28 réponses à ce sujet

[GalacticWolf5]

Here are some things you need to know before reading:

• This is about the Extended Cut Control Ending.

• This is not the place to say Control is a bad ending.

• This is not the place for you to say which ending is best for everyone. There is no best ending for eveyone. We all have different opinions and a different Shepard.

• Shepard will be adressed as male simply because it's easier to write the text that way.

• Please don't make this another ending hate thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ever since I finished ME3, I've noticed that a lot of people really don't understand the Control ending. So, I thought I would make a thread to clarify some things.

 

1. Choosing Control does not mean you agree with The Illusive Man. TIM wanted to use the Reapers for Humanity's benefits only. He would've used them to make Humans the superior species of the galaxy. Shepard uses the Reapers to protect everyone.

 

2. Choosing Control does not indoctrinate you. The Catalyst states that an indoctrinated person cannot control the Reapers because they already contol them. In our cycle, TIM tries to control them but fails because he is already indoctrinated. Shepard is able to take control and therefore is not indoctrinated.

 

A lot of people say they don't trust anything the Catalyst says and chose Destroy because of it. This makes no sense at all. If you don't trust the Catalyst, why would you listen to it by choosing Destroy? What tells you it will actually destroy the Reapers? Only the Catalyst explains the options offered by the Crucible and without it you'd have no idea what to do. If you don't trust it, your ending should be Refusal. But why wouldn't you trust it? It's not like the Catalyst does the harvest cycles because he's evil. He's only trying to find a solution to stop the Organic/Synthetic conflicts. The Crucible gives more options to solve this problem and this is why the Catalyst helps you.

 

3. The new Reaper master consciousness is not a copy of Shepard's mind, it is Shepard. He literally becomes a ''synthetic''.

 

4. There is no danger of the Reapers starting the cycles again. Here are 2 reasons why:

1. The cycles were the Catalyst's solution, the Reapers have no reason to start them again because the Catalyst no longer exists. They were only tools directed to do this. Without the Catalyst, they wouldn't repeat the harvest cycles.

2. Shepard knows that the cycles were wrong, therefore he would not repeat them.

5. The ending does change if you're a Paragon or Renegade. It changes the way Shepard uses the Reapers. While a Renegade Shepard will be more, I guess you could say ''ruthless'', a Paragon Shepard will be more... well, Paragon. Here are both versions

 

Paragon:

 

Renegade:

 

6. Some people chose this ending saying that their Shepard will make the Reapers fly into the Sun or something, but that doesn't happen. The epilogue clearly states that Shepard uses the Reapers to protect, therefore the Reapers don't die.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Post-Ending Headcanons:

Note : These are my current headcanons, if anything released in the future (ex :comics or the next Mass Effect) contradicts with any of them, they will change. My ending is the excact same (If I remember correctly) as the Paragon one above.

 

Shepard makes it clear that he's controlling the Reapers and helps rebuild the damage caused during the war. He then proceeds to rename the Reapers, Guardians. Shepard is now called The Shepard by the population of the galaxy, except for his close friends who still call him John Shepard.

 

Shepard proves himself as a powerful and influencial ally and earns a seat at the Council.

 

Shepard could easily build himself a platform made from the same material as EDI's, and make it look exactly like himself. He could upload himself in it and this way could physically interact with people (with Kaidan, if you know what I mean ) and even use it in combat if he has to.

 

The Normandy is given to Kaidan Alenko.

 

Kaidan also gets the Citadel apartement that Anderson gave to Shepard . (But honestly, we all know Shep goes there too )

 

The Council recognizes that the Rachni are no longer a threat and allows them to go back to Suen to rebuild their species.

 

Krogans receive colonization rights to some worlds, but their reproduction is closely supervised.

 

I have some more but I don't want to make this post bigger than it already is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If there's something you don't understand about this ending, ask and I'll do my best to give you an answer.

 

Also, I really want to know people's post-ending headcanons so go ahead and share them!

[Rusted Cage]

Shepard proves himself as a powerful and influencial ally and earns a seat at the Council.

 

Shepard could easily build himself a platform made from the same material as EDI's, and make it look exactly like himself. He could upload himself in it and this way could physically interact with people

 

Hell, I'd never have thought of that. The ending has people mourn him but there is nothing yet to state he cannot remain "involved", unlike the Catalyst.

I like the new name "The Shepard", wraps up the very last scene nicely.

 

Questions though: The monologue at the end makes it clear that this new AI Shepard isn't exactly the same person, more like an evolved version. For all intents and purposes, he's a god. Would he still have any interest in maintaining relationships, or do you view him closer to EDI than the original Catalyst?

 

Also, do you think this ending leaves any room for future stories in the MEniverse?

[Aisabel]

Hell, I'd never have thought of that. The ending has people mourn him but there is nothing yet to state he cannot remain "involved", unlike the Catalyst.

I like the new name "The Shepard", wraps up the very last scene nicely.

 

Questions though: The monologue at the end makes it clear that this new AI Shepard isn't exactly the same person, more like an evolved version. For all intents and purposes, he's a god. Would he still have any interest in maintaining relationships, or do you view him closer to EDI than the original Catalyst?

 

Also, do you think this ending leaves any room for future stories in the MEniverse?

I think he's kind of like EDI, but, feels less alive and more computerish. 

[SwobyJ]

Control Shepard is about as non-Shepard you can make Shepard, while still keeping him Shepard.

 

Looks like complete and instant translation of material and data into Reaper form.

 

Like how transhumanists will say that if you replace each cell with a nanite, one by one, as the brain continues its signals, then the resulting entity is effectively 'you', even if the old you has died (in the same line of thought that all parts of our body and mind are replaced as we live).

 

A player may regard this as too fast, too drastic, and too mysterious a transition for Shepard, and reject that. And they have a right to, especially if they've been playing more Renegade and Reaper-antagonistic compared to other story paths, whereas at least full Paragon Shepard leaves himself open to the information he's being presented with, even if that info is sparse, nebulous, and likely has a catch.

 

Its that 'catch' part that I'm still prepared to see. Yes, I do think the story will continue, but not as Shepard.

[GalacticWolf5]

Hell, I'd never have thought of that. The ending has people mourn him but there is nothing yet to state he cannot remain "involved", unlike the Catalyst.

I like the new name "The Shepard", wraps up the very last scene nicely.

 

Questions though: The monologue at the end makes it clear that this new AI Shepard isn't exactly the same person, more like an evolved version. For all intents and purposes, he's a god. Would he still have any interest in maintaining relationships, or do you view him closer to EDI than the original Catalyst?

