332 réponses à ce sujet

[Orumon]

I personally prefer reject as it's basically letting me spit in hte eyes of the people who wrote the original ending.

[MandaPanda81]

Shepard isn't rejecting the catalyst thinking "well I don't like any of these choices, better doom the galaxy." She's thinking "We'll find another way."

[Galbrant]

MandaPanda81 wrote...

Shepard isn't rejecting the catalyst thinking "well I don't like any of these choices, better doom the galaxy." She's thinking "We'll find another way."

Damn striaght. Who knows? It could be a defective Reaper.

[Fre3dom]

Part of the OP's argument is biased. He claims that choosing reject makes you a hero and means you're not giving up on your morals or compromising them for victory. However every ending choice has good and bad points to them. Reject's is that you are not willing to end The Reaper's in this cycle because you won't conform with the Star Child's choices. Which in turn means your condemning the next cycle to go through everything you just did. The Reaper's will still come and take lives and cause utter destruction before the next cycle can win. You could have ended all of that by making a different choice, thus allowing the next cycle to grow up in either a Reaper free world or a world where the Reaper's help the galaxy advance.

[N7Infernox]

Sajuro wrote...

Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask them if honor matters... their silence will be your answer.

QFT. Refusing the catalyst just isn't worth it.

Working with the Catalyst is not submission over extinction, but rather compromise over extinction.

[thisisme8]

Icesong wrote...

Don't be absurd please. Canon can't be argued with. That's why it's canon.

So if I never knew about the tweet regarding the next cycle, would my assumption that they won using a different method be wrong to my own interpretation?  No.

You miss the entire point of storytelling.  Even when dealing with facts and logic, a story's true intent is to evoke wonder and emotion.  To dismiss that for anything else is what is absurd.

[PoisonMushroom]

ahleung wrote...

PoisonMushroom wrote...

Refuse is the same paragon choice that Bioware has given you time and time again. The only difference is that this time, Bioware decide that choosing it kills you.

Exactly.

Shepard refused Saren, Sovereign, and especially Illusive Man (just 10 minutes ago before meeting Catalyst), with slim chance to win everytime.

You thought Shepard was heroic for refusing them, because you knew Shepard would succeed.
You thought Shearpd was murderer for refusing Catalyst, because you knew Shepard would lose the war this time.

But Shepard didn't know that. He/She refused them just because of his/her belief, principles.

That's why "Refuse" is the most character-consistent ending for Shepard.

Couldn't agree more.

Personally I don't care if synthesis and control save more lives because in my opinion they're not presented in a way that would ever make Shepard choose them. There's no research from Mordin that foreshadows the possibility of Synthesis, there's no comment from EDI or Legion to say that regardless of TIM's intentions, Control could be a more logical way to deal with the Reapers. Worst of all, there's nothing from Shepard that shows any indication of him/her ever choosing anything other than refuse/destroy. S/he shoots down TIM's and Saren's ideas, before potentially persauding them to shoot themselves along with their beliefs.

Even if within the game control and synthesis save lives, choosing them ultimately breaks the logic of my story. Having to go through that thought process and disconnect myself from Shepard in that way, at what was potentially the biggest decision of the game, is ultimately why the ending failed so badly for me. For the first time in the entire trilogy, I found myself choosing an option because it would make sense better in the story, rather than because I thought it would be a better decision.

So you can say what you want about refuse. You can call it needless pride, call it illogical. But it's the same FU that Shepard gave to Sovereign, the same one s/he gave to the collectors and the same one s/he gave to everyone who called it a suicide mission. Shepard did it then, and if doing it now ends digital lives, then that's not the player's fault, it's Bioware's.

Modifié par PoisonMushroom, 28 juin 2012 - 06:23 .

[Fresnor]

I still don't get how people can call the 3 rainbow endings 'the logical choice'. Logic dictates that you do NOT trust the enemy who has made it a habit of using lies and deceit to try and get their way. Trusting that star child is telling the truth in any way, is like trusting that that dog is perfectly fine and won't hurt you, even though it has a nice layer of foam coming out of it's mouth. The only sane and logical choice really is to completely refuse the three choices. It's just too bad Bioware decided to have a hissy fit over 'artistic integrity' even though they threw that out the window by trashing the original storyline in the first place.

