402 réponses à ce sujet

[Jamber]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

Perhaps, maybe, 5 min of "going down swinging", while maybe taking a small number of of the soveirgn class ships down, not nearly enough to put a dent, but something. Then, we see Shepard, on his/her knees, watching as all of the galaxy's forces start falling, and we can see anger, perhaps anguish as everything he/she held dear is destroyed. Then, maybe, we see the other characters in their ships fighting their losing fight, their last moments, recalling that they have done everything they could to stop it, and still failed. Then they disapear in a white light.

Then after everything is gone, we pan back to Shepard, lying on the ground, nearly drained of life from blood loss and the emotional blow of letting the entire galaxy's high order societies die out in a blaze of glory, and knowing full well that what happened on Earth will now continue everywhere else. AND MAYBE, we see a tear, a single tear, fall from Shepards eye. Then, the Catalyst comes back out, and just utters one line: "May you be preserved forever" (through Shepard's eyes), and then fade to black.

THEN you can show the capsules on other planets and everything else inthe game. But, as it stands now, it is utterly boring and poorly handled. "huuuu, duuuh, I'll just stand here looking around as everything I love dies". NO! Shepard should be destroyed emotionally from this choice, even if one thinks they have chosen correctly, it can still be crippling. I understand if they didn't want to put the time into voice acting more people and CG blowing up more starships, but EVEN A SLIDE SHOW would have sufficed! I mean, there's a slideshow in all the other endings (nearly the same one, though).

As it stands now, refusal is just as bare and boring as the original three endings were. There was so much potential for an emotional, gut and heart wrenching loss, and they just passed it up.

Also, maybe the dataframe at the end could have recited what Liara put in about Shepard, you know, leaving a very bitter, yet calming and kind of hopeful feeling for the future.

Modifié par Jamber, 27 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[Shepard Wins]

Razerath wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

Well said.

It's true, all of the endings literally taken for the most part are some sort of "win". Some are just more bittersweet.

No, it's not well said. The refuse ending means nothing when the next cycle just uses the Crucible to win. What's the point of rejecting anything just to use it in the future? And while doing that, dooming the current cycle in the first place? This refuse ending is unnecessary, it would have been great if there was a way to win conventionally. But right now it's kinda pointless and no one should be surprised people find it offensive because it does come across as a big "you don't accept our artistic integrity? YOU LOSE!" statement. Maybe if it was there in the first place, it wouldn't be this way, but after all the insulting PR after the original ending controversy and BW's statements about "artistic integrity" and some such it comes across as a FU.

[mrcanada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

Honestly yes, I would have prefered it not to be there in its current state.  EMS does not influence it at all and the abruptness is all the more telling in its intent.  That intent is a direct reflection of how you chose to deal with the fans who questioned the colored choice endings.  It also reinforces your intention of only allowing the Starchilds choices to be the only ones in the end as that is how the cycle is eventually concluded.

It is a direct response to the IT crowd and it is dismissive as to the questions it asked. Questions I add, that only were asked through obvious shortcomings in the endings and coincidences in the game. Thing that I still can't understand were missed in testing prior to release.  Almost anyone playing the game for the first time notices the main points of what supported the IT theory.

Modifié par mrcanada, 27 juin 2012 - 06:58 .

[KeraWildmane]

daigakuinsei wrote...

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

JohnTheJohn wrote...

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

Maybe because Shepard gives a speech about fighting and then just stands there twiddling his/her thumbs, watching everyone die?

You're bleeding to death and only have an old pistol, what else are you going to do?  

Refusal was very well done.

Exactly what I did before refusal was put in: stand there and shoot him. Again and again til I pass out and die.

[M Hedonist]

Did nobody listen to Okeer?
"With that, I will inflict upon the genophage the greatest insult an enemy can suffer. To be ignored."
Seriously. If they wanted to insult us they wouldn't have implemented the choice to reject the Catalyst in the first place.

[mrcanada]

Myrmedus wrote...

Stevebo wrote...

Oransel wrote...

JohnTheJohn wrote...

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

No, it was not.

It actually was, how many times do they have to tell you during the game that the reapers could not be beaten conventionally until you start to believe it?  And then they throw this giant plot device right in your face....

Personal insult?  I think some of you need to really get over yourselves.

Evidence in the game suggests otherwise though. All we have to say it's true is a few choice quotes.

Honestly, evidence in the game shows the Reapers to be significantly weaker than what was initially shown.  The entirety of the fleet is basically intact at the deciding points of every ending.  There is no urgency shown in Hackett's voice, he doesn't even seem to be in danger at any point during the game.  ME3 on the whole didn't do a good job of showing the desperate nature of what was actually happening I felt.  The Reapers were essentially neutured from an invincible all conquering inevitability, to a foe that was manageable for them.

