362 réponses à ce sujet

[jumpingkaede]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...
Or do people still think the Reapers could be defeated conventionally?  

/shrug

Citing events from ME3 to support that Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally is as convincing as citing proof from the Bible that Jesus is real.

Without trodding on religion, that is essentially what you would be doing, yes?  

In ME3 as written Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally.  Agreed and accepted.

But that is not the same as saying ME3 could not have been written otherwise had Bioware not decided to go with the Crucible/Catalyst-as-only-option ending.

Right. Other than the fact that if you refuse, the races TRIED and obviously failed to defeat them conventionally. The next cycle could have a chance at it IF they find Liara's beacon early AND advance their technology quick enough.

I'd rather not have it written that the races could defeat them conviontionally. It really makes the Reapers look like crap. As if they were never really a threat afterall. So what was the point? As written is how it is.

You mean the other races that got hit at the Citadel IMMEDIATELY off the bat, and the bulk of their space fleet destroyed before they knew the Reapers were coming, communications severed, etc.?  

This cycle (Prothean Cycle+1) is the ONLY one that hasn't had that happen to them.  This cycle is, therefore, the only one that had the entire galaxy's fleet united as one to go up against the Reapers.

So no.  The other races did not TRY to defeat them conventionally and lose.

But Bioware really screwed up ME3 because  you're right.  If they had set ME3 a few years later, including the ability to study Sovereign, it's possible they could've had a big leg up in tech.

And as it turns out AS WRITTEN, the Reapers were never really a threat.  Just a good ol' boy never meanin' no harm, ensuring organic survival the only way they knew how.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 27 juin 2012 - 01:59 .

[MzAdventure]

I liked it. A lot. In the end my cannon ending is destroy, but I thought refuse was darn good.

And if it was the game developer giving the fans a giant middle finger, good for them. I returned the salute by shooting starbrat as many times as I could before he gets all pissy about it. Most fun I've had in ME3 since I finished the game back in March.

[jumpingkaede]

humes spork wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

But that is not the same as saying ME3 could not have been written otherwise had Bioware not decided to go with the Crucible/Catalyst-as-only-option ending.

Yes, and Wrex could have gotten some good old-fashioned Man-Shep butt-lovin' if BW had written it that way.

Garrus could have been a transvestite that runs around in a pink-and-purple polka-dotted tutu if BW had written it that way.

The Reapers could actually have been good guys out to save the galaxy from the Reaper-Reapers who eat stars and crap dark energy if BW had written it that way.

Mass Effect could have been set in the same universe as Dragon Age and Joker could have hopped out the Normandy's airlock to find Morrigan standing right there giving the greatest "WTF?" look in video game history if BW had written it that way.

ME3 could have ended with Harbinger flying through the cosmos fingering Pinkie Pie and singing the goddamn nyan cat song if BW had written it that way.

Unfortunately, BioWare wrote none of that crap, and neither did they write in ME3 the Reapers could be defeated conventionally. Or, anywhere in the entire trilogy, really; the closest you get is the ending of ME1 when Shepard says s/he'll find a way to defeat the Reapers, which on its own has little to no meaning let alone a way to defeat the Reapers conventionally. Saying BW could have done one thing or another is about as useful as throwing a touchdown pass in a baseball game.

You completely miss the point.

Look to ME1 and ME2 for evidence to support what could've happened in ME3.  (Including whether or not a so-called "conventional victory" would be possible).

That's fair game and there's evidence to go both ways.

Looking to ME3 for evidence is circular and illogical but that is what most pro-enders or anti-conventionalers (?) are doing.  

The point was that Bioware could have gone with either in ME3 based on the story and facts as set up in ME1 and ME2.  

Based on ME1 and ME2 alone, Bioware could have written a so-called conventional victory i.e. unite the entire galaxy, create technology based on Sovereign, study Sovereign's weaknesses, ramp up weapon and defense production, lay ambush for the Reapers at the Alpha/Batarian Relay, etc.  Heck, something like detonating the Batarian Relay at the same time the Reapers were coming through would have wiped out many of the Reaper fleet, yes?  Not to mention that you had found out the Geth were actually allies (possibly the first time synthetics have ever allied with organics?)  Add in the rachni, something to do with dark energy, and there you go.  An ending that doesn't require a Crucible and Space Magic.