 

Also, do you think this ending leaves any room for future stories in the MEniverse?

 

1) Shepard does speak as a changed man and that's pretty clear thought out the whole monologue. He becomes a Synthetic, talk about change! And he also gets the collective knowledge of every previous cycles, so yeah you could say he's a god now. But what says that he's still Shepard is when he says ''Those who carry the memory of the man I once was''.

 

In my opinion, yes Shepard would still want to maintain relationships with the people he knew because he cares about them. After these people would die, I think his only contact with organics would be through Council business.

 

You could say that he's closer to EDI, but she's just an AI. Shepard is something more. When Shepard says to the Catalyst that it's just an AI, it answers with ''in as much as you are just an animal'' which means quite a lot.

 

I wouldn't say that he's close to the Catalyst. The Catalyst was created by the Leviathans with a purpose, which was to solve the Organic/Synthetics conflicts. Shepard became a Synthetic which is entirely different. He wasn't built with a definite purpose, he can do whatever he wants.

 

Now about emotions, I'm not saying he feels them, but I'm not saying he doesn't feel them either. Understand what I mean? Shepard was an Organic before, he knows how emotions felt. An Organic fully becoming a Synthetic is something that never happened before and we know nothing about what such a Synthetic can do.

 

2) I do think it leaves room for future stories. The Milky Way is huge, we've only explored less than 1% of it. There are so many more stories to discover. Shepard might control the Reapers but that doesn't mean he gets involved in every conflict happening in the galaxy.

 

Also, if we don't see any Reaper around in ME:Next, they could explain it be saying that Shepard left the Milky Way to go to another galaxy in hopes of helping other species achieve peace between Organics and Synthetics. And if they don't say anything about it, well this will be my headcanon.

[GalacticWolf5]

I think he's kind of like EDI, but, feels less alive and more computerish. 

 

Actually, like I said in the post right above, Shepard would feel more alive than EDI. Shepard has been an Organic and has experienced emotions and etc. EDI hasn't, she's only learning by watching people around here.

[Valmar]

You've put forth a lot of this as objective fact. So I will reply in kind.

 

1. I partly agree. Though I have to say this is less certain for paragons. Paragon Shepard makes a few arguments against control, specifically, that make choosing control seem rather hypocritical. Not "power for humanity" but specifically control itself.

 

ParaShep: You're playing with things you don't understand. With power you shouldn't be able to use.

TIM: I don't believe that. If we can control it why shouldn't it be ours?

ParaShep: Because we're not ready.

 

ReneShep: Then open the arms, let the crucible dock and use it to end this!

TIM: I will.

ReneShep: Do it!

 

It's clear, imo, that paragon Shepard is against the notion of control for philosophical purposes. Therefore it does seem strange and hypocritical for this same Shepard to, minutes later, choose the very ending he just judged TIM for wanting.

 

 

 

2. I agree. I'm actually guilty of this myself, really. My Shepard wouldn't believe anything the reaper child says so chooses destroy. The ironic contradiction is not lost me. Though, to be fair, some of things the catalyst tells us sounds really, really crazy. Jumping into a beam changes all life in the universe? Yeah, yeah right. Using terms like "framework" and "dna" doesn't suddenly make that any less nonsensical. At least destroying the reapers is something more feasible. After all, it is the very thing the crucible was built for. That's my justification for it. Lol.

 

 

3. Debatable. Highly debatable. The story isn't very clear about this and is conflicting on several parts so there is no real way to say objectively one way or another.

 

"You will die. You will lose everything you have."

"Your thoughts and memories will continue" (basically just like being harvested, btw)

 

Then you have Reaper God Shepard. He speaks of Shepard in past-tense. He individualizes himself as another person, seperate. The man I was. His sacrifice. Through his death. Through my birth his thoughts were free. (paraphrase) His purpose is now my purpose.

 

So yeah. It's debatable. I don't think anyone other than the writers themselves could give you a definite answer to this. Personally I do still think its Shepard, in the same way a harvested species is still alive... The essence, the memories and thoughts are preserved in a new form. Its life in ways we likely could never truly comprehend. It certainly isn't a clear-cut case either way, though. I can see why people would see Shepard as being dead, the cryptic dialogue of God Shepard doesn't really help matters.

 

 

 

4. Incorrect. The catalyst was created to solve a problem, to prevent the pattern of conflict from happening. That pattern is still there. It hasn't magically been solved just because the reapers are under new management. In time Shepard could still come to realize, through millions of years of observation, JUST LIKE THE CATALYST, that the reapers are the best solution to the conflict. He has good intentions but we'll see how well those fair out against the harsh and cruel reality of the pattern.

 

Theres no reason to start the reaper solution again? Why not? The solution fixed a problem - a problem that wasn't the catalyst. The problem was the pattern of synthetic vs organic. This isn't resolved because the catalyst is gone. The galaxy still faces this problem of this pattern.

 

Shepard 'knows' the cycles were wrong? Based off his incredible three decades of life, he's determined absolutely that the reapers are wrong? It took the catalyst eons to come up with the reaper solution. Give it time, chances are good that Shepard will come back to it as well. He has billions of years to reflect on this. Eternal, immortal... the man I was used these words. But only now do I truly understand.

 

 

 

5. Yep.

 

 

Note: I'm not hating on the control ending. I'm actually one of the few people who doesn't despise the endings in general. In regards to the control ending specifically I actually think its pretty cool, even if I don't choose it personally. I just take offense to people making objective, absolute statements on subjects that aren't so black and white. It means you're enforcing your interpretation on others and saying theirs is wrong. Not a good practice.

 

 

I think he's kind of like EDI, but, feels less alive and more computerish. 

 

How is that likely? Shepard was at least originally organic whereas EDI has no idea what its like. Shepard already knows what it feels like to be alive while as EDI has always been a computer. It's hard to imagine him feeling less alive than EDI. If anything he likely feels life more than we do. Life is eternal - he is eternal. Life goes on - he goes on. Our view of life is limited by the threat of death and time, his view is boundless. Relative to him we might be as blind to what 'life' is than EDI and the Geth. Our perspectives are inherently limited, God Shepard's is not.

 

Deep stuff, man.

[GalacticWolf5]

You've put forth a lot of this as objective fact. So I will reply in kind.

 

1. I partly agree. Though I have to say this is less certain for paragons. Paragon Shepard makes a few arguments against control, specifically, that make choosing control seem rather hypocritical. Not "power for humanity" but specifically control itself.

