402 réponses à ce sujet

[sydranark]

@OP

I see where you're coming from but I wouldn't call it an insult. It's a showboat. When someone showboats, its not necessarily to hurt feelings, but more to self-inflate ego and brag about how awesome they are.

This was a way for them to shove the other 3 endings in our faces, not to hurt us, but to say "Ha, I'll do w/e the f*ck I want" or "Say no to the reapers? How about GAME OVER?"

Modifié par sydranark, 27 juin 2012 - 07:49 .

[mrcanada]

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

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.

Are you insinuating that Harbringer's voice does not come out of the Starchilds mouth in the Refusal ending?  Or that he doesnt' talk to you right before blasting you during the rush to the beam?  If so, you need to just stop.

I'm insinuating that it's a completely different voice. It simply isn't the voice Harbinger has in ME2.
For comparison:
SO BE IT
Harbinger's voice

Harbringer is looking right at you when the voice comes across and it was added specifically in that scene.  It was intended to show Harbringer speaking, as is the So Be It as it is mixed with the Starchilds voice.

Do you mean this?
It just sounds like a generic Reaper noise. Doesn't really sound like Harbinger, either. If you think they got Harbinger's voice actor and paid him to make that noise, and did all that just to troll people... well, I really don't even know what to say to that.

If you are insinuating that he isn't saying anything or that it isn't Harbringer speaking when the only two things in that shot are Harbringer and Shepard, I'm done with this conversation. 

And I'm done with this conversation if you honestly believe they got Harbinger's voice actor to do that noise. I don't doubt that noise is supposed to be coming from Harbinger. But if they really wanted the Catalyst to sound like Harbinger they would have gotten Harbinger's voice actor for that line.
Good day.

You're missing the point.  Whether they got his actor or not to do it, it is Harbringer speaking to you there and in the Refusal ending.  That was the whole reason this was brought up.

[flanny]

agree it did seem personal, i think the fact that they deny you the opportunity of watching your fleet give the reapers hell one last time shows it. plus there is no real reason why if your EMS is good enough that you can't beat the reapers by conventional mean other than bioware spitting their dummy out.

i also hate the fact that they show the next cycle using the crucible to make peace in such a patronising tone as if telling you why you're wrong.

[icynova]

I for one loved the new "refuse" ending - Probably my favorite of the new ones.

[SwitchN7]

[** vulgarity removed.  user banned **]

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 27 juin 2012 - 11:39 .

[NoPantsToday]

Felt like it was supposed to be an insult, but I liked it the best because Shep got to stand up for the right thing and keep his humanity intact, even if that meant losing the war. Maybe Liara's info will help somebody else figure out a way to destroy the Reapers without playing their pointless game of pick one of three tastelessly horrible solutions. Or maybe BW is just implying that if you won't play along, somebody else will. Either way, it gives me a great narrative excuse to bail on the Mass Effect universe.

[jules_vern18]

squee365 wrote...

So, you're saying they shouldn't have included the reject ending at all?

This argument is just as dumb as saying, "So you're saying they shouldn't have made Mass Effect 3 at all?" when people disliked the pre-EC endings.

He's saying we should've gotten a reject ending just as fleshed out as the other three.

It's not hard to understand.

[Dragoonlordz]

Turran wrote...

How can people see this as a middle finger?
It kind of seems like you are now just finding a reason to be insulted or find a flaw with the new EC. Ofcourse the DLC is not flaw free mind you, as Bioware have admitted it does not answer every question.

But it is most certainly not a middle finger from them. If anything it was something the fans wanted. People screamed "I want to be able to say 'No!' I want the choice to not accept his proposal!" so they added it.
Without it, you would be railroaded into 3 choices, this opens a very unique and interesting fourth.

Shepard would of died on the Citadel after rejecting it, or maybe he was saved. Maybe we fought for years to come? Maybe we were wiped out within a year. Either way the scene with Liara's box could of taken place 40,000 years into the future.
It was your choice to push away your options and that is the ending to it. You stood no chance without the device.