[Icesong]

thisisme8 wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Don't be absurd please. Canon can't be argued with. That's why it's canon.

So if I never knew about the tweet regarding the next cycle, would my assumption that they won using a different method be wrong to my own interpretation?  No.

You miss the entire point of storytelling.  Even when dealing with facts and logic, a story's true intent is to evoke wonder and emotion.  To dismiss that for anything else is what is absurd.

Yes actually, you can be wrong about something and not know it. It's called ignorance; which isn't to say you're ignorant. Maybe I am. If dead author were in effect you would be right in your interpretation but that's not how it is for ME's canon.

I'm not missing what you're saying, in fact I'm addressing it directly and saying it doesn't apply here. This isn't Shakespeare.

Modifié par Icesong, 28 juin 2012 - 06:53 .

[Banul]

prog_bassist wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

In the reject ending everyone dies and the Reapers win. If Shepard chooses anything else the Reapers lose and the galaxy is saved.


The reject ending is the loser ending.

The Reapers don't win.  The next cycle beats the Reapers with Liara's capsule.

Just like we beat the reapers with the prothean beacons?

[N7 Banshee Bait]

Zine2 wrote...

 Bioware chose to spite the ending by having the galaxy get annihilated by the Reapers (regardless of EMS score), and that a later civilization will break the cycle (implying they chose Red, Blue, or Green). It's little wonder that people are making fun of the line "SO BE IT" as something that was said by Mac Walters or Casey Hudson as a final insult to the people who hated their "creative vision", because it really does come off us nothing more than childish, petty spite by a pair of privelaged self-important "artists" who tried to peddle their crap as ground-breaking art.

Bah, that's just your own opinion or assumption.  The rest of your post ain't worth reading.

[AtlasMickey]

Reject does have that spark of life and moral principle, but afterward it left me thinking, "well thank goodness the Reapers at least preserved humanity and the other races,"

Uh huh. That's how wrong it is. Reject is even more selfish and egomaniacal than Control, where Shepard replaces the Catalyst with himself and becomes a techno-reaper-god-king.

In other words it's perfect for all the Retake narcissists.

[savionen]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Reject does have that spark of life and moral principle, but afterward it left me thinking, "well thank goodness the Reapers at least preserved humanity and the other races,"

Uh huh. That's how wrong it is. Reject is even more selfish and egomaniacal than Control, where Shepard replaces the Catalyst with himself and becomes a techno-reaper-god-king.

In other words it's perfect for all the Retake narcissists.

Controling the Reapers makes you an egomaniac.
Using synthesis to rewrite's physiology and brain using your own DNA and image, not egomaniac.

Seems legit.

[Vaneke]

Fre3dom wrote...

Part of the OP's argument is biased. He claims that choosing reject makes you a hero and means you're not giving up on your morals or compromising them for victory. However every ending choice has good and bad points to them. Reject's is that you are not willing to end The Reaper's in this cycle because you won't conform with the Star Child's choices. Which in turn means your condemning the next cycle to go through everything you just did. The Reaper's will still come and take lives and cause utter destruction before the next cycle can win. You could have ended all of that by making a different choice, thus allowing the next cycle to grow up in either a Reaper free world or a world where the Reaper's help the galaxy advance.

i chose reject. i played only one shepard, and now that i have reject, i replayed from cerberus, hit reject, and felt satisfied, won't play more either, because i'm done, the story is over.
no matter what ending, especially destroy, you have to "imagine" what will happen. reffering mostly to LI here.
well i chose reject.
the next cycle found the capsule in time, they prepared, waited, and won with the intelligence, provided by liara.
the stargarzer scene was sloppy, they should have showed something else, but the next cycle in my playtrough, didn't have to chose, they destroyed the reapers, without the starchild.
and the galaxy thrived.
offcourse i wanted krogan babies with garrus, all the commotion i understand, a happy ending is what lots of people expected, it just doesn't always happen.
i hate to make my own ending, but it will have to suffice to close this game series, it was nice.
and the debate will go on till another great game comes out or people get bored. it is what it is. they will not change it, and it will still have plot holes.