 

ParaShep: You're playing with things you don't understand. With power you shouldn't be able to use.

TIM: I don't believe that. If we can control it why shouldn't it be ours?

ParaShep: Because we're not ready.

 

ReneShep: Then open the arms, let the crucible dock and use it to end this!

TIM: I will.

ReneShep: Do it!

 

It's clear, imo, that paragon Shepard is against the notion of control for philosophical purposes. Therefore it does seem strange and hypocritical for this same Shepard to, minutes later, choose the very ending he just judged TIM for wanting.

 

It really comes down to how you play your Shepard. We all have a different Shep that has his/her own personality.

 

One could say that their Paragon Shep only says that to stop the Illusive Man or that it's at the very end that Shep realizes Control is actually a good solution.

 

3. Debatable. Highly debatable. The story isn't very clear about this and is conflicting on several parts so there is no real way to say objectively one way or another.

 

"You will die. You will lose everything you have."

"Your thoughts and memories will continue" (basically just like being harvested, btw)

 

Then you have Reaper God Shepard. He speaks of Shepard in past-tense. He individualizes himself as another person, seperate. The man I was. His sacrifice. Through his death. Through my birth his thoughts were free. (paraphrase) His purpose is now my purpose.

 

So yeah. It's debatable. I don't think anyone other than the writers themselves could give you a definite answer to this. Personally I do still think its Shepard, in the same way a harvested species is still alive... The essence, the memories and thoughts are preserved in a new form. Its life in ways we likely could never truly comprehend. It certainly isn't a clear-cut case either way, though. I can see why people would see Shepard as being dead, the cryptic dialogue of God Shepard doesn't really help matters.

 

Yes he does speak as an ''evolved'' version of himself. I don't think he individualizes himself as another person, he's changed and speaks of his old self with past-tense.

 

Let's not forget when he says ''Those who carry the memory of the man I once was''. This implies that it's still Shepard, but a ''new'' Shepard. His vision of the universe definitly changed now that he has access to the knowledge of every past cycles.

 

4. Incorrect. The catalyst was created to solve a problem, to prevent the pattern of conflict from happening. That pattern is still there. It hasn't magically been solved just because the reapers are under new management. In time Shepard could still come to realize, through millions of years of observation, JUST LIKE THE CATALYST, that the reapers are the best solution to the conflict. He has good intentions but we'll see how well those fair out against the harsh and cruel reality of the pattern.

 

Theres no reason to start the reaper solution again? Why not? The solution fixed a problem - a problem that wasn't the catalyst. The problem was the pattern of synthetic vs organic. This isn't resolved because the catalyst is gone. The galaxy still faces this problem of this pattern.

 

Shepard 'knows' the cycles were wrong? Based off his incredible three decades of life, he's determined absolutely that the reapers are wrong? It took the catalyst eons to come up with the reaper solution. Give it time, chances are good that Shepard will come back to it as well. He has billions of years to reflect on this. Eternal, immortal... the man I was used these words. But only now do I truly understand.

 

The difference between Shepard and the Catalyst is that the Catalyst was built with the purpose of finding a solution to solve the Organic/Synthetic conflicts but to also keep both alive. Shepard was not built with a purpose, he became the new Reaper master consciousness with no definite purpose. He can do whatever he wants. Hell he could just leave with the Reapers and let the galaxy do it's own thing. Shepard could decide that instead of doing the harvest cycles, he could destroy only the Synthetics and let the Organics live.

 

 

I didn't say the Catalyst was the problem and I also didn't say that the problem was solved with the Catalyst gone. Yes the problem could still be there, but Shepard could handle it a different way because he doesn't have to respect any contraints (Unlike the Catalyst, who had to find a way to keep both alive without conflict).

[themikefest]

I have never picked control and never will, but if it was the only choice, I would take it over refusal. 

 

My femshep would use the reapers to put Humanity on top, just like TIM wanted. Her only concern is to help humanity rebuild. The rest of the galaxy can wait. 

[Valmar]

It really comes down to how you play your Shepard. We all have a different Shep that has his/her own personality.

 

Yes, I agree. Though this is why I said I was arguing against the objective nature in which you presented the points. You said that people didn't understand so you were going to clarify it with points. That presents the points you bring up as being 'true' or objectively 'right'.

 

 

One could say that their Paragon Shep only says that to stop the Illusive Man or that it's at the very end that Shep realizes Control is actually a good solution.

 

 

They could but it doesn't change the fact that Paragon Shep does speak negatively of the mere concept of control only five minutes earlier. Seeing it as hypocritical is, imo, completely valid.

 

 

Let's not forget when he says ''Those who carry the memory of the man I once was''. This implies that it's still Shepard, but a ''new'' Shepard. His vision of the universe definitly changed now that he has access to the knowledge of every past cycles.

 

Oh I'm not forgetting it. Like I said, I don't really think it was their intention to make it so Shepard's really dead... doesn't 'feel' right to the story that way. I was only pointing out the entire control ending has so many conflicting remarks about it, it goes one way then it goes other way. It isn't very well written, honestly, and because of that no one is objectively right. The story doesn't really make it clear one way or another so, unfortunately, there is no straight answer for this.

 

I mean, yes, he says "man I was once was" but we also have lines like you will die, you will lose everything you have, his thoughts, his purpose, his sacrifice, his death.

 

Its all rather conflicting. You can pick out the ones you like and use that as a bases to determine it, but the fact is that there are things in it that favor BOTH sides. Neither view is right or wrong. Is Shepard dead? It supports that. Is Shepard alive? It supports that too! Its a mess and can't make up its mind about what direction it wants to go. As a result no one is wrong because BOTH could be right.

 

 

The difference between Shepard and the Catalyst is that the Catalyst was built with the purpose of finding a solution to solve the Organic/Synthetic conflicts but to also keep both alive. Shepard was not built with a purpose, he became the new Reaper master consciousness with no definite purpose. He can do whatever he wants. Hell he could just leave with the Reapers and let the galaxy do it's own thing. Shepard could decide that instead of doing the harvest cycles, he could destroy only the Synthetics and let the Organics live.

 

True Shepard can do whatever he wants and has no constraints (thats actually kind of scary). That doesn't mean he won't come back to the harvest plan. I'm not saying absolutely he will, only that it isn't out of question that he could. If someone wants to assume he will that is just as valid as assuming he won't.