[Dendio1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

They are being completely un-reasonable. The only small (and funny) pot-shot was the star kid yelling * your belief is not required* well played bioware

[mrcanada]

Dendio1 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

They are being completely un-reasonable. The only small (and funny) pot-shot was the star kid yelling * your belief is not required* well played bioware

It wasn't well played.  It was cheap, petty and only serves to diminish the writers further as the people who wanted refusal only asked out of the questions that arose from the poor writing and finale that was in the original endings.

[spacefiddle]

Seasiderben wrote..

If yo uwatch that ending to the actual end, the Star Gazer scene is different, and it clearly states that shepards cycle failed but the next cycle using the information from Shepards cycle succeeded in defeating the reapers.

Yeah?

How?

Exposition is the poorest substitue for good writing.  "And then we went on to beat them using the time capsule."

How?  Without the Crusible?  With it?  Did the next cycle choose one of the Bespoke endings?  So is the Stargazer a Controller of the Reapers, does his people command them?  Are they all Synth beings?  Or did they choose to Destroy them, and commit genocide on all the Synthetics YOU PROVED IN THE GAME you could make peace with?

Consider this in perspective:  humans have not yet been able to make peace with other humans.  By the Starchild's "logic," this proves that they never will.  That we shouldn't trust them to.  That it shouldn't be up to an entire race of sentient, thinking beings to decide their fate with us; that we should mass-murder them to be "safe" from them.  Then go back to butchering each other, 'coz that's better.

Sorry, no.  The critics who say "Bioware gave us what we wanted" have not the first iota of understanding what we wanted.  The heart of the matter is the deep philosophical flaw that is the center of the plagarized Deus Ex ripoff we get at the end.  Even moreso than the logical flaws in the original endings (which the EC does a fair job of correcting.  Not a great job, but a fair one).

No, they didn't produce a fully voiced new cutscene by accident.  They did not include Harbinger's voice with the Starchild by accident.  They are fully aware that this is what the Indoc theorists were hoping for all along, and then they spit on them.  This could have been an olive branch, but Bioware chose to make it a kick in the nuts.

[Neothanos]

Its another option. But it does sound kinda of petty, and vindicative. You either pick the choices we gave you or everybody dies.

But then after the original ending it doesnt surprise me. Basicaly two people decided to make this very disapointing ending and EA/Bioware stuck by them mostly to defend their product hiding behind artistic excuses not to admit what they did was wrong.

[Hudathan]

You lose.

[MattFini]

I love the idea of this ending. I just think it should've been treated like an actual fourth ending ... let's see some of the battle. I'd love to see Shep hop onto the Normandy and go down fighting. A few other scenes of the galaxy fighting until lights out ... at the very least.

Beyond that, I would've liked to have been able to win conventionally via highest EMS. I never would've chosen any other ending if this were an option. But I also would've chosen this as my canon ending if there were cut scenes showing us losing the battle. In its current state, the "reject" ending feels unfinished. Too bad.

[mauro2222]

spacefiddle wrote...

No, they didn't produce a fully voiced new cutscene by accident.  They did not include Harbinger's voice with the Starchild by accident.  They are fully aware that this is what the Indoc theorists were hoping for all along, and then they spit on them.  This could have been an olive branch, but Bioware chose to make it a kick in the nuts.

Exactly what I thought when I shooted the kid by "accident".

[Dragoonlordz]

mrcanada wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

They are being completely un-reasonable. The only small (and funny) pot-shot was the star kid yelling * your belief is not required* well played bioware

It wasn't well played.  It was cheap, petty and only serves to diminish the writers further as the people who wanted refusal only asked out of the questions that arose from the poor writing and finale that was in the original endings.

They were never going to let you have conventional victory, simple as that. You can have whatever you wish in a fanfic, your own creation based on whatever you want but that is not their story and not the one they told you through out the entire game was going to get. It was not an insult unless your either very insecure or quite paraniod. They gave you what wanted but also stuck with the game plot they created which stated over and over you was not going to win by conventional means.

At this stage the remaining ones unhappy are the very ones that are in the never going to please everyone catagory. I read these forums for months and the ones who did not like the catalyst logic kept saying they wanted to confront and argue with the AI and say they do not agree with it. They just wanted at the time to reject his logic. Now you can reject his logic but a lot of you are now quite simply trying to move the goal posts. You can move them as much as you like but Bioware said one ending DLC, you got one ending DLC, people asked to reject catalysts logic and confront it, you got that. You will not get a conventional victory as simple as that.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 juin 2012 - 07:15 .

[AxholeRose]

Im' sure a large percentage of the fans chose reject their first time... i mean, just to see what happens ?

And its absolutely hilarious after all that dialogue and explanation, you reject him and he's like, WELL F*** YOU THEN.

[spacefiddle]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

[quote]wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

[/quote]


Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?
[/quote]

False choice.

