucks", because quite frankly, all four choices suck.  None of them are better, or worse, than the others.  Hence, when you asked about Galactic Dark Age, I not only agreed that it was possible, but likely.  However, reading these threads, every single one of them tries to point at the flavor of the week and say it's all butterflies and rainbows, and that's what gets me posting.  They aren't...

[valkulon]

 Your mom and dad is the only ending! NOW WHAT? 

Modifié par Valhart, 27 mars 2013 - 07:58 .

[Obadiah]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@Applepie_SVK
It's selfish to bring about galactic peace and ensure that all have a say in their future? Ok then.

"A path to hell is paved with good intentions."

So is the path to peace and enlightenment. What's your point?

Path of being a dictator, if you like it or not Shepard by control choose his 1984 "big brother" desire, which was just 5 minutes ago against Shepard´s opinion... while as a paragon you would be more like a benevolent fat police officer as a Renegade you will be pretty much space Stalin, if we are taking a premise that Shepalyst has the same way of thinking like Shepard and execution unlimited as a Catalyst does .

Yeah, maybe yours did, but my Control Shep AI doesn't create a 1984. Enjoy your ending.

[Obadiah]

@RobertTheBard
The OP post in this thread is anti-Control and anti-ending. It's not pro "butterfies" or anything.

[shodiswe]

I don't think synthetics in general to be the problem.. Except for the few with programming that makes them deal in absolutes.... Like the Catalyst that is programmed to belive in the abo****e of the conflict.
Zealots are dangerous and crazy no matter their beliefs.

The problem is probably intolerance in general. Like the councils forces killing eartly AI's that wanted to petition the council for rights.

Javic's cycle had problems with AI', they to were created with the primary mission to solve their organic masters problems and it was their promary mission and went wrong in the same way the Catalyst went wrong.. The mainprolem is that Organics usualy create AI and synthetics and program them as Tools. Which is probably very inappropriate for a thinking entity. Instead they create Zealots who think they know best because it's almsot their holy reason for existing.

I made a post about it abotu 2 days back I think.

[Jadebaby]

StoneSwords wrote...

@3D: I agree with you, as always.

@Jade: Wow, I know I've been away a while Jade, but I come back and you went over to the Control camp. Crazy world lol. Anyway, for my 2 cents, The reason I still could never pick Control is that Shreaper is just an AI based off Shep's personality, it's not actually Shepard, so using it's AI logic, it might just eventually come to the same conclusion Starkid did. And yes, I'll also reiterate that 5 minutes ago, Shep just got done convincing TIM that he's a delusional D-bag, and needs to go shove his idea of Control where the sun don't shine. So unless you played a Shep that agreed with TIM for the last 2 games, or is just that power hungry, picking control doesn't seem in character for a paragon or renegade Shep either way. Alright everybody, bring the heat, I can take it lol.

But you're missing the most important part...

[shodiswe]

wright1978 wrote...

Personally i find control completely unappealing. Renegade version is a police state, while paragon version strikes me as just as good but in a paragon manner. Very much reminds me of the River Tam quote

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome"

If others like it fair enough.

Shepard doesn't have to be that meddlesome. Tbh, one could compare The Shepard AI to a superpower that's watching over it's interests. In this case preventing mass geocides and similar threats to galactic safety.
It would be similar to the united states, EU, russia or China medling in global affairs. The renegade version is probably far more intrusive than the paragon one however calling itself the obvious leader or something like that.

But policestate, I think not.

[AlanC9]

JasonShepard wrote...

          "I'm not myself and I'm not alone" never gets said in the Control Epilogue. "I am alive and I'm not alone" is the closest I can find, but that's EDI in Synthesis. The ominous vibe - well yeah, we are talking about controlling and utilising Reapers, so it's not exactly sunshine, roses and rainbows. Doesn't mean that things will definitely go badly though.

I guess what 3D meant by that is that the Sheplyst is not precisely Shepard, so you've got a whole bunch of really powerful alien beings running around.

As for ominous vibe... I didn't get that. I thought one of the problems with the EC endings was supposed to be that they're all too happy.

While repairing the mass relays, he/she sees a galaxy in mourning, a galaxy struggling to repair. He/she would want to offer help before leaving. Whether or not this help gets accepted is a separate question (I'm guessing not) but I can see someone in that mindset saying the things said in the Paragon-Control ending.

