332 réponses à ce sujet

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Normally, I wouldn't think of the Reject Endings as Bioware attempting to spite those who wanted a completely different ending because everyone dying is the logical outcome of the battle if you reject ending.

Then I remembered that Youtube is full of videos of people continuously shooting the Catalyst for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, etc. I've even seen an hour long video of Shepard shooting the catalyst. Since shooting the Catalyst now triggers the Reject ending, Bioware's attempt at spiting the fans is clear as day.

[JeosDinas]

Oransel wrote...
Proofs, please. Except for "Hackett saying..." argument. Does not matter what he says. I want to see real, compelling and strong proofs that conventional victory is impossible. 

You got it in the EC. That's pretty conclusive, I would say. Your EMS doesn't affect the Refusal. That, mechanically, tells us something narratively.

Beyond this, shall I really recount the entire plot of the game for you? Did you just wake up every now and then while playing? By and large the victories gained against the Reapers in this game fall into categories that constitue "above and beyond the norm". For instance, Tuchanka. Or they end up falling on the side of things where the scales are not really balanced. Like Rannoch. By the end of the game, no matter what we've done up until this point, the galactic map is outright dominated by the Reapers. And, collectively, we see no major push backs against their forces, even at the endgame.

It tends to add up to a pretty conclusive fact. And while you might want to ignore the fictional character who is a military expert and in a technical sense "there" in favor of your mighty, video gamer granted knowledge of military strategy and tactics, I'm not. Tangetial point, I know, but probably a good one to mention.

Besides, there's something somewhat hypocritical at play here. You're making the initial claim. That generally means you need to provide proof beyond "I feel..." especially since you want to affirm a positive claim (ie. Convential warfare "can" work). I literally have to do nothing. You have to prove everything.

As for trusting the Catalyst, it gives you the option to destroy it. If it were not at least partially genuine in what it was doing, it would not have done so.

Modifié par JeosDinas, 27 juin 2012 - 10:31 .

[StrawberryRainPop]

PaoloModica wrote...

I don't know.
If the catalyst lie to you, why does he tells to you about the choice to destroy, control or synthesis.
He could simply do not show up and let Shepard die without knowning what to do, or telling him that there is only a choice, the one he want.
He has nothing to lose, because he's winning.
The entire galaxy fleet tried to save ONLY A single PLANET and was almost wiped out.
There was no possibility to lose for him, so there was no need to lie to Shepard.

Destroy is the a way for him to lose. If he didnt intefere, Shepard might have done that.

Synthesis is a compromise, so everyone becomes the reapers.
Control could be a trap, remember, you are trusting a reaper AI. Whos to say that it will work and not blow up in your face?


Refuse is staying true to shepards morals, that one man does not control the fate of the galaxy.

[thisisme8]

Oransel wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Grab pretty much every line of dialogue in all three games.  From there, just pick and choose.

Please, provide us with these lines.

Seriously?  Aside from 50 million years of being undeafeted, you're sure an army of upstarts who just started getting along about 45 minutes ago stands a chance?  To quote Dumb and Dumber, "One in a million." "So you're saying there's a chance!"

But seriously, it's a major theme across all three games.

[Sir Fluffykins]

So...when people didn't like the orignal end, other people claimed it was because they weren't "Happy" endings and those people were silly...
Now...when people claim they like the Reject end, other people claim it is because they're defeatists and these people are being silly...?

Something is wrong with this picture.

PS: I liked the new Destroy ending, picked Synthesis originally, but Starchild's new explanation made me avoid it.

Modifié par Sir Fluffykins, 27 juin 2012 - 10:33 .

[Xellith]

Reject ending is the best because you can headcannon it to be something amazing.

[ArchLord James]

let me clear up a misconception here that the EC sort of debunked with its expanded explanation of the catalyst/crucible/reapers. All the endings RBG were not really the reapers solutions. The catalyst explains that it is the crucible docking with the catalyst (citadel) which changed the reapers source programming (added new variables) and allowed these new solutions to be possible. The reapers didn't just volunteer to destroy themselves for no reason, especially when they were on the verge of victory. The crucible kind of forced the reapers to accept RGB as much as it forced the player. When discussing the control ending (choose bottom right option) and the catalyst even says "I am not looking forward to being replaced by YOU! (shepard) but i have no choice . . .". So if you want to blame anybody for the optional solutions to replace the cycle (RBG) perhaps you could blame the creators of the crucible which are numerous dead civilization of organics. Its not really their fault either though as they were just desperate to find anything to stop the reapers no matter the cost.

Modifié par ArchLord James, 27 juin 2012 - 10:37 .

