402 réponses à ce sujet

[MandaPanda81]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It is indeed a shorter conclusion.  Would it have been more easily accepted if it was expanded upon, but ultimately the consequences still the same?  I'm referring to Liara speaking more positively (rather than just Shepard failed) and having it fleshed out more with a fight of the fleet going down in a heroic, principled blaze of glory - willing to die than compromise who they are?

Absolutely.  I'm willing to accept that rejecting the Catalyst's choices means we lose.  But I wanted something more than "SO BE IT!" /losewar.

[JA Shepard]

The reapers have the advantage of size, speed, endurance, firepower, and the ability to cut off the enemy's supply line (fuel,food, ammo, people). They also have the intelligence advantage since they can gather the info from the citadel and also have indoctrinated agents important places.

All this is true before you had diverted your resources to building and protecting the crucible. No force would be able to change strategy on a dime that quickly against the reapers in order to actually have a chance to win.

[IanPolaris]

As I've said before, I can accept (I'll dispute but I can accept) that for *this* cycle there was no way to win without the crucible by the time the end of the game played out, but how Shepard's forces lost (i.e. their EMS and exact resources) should have mattered and we should have seen it...if for no other reason then it might be hugely important for the next cycle. It's worse that some in Bioware itself is saying, "Well the next cycle just used the crucible" (I believe Gamble said this) which just rubs salt in the wound and makes the refusal seem pointless. That does seem petty to me at least.

In a very low EMS refusal, that would be appropriate. You lost, badly. Deal. For a high EMS, I think that the next cycle should be able to defeat the reapers given Liara's clear warning on their own terms.

-Polaris

[Xa1u5]

IanPolaris wrote...

As I've said before, I can accept (I'll dispute but I can accept) that for *this* cycle there was no way to win without the crucible by the time the end of the game played out, but how Shepard's forces lost (i.e. their EMS and exact resources) should have mattered and we should have seen it...if for no other reason then it might be hugely important for the next cycle. It's worse that some in Bioware itself is saying, "Well the next cycle just used the crucible" (I believe Gamble said this) which just rubs salt in the wound and makes the refusal seem pointless. That does seem petty to me at least.

In a very low EMS refusal, that would be appropriate. You lost, badly. Deal. For a high EMS, I think that the next cycle should be able to defeat the reapers given Liara's clear warning on their own terms.

-Polaris

As per the stargazer scene, the next cycle did just that, at least as far as I can see things?

Modifié par Xa1u5, 28 juin 2012 - 09:46 .

[Hvlukas]

wryterra wrote...

I'm saying that not getting the *achievement* for having completed the game by making that choice makes it seem like they utterly dismiss anyone who choses that ending.

It's got nothing to do with wanting to 'win'. 

Since it's really minor, then let's hope they fix the archivement then. If that's what it takes to make people more happy with it, I'm all for it. But I can understand if someone at the Bioware office at some point said: "But they didn't overcome the Reapers, so didn't they lose?" and then implemented that logic. The logic isn't faulty, it just isn't what people want... I guess?

[zyntifox]

Reject is my favorite ending for my paragon Shepard. It's just a shame that we didn't get to see the galaxy go down with guns blazing.

[IanPolaris]

Xa1u5 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

As I've said before, I can accept (I'll dispute but I can accept) that for *this* cycle there was no way to win without the crucible by the time the end of the game played out, but how Shepard's forces lost (i.e. their EMS and exact resources) should have mattered and we should have seen it...if for no other reason then it might be hugely important for the next cycle. It's worse that some in Bioware itself is saying, "Well the next cycle just used the crucible" (I believe Gamble said this) which just rubs salt in the wound and makes the refusal seem pointless. That does seem petty to me at least.

In a very low EMS refusal, that would be appropriate. You lost, badly. Deal. For a high EMS, I think that the next cycle should be able to defeat the reapers given Liara's clear warning on their own terms.

-Polaris

As per the stargazer scene, the next cycle did just that, at least as far as I can see things?

Bioware (Gamble anyway) says otherwise.  He says that the next cycle simply used the crucible.

-Polaris

[Xa1u5]

IanPolaris wrote...

Xa1u5 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

As I've said before, I can accept (I'll dispute but I can accept) that for *this* cycle there was no way to win without the crucible by the time the end of the game played out, but how Shepard's forces lost (i.e. their EMS and exact resources) should have mattered and we should have seen it...if for no other reason then it might be hugely important for the next cycle. It's worse that some in Bioware itself is saying, "Well the next cycle just used the crucible" (I believe Gamble said this) which just rubs salt in the wound and makes the refusal seem pointless. That does seem petty to me at least.