I imagine that some help couldn't be turned down. A few Reapers pull up to the local relay and start repairing it. Would anyone really fire on them?

[Reorte]

The scary thing about Control are the people who flat out state that it WILL turn out OK with their Shepard, that they have no doubt about the Shepalyst being enough Shepard and that he's completely benign and uncorruptable. All of those are wildly implausible.

[Jadebaby]

not in my playthrough.. My Shepard is infallible.

[xAmilli0n]

Reorte wrote...

The scary thing about Control are the people who flat out state that it WILL turn out OK with their Shepard, that they have no doubt about the Shepalyst being enough Shepard and that he's completely benign and uncorruptable. All of those are wildly implausible.

I'm a controller, and I  prefer the other stance, that Control WILL turn into another war (in the long run).  I find it more interesting.

[Reorte]

xAmilli0n wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The scary thing about Control are the people who flat out state that it WILL turn out OK with their Shepard, that they have no doubt about the Shepalyst being enough Shepard and that he's completely benign and uncorruptable. All of those are wildly implausible.

I'm a controller, and I  prefer the other stance, that Control WILL turn into another war (in the long run).  I find it more interesting.

Fair enough, can't argue with that.

[AlanC9]

shodiswe wrote...

Shepard doesn't have to be that meddlesome. Tbh, one could compare The Shepard AI to a superpower that's watching over it's interests. In this case preventing mass geocides and similar threats to galactic safety.
It would be similar to the united states, EU, russia or China medling in global affairs. The renegade version is probably far more intrusive than the paragon one however calling itself the obvious leader or something like that.

But policestate, I think not.

There are all kinds of SF models for benevolent superior entities. Peter Hamilton's Sentient Intelligence always struck me as a good model for my Sheplyst, though my Shep would be a bit more involved. A little more to the dark side there's Asimov's Daneel Olivaw and the Second Foundation, both of which use something very much like Indoctrination in order to guide human development. The Second Foundation, in particular, seems to have no more regard for free will than B.F. Skinner did.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 mars 2013 - 09:05 .

[xAmilli0n]

Reorte wrote...

xAmilli0n wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The scary thing about Control are the people who flat out state that it WILL turn out OK with their Shepard, that they have no doubt about the Shepalyst being enough Shepard and that he's completely benign and uncorruptable. All of those are wildly implausible.

I'm a controller, and I  prefer the other stance, that Control WILL turn into another war (in the long run).  I find it more interesting.

Fair enough, can't argue with that.

I do realize I am in the minority of minorities here, but just I'd point out one potential position of other Controllers.

[Seival]

Jadebaby wrote...

Yes, that's right.

Through the last year a numerous amount of times I have thought "well if I wanted *that* ending I could pick control" and every time I thought these things I shook it off immediately as utter rubbish. But since BioWare have gracefully stepped down leaving the glorious product that is Mass Effect 3 before us, and 100% completed no less. I have started to think of control again...

Never mind the fact you're just going from Internet Explorer to Mozilla. The ability to save the most amount of lives without compromising anyone's personal being is very, very tempting. Also disregard the fact that you're side-stepping the issue the same as in Destroy, that is you don't actually solve the "problem" that is laid upon you at the 11th hour. But again, you can still watch from afar as EDI and Joker.. Well, eventually end up killing one another because you didn't solve the problem at all.. But like every other ending, head canon comes into play and one can just imagine this scene play out when GodReaperShep strolls on in and tells them to stop their squabbling or he'll start the cycles again. Just like what would happen if the Geth start misbehaving or something of the like....

The only thing that kind of ruined it for me tbh was the Extended Cut, the creepiness of that epilogue can just not be head-canoned away. Thank goodness I didn't get it on WiiU! Am I right?

Control ending is not creepy at all.

Calling Control ending creepy is like calling my avatar and signature creepy... And before you reply to that, let me explain

...Being alien is not always being creepy. Alien things may be beautiful in their own specific way.

[Jadebaby]

Seival wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...

Yes, that's right.