I see nothing in ME1 and ME2 that would support any of your other Bioware rewrites (e.g., pink anything, nyan cat, etc.).  They are nonsensical, and slightly insulting on a being respectful to other posters level, but seeing as how  you missed the original point so thoroughly I won't take any offense to it.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 27 juin 2012 - 02:12 .

[LiarasShield]

Gotta Say no it isn't the most retarded ending and I have my reasons for it in my own thread

[Galbrant]

I thought refusal was the most logical choice, I'll be damn I listen to the bull**** spew by my enemy. For all I know he could be trying to indoctrinate me. Fine if we all go down fighting so be it, Sacrificing an entire sentient species to kill my enemy is beneath me, forcing synthesis on everyone against their free will is beneath me, and how in the hell am I suppose to believe a celestial little boy control is an option after I watch the Illusive man blew his brains out? Power corrupts that kind of power is beneath me.

So I rather die fighting tooth and nail and by god I hope I bring Harbringer down with me.

Though I still believe a conventional victory is possible and the refusal ending was a middle finger. But I will still pick the refusal ending every time.

[Jadebaby]

John Epler wrote...

Plus, Refuse lets me believe that Zaeed is the next cycle's version of Javik. And that's a thought to keep me warm at night.

There wouldn't be a "Javik" in the next cycle because they discover the capsule before the 50,000 years is up, and activate the Citadel between cycles when the Reapers aren't there.

Refusal is stupid because the next cycle use the crucible and have to make the same 3 choices that you couldn't or wouldn't make. All you're saying is "I'm out, I'd rather die" and leave it to the next person to come along and worry about. If it's not dumb it's incredibly stupid.

[LiarasShield]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Plus, Refuse lets me believe that Zaeed is the next cycle's version of Javik. And that's a thought to keep me warm at night.

There wouldn't be a "Javik" in the next cycle because they discover the capsule before the 50,000 years is up, and activate the Citadel between cycles when the Reapers aren't there.

Refusal is stupid because the next cycle use the crucible and have to make the same 3 choices that you couldn't or wouldn't make. All you're saying is "I'm out, I'd rather die" and leave it to the next person to come along and worry about. If it's not dumb it's incredibly stupid.

No I don't think refusal is stupid I don't want to live on forever and try to use power that may corrupt me some day no I don't want to make everyone be part synthetic or organic against their will and no I don't want to destroy a entire race just to kill the reapers


Even though we lose in the refusal ending at least shepard still remains a hero and believes in the freedom of choice so no just because our cycle lost I don't think the next cycle will have to use the crucible and I think they beat them conventionally from being more advanced and learning of the reapers and our tech from liaras time capsule so they may have beaten the reapers conventionally where we couldn't so no I don't see it as stupid far from it

Modifié par LiarasShield, 27 juin 2012 - 02:27 .

[ShdwFox7]

To be honest all the endings are dumb. The Catalyst tells you...

Destroying what looks like a power conduit will probably kill you and destroy all the reapers and all AI in the galaxy in general.

Gripping two handles sizzling with electricity/energy will not only kill you, but also turn you into an AI that gives you full control of the reapers.

Jumping into a even bigger beam of sizzling electricity/energy will not only kill you, but turn every sentient being in the galaxy into organic/synthetic hybrids.

Oh yeah, not to mention all these decisions are a leap of faith. Their is no reason to trust the Catalyst at face value.

And lastly, if you reject the Catalyst, Shepard stands there dumb founded, waiting for death. Why didn't Shepard take that elevator platform back down to the previous room and mess with that control panel? It obviously did something important if Anderson was interested in it.

Realistically, I'd first reject the Catalyst. If the panel back in the other room did nothing then I'd just sit back and watch the war. If we lost then I'd have nothing else to lose and I'd grab those electricity/energy sticks with the hope that the Catalyst wasn't bull****ing me. I'd pick control because it's the most moral decision the player can make. Everyone is saved, no deaths like the destruction ending, aside from my own, which was probably going to happen anyway given the information I was given. And I don't conform everyone, without their consent, to half organic half synthetic hybrids like a racist ******. Finally, their is a multitude of uses for the reapers other than for fixing the damage they caused. The most immediate thought, as suggested by the ending, is using them as a defense against outside threats (think of the reapers as the Krogan used against the Rachni in the Rachni wars).