In a very low EMS refusal, that would be appropriate. You lost, badly. Deal. For a high EMS, I think that the next cycle should be able to defeat the reapers given Liara's clear warning on their own terms.

-Polaris

As per the stargazer scene, the next cycle did just that, at least as far as I can see things?

Bioware (Gamble anyway) says otherwise.  He says that the next cycle simply used the crucible.

-Polaris

If we start incorporating the things BW employees say outside of the context, we open a totally new can of worms. The whole point of discussing things about the game becomes irrelevant then.

[IanPolaris]

Xa1u5 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Xa1u5 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

As I've said before, I can accept (I'll dispute but I can accept) that for *this* cycle there was no way to win without the crucible by the time the end of the game played out, but how Shepard's forces lost (i.e. their EMS and exact resources) should have mattered and we should have seen it...if for no other reason then it might be hugely important for the next cycle. It's worse that some in Bioware itself is saying, "Well the next cycle just used the crucible" (I believe Gamble said this) which just rubs salt in the wound and makes the refusal seem pointless. That does seem petty to me at least.

In a very low EMS refusal, that would be appropriate. You lost, badly. Deal. For a high EMS, I think that the next cycle should be able to defeat the reapers given Liara's clear warning on their own terms.

-Polaris

As per the stargazer scene, the next cycle did just that, at least as far as I can see things?

Bioware (Gamble anyway) says otherwise.  He says that the next cycle simply used the crucible.

-Polaris

If we start incorporating the things BW employees say outside of the context, we open a totally new can of worms. The whole point of discussing things about the game becomes irrelevant then.

While I have more than a bit of sympathy for this PoV (and I also regard his comments as non-canonical), there are two things to consider:

1.  Emily Wong was killed by twitter off-screen.  Thus twitter does have more impact here than I'd like.
2.  It reflects the position of Bioware (he was tweeting in his official capacity) from a source close to the game.  That means I should take it as a reflection of the intent of the writers and that's not good in this case.

-Polaris

[the slynx]

Xa1u5 wrote...

If we start incorporating the things BW employees say outside of the context, we open a totally new can of worms. The whole point of discussing things about the game becomes irrelevant then.

True enough. But Gamble presented this interpretation not as 'here's how I personally saw it,' so much as by saying that the final scenes were meant to imply that the Crucible was employed in the next cycle. As in, that was what the team had in mind to get across with the scene when they created it.

[Eire Icon]

wryterra wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

JohnTheJohn wrote...

Why is it an insult, it was obvious the Reapers weren't gonna be destroyed without the crucible.

Exactly its said in the game numerous times that a conventional victory is not possible. The Catalyst gives you the option to destroy him and the reapers......................why would you reject that ?, to me it just makes no sense

If they had actually allowed a conventional victory, for me personally it would have ruinned the entire game

This isn't about victory. Read my responses to Allan Schumacher. This is about the execution of the ending being, in itself, insulting.

I've read your responses to Allan but I still don't get what exactly you find insulting

To me the reject option is not a viable choice, but I'm in favour of it, as more choice is also preferable. I also like the fact that its not a "Given" the reapers are defeated regardless of choice. Shepard can fail, which is good as he is human after all

Having said all that, in my opinion at least, if Shepard chooses the "Reject" choice then he has failed, failed the entire galaxy in fact. If the Reapers win it is already known what will occurr, they will harvest the advanced civilizations of the galaxy and humans, asari, salerians etc will be no more. Are you seriously asking for extended scenes of mass genocide ??

If Shepard ultimately fails and dooms the galaxy (Even if it is for standing up for his beliefs) then I can't really see how any additional content would make it satisfying? Surely failure as a concept is not meant to be satisfying. Are you actually asking for a tribute to Shepards failure ?

I'm also quite surprised how many seem to think the fact that the next cycle used the crucible ultimately defeat the reapers is insulting. The Reapers begin the cycle at a stage of galactic evolution where they are far superior to the races they target. They would be pretty incompetent otherwise. If we could win conventionally it throws all lore out the window and means the entire galaxy were downright stupid for developing the crucible in the first place. Also why would the next cycle choose to repeat the mistakes of the previous cycle?

[Dean_the_Young]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

If it was made clear that the next cycle didn't use the Crucible I wouldn't mind, but instead of the next cycle defeating the Reaper horde that was weakened by Shepard's last stand, they stepped over his corpse to choose the same set of futures given to them by the Catalyst.

And?

Nothing in that can reasonably be construed as an insult towards you. Even if we ignore the weakness of the argument (why don't the Repers just change their own strategy and pre-empt the next cycle before it can manage a conventional force of note), what other people do is not an indictment on you.