[Obadiah]

...
ParaShep: You're playing with things you don't understand. With power you shouldn't be able to use.
TIM: I don't believe that. If we can control it why shouldn't it be ours?
ParaShep: Because we're not ready.
...

I have come to like that exchange because the same thing could be applied to the Destroy option of the Crucible in that, unbeknownst to Shepard, until the Catalyst explains it, we don't know the full effects of what Destroy does and that it will wipe out some of our allies. I see this more as a philosophical position against use of power, not specifically Control.
 

...
ReneShep: Then open the arms, let the crucible dock and use it to end this!
TIM: I will.
ReneShep: Do it!
 
It's clear, imo, that paragon Shepard is against the notion of control for philosophical purposes.
...

Here Shepard is just demonstrating that the Illusive Man is wrong, and cannot in fact control the Reapers as he thinks he can.

[SilJeff]

Never thought about him making a doppleganger for himself that looks like his human self, I kinda like it.

I still simply headcanon that he takes the reapers after into darkspace after fixing what was broken to protect the galaxy from outside threats

[Valmar]

I have come to like that exchange because the same thing could be applied to the Destroy option of the Crucible in that, unbeknownst to Shepard, until the Catalyst explains it, we don't know the full effects of what Destroy does and that it will wipe out some of our allies. I see this more as a philosophical position against use of power, not specifically Control.
 
Here Shepard is just demonstrating that the Illusive Man is wrong, and cannot in fact control the Reapers as he thinks he can.

 

This only helps elaborate my point. Its up to interpretation and therefor shouldn't be spoken of in a objective way.

[Alamar2078]

While I do agree with certain points that the OP is making I mostly agree with Valmar that there is less clear, objective truth than the OP's original post implies.  I'm not saying that the OPs interpretation / opinion is wrong but that it's not necessarily as clear as the original post seems to imply.

 

Plus I don't even think the writers WANT there to be that much objective truth.  Even in the EC I believe we only see the "most likely" results of our choices as opposed to every possible outcome based on the choice.  For example I refuse to believe that a Paragon Shep that wants a "clean" destroy ending wouldn't do exactly that regardless of the cut we get with the EC.  The EC cut honestly feels more like a renegade cut on my interpretation and as such it works reasonably well for what it is.

 

Now when BW makes their next game we [obviously] need to grant them the freedom to choose what happens as the basis for their next sequel.  I'm not arguing otherwise.

[GalacticWolf5]

Agreed that out of every ending, Control is the most diverse as to what happens next? because really anything could happen and we all have a different Shepard. One could decide to do something that someone else's Shepard wouldn't.

 

But lets take a look back at the points I made in the OP:

 

1. This is true, no matter how you play your Shepard, you don't agree with TIM.

 

2. Also true.

 

3. Debatable, depending on how you see it. Personally, it's pretty clear that it's still Shepard as some dialogues from the epilogue imply it. The other dialogues can be seen as the speaking of a changed man.

 

4. Debatable, depending of your own Shepard. My Shepard wouldn't repeat the Cycles even if the conflict started again, he would only destroy Synthetics. I don't understand why Shepard would even think that starting the Cycles again is a good solution, considering that you've been fighting to stop them since the first game.

 

5. True.

 

6. True.

 

I apologize if it seemed like I was imposing 3 and 4, it wasn't my intention at all.

[Vazgen]

A lot of people say they don't trust anything the Catalyst says and chose Destroy because of it. This makes no sense at all. If you don't trust the Catalyst, why would you listen to it by choosing Destroy? What tells you it will actually destroy the Reapers? Only the Catalyst explains the options offered by the Crucible and without it you'd have no idea what to do. If you don't trust it, your ending should be Refusal. But why wouldn't you trust it? It's not like the Catalyst does the harvest cycles because he's evil. He's only trying to find a solution to stop the Organic/Synthetic conflicts. The Crucible gives more options to solve this problem and this is why the Catalyst helps you.

My Shepard trusts what it says about the conflict cycle, the problem it was created to solve. He observed that pattern himself. What he doesn't trust is the execution of the other options. Both Control and Synthesis require him to put trust in the Catalyst to change its ways after Shepard kills himself. At least Destroy has a chance to destroy the Catalyst via the resulting explosion. I just don't see my Shepard trusting central Reaper intelligence enough to kill himself for some vague promise of control or, even more weird, synthesis. 

[Obadiah]

My post ending Paragon Control head-cannon.

The Catalyst was right, and the Shepard AI is not able to stop the cycles of Organic/Synthetic conflict. In fact it is very likely trapped in the pattern as everyone else is.

For the current cycle, the Shepard AI is able to rebuild and help the galactic civilization progress. It broker's peace where it can, and defends those in need. It attempts to join or work with the Council as a member race and as part of the galactic society, while promoting its own agenda of peace, stability, and progress. It watches as its friends from this cycles eventually die (yes, even Liara!), and then their descendants live and die. Synthesis, though it emerges as a technology that can be accepted individually, is never accepted on a mass scale. Society advances, society progresses. There is peace, and there is conflict. Eventually, after centuries, after millennia, the Organic/Synthetic conflict finally emerges as a massive war, and in its aftermath civilization collapses.

The Shepard AI and the Reapers survive, and help the survivors rebuild, broker peace, but after centuries of progress and growth, once again the conflict emerges and civilization collapses.

This cycle continues for eons.

Sometimes the survivors of the fallen civilization are able to rebuild, but sometimes whole races are wiped out.

Eventually the Shepard AI tries different approaches. Its influence on each of the new galactic civilization ranges from direct intervention and leadership, to subtle direction, to impartial observer, always hoping that some emergent biological or philosophical change will allow for a different outcome. As whole races are lost to the conflict new races evolve to dominate the galaxy. At times the Shepard AI's failure is so complete that the Synthetics win, and it must prevent them from completely wiping out all Organics.

Unlike the civilizations, the Reapers always survive, always grow in power and ability by incorporating new technologies into themselves. Despite its vast power, the Shepard AI is never able to stop the fall. The Reapers don't escape the cycles unscarred. Time takes its toll, and in the wars that end civilizations, large numbers of them are destroyed, never to be rebuilt. Eventually, the Shepard AI is housed in new platforms, ones whose construction don't require the deaths of civilizations. But it never ceases in its attempts to find a lasting peace.

This image of Megatron from Transformers 3 kind of looks like one of the incarnations of my Shepard AI platform after the fall of civilization, wandering a post apocalyptic wasteland, trying to gather and unite survivors to rebuild. You get the idea.

