517 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

Ryzaki wrote...
The fact that the next cycle decides to use the Crucible (and by extension follow the Catalyst's "logic" and make Shep's sacrifice pretty pointless) is just insult to injury.

Why are you putting "logic" in quotation marks?  The Catalyst's assesment was based on countless observations of the same instance:  Synthetics rebelling against organics.  The Geth made peace, they're unique to that pattern, hence why you can use control to simply stop the Reapers from reaping and it doesn't have a negative consequence.  Destroy wipes the slate clean and leaves the possibility of new synthetic creations, though statistically it's far, far more likely that they'll be hostile like the majority of their predecessors.  Synthesis, well, if that's your bag then do it. 
In short, the organic vs. synthetic issue was a real problem, surpressed by the Reapers but truly solved by the Geth, but the Reapers refused to deviate.  This is where the Catalyst's logic would fail, except that it admits to you that its solution no longer works, is open to new possibilities presented by the weapon created by organics, and turns the reigns over to Shepard and his Crucible.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 27 juin 2012 - 06:00 .

[darknessmyown]

Cthulhu42

It's the only ending where Shepard acts like Shepard, and the only ending that (I feel) provides closure (even if it is in the "everybody dies" way).

It is now my canon ending.



Ubiquitous

I kinda like the reject ending. At least it's realistic.

But I still can't stop thinking about the starchild being BioWare. It's like "You want new endings?! SO BE IT!" and boom, everyone dies.



IanPolaris

I agree but the problem I have with it, is it IS the only ending where Shepard really acts like Shepard, and it seems as thought Bioware though the mouth of the starkid (which was always understood to be an authorial device) seems to say, "You don't like my endings?!"

*Curbstomp*

And you are no matter how much EMS you have...and during that scene after the speech, Shepard does nothing.

It seems petty and more than a little spiteful when I saw it.

-Polaris



Hakkari

I wouldn't have been so annoyed with it if it had been included in the original game.

But now it just seems like a way for the writers to vent through their character. "Don't like our endings? Think you can do better? Screw you, everyone's dead!"



Bocks

I see it exactly as Bioware punishing people who don't accept their "artistic vision".

There's little to discuss. You either pick Bioware's endings or you lose.



nitefyre410

Herr Igor wrote...

TRANSLATION for the "Reject Ending" = "Don't like our colors? So **** you!"



Thats how the whole Reject ending came off to me as well. Which in the end shows just what Mac Walters and Casey Hudson think about the series and fan base...


Taleroth wrote...

Rejection is a reiteration of Mass Effect 1's ending theme. Go down fighting.

In essence, rejection of Mass Effect 3 means Saren was right. Submission is apparently preferable to extinction. Because fighting is pointless. 2 out of 3 games are pointless because the original bad guy had the right answer all along.


^ Exactly.



Confused-Shepard

So with reject Bioware is saying, "The bad guys will give you options to save yourselves, don't ever think you can accomplish something with love, unity and cooperation. Submit to the bad guy."


In my reading through as many of the posts as I am currently able while keeping the troll in me in check, and also my frustration and anger, I find that these ideas keep getting repeated and I rather agree with them. Rather sad what you have done here, Bioware. I hope it was worth it.

[Geneaux486]

darknessmyown wrote...

In my reading through as many of the posts as I am currently able while keeping the troll in me in check, and also my frustration and anger, I find that these ideas keep getting repeated and I rather agree with them. Rather sad what you have done here, Bioware. I hope it was worth it.

The Crucible is the weapon of the organics.  The Catalyst acknowleges its superiority and admits defeat, telling you all of the possible functions of the weapon, including the one that kills it and its Reapers.  It's really twisted to say that this is a message about not being able to accomplish things on one's own, because that's precicely what the Crucible is a result of:  A united effort by the galaxy to build something so powerful that the Reapers' architect had to admit defeat, had to admit that the device was superior.  The reject ending is Shepard effectively refusing to end the war on his or her own terms.  It's ridiculous how much **** Bioware has taken from us over this while continuing to accomadate the people that hate them.  They've proven their dedication to their fans.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 27 juin 2012 - 06:08 .