The next cycle is under no impetus, moral or otherwise, to share your views on the subject any more than any other player is. Other people using the Crucible is not a decision framed in response to you: you should not be so self-centered that others far removed from you choose their views based on what you do or do not approve of.

[Zaxares]

I have to say that I fail to see how the Reject option is an insult to players. Yes, Shepard technically "lost". The cycle continued, and all the Citadel races were destroyed and turned into Reapers. But the next cycle (or perhaps one many cycles after that) eventually won. Shepard refused to compromise his ideals to achieve peace, and his convictions eventually bore out. Throughout the series, the Reapers constantly bombard Shepard with the assertion that the organic race's defeat is assured. The Reject Stargazer scene disproves that statement. The Reapers lose in the end.

[GabrielK]

I can definitely see how the fourth ending might come across as "boy are you an idiot for not doing what we told you to do" (especially given that Shepard has a history of winning on his/her own terms and players probably thought that would hold true here). I like to think that it's unintentional, but I can definitely see it.

[Cant Planet]

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to everyone, but I suspect a lot of people like the Reject ending because they're still angry at the idea of the Starchild.

In wanting the Reject option to serve as another Win Scenario -- instead of the Loss Scenario with cutscenes it actually represents -- they're not playing against the opponent in the game so much as they're playing against Bioware for making them angry in the first place.

(And I say that as someone who hated the original endings bitterly.)

[fr33stylez]

There's no reason to take anything from Twitter as canon. If I remember correctly, this Twitter is the same source that claimed the endings were made without any input from others, then recanted.
Maybe the next cycle used the Crucible, maybe they didn't. There was no need to Tweet to specifically say 'this is what the next cycle did' as the actual endings were written open in interpretation. Especially considering Liara was only able to communicate that the Crucible didn't work (not that Shepard refused), it's definately feasible that they may have used conventional means to win the war - maybe they found the beacon 500 years prior to the next invasion and prepared accordingly. Who cares - you can intrepret how you like, the endings allow for that.

I have no problems with how the endings are currently presented otherwise. But Bioware employees should be required to take a course on how to communicate with social media (I'm serious). Many companies, inclding the one I work at, do this for this very reason. Having different people spit out non-canonical crap just confuses everyone and makes Bioware look irresponsible.

[Ytook]

With all due respect Allan the reason, for me at least, the reject option seems like an insult is that it is what Shepard and the player has been doing since game 1. When confronted with the leader of your ultimate enemy the fact that doing what is thematically correct for the series (standing for freedom and self individuation) leads to an abrupt loss is what is insulting, the reject option is in a sense how me1 and 2 ended and the same themes are carried through to the rest of me3, these themes are abandoned in the ending and the reject option being added but only leading to an abrupt defeat after a petulant rebuttle from the Catalyst only reinforces that the ideas Shepard has fought for and have always ultimately succeeded (even if it required sacrifices) are pointless and the only way to succeed is to choose one of the options arbitrarily offered by the leader of the enemy.

Ultimately the only option which is thematically correct for the series and retains Shepard as the protagonist not bowing to the whims of the enemy is an instant loss, that is insulting.

[JA Shepard]

Cant Planet wrote...

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to everyone, but I suspect a lot of people like the Reject ending because they're still angry at the idea of the Starchild.

In wanting the Reject option to serve as another Win Scenario -- instead of the Loss Scenario with cutscenes it actually represents -- they're not playing against the opponent in the game so much as they're playing against Bioware for making them angry in the first place.

(And I say that as someone who hated the original endings bitterly.)

Exactly this. I hated the endings. I thought they could do better, and the EC proves that, imo. Bioware already said months ago we would not get new endings. It's as much an insult to a creator to say that you want them to completely rip up work they put years into and do exactly the opposite of what they intended, and then make them pay for it on top of that. 
 
I'm glad people got angry and made such a big deal out of the ending. If they hadn't the EC would never have happened. Upset, vocal fans helped improve the game for me. I'll always appreciate that, but I think they're off base if they are insulted. Bioware made a game. I didn't like part of it. Simple as that. They at least tried fix it for me for free, and they succeeded. I can let them retain some pride with their harmless little joke at the end. It was funny and it made sense any way.

[Essla]

cavs25 wrote...

The writers should have watched braveheart and 300 before doing the "refuse" ending.

Or at least Return of the Jedi.


Luke: "You've failed your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me."

Emperor: "So be it, Jedi."

Then Luke dies and the Rebels are wiped out! Oh wait, that's not what happened at all, because that would suck.

Modifié par Essla, 28 juin 2012 - 12:33 .

