Red and Blue (spoilers)

#1LordTrinenPosted 6/18/2013 6:45:19 PM
I have often pondered the coloring choice of the endings, specifically the Control and Destroy endings. Blue has always meant Paragon and Red has always meant Renegade. I remember when ME3 first came out many argued the coloring of Control and Destroy didn't make sense. You'd think destroying the Reapers, that which you have been shooting for the entire trilogy, would be the Paragon choice yet it is Red. Control was first conceived by the Illusive Man who embodies many Renegade qualities yet it is the Blue option.

The choice between Control and Destroy is actually very similar to two decisions you make in ME2, what to do with the Collector Base and what to do with the geth Heretics. In many ways the Heretics decision mirrors the ME3 endings. In many ways the Control ending brainwashes the Reapers, just like the virus does if it is unleashed on the Heretics. The same parallel can be drawn between the Destroy ending and blowing up the Heretics. These are very similar decisions with identical color schemes.

Yet the Collector Base decision is the opposite. Saving the Collector Base (Controlling it) is clearly the Renegade option. Destroying the Collector Base is the Paragon option. Once again we have a similar situation yet the color scheme is the opposite.

In a way I can understand the coloring of the endings. The Control ending results in the fewest deaths and leaves the galaxy for the most part unchanged. Things are damaged but thanks to the Reapers things are no doubt repaired very quickly. Plus the Reapers will be around to deal with any threat to the galaxy and its people (assuming the Shepard Catalyst stays uncorrupted). Destroy can be seen as a more ruthless action because you are sacrificing EDI and the geth, damaging much of the galaxy's tech and leaving the fate of the galaxy very uncertain. I just wish they would keep the color scheme consistent with these decisions.
#2scipiopubliusPosted 6/18/2013 6:49:30 PM
Well said. Now waiting for the comments about the writers not caring to start.
#3xKryptonKnightxPosted 6/18/2013 7:11:56 PM
I always thought it was the StarChild trying to mess with you. Clearly he doesn't want you to pick destroy.
---
Beware the fury of a patient man.
GT: xMarvel Knightx
#4NafzgerPosted 6/18/2013 7:15:48 PM
xKryptonKnightx posted...
I always thought it was the StarChild trying to mess with you. Clearly he doesn't want you to pick destroy.


Yes let's not believe anything he says...except when he says there's a way to destroy them.
---
XBL:ArsenalofGlory | PSN: Nafzger
http://www.last.fm/user/Rainbow_Smasher
#5phoenix52Posted 6/18/2013 9:37:17 PM
xKryptonKnightx posted...
I always thought it was the StarChild trying to mess with you. Clearly he doesn't want you to pick destroy.


How could that be if the color associations don't actually exist within the story? It's not like Shepard knows that blue typically represents paragon.

I have an easier time believing that the makers of the game made Destroy the red option as a subtle attempt to encourage players to contemplate the alternative choices more seriously. After three games of "I'm gonna destroy those Reapers!", I wouldn't be surprised if several people chose destroy just because that's what they expected from the beginning.
---
Its like having a knitting contest between the best regular old lady knitter in the world and a guy who's superpower is specifically to be the best knitter ever
#6phishfacePosted 6/19/2013 12:36:53 AM
Distrust of synthetics is a consistent renegade theme. Being rude to EDI is always the renegade option in ME 2 & 3, as is being horrible to the Geth (despite Legion's obvious 'soul'). So in that way, Destroy should be red, because it would fit with previous renegade options.

Control blue means everyone organic and synthetic - lives and keeps their individual identity. So in that way it's consistent with the usual paragon options of respecting diversity, individuals etc.

I always thought green synthesis was the dodgy choice, because it kind of means you agree with the reapers that synthetics and organics simply can't live together, and have to be changed into something they aren't. It also makes everyone into a reaper (created by using organics to make a synthetic i.e. combining the two into something that is neither).
#7xKryptonKnightxPosted 6/19/2013 12:50:43 AM
phoenix52 posted...
xKryptonKnightx posted...
I always thought it was the StarChild trying to mess with you. Clearly he doesn't want you to pick destroy.


