531 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I'm reading this a lot here, that people feel insulted by the "Reject" choice. You shouldn't. An option to refuse the Catalyst was requested by many fans, and many of those explicitly said they'd refuse even if it meant a Reaper victory. 

I was one of those who proposed almost the exact scenario we got, as a means to flesh out the "Critical mission failure" you get when you try to walk back to the elevator. And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.

If you want to blame anyone for this option, blame me and others who requested it. It's meant for those who wanted the "Critical mission failure" fleshed out, not as dangling a conventional victory in people's faces only to deny them.

Personally, I find Shepard's lines in Reject too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle, but after all, principles is what this option is about. It is fitting. The result is fitting, and the scenario is still hopeful since it suggests the next cycle will win.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juin 2012 - 05:00 .

[zambot]

I agree OP. I didn't see it as an FU, but more of an ending for people who want to stand by their ideals, even in the face of certain death. It's a good ending, and as someone pointed out in another thread, there's always the possibility of this ending being expanded on as more war assets come available via DLC (but don't hold your breath).

[Anuvis13]

You know what was requested by fans even more than Reject or in conjunction with it? A happy ending. Most, myself included, would pay for it. We still didn't get it. And look at what BW gives you if you choose to reject their "artistic vision". It's a glorified Game Over screen. It's a clear FU but you know what? It's still better than their ending.

[The Invisible Commando]

I agree. I was one of the ones who asked for it too. In the end I found it too short and depressing, but at least it's there. I am happy it is there and stunned at the same time.

[Luvinn]

I think adding the option was great, but it would be nice if you could see how your total war assets played out instead of just cutting to x years from then with liaras voice box. Who knows, maybe even a good ending if you had high enough war assets.

[krukow]

I agree OP. It's pretty clearly stated that it's crucible or defeat throughout the game. If you decide you don't want the crucible, then that's fine, but you get your results.

Besides, I thought changing the stargazer scene to give this choice it's own unique sense of victory was a pretty cool idea.

[Teneroth]

Anuvis13 wrote...

You know what was requested by fans even more than Reject or in conjunction with it? A happy ending. Most, myself included, would pay for it. We still didn't get it. And look at what BW gives you if you choose to reject their "artistic vision". It's a glorified Game Over screen. It's a clear FU but you know what? It's still better than their ending.

I have to agree here. Reject is the most underweight of the endings, with no sense of closure. I am somewhat insulted by that ending, because it shows the stargazer, 50,000 years later, talking (basically gloating) about how the crucible worked for them. And if Shepard had accepted the star brat's logic he might be alive today. See how we are good little minions and picked a color? Maybe if you had done the same you wouldn't be reaper food.

Note: I wouldn't complain so much if it at least showed something of the final battles against the reapers. Human fleets suiciding into reaper ships, the quarian migrant fleet making a desperate break for the next galaxy over, geth ships hiding in darkspace for the reapers to finish, etc. But it didn't. Just 'see, you could of been all happy and not dead if you had just picked a real ending'.

Modifié par Teneroth, 27 juin 2012 - 05:08 .

[delphonic]

Anuvis13 wrote...

You know what was requested by fans even more than Reject or in conjunction with it? A happy ending. Most, myself included, would pay for it. We still didn't get it. And look at what BW gives you if you choose to reject their "artistic vision". It's a glorified Game Over screen. It's a clear FU but you know what? It's still better than their ending.

How is the perfect Destroy ending not a happy ending? Just because of the Geth and EDI?

I guess some people wanted a Return Of The Jedi ending where not even one Ewok dies...

It's a war with the Reapers. Some casualties are to be expected. To win the war that easily and have Shepard + crew survive seems about as happy an ending as one could possibly hope for.

[jstme]

Reject and this cycle loosing is 100% legit ending and not a FU. Showing that next cycle ends it only with Bioware original options is a bit low blow though, don't you think?
It is their story of course. But leaving that part to speculations and not rubbing our faces in the fact that there is no alternative to their original solutionswould be better.