Was not a middle finger, was a fan request, gives you proper ending summing up your choice.

The way they are coming across very much seems to me to be they didn't get every single thing they wanted so they are throwing a tantrum and no matter what Bioware say or do they will take it as an insult because of their bitternes of not getting every thing wanted. It is one thing to not like it which is fine, it is another when not liking it means they are big meanies out to pick on you or insult you.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 juin 2012 - 07:57 .

[mrcanada]

SwitchN7 wrote...

I like the Reject ending as well.Do you know how everything is meant to be played out? Than why didn't you the fan tell us how it was gonna end Goddamnit instead of waiting for the EC and Reject ending added.So instead of thanking them for adding an extra layer of sauce let's just spit on their grave eh? Or however EH is typed in Canadian -.-

I know because the ending tells us Eh.  I'm not a writer and you make no sense, how can I even answer this question?

The BW employee asked a question in this thread, I merely answered it.  

[mrcanada]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Turran wrote...

How can people see this as a middle finger?
It kind of seems like you are now just finding a reason to be insulted or find a flaw with the new EC. Ofcourse the DLC is not flaw free mind you, as Bioware have admitted it does not answer every question.

But it is most certainly not a middle finger from them. If anything it was something the fans wanted. People screamed "I want to be able to say 'No!' I want the choice to not accept his proposal!" so they added it.
Without it, you would be railroaded into 3 choices, this opens a very unique and interesting fourth.

Shepard would of died on the Citadel after rejecting it, or maybe he was saved. Maybe we fought for years to come? Maybe we were wiped out within a year. Either way the scene with Liara's box could of taken place 40,000 years into the future.
It was your choice to push away your options and that is the ending to it. You stood no chance without the device.

Was not a middle finger, was a fan request, gives you proper ending summing up your choice.

The way they are coming across very much seems to me to be they didn't get every single thing they wanted so they are throwing a tantrum and no matter what Bioware say or do they will take it as an insult because of their bitternes of not getting every thing wanted.

If you honestly think that, I think you missed the entire point of why there is controversy in the first place.

[jules_vern18]

SwitchN7 wrote...

I like the Reject ending as well.Do you know how everything is meant to be played out? Then why didn't you the fan tell us how it was gonna end Goddamnit instead of waiting 3 months for the EC and with Reject ending added.So instead of thanking them for adding an extra layer of sauce let's just spit on their grave eh? Or however EH is typed in Canadian -.- Since when did people become so vagina? As in wet crying ******...Ah i see..Forever you say? It...is...THEIR...story...after all.

By this logic we should have never complained about the game in the first place.

[M Hedonist]

mrcanada wrote...

You're missing the point.  Whether they got his actor or not to do it, it is Harbringer speaking to you there and in the Refusal ending.  That was the whole reason this was brought up.

How do you know it's Harbinger's voice in the Refusal ending? It doesn't sound like Harbinger's voice at all. Is the weird noise Harbinger makes before supposed to establish that Harbinger's voice has changed? Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they get Harbinger's original voice actor? This is getting ridiculously far-fetched.

[Omega Torsk]

You know what, after 3 months of thinking about it, there never truly was a way to defeat the Reapers conventionally. The Reapers are just too powerful, advanced, and numerous. The whole point of the allied fleet was to give Earth a fighting chance. Later, it was to protect the Crucible at all costs. Even if they lose, they know they did everything they could to win.

The ending to "Rejection" is bittersweet. Yes, the Reapers won and everybody died, but now future generations know about the Reapers and can prepare accordingly, using galactic peace as a catalyst. What happens then, well your imagination can fill in the blanks.

[malakim2099]

Mythx88 wrote...

JohnTheJohn wrote...

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

And why not?

Isn't it stupid that the Crucible isn't some practical reaper destroying weapan? Instead it's some space magic machine that is turned on in the stupidest possible ways. 

I mean you turn it on by SHOOTING A TUBE / JUMPING INTO A BEAM / VAPORIZING YOURSELF.