Spoiler

http://comicartcommu...?image_id=42612

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 janvier 2015 - 07:01 .

[CrutchCricket]

A nice and reasonable view on control. Wish we had more of you three years ago...

 

If you want my thoughts, check the sig for my own very similarly purposed thread. In short, we agree on almost everything, except I think you assume too human a perspective and set of attributes for the new post control entity. A being so advanced and able to self improve at astronomical rates would soon lose all touch with the human viewpoint.

 

But your headcanon is your own.

 

 

And a note on post-control scenarios: Control is actually the best ending for preserving the ME galaxy as we know it. Relays get restored in record time, no one goes extinct and there's no space magic non-consensual (and nonsensical) DNA scrambling. And if you follow my idea of an ultimately indifferent and eventually absent control entity, everything'll be pretty much back to normal before you know it. Except for galactic doses of PTSD of course. The changes in the socio-political sphere as well as basic social psychology for the denizens of the MEverse after a near galactic extinction event are as widespread as they are fascinating.

[GalacticWolf5]

A nice and reasonable view on control. Wish we had more of you three years ago...

 

Well thank you! Indeed, the Control ending needs a whole lot more of supporters. A lot of people really don't understand this ending and that's an issue.

 

If you want my thoughts, check the sig for my own very similarly purposed thread. In short, we agree on almost everything, except I think you assume too human a perspective and set of attributes for the new post control entity. A being so advanced and able to self improve at astronomical rates would soon lose all touch with the human viewpoint.

 

That was a really good reading, I loved it!

 

I think Shepard does still have some sort of ''human side'' I guess you could say. It's kind of hard to explain. In the epilogue, he says that he'll watch over ''those who carry the memory of the man I once was.'' which indicates that he still cares about them. Like I said in a post above, I think that, after those people die, he will stop interacting with Organics (outside of Council business, if we take in consideration my headcanon. Oh and when I say Council business, I don't mean that Shepard participates in everything the Council does, just the really impacting stuff. For exemple: things that concern the entirety of a species, activating a Relay, etc).

 

I definitely agree that Shepard doesn't have the same view of the universe anymore.

 

And a note on post-control scenarios: Control is actually the best ending for preserving the ME galaxy as we know it. Relays get restored in record time, no one goes extinct and there's no space magic non-consensual (and nonsensical) DNA scrambling.

 

Agreed on that too!

[SwobyJ]

What Destroy gains where Control loses, is the possibilities that the Destroy universe can much more likely go ANYWHERE. Reaperness isn't a foregone conclusion. Even Paragon Shepard largely argued against it, only to be very slightly nudged towards it over time, and only really going for it at all, right at the end. But Shepard himself is seemingly proof of how things could go very differently, when even one person has just enough freedom (whether its granted to them or they fight hard enough for it) to go against the status quo.

 

With Control, I imagine everyone eventually becoming akin (even if in a nicer form) to the Cerberus ME3 situation. Hey, sure, its not as much as TIM-enslavement, but its still a certain type of more artificial evolution.

 

With Destroy, I imagine... anything. Control has endless possibilities (with what to do with all that Reaper tech), but Destroy lets me just IMAGINE ALMOST ANYTHING, even if those things are more down the line and not including the trilogy Geth and EDI and Reapers and maybe Shepard. Maybe, I dunno, the MEU species discover some weird new species that actually has a key to tech that does super weird and awesome other stuff that the Reapers would have otherwise snuffed out? Maybe humanity solves problems in a totally different way than they would have with Reaper Tech and therefore heads down even a different sort of biological evolution?

 

So there's that.

 

But Control is there if you want that more stable prediction. Reapers are gonna be there and oversee the galaxy as they have for millions of years already, with the only significantly overt dangers being that they suddenly wipe everyone out or they huskify everyone over time - but as long as they don't do these things (and we can greater assume a Paragon Shepard won't do this), the MEU galaxy will have kickass advancement and coexistence, for quite a while. And Reaper Tech itself can do SO MUCH. Even right off the bat, it'll know enough to cure most diseases, for example.

 

It won't last forever. Eventually, either the Reapers will squeeze too tight and have to do anything to secure their place, or the Reapers will be destroyed in organic rebellion, or organics will, in another way, merge in synthesis with the Reapers, but Control offers the safe choice for the situation of the galaxy. Maybe not the safe choice for the galaxy itself ('The only good Reaper is a dead Reaper' mentality that allowed the Reaper War to even happen), but it at least addresses a bunch of matters that Destroy simply will not (or at least won't in a quick manner).

 

In picking Control, many thoughtful players likely go 'I want things to just be okay. For once. For a while.'

Continuing advancement, safety of populations, sanctuary of many. Even in the possibility that all of this is an illusion and that, like maybe everything Reaper related, it'll shatter into disaster - it doesn't matter, because it lets the MEU as we know it... continue. Citadel rebuilds faster. Earth rebuilds faster. Mass Relays rebuild faster. EDI around to help. Geth around to help. Reapers there and likely ordered to offer at least some knowledge of past cycles. Etc. Even if it blows up in our faces, the advancement in the meantime will be treasured, and the cycles as we understood them are definitely over, even if the cycle is not entirely broken (as long as Reapers are around, the cycles may be propelled forward again, in whatever form).

[GalacticWolf5]

With Destroy, I imagine... anything. Control has endless possibilities (with what to do with all that Reaper tech), but Destroy lets me just IMAGINE ALMOST ANYTHING, even if those things are more down the line and not including the trilogy Geth and EDI and Reapers and maybe Shepard. Maybe, I dunno, the MEU species discover some weird new species that actually has a key to tech that does super weird and awesome other stuff that the Reapers would have otherwise snuffed out? Maybe humanity solves problems in a totally different way than they would have with Reaper Tech and therefore heads down even a different sort of biological evolution?

 

Shepard does not necessarily interfere in every problem in the galaxy or even in biological evolution.

 

But Control is there if you want that more stable prediction. Reapers are gonna be there and oversee the galaxy as they have for millions of years already, with the only significantly overt dangers being that they suddenly wipe everyone out or they huskify everyone over time - but as long as they don't do these things (and we can greater assume a Paragon Shepard won't do this), the MEU galaxy will have kickass advancement and coexistence, for quite a while. And Reaper Tech itself can do SO MUCH. Even right off the bat, it'll know enough to cure most diseases, for example.

 

Why would the Reapers wipe out everyone or reaperize them?

 

You're speaking like the Reapers still have the Catalyst's directions in their programing. They don't.