[Kasper Finknottle]

At the end of day, when I played through the original ending, after talking to the Star Child I tried to shoot him*.

Which with the expanded ending means I fail the game... which is fair enough. I'll stick with my first impulse which has generally carried me through the first two games

Saves me money on any further DLC I guess.

* Funnily enough around 60% of my friends that I asked (all be it a small population) did the same.

[ahleung]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

ahleung wrote...

PoisonMushroom wrote...

Refuse is the same paragon choice that Bioware has given you time and time again. The only difference is that this time, Bioware decide that choosing it kills you.

Exactly.

Shepard refused Saren, Sovereign, and especially Illusive Man (just 10 minutes ago before meeting Catalyst), with slim chance to win everytime.

You thought Shepard was heroic for refusing them, because you knew Shepard would succeed.
You thought Shearpd was murderer for refusing Catalyst, because you knew Shepard would lose the war this time.

But Shepard didn't know that. He/She refused them just because of his/her belief, principles.

That's why "Refuse" is the most character-consistent ending for Shepard.

Couldn't agree more.

Personally I don't care if synthesis and control save more lives because in my opinion they're not presented in a way that would ever make Shepard choose them. There's no research from Mordin that foreshadows the possibility of Synthesis, there's no comment from EDI or Legion to say that regardless of TIM's intentions, Control could be a more logical way to deal with the Reapers. Worst of all, there's nothing from Shepard that shows any indication of him/her ever choosing anything other than refuse/destroy. S/he shoots down TIM's and Saren's ideas, before potentially persauding them to shoot themselves along with their beliefs.

Even if within the game control and synthesis save lives, choosing them ultimately breaks the logic of my story. Having to go through that thought process and disconnect myself from Shepard in that way, at what was potentially the biggest decision of the game, is ultimately why the ending failed so badly for me. For the first time in the entire trilogy, I found myself choosing an option because it would make sense better in the story, rather than because I thought it would be a better decision.

So you can say what you want about refuse. You can call it needless pride, call it illogical. But it's the same FU that Shepard gave to Sovereign, the same one s/he gave to the collectors and the same one s/he gave to everyone who called it a suicide mission. Shepard did it then, and if doing it now ends digital lives, then that's not the player's fault, it's Bioware's.

Well said.

I think this is the major reason why the original endings failed so hard.

ME is the most immersive experience I played in years.

But the ending woke you up. It broke so many in-story logic (such as Shepard's character) and made the Universe no longer believable.

Modifié par ahleung, 28 juin 2012 - 10:26 .

[ahleung]

Fresnor wrote...

I still don't get how people can call the 3 rainbow endings 'the logical choice'. Logic dictates that you do NOT trust the enemy who has made it a habit of using lies and deceit to try and get their way. Trusting that star child is telling the truth in any way, is like trusting that that dog is perfectly fine and won't hurt you, even though it has a nice layer of foam coming out of it's mouth. The only sane and logical choice really is to completely refuse the three choices. It's just too bad Bioware decided to have a hissy fit over 'artistic integrity' even though they threw that out the window by trashing the original storyline in the first place.

Yeah, Reaper used to deceive people.

Direct indoctrination. Or indoctrinating important leaders to mislead the society. The story mentioned about these things many times.

Even with the elaborated conversation scene with Catalyst in Extended Cut, I still don't find any reason why Shepard would trust him more than Sovereign, Harbinger.

[thisisme8]

Icesong wrote...

Yes actually, you can be wrong about something and not know it. It's called ignorance; which isn't to say you're ignorant. Maybe I am. If dead author were in effect you would be right in your interpretation but that's not how it is for ME's canon.

I'm not missing what you're saying, in fact I'm addressing it directly and saying it doesn't apply here. This isn't Shakespeare.