Then space magic takes care of the rest.

If you choose Refuse, then you should be able to fight the reapers conventionally with your fleets and destroy them with high EMS.

"You've built a career out of performing the impossible" - Thane Krios

Really, we've built almost three entire games out of performing the impossible. Getting to Ilos, stopping Sovereign and Saren, going through the Omega-4 relay and punching the Collectors in the daddy-bags, even uniting the galaxy behind you in a massive armada coming down to Earth... a normal person could never get all that going.

Shepard, is not a normal person. She's basically the Mass Effect's version of James Kirk (right down to the LI fascination), and if you have an EMS of like, 10,000+ or so (not unheard of, for multiplayer users), you should be able to Refuse if given that option and still win.

Sure, Hackett says you can't do it. What does THAT matter? Maybe Hackett didn't think you'd have the entirety of the batarian, elcor, volus, hanar, drell, asari, krogan, turian, quarian, and geth fleets teaming up WITH the Alliance to fight the Reapers either?

Frankly, they shouldn't have given the Refuse option if it's just going to be a troll button.

[SwitchN7]

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

You're missing the point.  Whether they got his actor or not to do it, it is Harbringer speaking to you there and in the Refusal ending.  That was the whole reason this was brought up.

How do you know it's Harbinger's voice in the Refusal ending? It doesn't sound like Harbinger's voice at all. Is the weird noise Harbinger makes before supposed to establish that Harbinger's voice has changed? Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they get Harbinger's original voice actor? This is getting ridiculously far-fetched.

Tihii

[xxskyshadowxx]

Eain wrote...

I actually thought it was rather hilarious how it was so blatantly a middle finger to those who disagreed with the Catalyst and his logic. "SO BE IT".

So be it indeed. I rejected the Catalyst and I will again. The fact that Hudson appears to disapprove only makes it better.

I totally flipped out of my chair at the "SO BE IT," haha Such an unexpected, yet funny as heck tantrum.

[mrcanada]

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

You're missing the point.  Whether they got his actor or not to do it, it is Harbringer speaking to you there and in the Refusal ending.  That was the whole reason this was brought up.

How do you know it's Harbinger's voice in the Refusal ending? It doesn't sound like Harbinger's voice at all. Is the weird noise Harbinger makes before supposed to establish that Harbinger's voice has changed? Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they get Harbinger's original voice actor? This is getting ridiculously far-fetched.

What's far fetched is that you think it isn't talking to you when it's only Shepard and Harbringer in the scene.  

[mauro2222]

Shallyah wrote...


PS: The child changes his voice when Shepard rejects his solutions probably because at that point he has nothing to hide or sugar-coat anymore. He doesn't need to sweet-talk Shepard in that child's shape because he has failed to convince him. He's not necessarely upset, but simply uncaring about the repercussions that any further interactions with Shepard could have, since he has become insignificant to him at the point in which he chooses to not be part of his new solution.

All fine, but he then says "The cycle continues" with his normal voice.

[Nogthwai]

The Reject Ending makes perfect sense. If a comventional victory was possible, the protheans would have ended the cycle and defeated the reapers anyway; asking for a coventional victory to be possible is against the canon of the ME Universe.

[Hawk227]

@ Allan Schumacher

The reason the Refuse choice feels like an insult is because it was implied in the Stargazer scene (and confirmed via Twitter) that the successful cycle just uses the Crucible. The subtext is telling us that the only way to win is to acquiesce to the Catalyst, and compromise our morals to win.