Through the last year a numerous amount of times I have thought "well if I wanted *that* ending I could pick control" and every time I thought these things I shook it off immediately as utter rubbish. But since BioWare have gracefully stepped down leaving the glorious product that is Mass Effect 3 before us, and 100% completed no less. I have started to think of control again...

Never mind the fact you're just going from Internet Explorer to Mozilla. The ability to save the most amount of lives without compromising anyone's personal being is very, very tempting. Also disregard the fact that you're side-stepping the issue the same as in Destroy, that is you don't actually solve the "problem" that is laid upon you at the 11th hour. But again, you can still watch from afar as EDI and Joker.. Well, eventually end up killing one another because you didn't solve the problem at all.. But like every other ending, head canon comes into play and one can just imagine this scene play out when GodReaperShep strolls on in and tells them to stop their squabbling or he'll start the cycles again. Just like what would happen if the Geth start misbehaving or something of the like....

The only thing that kind of ruined it for me tbh was the Extended Cut, the creepiness of that epilogue can just not be head-canoned away. Thank goodness I didn't get it on WiiU! Am I right?

Control ending is not creepy at all.

Calling Control ending creepy is like calling my avatar and signature creepy... And before you reply to that, let me explain

...Being alien is not always being creepy. Alien things may be beautiful in their own specific way.

You're right.... My life is now complete! Your signature and avatar are beautiful, true art!

Modifié par Jadebaby, 27 mars 2013 - 09:09 .

[ghost9191]

wait wait wait....yeah living in fear doesn't compromise someones being... just mean some of the post contradicts itself

and on top of that pretty sure there were 3 other endings. might have played a different game


and on top of that. edi and joker don't kill each other in destroy either. last i checked i took care of that problem when i shot the tube

and on top of that which was on top of the other, if you want that just choose synthesis . every one holds hands. reapers are our friends. 2 million shepards out there because some genius made a crap version of him/her as a vi , sure it is the life they didn't choose but hey it is for their own good...
same can be said bout control . nothing like going on empire on the galaxy . but not to worry... soon some young upstart is gonna fly their trident along the citadel tower and blow shepard the hell up. solving that issue so i suppose it is all good ... then the galaxy can go back to thinking for themselves and all

yay headcannon. and yes i got some of my inspiration for that movie called braveheart


( not the part about shepard making the first galactic empire. that will probably happen. the part about someone stopping ai shep was my headcannon )

Modifié par ghost9191, 27 mars 2013 - 09:10 .

[Seival]

Jadebaby wrote...

Seival wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...

Yes, that's right.

Through the last year a numerous amount of times I have thought "well if I wanted *that* ending I could pick control" and every time I thought these things I shook it off immediately as utter rubbish. But since BioWare have gracefully stepped down leaving the glorious product that is Mass Effect 3 before us, and 100% completed no less. I have started to think of control again...

Never mind the fact you're just going from Internet Explorer to Mozilla. The ability to save the most amount of lives without compromising anyone's personal being is very, very tempting. Also disregard the fact that you're side-stepping the issue the same as in Destroy, that is you don't actually solve the "problem" that is laid upon you at the 11th hour. But again, you can still watch from afar as EDI and Joker.. Well, eventually end up killing one another because you didn't solve the problem at all.. But like every other ending, head canon comes into play and one can just imagine this scene play out when GodReaperShep strolls on in and tells them to stop their squabbling or he'll start the cycles again. Just like what would happen if the Geth start misbehaving or something of the like....

The only thing that kind of ruined it for me tbh was the Extended Cut, the creepiness of that epilogue can just not be head-canoned away. Thank goodness I didn't get it on WiiU! Am I right?

Control ending is not creepy at all.

Calling Control ending creepy is like calling my avatar and signature creepy... And before you reply to that, let me explain

...Being alien is not always being creepy. Alien things may be beautiful in their own specific way.

You're right.... My life is now complete! Your signature and avatar are beautiful, true art!

Thanks

[ruggly]

Valhart wrote...

 Your mom and dad is the only ending! NOW WHAT? 

u wot m8!

Anyways, I guess I like thinking up horrible scenarios for the two endings I dislike most.  I won't ever say that it will apply to other's games, just my own.  Not that destroy is great, it just works better for my Shepards, as well as MEHEM.

Modifié par ruggly, 27 mars 2013 - 09:19 .