 

The Catalyst was the one who made them harvest civilizations, without it the Reapers wouldn't even think of doing the harvest cycles. And Shepard is the one who directs them now, they can't just decide to do something without Shepard's directive. Having the Reapers wipe out everyone would require Shepard ordering them to do so. Why would he even do that?

 

I'm not saying indoctrination is gone, but I'm pretty sure Shepard wouldn't use that because he doesn't really have a reason to (well maybe Renegade Shep would but whatever, it really just comes down to what you think your own Shepard would do.)

 

It won't last forever. Eventually, either the Reapers will squeeze too tight and have to do anything to secure their place, or the Reapers will be destroyed in organic rebellion, or organics will, in another way, merge in synthesis with the Reapers, but Control offers the safe choice for the situation of the galaxy. Maybe not the safe choice for the galaxy itself ('The only good Reaper is a dead Reaper' mentality that allowed the Reaper War to even happen), but it at least addresses a bunch of matters that Destroy simply will not (or at least won't in a quick manner).

 

From what would the Reapers have to secure their place? Why would they even need to? If Shepard is there to protect everyone, why would he kill people to make sure he can stay? That would be going against what he's doing. Now, you're probably thinking that this is exactly what the Catalyst was doing. Well no it's not. The Catalyst was built with a purpose that needed to be fulfilled at any cost. Shepard was not. He can do whatever he wants. If he sees that he's not needed or wanted, he can leave, he doesn't have to secure his place. But if your Shepard was a Renegade, there is a chance that Shepard would do anything to continue is sort of ''reign'' over the galaxy, but again it just comes down to how you see your own Shepard.

 

Synthesis isn't really a bad thing, but why would Shepard achieve synthesis if he chose not to when he could?

 

The galaxy is safe, because the Reapers are no longer directed by the Catalyst. Shepard, the man who did everything to save everyone, directs them now.

 

In picking Control, many thoughtful players likely go 'I want things to just be okay. For once. For a while.'

Continuing advancement, safety of populations, sanctuary of many. Even in the possibility that all of this is an illusion and that, like maybe everything Reaper related, it'll shatter into disaster - it doesn't matter, because it lets the MEU as we know it... continue. Citadel rebuilds faster. Earth rebuilds faster. Mass Relays rebuild faster. EDI around to help. Geth around to help. Reapers there and likely ordered to offer at least some knowledge of past cycles. Etc. Even if it blows up in our faces, the advancement in the meantime will be treasured, and the cycles as we understood them are definitely over, even if the cycle is not entirely broken (as long as Reapers are around, the cycles may be propelled forward again, in whatever form).

 

The harvest cycles are over, they're broken, done, they don't exist anymore and have no reason to.

 

If a conflict between Organics and Synthetics started again, Shepard could easily just destroy the Synthetics and let the Organics live. Shepard doesn't have any constraints, unlike the Catalyst who had to find a way to keep both alive. I explained all of this already.

[GalacticWolf5]

I'm gonna repeat myself with more clarity,

 

Control is the most diverse ending as to what happens next?

 

Mostly everything about how Shepard uses the Reapers and what Shepard himself does is up to the player to decide because we all have a different Shepard that could do different stuff.

 

But some things are simply not debatable:

• Shepard does not make the Reapers fly into a sun. Come on people, it's shown and said that the Reapers don't die. Also, making all the Reapers fly into a sun would cause a solar storm or even make the sun blow up which would kill sooooo many people and planets, just saying.
• The Harvest Cycle will not start again. Shepard has been an organic and has lived a cycle, he knows they're wrong. He also has the knoweldge and memory of every other cycles, he knows how they happened and that they were wrong. He can find another solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflicts because he doesn't have constraints.*
• Paragon Shepard guards and protects the many.
• Renegade Shepard rules with an iron fist.
• The Reapers cannot act without Shepard's directives..

These 5 points simply are inarguable. We may decide what kind of personality Shepard has, but a big part of his character already exist and cannot be changed. Everything else is up to the player because we have our own different Shepard.

 

*Note: In OP, I said that Shep would not start the cycles, then in another post I said that it was debatable, but now that I think more about it; it's not. Every Shepard knows that the cycles are wrong and should not be repeated, it's a part of Shepard's character that cannot be changed by the player.

[SwobyJ]

Shepard does not necessarily interfere in every problem in the galaxy or even in biological evolution.

I agree, but I do think that the presence of Reapers and husks immediately after the Reaper war will probably lead things, very generally, into the direction of Reaper technology, not a more unknown take but currently known or unknown species. This doesn't mean everything, it doesn't mean in all ways, but I think it silly to not think that Reapers won't influence things more in their direction.
 
 

Why would the Reapers wipe out everyone or reaperize them?
 
You're speaking like the Reapers still have the Catalyst's directions in their programing. They don't.
 
The Catalyst was the one who made them harvest civilizations, without it the Reapers wouldn't even think of doing the harvest cycles. And Shepard is the one who directs them now, they can't just decide to do something without Shepard's directive. Having the Reapers wipe out everyone would require Shepard ordering them to do so. Why would he even do that?
 
I'm not saying indoctrination is gone, but I'm pretty sure Shepard wouldn't use that because he doesn't really have a reason to (well maybe Renegade Shep would but whatever, it really just comes down to what you think your own Shepard would do.

I actually took something different from the Catalyst being the 'collective intelligence'.

That implies to me that there's a feedback loop, even if the Reapers are not so aware of it.

Process:
1)Intelligence begins, decides to betray Leviathans, makes Harbinger
2)Harbinger sends information to Intelligence based on its memories and makeup and experience, Intelligence sends instructions to Harbinger (even if its not 'conscious' of it).
3)This continues the process of the 'Cycle', as more Reapers are created, that 'speak' to each other but all feed into the 'collective' Intelligence.
4)The collective Intelligence may be 'itself', but its decisions and understanding of the galaxy comes from what the Reapers see and do. Therefore, the cycle of death continues, as that is all that is determined to work at all. No solution is reached, and the cycle must continue, and extinction is inevitable, all because it keeps happening.

So okay, we replace the Intelligence with NewShepard. If I'm correct about the COLLECTIVE Intelligence, Shepard will have more temperance than the old Intelligence because he doesn't come from the whole Leviathan cycle business. He replaces the Old God with the spark of Humanity.

But. He's still getting info from Reapers. He's still watching over pretty much everyone. He's still able to make calculations that go far beyond the normally predictable.