[Sweawm]

Reject Ending was suitable in my opinion. Resistance in face of impossible odds. Submission is not preferable to Extinction. Even if they lost, Shepard defied the Reapers and did now allow them to get what they wanted or to dictate any terms.

It was a bitter sweet victory.

[Menagra]

....are you sure it's biowares internal spite? i mean...really? have they hinted this at all?

Also --- I know everyone still believes the IT is totally debunked and I was in that pool until I played "reject" and heard a harbinger-like voice from the catalyst I couldn't help but think maybe....

I mean IF harbinger is still trying to indoctrinate shepard (shepard laying in earths rubble) then shepards flat out refusal could have frustrated harbinger enough to make him kill shepard. To which shepard remembers liara's probes and lingers on that hope before death....and though there are elements explained others aren't leaving major plotholes like what is the point of the dreams, and how did anderson get into the room ahead of shepard -----he says he was in a dark tunnell, then an open cavern and then the room with the controls for the arms....that has only one path to it....and there's no way he could have navigated another path because electricity is everywhere....

I am reading way into it (I mean that's what the IT is all about!) but hey maybe....I just wish bioware would come out and say something for or against it. Maybe they did but I can't find anything in my searches (if they did please link me).

[RiouHotaru]

Greylycantrope wrote...

My favorite ending. Wish it would actually let us win instead of giving us the middle finger however.

Thank god it didn't.  That would've been cheap and cheesy, and not in a good way.

[Menagra]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

My favorite ending. Wish it would actually let us win instead of giving us the middle finger however.

Thank god it didn't.  That would've been cheap and cheesy, and not in a good way.

He only wants the option. Tragedy endings would still be there. Besides Tragedy and Comedy have been around since before Ancient Greece so a happy ending does not make a story cheap or cheesy (and a tragic ending does not make it artistic or amazing). It just makes a conventional story.

And a tragic story is also a conventional story. 

Modifié par infraredman, 27 juin 2012 - 06:54 .

[Y2Kevin]

This is my favorite ending of the bunch. I never wanted the universe to succeed in any way, shape, or form against the Reapers...I got my wish. I love Mass Effect, and I loved the story that played out over the course of the 3 games for my Shepard...but somewhere along the line I got it in my head that the Reapers simply couldn't be defeated. I got my wish, and I must say I'm satisfied.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

I liked this ending most, and I am thankful to Bioware for including it. Anyway as my original favorite ending was sadly the "Critical Mission Failure" screen that you get if you take too long to choose.
Control is my second favorite now, but its only possible if you decide to fully trust Starkid. Which I still believe is not plausible if you think about it from Shep point of view. Which pretty much affirmed by final angry "So be it" in Harbinger's voice - yep, Starkid was Harby all along after all. If my Shep would know how it will end - yes, he will pick Control, moreover for EC, but he does not know this at the point of choice.

I also liked the fact that Reject end didn't actually show Shepard to die on the Citadel. For all we know, he could've, in fact, survived, at least, for long enough to lead the continued resistance.

And even if he still died at the end - he summarized it pretty much in his speech, at least he went down fighting. And it wasn't a failure. Since next cycle made a *proper* happy ending, knowing that Crucible wouldn't work and fully prepared to properly defeat the Reapers once and for all this time.

So, now I actually have closure and can uninstall ME3 for good. Hopefully BW won't screw up in same fashion with their next games.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 27 juin 2012 - 07:07 .

[Gorwyn87]

Just to be clear since many people seem to either don't understand it or have a different opinion:

I don't feel like it's a slap in the face for the fans who didn't like the ending because you don't win. Actually I wrote exactly this ending as a personal wish of mine in here.
The problem I see is: This ending is nothing but 30 seconds of Liara speaking. It doesn't even include the achievements I made, it's just the same speech for everyone. Compared to the 5 minute+ original endings that's much less entertaining even if you like the general idea. Plus the other endings are now so positive that it feels like you are a bastard not choosing one of them, although Shepard's speech for it is wonderful. I guess that's mainly the case because you don't even see the galaxy fighting.
It feels to me more like I'm rejecting Bioware's "artistic integrity" than Shepard rejecting the starbrat-ideas. I can't help it.