You're missing what I'm saying because you can't seem to be able to define a story for its intended merits.  Say what you will, but until another Mass Effect game or novel comes out that defines what happened, a tweet is irrelevent to canon.

[AtlasMickey]

savionen wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...

Reject does have that spark of life and moral principle, but afterward it left me thinking, "well thank goodness the Reapers at least preserved humanity and the other races,"

Uh huh. That's how wrong it is. Reject is even more selfish and egomaniacal than Control, where Shepard replaces the Catalyst with himself and becomes a techno-reaper-god-king.

In other words it's perfect for all the Retake narcissists.

Controling the Reapers makes you an egomaniac.
Using synthesis to rewrite's physiology and brain using your own DNA and image, not egomaniac.

Seems legit.

Of course. It's not like the ego is a DNA-level phenomenon now is it. In any case what makes Shepard so ideal for Synthesis is that she is "ready" as the Catalyst describes it. She fostered a galactic alliance that didn't rely on her ego, or the ego of a race.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 28 juin 2012 - 11:02 .

[Subject M]

MandaPanda81 wrote...

Shepard isn't rejecting the catalyst thinking "well I don't like any of these choices, better doom the galaxy." She's thinking "We'll find another way."

Very true. My Shep would defiantly have chosen Reject if he believed that a significant chance to win. But given the situation, he was even prepared to try make some other kind of deal with the catalyst, but I guess the blood loss made him forget about it and he was faced with hard choice: control or synthesis. ...

[F00lishG]

Reject Shepards I have a question: Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. Red Option. Depending on your EMS the relays won't even be destroyed.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

Modifié par F00lishG, 28 juin 2012 - 11:26 .

[Fresnor]

F00lishG wrote...

Reject Shepards I have a question: Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. Red Option. Depending on your EMS the relays won't even be destroyed.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

It's more because you can't really trust it.  For all you know doing the red choice could destroy the station and the crucible with it and not even touch the reapers.  All you have to go on is the leader of a group of things that specialize in genocide and deceipt.

[joshko]

The reject is the second best option. Destroy still wins.
Either everyone in your cycle dies and the next one beats the reapers. Or a ton pf people in your cycle die and your civilization survives.

Modifié par joshko, 29 juin 2012 - 12:55 .

[YouAreHorse]

I would call the reject option an interesting one, though not necessarily the best.

Thematically it works, but then again so do the others to some extent.
Personally I thought the mood of me3 was that of hopelessness, and reject most definitely fit that mood. Hopelessness with just a tiny glimmer of hope.
The reject ending is not very technically impressive, and as people have pointed out it is on par with the originals in that department. Reject works better in that sort of presentation than the original endings though. Don't need much to illustrate what is happening/going to happen as the entirety of me3 is a demonstration of just that, reapers gonna reap y'know. So I found the Liara-holo scene sufficient to get the point across that all the hard work the characters did in the trilogy benefited the next cycle.
As the arguably biggest heroes of the previous cycle managed to buy the next one some time (sabotaging the citadel and leaving the beacons i think), this cycle fights a heroic but hopeless battle but completes the protheans mission.

Poetic, sure, but it gives the trilogy a more poetic ring to it as a whole then, doesn't it? The endings are still more or less like the last pages of a "choose-your-own-adventure" novel and in the end it should be more about what satisfaction the player gets out of it.

Personally I always found the appeal of the me-series to be in its galactic horror themes and unstoppable impending doom , and in that context the reject ending fits nicely.
Actually felt the hairs on my back stand up when the "the cycle continues" line was spoken.
Brilliant horror-story that trilogy, if you go for the reject option.

[YouAreHorse]

F00lishG wrote...

Reject Shepards I have a question: Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. Red Option. Depending on your EMS the relays won't even be destroyed.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

What do you mean by Reject Shepards?
Why does it have to be red? Why not green, or maybe blue?

How can Shepard, without some meta-help from the player, know he has won?

No

No

As you can see I need some clarification on the first question.

I genuinely want to know.

Modifié par YouAreHorse, 29 juin 2012 - 01:34 .