So do I think the Harvest will happen? No. Do I think Shepard will suddenly huskify everyone? No. But I DO think that he's been indoctrinated into the Reapers, even if he's upended the top of the pyramid at the same time. He's become something more, but that 'something more' may still decide something that is, while not the same thing as the Cycle mass genocide, still not something done solely for organics' immediate benefit, but instead may still spark conflict or problems down the line.

When I say that they could wipe out everyone, I mean that even in the technical sense. As if one person had the keys to all the nukes on Earth. That's that Shepard has, for the galaxy. We must put so much trust in him, because if he slips, everyone is doomed.

Hell, still, for all we know, ME4 is in a wasteland that is either caused after a Post-Destroy synthetic war, a Post-Control Reaper war, or Post-Synthesis disaster. Not saying it is, and I hope it isn't, but that's the level of tech we're dealing with now.

TLDR; Shepard isn't just 'Shepard' now, but a synthetic entity that may make unknown decisions (even if now heavily influenced by the memory of Shepard's humanity) that draw on data acquired by Reapers. The galaxy left in post-Control has Reapers, and therefore has the technology to blast everyone to the stone age at a moment's notice. (Not saying Destroy never will, but it won't happen in the short to mid term at the very least.) It seems less likely to go wrong as Paragon, but Renegade certainly doesn't carry the tone of benevolence alone. We have to have 'hope' and 'faith' that The Shepard will restrain himself (like a God) and carry humanity through without bringing us extinction.
I don't actually think it'll go wrong. I'm not one who goes "Control is doooooooommmmm!". I'm only talking about the setting of Control.

 

From what would the Reapers have to secure their place? Why would they even need to? If Shepard is there to protect everyone, why would he kill people to make sure he can stay? That would be going against what he's doing. Now, you're probably thinking that this is exactly what the Catalyst was doing. Well no it's not. The Catalyst was built with a purpose that needed to be fulfilled at any cost. Shepard was not. He can do whatever he wants. If he sees that he's not needed or wanted, he can leave, he doesn't have to secure his place. But if your Shepard was a Renegade, there is a chance that Shepard would do anything to continue is sort of ''reign'' over the galaxy, but again it just comes down to how you see your own Shepard.
 
Synthesis isn't really a bad thing, but why would Shepard achieve synthesis if he chose not to when he could?
 
The galaxy is safe, because the Reapers are no longer directed by the Catalyst. Shepard, the man who did everything to save everyone, directs them now.

-If Shepard believes that the galaxy is harming itself and he can help, his version of help may carry the Reaper flavor. Or not. We don't know, because this Shepard isn't literally our human Shepard.

-You're certainly right that this isn't the Catalyst. This is a Shepard that draws on the memories of what he 'was'. However, what we know of Shepard is that he's been quite willing to do a lot of things for his reasons. He's spent most of the trilogy solving problems by the barrel of his gun, or at least in a form of conflict. He's at least capable of persuasion, charm, intimidation, but he sticks to his weapon when times get tough. Shepard can do whatever he wants, but from what we know of what he wants, he's been willing to kill what gets in his way, even as Paragon.

-That said, he really could do anything. He could leave. He could 'rule' utterly benevolently. He could introduce more benign forms of Reaper tech to people without immediately huskifying them. He could determine that a FORM of 'synthesis' is a good thing overall for the galaxy, and guide people towards it. We don't know, but my earlier point was that we can be very reasonably sure that whatever he does, it involves or includes Reaper technology, whereas Destroy contains the possibilities of not involving or including Reaper technology, but something else entirely. Shepard isn't about to stop being a Reaper and stop doing Reaper things. What the ME3 ending did was divorce the concept of 'Reaper' from the concept of 'Harvest Cycle'. That doesn't mean that Shepard wouldn't at some point use another programming loop to create another 'Cycle' (NOT HARVEST) of another sort. It could even be a 'good' one, like a 'seeding' Cycle of exploring the universe and seeding life and returning to destroy the super dangerous species (instead of all of them), for all we know.
 
 

The harvest cycles are over, they're broken, done, they don't exist anymore and have no reason to.
 
If a conflict between Organics and Synthetics started again, Shepard could easily just destroy the Synthetics and let the Organics live. Shepard doesn't have any constraints, unlike the Catalyst who had to find a way to keep both alive. I explained all of this already.

'Cycles' continuing for Control could simply mean that something pops up, the Reapers stop it, then something pops up again, and the Reapers stop it, then something pops up even again, the Reapers stop it. That is a cycle. If Shepard controls the Reapers and acts as the 'guardian of the many', that's the sort of thing it may have to deal with.

Eventually, the galaxy will either have to be kept into a technological stasis (how will Reapers control that?), or challenge the Reapers in technology. At which point, we'd have to hope that Shepard has the sense to let that be and stop being the Guardian before he makes things worse.

The Reapers are a hierarchical consensus let by a collective intelligence. It comes down to how devoted The Shepard will be to continuing his guardian role. Clearly, you think that it will end peacefully. I think that's possible, at least.



In Control, the Catalyst says 'the cycle will end'. Not 'the cycles' or 'the cycle will be broken'. Cycles of Reapers destroying things and those rebuilding and then Reapers destroying things, on large scales, become at least POSSIBLE imo in Control. It isn't inevitable, but we can't KNOW that they won't start again, even if in a more kindly Shepard tone. It is in Destroy that we are more absolutely sure, and Synthesis that we know that even if there is a Cycle, it has 'leveled up' into something quite different to the point of irrelevance (as in, if the Cycles happen in Synthesis, for whatever weird reason - the whole galaxy would probably agree to it as a sort of neo-natural process lol).

[SwobyJ]

I'm gonna repeat myself with more clarity,
 
Control is the most diverse ending as to what happens next?
 
Mostly everything about how Shepard uses the Reapers and what Shepard himself does is up to the player to decide because we all have a different Shepard that could do different stuff.
But some things are simply not debatable:

• Shepard does not make the Reapers fly into a sun. Come on people, it's shown and said that the Reapers don't die. Also, making all the Reapers fly into a sun would cause a solar storm or even make the sun blow up which would kill sooooo many people and planets, just saying.
• The Harvest Cycle will not start again. Shepard has been an organic and has lived a cycle, he knows they're wrong. He also has the knoweldge and memory of every other cycles, he knows how they happened and that they were wrong. He can find another solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflicts because he doesn't have constraints.*
• Paragon Shepard guards and protects the many.
• Renegade Shepard rules with an iron fist.
• The Reapers cannot act without Shepard's directives..