Modifié par Gorwyn87, 27 juin 2012 - 08:42 .

[Ridwan]

If the writers had a clue, they would've used the accumulation of EMS to determine how successful a conventional attack would be.

Some people in this thread, think space magic that turns everyone into a freaking robot is legit. But to face down the reapers and kick their ass is impossible? Guess what, the greatest battles were won against impossible odds.

Bunch of slack jawed defeatists in here.

[Aiyie]

M25105 wrote...

If the writers had a clue, they would've used the accumulation of EMS to determine how successful a conventional attack would be.

Some people in this thread, think space magic that turns everyone into a freaking robot is legit. But to face down the reapers and kick their ass is impossible? Guess what, the greatest battles were won against impossible odds.

Bunch of slack jawed defeatists in here.

history shows us that last stands like the the spartans at thermopylae occur far less often than simple annilhation does.

its not defeatism... its realism.  we make our last stand... it doesn't work... but a future cycle benefits from it and does defeat the Reapers, with help from our legacy no less. 

thats a pretty satisfying end for me, especially if you believe, like i do, that that future cycle did it without resorting to the crucible (just because it was impossible for our cycle to defeat them conventionally doesn't mean the next can't) and accepting a victory given to you by the enemy. 

accepting victory through the catalyst's options is a deal with the devil... it didn't work out for faust, it wouldn't work out for us.

[Jawsomebob]

Readyness score should of made reject a better ending

[Ridwan]

Aiyie wrote...

M25105 wrote...

If the writers had a clue, they would've used the accumulation of EMS to determine how successful a conventional attack would be.

Some people in this thread, think space magic that turns everyone into a freaking robot is legit. But to face down the reapers and kick their ass is impossible? Guess what, the greatest battles were won against impossible odds.

Bunch of slack jawed defeatists in here.

history shows us that last stands like the the spartans at thermopylae occur far less often than simple annilhation does.

its not defeatism... its realism.  we make our last stand... it doesn't work... but a future cycle benefits from it and does defeat the Reapers, with help from our legacy no less. 

thats a pretty satisfying end for me, especially if you believe, like i do, that that future cycle did it without resorting to the crucible (just because it was impossible for our cycle to defeat them conventionally doesn't mean the next can't) and accepting a victory given to you by the enemy. 

accepting victory through the catalyst's options is a deal with the devil... it didn't work out for faust, it wouldn't work out for us.

Battle of Okehazama, Battle of Bannockburn, Finland defeating the mighty Soviet Union, the siege of Antioch, the battle of Issus, the siege of Malta, the battle for Mecca, the battle of the red cliffs.

[Ginkasa]

Jawsomebob wrote...

Readyness score should of made reject a better ending

I don't agree. I think they were pretty clear that there was really no way they could beat the Reaper's conventionally.  This is stated repeatedly throughout the game. 

[Star fury]

M25105 wrote...

Battle of Okehazama, Battle of Bannockburn, Finland defeating the mighty Soviet Union, the siege of Antioch, the battle of Issus, the siege of Malta, the battle for Mecca, the battle of the red cliffs.

In what alternate history did Finland beat USSR?

[Ridwan]

Star fury wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Battle of Okehazama, Battle of Bannockburn, Finland defeating the mighty Soviet Union, the siege of Antioch, the battle of Issus, the siege of Malta, the battle for Mecca, the battle of the red cliffs.

In what alternate history did Finland beat USSR?

The winter war.

[Talveton]

M25105 wrote...

Star fury wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Battle of Okehazama, Battle of Bannockburn, Finland defeating the mighty Soviet Union, the siege of Antioch, the battle of Issus, the siege of Malta, the battle for Mecca, the battle of the red cliffs.