[Oransel]

thisisme8 wrote...
Seriously?  Aside from 50 million years of being undeafeted, you're sure an army of upstarts who just started getting along about 45 minutes ago stands a chance?  To quote Dumb and Dumber, "One in a million." "So you're saying there's a chance!"

But seriously, it's a major theme across all three games.

Yep. Delaying the Reaper's invasion in ME1 was impossible and looks like it has never happened before. Yet it happened by very much convenient ways. Shepard resurrection is impossible, yet it happened. Omega-4 Relay was meant to be literal suicide mission, yet you won. Arrival DLC. Tuchanka. Rannoch. Just admit it, major theme of Mass Effect is Commander Shepard overcoming the impossible odds.

[richard_rider]

I like destroy for the mere fact that you get to destroy the reapers and stupid @$#%$%&^ casper!

Although, I do agree that refusal is the moral high ground; sometimes victory isn't worth the cost.

What if casper told you that in order to defeat the reapers you had to shoot Liara, or Garrus, or Tali, or personally execute your entire crew...would you do it?

[Saintthanksgiving]

I think the refusal ending is the best ending for a paragon shepard. Control seems like it would provide a peaceful end to the conflict, but a peace based on the fear of Shepard's reapers is really no peace at all. Shepard says that he will end the conflict without losing humanity's soul. Shepard wouldn't use the collector's base or maelon's data for this reason. Forcing the galaxy to live in peace with a knife to it's throat is not the peace Paragon Shepard was talking about.

Destroy remains the ideal ending for a Renegade Shepard. Renegade Shepard was prepared to sacrifice everything to defeat the Reapers. Victory at any cost. He destroyed the rachni (twice) to protect the galaxy. He blew up a mass relay, killing hundreds of thousands of batarians, to delay the reapers. He would sacrifice the Geth to save everyone else.

[Thalador]

Agreed, OP. The next cycle roflstomps the remnants of the Reaper armada and wins without the Crucible and the Catalyst's flawed solutions. Still a bit sad that everything Shepard cared and fought for dies...

[richard_rider]

Oransel wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...
Seriously?  Aside from 50 million years of being undeafeted, you're sure an army of upstarts who just started getting along about 45 minutes ago stands a chance?  To quote Dumb and Dumber, "One in a million." "So you're saying there's a chance!"

But seriously, it's a major theme across all three games.

Yep. Delaying the Reaper's invasion in ME1 was impossible and looks like it has never happened before. Yet it happened by very much convenient ways. Shepard resurrection is impossible, yet it happened. Omega-4 Relay was meant to be literal suicide mission, yet you won. Arrival DLC. Tuchanka. Rannoch. Just admit it, major theme of Mass Effect is Commander Shepard overcoming the impossible odds.

Didn't Shep delay the invasion in both ME1 and 2??? Something that's never happened before... Things that have been stated as impossible, Shepard does, then does them again, and then when the big moment comes, Shep chokes, they should've renamed the character LeBron for the third game.

[Pekkan]

WinterCrow wrote...
And by the way, where is it mentioned that the next cycle built and used the crucible? Makes no sense at all. "If it wasn't for them, we too would be threatened" made me understand they prevented the reapers from coming back from darkspace or something, or that they never engaged in a war at all.

Next cycle building the Crucible before reapers even arrive is actually the simplest and most logical explanation for  "If it wasn't for them, we too would be threatened"  .

[zyntifox]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I think the refusal ending is the best ending for a paragon shepard. Control seems like it would provide a peaceful end to the conflict, but a peace based on the fear of Shepard's reapers is really no peace at all. Shepard says that he will end the conflict without losing humanity's soul. Shepard wouldn't use the collector's base or maelon's data for this reason. Forcing the galaxy to live in peace with a knife to it's throat is not the peace Paragon Shepard was talking about.

Destroy remains the ideal ending for a Renegade Shepard. Renegade Shepard was prepared to sacrifice everything to defeat the Reapers. Victory at any cost. He destroyed the rachni (twice) to protect the galaxy. He blew up a mass relay, killing hundreds of thousands of batarians, to delay the reapers. He would sacrifice the Geth to save everyone else.

And this is why i found it strange that they did not make a longer reject ending cinematic. They should have shown the galatic army go down fightning. Or shown Shepard stab Harbinger in his stupid smug face with the omni-blade before he/she dies.

[Oransel]

Also, I think there is a huge misunderstanding here. If you reject with small ammount of EMS - you die. I agree with that. I think that conventional victory should be impossible without at least 7000+ EMS, but if you have them it becomes an option. Yet we are shown a finger.

[ArchLord James]

I will say this:

Considering that Shepard did three things which no other cycle had done before, Bioware could have made that the reason why conventional victory was possible (with high EMS) after choosing refuse.