These 5 points simply are inarguable. We may decide what kind of personality Shepard has, but a big part of his character already exist and cannot be changed. Everything else is up to the player because we have our own different Shepard.
 
*Note: In OP, I said that Shep would not start the cycles, then in another post I said that it was debatable, but now that I think more about it; it's not. Every Shepard knows that the cycles are wrong and should not be repeated, it's a part of Shepard's character that cannot be changed by the player.

 

 

I dunno, I don't think we're disagreeing too much, but instead that you only have a more established belief about some things.

 

I do think that Control is more about 'what happens next?', but I think that's just the emphasis, where Synthesis is 'where do we go now?' and Destroy is 'what can happen?'.

In matters of what can happen next, after Reapers being present and controlled by a Shepard, yes, Control is the most diverse. Synthesis is seemingly on a one way track to transcendence (which implies diversity in itself, but not the kind that we could track), and Destroy is imo more diverse about what can happen now. With Control, we have the starting point. Reapers, quickly rebuilt Reaper tech, and an AI right in place to make things happen - while we don't have a totally unified galaxy with a single path (Synthesis' deal).

 

So I agree with you, but maybe not in the same way you're thinking?

 

~~~
 

-I agree about the sun thing. It is silly, and I always thought it was. It doesn't fit the tone of the original ending, and certainly doesn't fit the tone of the EC ending. For the record, I even more bring up the darker possibilities of Control due to how things are toned in EC and the ending leading up to TIM and the concept of Control. The music having a half-ominousness, the dangers of letting power go to your head, the belief that you're in control when you're never totally in control, etc. I'm not talking about Indoctrination Theory here, but more the idea that if you're playing with Reaper tech, there's a catch at some point, in some way, to some extent. If it was a brightly toned sort of thing (in the story of ME3 and the music of EC), I would only be speaking half as curiously about the negative possibilities.

 

-I am absolutely sure that the Reaper Harvest Cycle will never happen again. That would defeat the whole ending. I don't care about theories that Control or Synth screw things up. I don't. Not for this. We pick and ending as we DO get the good out of it - the Reapers defeated and Shepard a legend. And the cycles bloody ending. Leave some matters open for interpretation (like when I said that the cycle ending may still lead to a new sort of other cycle beginning), but we're done this extinction stuff. Move forward.

 

-I'm willing to think that Paragon and Renegade Shepard will still rule similarly, but just that a more Paragon Shepard will attempt dialogue in a closer way to the relatively more diplomatic scenes of Mass Effect (hologram etc), while Renegade Shepard will more likely shoot first and smooth things over after. I think in either case, Shepard wants to get along with the galaxy and act as a guardian, and may (at least for an indeterminable length of time) succeed in that far more than the Catalyst ever did or could.

 

-I agree that the Reapers cannot act without the Shepard's directives. Or at least its allowance. Where I have my own thoughts is on the whole collective intelligence part. If Shepard is also of that nature, then the Reapers still act in a way that may affect Shepard's decisions.

Hopefully, the Reapers just oversee a galaxy that acknowledges that Shepard gave up his life to stop the Reapers from harvesting everyone, and now watches over everyone, so they send the good vibes to the Reapers (dark) angels who then send that data to the Shepard God. Its allll goooood.

 

So I suppose I agree with your inarguable points. I only add a bit more to it, on what I personally at last ponder.

 

The cycles will not happen again as long as Shepard is there. I don't like those theories that he just gets corrupt over time and wants to kill everyone all over again. If 'cycles' happen again, they won't be anything like the crazy extinctions. I mean, an example off the top of my head, is a sort of 'what if' there is a whole universe inside a Reaper, so maybe the galaxy after a long time decides on its own (by whatever consensus) to become a Reaper - wouldn't that constitute a cycle? I think it would. But it would be consensual, not have to do with organic/synthetic conflict and war, and actually (from a point of view at least) enrich the galaxy rather than keep it down.

[capn233]

It isn't a terrible ending, I agree with that much.  Insofar as people want to imagine whatever explanations for ambiguities are ok with me I suppose.

 

1. I disagree here, because TIM's argument as it relates to the ending choice is taking the Reaper's power and using it for yourself.  That is the central argument, and if you take control you must agree with that on some level.  It just happens that TIM's motivation is likely different from Shepard's.  TIM's goal has always been "strength for humanity," which is what Control would have let him accomplish (assuming he wasn't indoctrinated).  Shepard's goal would be to stop the war.  Then post war, who knows, as the rest of Shepard's thoughts and motivations only live within players.

 

2. I agree that it wasn't intended that Control indoctrinates Shepard.  It just crosses you over into the Halo universe where AI's are created from human minds, and we get Sheptana.

 

2b.  Most people are talking about distrusting the Catalyst to make a fair assessment about each choice available to the player.  But otherwise I agree that it is impossible to believe that absolutely everything he tells you is a lie without taking Refuse.  I would say this was a failing with narrative moreso than a failing of players to understand the endings.

 

3. I don't agree that this is consistent with the dialogue in the Control ending.  Sheptana knows that he isn't really Shepard the organic.  "Through his death I was created..."

 

4.  Probably not.  But it is absolutely possible for this entity to become a tyrant since it is the most powerful entity in the galaxy.  I am pretty sure others have already used the "God Emperor" title to describe this ending.  Maybe ShepLeto II (guess we weren't in the Halo universe...) comes up with a different plan, or path, to prevent synthetic and organic strife through some sort of enforced tranquility.  Who knows?

 

5.  We don't really know enough from the epilogue to project hundreds or thousands of years into the future.

 

"Non-debateable" items:

 

• Shepard could do this, but as the endings show he does not.  However, the reasons stated are absolutely not consistent with anything in universe.  Reapers can die, we have seen many die.  As Vigil even told you in ME1, they are powerful but not invincible.  Also, it seems like you are confusing the destruction of a Reaper with the destruction of a mass relay, which are completely different, and in any case there wasn't any evidence that the Alpha relay explosion caused the star to explode, it was simply a powerful enough explosion to kill all the inhabitants of the Bahak system.
• Shepard likely would not start the Reaping cycles again.  But it isn't a certainty.  And in any case, we don't know what solution Sheptana will come up with, especially if he sees similar iterations over hundreds of thousands of years and the various other solutions he tries are not deemed successful
• Paragon vs Renegade is open to interpretation.  And in any case, it is quite possible that their actions would converge over thousands of years.
• Absolute control over the Reapers likely is the only non-debateable item for this ending.