It also legitimizes the Catalyst in a way that is pretty repugnant. The vast majority of the audience never felt that the conflict was ever Organics vs. Synthetics, we felt that it was Everyone vs. the Reapers. More abstractly it was free will and self-determination vs. imposed dominance and control. In a sense it was Chaos vs. Order, but Order (as defined by the Reapers) was always the enemy, it was what we fought against. When the Catalyst showed up and told us that Order was really good, we balked. We said "Um... NO, it's not", but the final choices are portrayed from his pro-order side rather than our pro-chaos side. We are told that if we want to win, we must adopt the enemy's worldview.. We can be naive and choose destroy, both Genociding our allies and "condemning life to inevitable doom-by-robot" or we can more or less accept the Catalyst's solution (Control) or we can find a new one that reeks of Eugenics (synthesis), because only by minimizing our differences can we find peace. But in all of this, the Catalyst and his conflict hijacks the story. With our dying act, we are asked to solve his imagined problem, rather being allowed to solve our own very real one, and we're told the only way to go about it is committing an atrocity. The new content only excacerbates this problem by doubling down on it. The new dialog essentially confirms that the Catalyst is insane by telling us that he Reaperized his creators against their will and believes Synthetics cannot understand Organics (just don't tell EDI that). So, we've learned that he's insane and that even though his biases have been contradicted by our own journey through the narrative, his way is still the only way. What happened to "We'll win this war and we won't compromise who we are to do it!"?.

By having the next cycle achieve success by simply using the Crucible, we are being told that we were too gutless to make the right choice. If only we had the stomach to commit genocide, or the Hubris to pick control, or the insanity to think that Synthetics and Organics can't get along simply because they are different, then we could have had that happy ending instead. If we think the Catalyst is insane and wrong, we lose. We are told we lost because we're weak, and the next cycle just stepped over our-naively principled corpse on the road to happiness and victory.

EDIT: To clarify, it isn't the Refuse ending on it's own that is the problem (I quite liked it), but rather the reveal that victory was achieved with the Crucible whose purpose we rejected. If the proceeding Cycle had won on their own terms because they had thousands of years to perfect the Cain (or whatever), then it would not have come off as a troll. More so, if the authors valued the refuse ending and valued the principle of telling a madman that we won't play along, I think they would have included a win scenario, even if it was insanely hard to acheive (8k+ EMS).

Modifié par Hawk227, 27 juin 2012 - 08:07 .

[mrcanada]

Nogthwai wrote...

The Reject Ending makes perfect sense. If a comventional victory was possible, the protheans would have ended the cycle and defeated the reapers anyway; asking for a coventional victory to be possible is against the canon of the ME Universe.

The Protheans did not have prior knowledge and weakened their cause by killing and forcing every other race to serve under them.  The galaxy they ruled over was aluded to be weaker in terms of galactic might.  The Prothean race as itself was most likely more powerful than any one race in the current cycle, but collectively, they were weaker due to their own machinations.

[M Hedonist]

mrcanada wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

You're missing the point.  Whether they got his actor or not to do it, it is Harbringer speaking to you there and in the Refusal ending.  That was the whole reason this was brought up.

How do you know it's Harbinger's voice in the Refusal ending? It doesn't sound like Harbinger's voice at all. Is the weird noise Harbinger makes before supposed to establish that Harbinger's voice has changed? Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they get Harbinger's original voice actor? This is getting ridiculously far-fetched.

What's far fetched is that you think it isn't talking to you when it's only Shepard and Harbringer in the scene. 

And what does he want to tell Shepard exactly? Why wouldn't he speak clearly if he wanted to tell Shepard something? Why would he tell Shepard anything, anyway? Why wouldn't they get Harbinger's original voice actor to do the Catalyst's line?
It's just a weird, unintelligible noise that's supposed to sound like a Reaper. They've used the Reaper horn a little too often so they tried something slightly different.

[mrcanada]

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

You're missing the point.  Whether they got his actor or not to do it, it is Harbringer speaking to you there and in the Refusal ending.  That was the whole reason this was brought up.

How do you know it's Harbinger's voice in the Refusal ending? It doesn't sound like Harbinger's voice at all. Is the weird noise Harbinger makes before supposed to establish that Harbinger's voice has changed? Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they get Harbinger's original voice actor? This is getting ridiculously far-fetched.

What's far fetched is that you think it isn't talking to you when it's only Shepard and Harbringer in the scene. 