In what alternate history did Finland beat USSR?

The winter war.

Even though I'm a Finn, that's a bit much After all, it was Finland that ceded territory to Soviet Union at the end of the war (providing motivation for the Continuation War), not vice versa.

[Ridwan]

Talveton wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Star fury wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Battle of Okehazama, Battle of Bannockburn, Finland defeating the mighty Soviet Union, the siege of Antioch, the battle of Issus, the siege of Malta, the battle for Mecca, the battle of the red cliffs.

In what alternate history did Finland beat USSR?

The winter war.

Even though I'm a Finn, that's a bit much After all, it was Finland that ceded territory to Soviet Union at the end of the war (providing motivation for the Continuation War), not vice versa.

You still stopped the Soviets rolling over your country and owning you. The fact that they were brought to the peace and couldn't defeat Finland is for me a victory.

Hell, the casualties the Soviets suffered were monstrous compared to the Finns.

[richard_rider]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

My favorite ending. Wish it would actually let us win instead of giving us the middle finger however.

Thank god it didn't.  That would've been cheap and cheesy, and not in a good way.

Because space magic presented by the enemy Deus Ex Machina is not cheap at all...

[Andy the Black]

I like it. I think it fits the theme of the games quite well, even seem to recall Shep saying "I'd rather die fighting than live as a slave." to Saren at the end of Mass 1.

However, it also hits me as a bit of a renegade choice. It's made clear through out the game that there is no way to beat the Reapers conventionally. You're dooming trillions, with on real hope of winning, just so you can give the Catalyst the finger.

[Star fury]

M25105 wrote...

Star fury wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Battle of Okehazama, Battle of Bannockburn, Finland defeating the mighty Soviet Union, the siege of Antioch, the battle of Issus, the siege of Malta, the battle for Mecca, the battle of the red cliffs.

In what alternate history did Finland beat USSR?

The winter war.

Cool alternate story. So country lost battles, lost its defense line, lost naval bases, gave territories that enemy wanted,  but won war. So then Germany won World War I too.

[Mako SOLDIER]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

It's the only ending where Shepard acts like Shepard, and the only ending that (I feel) provides closure (even if it is in the "everybody dies" way).

It is now my canon ending.

Ah, you see my Shepard was always all about finding the ideal compromise, the 'third option' if you will. As a result, even though my first EC choice was destroy I soon went back and chose synthesis. The way I see it (and this is not me trying to push my opinion on you, it's just me gushing a bit about the EC version of the ending), synthesis is the next logical step from brokering peace between the Geth and the Quarians - now synthetics can arguably be said to be alive, they can feel genuine emotions etc, and humans are now truly integrated with the technology that has been keeping them alive, possibly to the point of being able to interface in a meaningful sense with synthetics (not just sexually, but in the same way that the Asari can share thoughts etc). While I can agree that forcing the change on the galaxy is ethically iffy, I don't see it as any worse than wiping out the Geth or the Quarians, condemning the Krogans to the Genophage, allowing the last Rachni Queen to die, etc. Plus, it essentially alters existing life to essentially create new life. Plus, I fail to see how anyone who takes the reject ending as the best could find Synthesis any more ethically dodgy than allowing all of the advanced races of the current cycle to die on a matter of principal

[Mako SOLDIER]

Geneaux486 wrote...

HMSWarspite wrote...
what has suddenly changed the catalysts opinion about the validity of its solution?

The fact that the Crucible presented a better option.  The Catalyst tells you this itself.

Indeed. In fact, thinking about it, it's not really the catalyst that gives Shepard the choices, it's the designers of the crucible. The catalyst just recognises those possibilities and presents them to Shepard. My guess is that technically the designers of the crucible never recognised the catalyst as being of Reaper origin, rather they probably just found traces of sophisticated AI within the citadel's cystems and  then designed the crucible in a way that integrated and used the citadel.