[Jamie9]

Before ME3 released, I always imagined a scenario where the Reapers won and you used a Vigil-like construct to warn the next cycle.

Now that's an option. And it is a wonderfully sad one.

[LiarasShield]

Jamie9 wrote...

Before ME3 released, I always imagined a scenario where the Reapers won and you used a Vigil-like construct to warn the next cycle.

Now that's an option. And it is a wonderfully sad one.

Still gives a chance for the next cycle to beat them without the crucible and it allows shepard to still go down like a hero believeing that everyone should have freedom or the right to make their own choices and I believe the next cycle wins without the crucible either way I love it tons more then destroy

[Jamie9]

LiarasShield wrote...

Still gives a chance for the next cycle to beat them without the crucible and it allows shepard to still go down like a hero believeing that everyone should have freedom or the right to make their own choices and I believe the next cycle wins without the crucible either way I love it tons more then destroy

With the Extended Cut, I actually like all 4 choices now. They all have their merits. They all have their disadvantages.

[MadRabbit999]

Grimwick wrote...

Yeah it's pointless. Kinda why it's a big middle finger from BioWare.

I personally think is quite the opposite:

"Well these are the options"

"Well then F**k you kid!!!" Boom!

"Oh well, if you wanna behave like a 5 years old, then be a 5 years old, I tried reasoning with you but you think you always know what is best..."

I think it would have been beyond absurd if 10000+ reapers got defeated by even 1 Billion ships since an entire battlion barely cripples a reaper or two.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 27 juin 2012 - 03:08 .

[Jadebaby]

LiarasShield wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Plus, Refuse lets me believe that Zaeed is the next cycle's version of Javik. And that's a thought to keep me warm at night.

There wouldn't be a "Javik" in the next cycle because they discover the capsule before the 50,000 years is up, and activate the Citadel between cycles when the Reapers aren't there.

Refusal is stupid because the next cycle use the crucible and have to make the same 3 choices that you couldn't or wouldn't make. All you're saying is "I'm out, I'd rather die" and leave it to the next person to come along and worry about. If it's not dumb it's incredibly stupid.

No I don't think refusal is stupid I don't want to live on forever and try to use power that may corrupt me some day no I don't want to make everyone be part synthetic or organic against their will and no I don't want to destroy a entire race just to kill the reapers

You realize if you choose refusal your killing almost every species instead of just one, right?

Even though we lose in the refusal ending at least shepard still remains a hero and believes in the freedom of choice so no just because our cycle lost I don't think the next cycle will have to use the crucible and I think they beat them conventionally from being more advanced and learning of the reapers and our tech from liaras time capsule so they may have beaten the reapers conventionally where we couldn't so no I don't see it as stupid far from it

But they wouldn't be more advanced because they would still evolve along the paths the Reapers desire through using Mass Relays and Citadel. And she did say that it stopped them from fighting a great war, so that kind of implies that they didn't fight conventionally because they avoided the war altogether by using the crucible.

[Cyricsservant101]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Refusal is a dumb choice, for dumb people, and a reminder that being stubborn is a bad trait

Or it's a reflection that sometimes people would rather die for what they believe is right rather than compromise who they are.

I still picked the destroy ending, but I think this option is a good addition to the end of the game.


I adamantly disagree that it's a "dumb" choice though.  You can make a good argument that any of the choices are good or dumb IMO.

Hi Allan,

Congrats on the new endings!  As far as I can tell all the major complaints from ending literalists have been addressed, and done so in an effective and rewarding way. 

Out of curiosity, on the whole, which endings do the Bioware staff prefer?  Is one ending heavily favored over the others?  Are two loved, but another usually ignored?

I'm just curious because you stated you prefer the destroy ending and I saw in another thread one moderator's preference is control... but I always felt like synthesis was Mr. Walters "baby" so to speak.  Like, it was the ending he wanted us to pick, just based on the EMS barrier, the music, how cavity-inducing sweet it is. 

Modifié par Cyricsservant101, 27 juin 2012 - 03:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

You realize if you choose refusal your killing almost every species instead of just one, right?

To be fair, this is a consequence that Shepard only knows if the player "cheats" and uses metaknowledge of the consequences to influence the decision.

[Allan Schumacher]

Cyricsservant101 wrote...