And what does he want to tell Shepard exactly? Why wouldn't he speak clearly if he wanted to tell Shepard something? Why would he tell Shepard anything, anyway? Why wouldn't they get Harbinger's original voice actor to do the Catalyst's line?
It's just a weird, unintelligible noise that's supposed to sound like a Reaper. They've used the Reaper horn a little too often so they tried something slightly different.

If it is so un-intelligable, then why has the collective fanbase come to the conclusion of what it is saying?  You're grasping at straws on your island man.

[UWxMaserati]

Nogthwai wrote...

The Reject Ending makes perfect sense. If a comventional victory was possible, the protheans would have ended the cycle and defeated the reapers anyway; asking for a coventional victory to be possible is against the canon of the ME Universe.

I am not so sure the Protheans can be compared to the current situation. It is pointed out the Protheans held the war for over 100 years mainly because they were so spread out and lacked the unity element. Javik points many many differences throughout the game. The Protheans really sounded like they fought the Reapers in a way not far off from guerrilla warfare.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying the currently cycle could beat the Reapers in a head to head war, they likely would get destroyed but I don't think the Protheans are overly compareable. They were praised throughout the 1st 2 games but really looked more flawed in the 3rd.

[mauro2222]

Hawk227 wrote...

@ Allan Schumacher

The reason the Refuse choice feels like an insult is because it was implied in the Stargazer scene (and confirmed via Twitter) that the successful cycle just uses the Crucible. The subtext is telling us that the only way to win is to acquiesce to the Catalyst, and compromise our morals to win.

It also legitimizes the Catalyst in a way that is pretty repugnant. The vast majority of the audience never felt that the conflict was ever Organics vs. Synthetics, we felt that it was Everyone vs. the Reapers. More abstractly it was free will and self-determination vs. imposed dominance and control. In a sense it was Chaos vs. Order, but Order (as defined by the Reapers) was always the enemy, it was what we fought against. When the Catalyst showed up and told us that Order was really good, we balked. We said "Um... NO, it's not", but the final choices are geared not towards the Free-Will vs. Domination conflict that have been ingrained over 3 games, but rather the new (and, frankly, illegitimate) conflict of Organics vs. Synthetics. We can be naive and choose destroy, both Genociding our allies and "condemning life to inevitable doom-by-robot" or we can more or less accept the Catalyst's solution (Control) or we can find a new one that reeks of Eugenics (synthesis), because only by minimizing our differences can we find peace. But in all of this, the Catalyst as his conflict hijacks the story. With our dying act, we are asked to solve his imagined problem, rather being allowed to solve our own very real one, and we're told the only way to go about it is committing an atrocity. The new content only excacerbates this problem by doubling down on it. The new dialog essentially confirms that the Catalyst is insane by telling us that he Reaperized his creators against their will and believes Synthetics cannot understand Organics (just don't tell EDI that). So, we've learned that he's insane and that even though his biases have been contradicted by our own journey through the narrative, his way is still the only way. What happened to "We'll win this war and we won't compromise who we are to do it!"?.

By having the next cycle achieve success by simply using the Crucible, we are being told that we were too gutless to make the right choice. If only we had the stomach to commit genocide, or the Hubris to pick control, or the insanity to think that Synthetics and Organics can't get along simply because they are different, then we could have had that happy ending instead. If we think the Catalyst is insane and wrong, we lose. We are told we lost because we're weak, and the next cycle just stepped over our-naively principled corpse on the road to happiness and victory.

EDIT: To clarify, it isn't the Refuse ending on it's own that is the problem (I quite liked it), but rather the reveal that victory was achieved with the Crucible whose purpose we rejected. If the proceeding Cycle had won on their own terms because they had thousands of years to perfect the Cain (or whatever), then it would not have come off as a troll. More so, if the authors valued the refuse ending and valued the principle of telling a madman that we won't play along, I think they would have included a win scenario, even if it was insanely hard to acheive (8k+ EMS).

Very well put.