[AveryChim]

I like this ending! It's ballsy!

Don't like my endings?! Well then, NO ENDING FOR YOU!

Bravo Bioware!

[Eire Icon]

Ytook wrote...

Ultimately the only option which is thematically correct for the series and retains Shepard as the protagonist not bowing to the whims of the enemy is an instant loss, that is insulting.

How is destroying the enemy bowing to the whims of the same enemy

[Hakuthehedgehog]

All choices are ****ty: the kid in the stargazer scene always wasks when they go to the starts even if everyone is a cyborg with the intelligence of the reapers, they rebuild in destroy, or if shepard acts as the protector of the galaxy.

Except in the refuse ending, where they used the Crucible anyway even when Liara tells them it didn't work.

WTF

[jcmccorm]

I was one of the ones who proposed the SCREW YOU choice. Yes, I *asked* for this ending. Why? Choice. Imposing your will on a galaxy is morally wrong. As well, I was hoping for a situation where the Star Child actually explained what was going on and sold me on what they were doing. I would come to the shocking realization that, "Oh my God. He's right. This *is* the only way." And so I'd back down.

This ending is bitter-sweet. In the end, Shepard wins and destroys the reapers in a future cycle. But he has to sacrifice everything for it. And that was another thing I was looking for. An ending that would actually be a different flavor than the rest. The rest of them were all along the same theme of rebuilding and such. This one was a totally different line of thinking.

[Aylyese]

JA Shepard wrote...

I'm glad people got angry and made such a big deal out of the ending. If they hadn't the EC would never have happened. Upset, vocal fans helped improve the game for me. I'll always appreciate that, but I think they're off base if they are insulted. Bioware made a game. I didn't like part of it. Simple as that. They at least tried fix it for me for free, and they succeeded. I can let them retain some pride with their harmless little joke at the end. It was funny and it made sense any way.

In other words: Thanks for all lending your weight to get them to fix it for me, now I think it is fine so you all should stop complaining.

If that is not what you meant, then it is only fair that I let you know that is exactly how you are coming across.

[numark]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

@wryterra

That's fine, and just to be clear I wasn't so much talking directly to you when I said that the idea that this is something done just to take a pot shot at the fans, because this sentiment is actually quite common on the boards.

The achievement thing may actually just be a bug. The events that fire for the other endings would have already been a part of the base game and already present. Achievements and trophies are also something that have Microsoft and Sony have some pretty tight controls over. I don't work directly with online, but I know we had to slash a ton of achievements for DAO consoles due to numbers requirements, and there are certain restrictions over what types of achievements can exist, what their values can be, and so forth.


Having said that, you are absolutely right that that ending could have been better fleshed out. I don't know what the decision process was (and trying to come up with explanations is nothing short of trying to make excuses), but in the end I still feel that providing this option is better and provides a more interesting choice for the player (I fully agree with all the posters that felt that the player should have been able to reject the premise suggested by the Catalyst).

It seems like it's more down to the execution of it, which sucks because obviously that means it missed the mark with you. Like I said there's not much I can do about it, but you felt strongly enough about it to make a thread so I opted to talk with you about it since it's about the only thing I felt I could do haha.

Anyways, I'm sorry that you feel it was a personal jab. It can be tough for myself to separate the details of what it is that people don't like about it. I know there are some that just distill it down to "I want to win conventionally and it's crap that I can't with this choice" and they feel insulted because things don't play out the way they want and in fact the losing outright regardless makes it feel like a snub. I am glad that you don't seem to feel this way, though it doesn't really help your situation haha.


Cheers.

Allan

I agree, in that I don't think the developers intentionally meant this is a jab to the players.  But in the way that it comes across, that is what it felt like and even before I came onto these boards that was one of the first things that ran through my mind after seeing it.  Like you said, and I agree too, when it comes to these kinds of things, it's all down to the execution of it =P

I also feel that this could have been a great opportunity to showcase the players EMS.  Refusal ending w/ low EMS? Total failure, Liara's time capsule for the next cycle the outcome.

BUT, Refusal ending w/ high EMS? Shepard knows that he/she is going to suffer horrendous casualties. Maybe even the loss of a squadmember (or even the love interest! ) or the Alliance 3rd or 5th fleets, Admiral Hackett dies, or some other terrible casualty.  It would be some terrible price to achieve conventional "victory" yes, but one with Shepard holding fast to his/her beliefs.  Maybe even make the loss so horriffic that the idea of "victory" itself is even questioned by the player; ie, we won, but we lost so much, was refusal worth it? did we really win? etc

Modifié par numark, 28 juin 2012 - 01:12 .