Shepard did 3 things that no other cycle had done, He A) delayed the reapers invasion at the batarian relay (at the cost of the system unfortunately He prevented the reapers from disabling the mass relays. In the lore it says the first thing the reapers do before they invade and harvest is disable all the relays. This keeps the races isolated and easier to defeat. Divide and conquer. It is assumed that the events of ME1 and the destruction of sovereign is why the relays stayed on during this (shepards) cycle. and C) Shepard united the whole galaxy, which is important as Javik will tell you.

Bioware could have made refuse end with a conventional win, and said it was because shepard delayed the reaper invasion and united the galaxy with functional (instead of disabled) mass relays. However, Bioware clearly chose their art to be that the reapers are still too strong so we have to go with that.

[Darkfoxz87]

I can't choose this ending, although, I could see why people would.

I just can't send Trillions of people to their deaths, when I could just play the Reapers game, and save them. Even if I it means I have to die (Control)

[celsius009]

Y'know the reject ending didn't make me think nearly as much as this post did.

Though I did notice Shepard was by far the most in-character while he was giving his last speech -- ironic given they added this as a perceived final slap in the face. I really liked the way you broke this down, and while I am not of high enough moral fiber to now choose this option, I think you did an awesome analysis of it.

Kudos.

[chaos_Shadow15]

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.

And what kind of information do you think was contained in that capsule? I'll bet it has something to do with the Crucible, just as it was passed down from cycle to cycle to the one that Shepard was in. So what makes you think the next cycle would have any significantly different options than what Shepard had on said Crucible?

Modifié par chaos_Shadow15, 27 juin 2012 - 10:56 .

[The Not So Illusive Man]

I never took the reject ending as spiteful, it just reiterates what we've been told constantly throughout the series; the reapers could not be beaten conventionally.  To suddenly turn this around because we managed to gather a few broken fleets would have been a terrible move.
The capsules seeded throughout the galaxy presumably allowed the next cycle more than a few scant years to prepare and gave them more to work with than the reaper guided Mass Relay technology.
That's something our cycle never had, time to prepare and the weapons to fight. Shepard's warnings begin three years before the invasion, and are only taken seriously near the beginning, nowhere near enough time to properly mobilise a galaxy.

Modifié par The Not So Illusive Man, 27 juin 2012 - 11:00 .

[ArchLord James]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

And what kind of information do you think was contained in that capsule? I'll bet it has something to do with the Crucible, just as it was passed down from cycle to cycle to the one that Shepard was in. So what makes you think the next cycle would have any significantly different options than what Shepard had on said Crucible?

Well, even though, I also wouldn't pick refuse (post EC, i would have picked it before EC) I will say that Liara says the crucible didn't work. Which sort of implies the idea shes passing down to the next cycle is to not try the crucible.

[ArchLord James]

We should also keep in mind that if RED didnt come with sacrifice (geth, EDI etc.) almost everyone, probably 90%+ people would make that their ending. Likewise, if the reapers could be defeated conventionally, without sacrificing the Geth, without shepard dying, most people would just pick that as well. Everyone would basically say there is only one REAL ending.

[CaFe87]

Darkfoxz87 wrote...

I can't choose this ending, although, I could see why people would.

I just can't send Trillions of people to their deaths, when I could just play the Reapers game, and save them. Even if I it means I have to die (Control)

You base your decision on metagaming, since you know what will happen afterwards. If you neglect all this information, you only have the option to trust your enemy, which could mean anything or to go down fighting.

[thisisme8]

Oransel wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...
Seriously?  Aside from 50 million years of being undeafeted, you're sure an army of upstarts who just started getting along about 45 minutes ago stands a chance?  To quote Dumb and Dumber, "One in a million." "So you're saying there's a chance!"

But seriously, it's a major theme across all three games.

Yep. Delaying the Reaper's invasion in ME1 was impossible and looks like it has never happened before. Yet it happened by very much convenient ways. Shepard resurrection is impossible, yet it happened. Omega-4 Relay was meant to be literal suicide mission, yet you won. Arrival DLC. Tuchanka. Rannoch. Just admit it, major theme of Mass Effect is Commander Shepard overcoming the impossible odds.

The Protheans shared similar victories and probably followed your same logic.

[ArchLord James]

CaFé87 wrote...

Darkfoxz87 wrote...

I can't choose this ending, although, I could see why people would.

I just can't send Trillions of people to their deaths, when I could just play the Reapers game, and save them. Even if I it means I have to die (Control)

You base your decision on metagaming, since you know what will happen afterwards. If you neglect all this information, you only have the option to trust your enemy, which could mean anything or to go down fighting.

Hmmm great point.

BTW the refusal ending can also be called the "braveheart" ending

Sorry im posting too much time for bed.