Modifié par jstme, 27 juin 2012 - 05:07 .

[andyftw_]

Hey how about we give Bioware itself an ending, an ending where all the fans just REFUSE to buy their stuff.

[Thaa_solon]

Well if BW included conventional victory with the reject ending than we wouldn't be sitting on the forums now would we....

[Novate]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm reading this a lot here, that people feel insulted by the "Reject" choice. You shouldn't. An option to refuse the Catalyst was requested by many fans, and many of those explicitly said they'd refuse even if it meant a Reaper victory. 

I was one of those who proposed almost the exact scenario we got, as a means to flesh out the "Critical mission failure" you get when you try to walk back to the elevator. And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.

If you want to blame anyone for this option, blame me and others who requested it. It's meant for those who wanted the "Critical mission failure" fleshed out, not as dangling a conventional victory in people's faces only to deny them.

Personally, I find Shepard's lines in Reject too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle, but after all, principles is what this option is about. It is fitting. The result is fitting, and the scenario is still hopeful since it suggests the next cycle will win.

It is an FU because War Assets means nothing when you refuse or reject the Starchild's options.
So it don't matter when I gathered the whole Galaxy against the Reapers, they will die , Reapers will win. Better luck next 50k years.

If it was an Reaper wins if you have only 1000 war assets, and wins with full war assets then that would have been an thank you bioware for listening. What we got is an FU , a giant FU

[Crusina]

Anuvis13 wrote...

You know what was requested by fans even more than Reject or in conjunction with it? A happy ending. Most, myself included, would pay for it. We still didn't get it. And look at what BW gives you if you choose to reject their "artistic vision". It's a glorified Game Over screen. It's a clear FU but you know what? It's still better than their ending.

So let me get this straight, the next cycle wins, it confirms you stopped the Reaper threat in that little thing at the end, you get to say "TO HELL WITH THIS" to starkid...and that means you lose?

Sure in a way you do lose, but conventional war is impossible. And I don't mean, suicide mission impossible, I mean literally impossible unless every Reaper just stopped attacking...or was destroyed. (huh, gee)


Face it, you're just whining for no good reason, and you're exactly the reason why people laugh at those who get all dramatic over the ending. You're never happy with what you get, you're never happy with whats fixed, you're never happy when they give you what you wanted.

Actually, you know what? I'm glad you feel insulted by the ending still, I hope you stay bitter for the rest of your life and that everything else is just as horrible as the original ending for ME3. Why? because I don't like you, and I want to send you a big FU.

[Hicks233]

Ieldra2 wrote...
And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.

Based on the Mac(Walters)Guffin of the Crucible... <_<

[Draemian]

Agreed with the OP. The concept of sacrificing ourselves so the next cycle can win is not an FU at all. I didn't think it was said even that they had to use the catalyst to do so, I thought the means that they won by were left ambiguous (catalyst, united early preparations, avoided organic/synthetic issue)

[Blacklash93]

Thank God someone gets it.

If it was an FU from the devs Shep would be rambling like a disgruntled BSN poster and not giving an idealistic speech on the principles of freedom and choice of fate. Then everyone would die with no redeeming consequence like the Reapers being defeated in the next cycle.

[Anuvis13]

jstme wrote...

Reject and this cycle loosing is 100% legit ending and not a FU. Showing that next cycle ends it only with Bioware original options is a bit low blow though, don't you think?
It is their story of course. But leaving that part to speculations and not rubbing our faces in the fact that there is no alternative to their original solutionswould be better.

It would have been totally legit if they didn't do what you and others above pointed out. They basically rub in your face that either you or those who come after you HAVE to pick a color. It's a total middle finger.

[Crusina]

Novate wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm reading this a lot here, that people feel insulted by the "Reject" choice. You shouldn't. An option to refuse the Catalyst was requested by many fans, and many of those explicitly said they'd refuse even if it meant a Reaper victory. 