Hi Allan,

Congrats on the new endings!  As far as I can tell all the major complaints from ending literalists have been addressed, and done so in an effective and rewarding way. 

Out of curiosity, on the whole, which endings do the Bioware staff prefer?  Is one ending heavily favored over the others?  Are two loved, but another usually ignored?

I'm just curious because you stated you prefer the destroy ending and I saw in another thread one moderator's preference is control... but I always felt like synthesis was Mr. Walters "baby" so to speak.  Like, it was the ending he wanted us to pick, just based on the EMS barrier, the music, have cavity-inducing sweet it is. 

I don't know if I could reasonably poll everyone or not, short of spamming the company with emails

The office I'm in has a balanced mix of which is the best (it had the same mix with the original endings as well).  Maybe it's reasonable that there's a fairly balanced distribution?  I'm not sure.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 27 juin 2012 - 03:15 .

[Hobbes]

*shrug*
I sort of liked it, I see it as choosing to fight to the bitter end and staying true to yourself and your beliefs. You didn't save your cycle but you provided the means to help the next and helped life go on...in the end it all worked out more or less...at least as much as the other endings.

[D24O]

IMO my level of satisfaction with refusal depends on how the next cycle beats the reapers. If they can do it on their own, then yes, it is a satisfying ending as the galaxy is finally able to beat the reapers on their own terms, the whole point of making the decision. If they have to use the crucible, then it's a waste, all you're doing is killing everything you care about for the next cycle to acquiesce to the Catalyst's demands.

[Lalalandia]

@Allan Schumacher

Nice job to the team for getting in that fourth choice, I personally never understood why we were asked to trust a Deus Ex Machina who admits to being the 'Ur Reaper' in the last ten minutes. Thanks for letting me shoot it in the face and choose freedom!

Of course I always shoot him in the face so I discovered this more by accident, man did I LOL in surprise when he goes full Reaper 'So be it'

[Jamie9]

D24O wrote...

IMO my level of satisfaction with refusal depends on how the next cycle beats the reapers. If they can do it on their own, then yes, it is a satisfying ending as the galaxy is finally able to beat the reapers on their own terms, the whole point of making the decision. If they have to use the crucible, then it's a waste, all you're doing is killing everything you care about for the next cycle to acquiesce to the Catalyst's demands.

I would imagine they beat them conventionally. I mean, our cycle thought the Crucible didn't work. That would be in the message.

[Cyricsservant101]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Cyricsservant101 wrote...

Hi Allan,

Congrats on the new endings!  As far as I can tell all the major complaints from ending literalists have been addressed, and done so in an effective and rewarding way. 

Out of curiosity, on the whole, which endings do the Bioware staff prefer?  Is one ending heavily favored over the others?  Are two loved, but another usually ignored?

I'm just curious because you stated you prefer the destroy ending and I saw in another thread one moderator's preference is control... but I always felt like synthesis was Mr. Walters "baby" so to speak.  Like, it was the ending he wanted us to pick, just based on the EMS barrier, the music, have cavity-inducing sweet it is. 

I don't know if I could reasonably poll everyone or not, short of spamming the company with emails

...You have my permission to do so. 

The office I'm in has a balanced mix of which is the best (it had the same mix with the original endings as well).  Maybe it's reasonable that there's a fairly balanced distribution?  I'm not sure.

I thought that might be the case.  Thanks for the reply.

[a load of stanton]

all i wanted was more space battles but bioware doesn't care

[Jamie9]

a load of stanton wrote...

all i wanted was more space battles but bioware doesn't care

I don't think we can comprehend how expensive those are to program and animate. We did get a couple more space shots in the EC anyhow.

[D24O]

Jamie9 wrote...

D24O wrote...

IMO my level of satisfaction with refusal depends on how the next cycle beats the reapers. If they can do it on their own, then yes, it is a satisfying ending as the galaxy is finally able to beat the reapers on their own terms, the whole point of making the decision. If they have to use the crucible, then it's a waste, all you're doing is killing everything you care about for the next cycle to acquiesce to the Catalyst's demands.

I would imagine they beat them conventionally. I mean, our cycle thought the Crucible didn't work. That would be in the message.

I would hope so. With out level of tech, plus the extra time they got, I'd think they would have a shot at standing toe to toe with them. Oh well, it's not my personal canon ending, so I shouldn't dig too deep into it.