You cannot be unaware of every issue brought up with the ending by now.  It is very telling that your first question is "well if it was that or nothing, would you really want nothing?" instead of addressing why a large number of people could interpret such a thing as a cheap shot.  Would you prefer I ignore you, or kick you in the nuts?  That's no kind of choice at all, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

[quote]
It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?
[/quote]

False logic.  "If we were going to insult you, wouldn't we have done a more efficient job of it?"  Again, sidestepping the issue of the content of the 4th ending and deflecting it to "huh? what? why would we do such a thing?"  But let me answer your question: yes, it is dismissive.  You sucker us in to thinking, holy crap, they've really pulled off something amazing here.... Harby is Godboi like the Indoc folks said he was!  Shep's rejecting the IM and Saren choices, and refusing to commit genocide on the Geth!  And then, you just pull the rug out.

Are you really proud of this?  Will you look back on this moment in your career, and think, you know, we really did something worthwhile there?

[/quote]
[quote]
Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.
[/quote]
Right. 

We get a bunch of exposition saying "and then we win."  How?  So someone else made the choice that Shepard rejected?  Makes his choice kind of hollow, doesn't it?

Or did they win in some way that did not use the Crucible and the Godboi?  If it was based on Shepard's work, why didn't, you know, the people directly involved with Shepard's work win? 

There's no mechanism here and I'm sure there's no answer to it, because it's easy to type "and then we win" into a script without knowing, yourself, how that would happen.

Your attempt to deflect this, and the entirety of the 4th choice ending, does not stand up to the slightest amount of logical scrutiny.  Just like the original endings.  So no; nothing has been achieved other than a very expensive slap delivered to people who actually cared about your company and your story.  Well done.

[MattFini]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They gave you what wanted but also stuck with the game plot they created which stated over and over you was not going to win by conventional means.

Means nothing.  We were also told we wouldn't be coming back from that crazy suicide mission. 

[Legbiter]

The reject ending is for the "died with their boots on" crowd. The next cycle was able to pick between 3 options so in the end it worked out. Just not for humanity.

[mrcanada]

MattFini wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They gave you what wanted but also stuck with the game plot they created which stated over and over you was not going to win by conventional means.

Means nothing.  We were also told we wouldn't be coming back from that crazy suicide mission. 

Again, the game did not state that you weren't going to win by conventional means. If ME3 showed anything, it showed that the Reapers were very, very beatable.  Even in the final conflict, there is little urgency in Hackett's voice and the fleet suffers little from what is shown.  No stage of the battle was hindered by what the Reapers did and this is even reinforced further with the new scenes of Harbringer.  HE WATCHES THE NORMANDY ESCAPE AND DOES NOTHING.  LOOKS AT SHEPARD SAYS JOIN US, BLASTS HIM AND THEN LETS HIM WALTZ UP THE ONLY THING THAT IS ABLE TO DEFEAT THE REAPERS.  It is nonsense and ME3 weakened the Reapers significantly.

[Calibrations Expert]

The most butthurt of the fans will cry about anything. I was set on hating the EC but I actually liked it.

You wanted to not have to make one of the Catalyst's choices, well here it is. Sorry that Shepard didn't wake up at that moment, the IT was false.

Sorry you actually can't win conventionally, like everyone's been saying all game. And, big surprise, the Reapers are actually unstoppable, like they've been saying for the entire series.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

I didn't see it as "rocks fall, everybody dies"
- I didn't see Shepard die
- Reapers overmind said that he will die, but he says a lot of things
- Nothing shown prevents Shepard dieing of old age, and reuniting with his LI, even with cycle and hopeless-to-win Reaper war going on
- We not even shown explicitly that cycle completed as usual. We clearly see Asari in stargazer scene, they should all have being harvested

So, no it's not that bad. BW actually very deliberately still left it ambigous enough.

[Calibrations Expert]

mrcanada wrote...

Again, the game did not state that you weren't going to win by conventional means. 

They said "We can not win conventionally" well over 10 times!

[M Hedonist]

spacefiddle wrote...

They did not include Harbinger's voice with the Starchild by accident. 

You are right, they did not include Harbinger's voice.
Seriously. Why does everybody say that? Did nobody ever hear Harbinger's voice? I always thought he was kind of obnoxious but now people pretend they can't tell his voice from any other.

[mrcanada]

Calibrations Expert wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Again, the game did not state that you weren't going to win by conventional means. 

They said "We can not win conventionally" well over 10 times!

It was said in ME2 as well, what happened there.  What was said and what was shown directly conflict with eachother.  The Reapers were neutered significantly in ME3 and were defeated on many, many fronts.  Never is this shown more than in the final battle in which the galaxies plan is never impeded once in their goals.

[Kastrenzo]

Haters gonna Hate