How could that be if the color associations don't actually exist within the story? It's not like Shepard knows that blue typically represents paragon.

I have an easier time believing that the makers of the game made Destroy the red option as a subtle attempt to encourage players to contemplate the alternative choices more seriously. After three games of "I'm gonna destroy those Reapers!", I wouldn't be surprised if several people chose destroy just because that's what they expected from the beginning.


I should have clarified that its the player being messed with.
---
Beware the fury of a patient man.
GT: xMarvel Knightx
#8StarCox20Posted 6/19/2013 11:22:53 AM
Could be argued that control is a way of cooperation (paragon) where as destroy is a way of survive at any cost (renegade)
---
NFLB's #1 Eagles fan 2011/12/13
http://i.imgur.com/lamptdE.gif
#9severialityPosted 6/20/2013 5:11:58 PM
Nafzger posted...
xKryptonKnightx posted...
I always thought it was the StarChild trying to mess with you. Clearly he doesn't want you to pick destroy.


Yes let's not believe anything he says...except when he says there's a way to destroy them.


Here, let me fill in some gaps in your reasoning.

Catalyst says you'll die if you pick Destroy. Obviously, that's not the case. There are two possible reasons.

A. He's lying
B. He doesn't know

If he's lying, well then he obviously is trying to steer you away from choosing destroy by appealing to your sense of self-preservation, or else he would have no reason to lie.

If he doesn't know, then how can we take any of the tacked-on complications towards destroy, or even the other choices? How do we know EDI and the geth will die? For all we know, a beam shoots out and just kills Reapers.

Either way, awful writing.

More on topic, I had some serious concerns with the ethics of Bioware's writing staff after ME2 in Legion's loyalty mission. Proposing that forcibly changing the mind of sentient beings because they stand in your way, turning them into new people supporting a cause they were initially against is a good choice was abhorrent. You basically kill them(because with a new brain it's basically a new person), enslave their bodies, and twist their bodies into beings they would hate and fight against. It's pretty much murder, necromancy, and slavery all wrapped into a neat package.

Seriously, change "geth" with "humans" and tell me what the more noble choice is. Bioware sounds like a "good intention" type of evil trying to achieve peace by making everyone agree and conform. Which is why Synthesis and Control are disgusting.
#10edgecrusher02Posted 6/20/2013 7:16:48 PM(edited)
I think the whole "is submission not preferable to extinction?" quote comes up in this series for a reason. I think it's ultimately about perspective. Not everyone will agree with that statement, but there are those that will. I think that was sort of the point with some of the series choices, especially the ending. Some people see anything but destroying the reapers as submission, and there are even those that think that choosing destroy is as well.

For all the debates/arguments I have witnessed and taken part in, there is always something that makes me question my viewpoint on each of the endings, even if it is only very slightly. Nothing is ever as simple as good or bad/black or white. Or in the case of Mass Effect, paragon/renegade. Which I suspect was never meant to be that simple. Paragon almost always results in a peaceful solution, or much less aggressive way of achieving something. Whereas a renegade action could mean the same result, but achieved through force or an aggressive response.

Making peace with the quarians/geth is a prime example. The renegade option has shepard saying that he/she is done helping the quarians and will let the geth "lay them to waste" whereas the paragon option has shepard saying that the geth will defeat the quarians but that the geth don't want to fight them. Both have the same conclusion, but were achieved with a different mentality. On a side note, I always thought it was weird the renegade option also ended with shepard saying keelah se'lai.

In the case of the heretics mission, rewriting the geth is not doing what equates to murdering them(destroying them). That is likely the thought process behind why it is paragon, even though it may not be seen as "right", it is more peaceful than murder. The same logic can be applied to the ending choice, though I can see why someone may not care about "murdering" the reapers. That's where perspective comes in. Though I think those choices are a little more morally ambiguous than others in the series, I can see why they are the way they are.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed. no gods, no kings... only man.