I was one of those who proposed almost the exact scenario we got, as a means to flesh out the "Critical mission failure" you get when you try to walk back to the elevator. And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.

If you want to blame anyone for this option, blame me and others who requested it. It's meant for those who wanted the "Critical mission failure" fleshed out, not as dangling a conventional victory in people's faces only to deny them.

Personally, I find Shepard's lines in Reject too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle, but after all, principles is what this option is about. It is fitting. The result is fitting, and the scenario is still hopeful since it suggests the next cycle will win.

It is an FU because War Assets means nothing when you refuse or reject the Starchild's options.
So it don't matter when I gathered the whole Galaxy against the Reapers, they will die , Reapers will win. Better luck next 50k years.

If it was an Reaper wins if you have only 1000 war assets, and wins with full war assets then that would have been an thank you bioware for listening. What we got is an FU , a giant FU

Okay genius, you know how the entire galaxy's united fleet was still barely holding their own at Earth?

Remember how when  you went to Earth for the final assualt, every single other place in the galaxy was invaded by Reapers?

I bet not even half of the entire Reaper force was at Earth, and they still barely, just barely held their own. Now they have to fight of the entire galaxy of Reapers after losing nearly everything at the Battle for Earth.

Not.Possible.Idiot.

[immanji]

I agree. Great post!

[Tritium315]

It's definitely a **** you since every fan that ever wrote a refusal ending stipulated that with a ****load of EMS you would be able to beat the reapers; that's the whole point of those fan refusal endings. What we got was Casey and Mac basically telling us "You don't like our endings? **** you then, die."

[JBPBRC]

Hicks233 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.

Based on the Mac(Walters)Guffin of the Crucible... <_<

Apparently the next cycle wins conventionally, since they're explictly told that a failed superweapon that never worked...surprisingly didn't work when Shepard tried it. Hmm.

[zenoxis]

There's a difference between many people requesting it and most people requesting it. Fact of the matter is, not that many people requested it in comparison to all the people who actually had a problem with the ending.

[Norwood06]

Novate wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm reading this a lot here, that people feel insulted by the "Reject" choice. You shouldn't. An option to refuse the Catalyst was requested by many fans, and many of those explicitly said they'd refuse even if it meant a Reaper victory. 

I was one of those who proposed almost the exact scenario we got, as a means to flesh out the "Critical mission failure" you get when you try to walk back to the elevator. And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.

If you want to blame anyone for this option, blame me and others who requested it. It's meant for those who wanted the "Critical mission failure" fleshed out, not as dangling a conventional victory in people's faces only to deny them.

Personally, I find Shepard's lines in Reject too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle, but after all, principles is what this option is about. It is fitting. The result is fitting, and the scenario is still hopeful since it suggests the next cycle will win.

It is an FU because War Assets means nothing when you refuse or reject the Starchild's options.
So it don't matter when I gathered the whole Galaxy against the Reapers, they will die , Reapers will win. Better luck next 50k years.

If it was an Reaper wins if you have only 1000 war assets, and wins with full war assets then that would have been an thank you bioware for listening. What we got is an FU , a giant FU

Your assumption is that victory without the crucibal is possible.  It's not.  There are too many reaper capital ships and not enough dreadnoughts.  The council races inflicted casualities on reapers, sure, but no one is coming close to winning.  Ignore what the "galaxy at war" screen says at 100% readiness.  The 'Reaper War' section of the codex is a grim read, minus 'miracle at palaven.' 

War Asset's only purpose is to give Shep enough time to trigger Crucible.  Hackett says this.  High EMS = they can hold their own, for a time.  Low EMS = completely annihilated. 

Refuse was added for RP purposes.  A RP game built on choice should have a choice that results in failure. 

Def not a 'FU'

Modifié par Norwood06, 27 juin 2012 - 05:15 .

[Crusina]

Hicks233 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.

Based on the Mac(Walters)Guffin of the Crucible... <_<

No, by common sense. Which you lack.

[o Ventus]

*in your opinion