Romudeth wrote...
The reject ending was a pleasant surprise since this is EXACTLY what I wanted to do. It's not an F you but a Thank you.
Modifié par Tony208, 27 juin 2012 - 08:07 .
He's not convinced to deny Starbrat as he is refusing to make one of the three choices. Better to die free than live as a slave.
Lord Goose wrote...
He's not convinced to deny Starbrat as he is refusing to make one of the three choices. Better to die free than live as a slave.
And by choosing Destroy he still follows Catalyst words. "The paths are open, but you have to choose".
Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 08:07 .
I 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 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.
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 - 08:16 .
Ryzaki wrote...
Lord Goose wrote...
He's not convinced to deny Starbrat as he is refusing to make one of the three choices. Better to die free than live as a slave.
And by choosing Destroy he still follows Catalyst words. "The paths are open, but you have to choose".
Yeah he chooses to destroy the Reapers. And tells the Catalyst to shove his Synthesis "solution" up his rear end.
The one choice the Catalyst didn't want him to make and even try to stop him from making by making it repulsive. Didn't work on my Sheps.
Modifié par Huitzil, 27 juin 2012 - 08:24 .
IanPolaris wrote...
Except this time the Starkid doesn't even try to dissuade you from picking Destroy (which raised my suspicions). In fact if you've got a high EMS, he'll even comment that the losses for the imperfect Catalyst are (in effect) 'not so bad'.
The ONLY thing that makes the Starkid angry in the EC is reject which makes no since in character (but makes a lot of sense if we consider star-kid to be the authorial voice of the writers).
-Polaris
IanPolaris wrote...
Except this time the Starkid doesn't even try to dissuade you from picking Destroy (which raised my suspicions). In fact if you've got a high EMS, he'll even comment that the losses for the imperfect Catalyst are (in effect) 'not so bad'.
The ONLY thing that makes the Starkid angry in the EC is reject which makes no since in character (but makes a lot of sense if we consider star-kid to be the authorial voice of the writers).
-Polaris
Huitzil wrote...
every single thing the Catalyst said was stupid or objectively, provably wrong and there was no reason for Shepard to go along with it.
Hawk227 wrote...
I posted this in another thread, but I'll repost here. Essentially, the inclusion of the choice wasn't the problem. The execution wasn't even the problem (I quite liked it). The problem was that the future victory was achieved using the Crucible that we rejected. To expand:I 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 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.
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 Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 08:32 .
RiouHotaru wrote...
Huitzil wrote...
every single thing the Catalyst said was stupid or objectively, provably wrong and there was no reason for Shepard to go along with it.
Only if you believe his infodump was a bunch of lies.
LivingHitokiri wrote...
Lol, so lets begin with this.
First we get Shepard talk about ideals, freedom and everything , everything sounds exactly like what a hero would say while preparing for a battle, then we get the main villain saying " so be it" and magically we see our Hero stand and accept defeat and the rest of our galactic armada loosing by default.
Wait WHAT ?
So we play all these 3 games, going against the odds, we literally show a middle finger to the star child's ideology and his reasoning's by proving him wrong and magically we loose?
How in the bloody hellish apple that happens ?
We already proved that reapers can be defeated, since we beat Sovereign in ME 1 without any prior knowledge with a small fleet in Citadel. Then we solo a reaper in Ranoch and another 2 in Earth with our petty weapons ( thanix and Chain ), so how exactly it is not possible to beat the reapers when a SINGLE man already did it ?
When i was checking the war room with my EMS it was saying that our Forces are steadily WINNING against the reapers forces, not getting decimated or facerolled.
Since when reapers became immortal perfect beings, they are controlled by an imperfect retarded AI for god's sake.
This ending was more a mockery for fans that where asking a new ending, they gave us the ending but they on purpose didn't let to get what we wanted.
" See, we listen to your complains and give you this, too bad its still not what you want eh ?"
It is mockery since Shepard after his mighty talk just its there and dies... simply lol
We got the whole galactic fleet with us, we know how to beat reapers, we already did so but now magically get destroyed because plot doesn't allow it, yeah , bull****.
Rip504 wrote...
HaHa. Reaper Win,Conventional loss. I love "it" haha.
Modifié par Rip504, 27 juin 2012 - 08:56 .
That sums my feelings up pretty nicely. If, indeed, the next cycle just uses the Crucible anyway, then that choice was just a slap in the face, the whole point of it is to give the Galaxy a chance at winning on its own terms, not acqueiscing to the Catalyst's misguided, and potentially even insane ideas. To have the next cycle just Crucibles their way out, the choice is just a meaningless waste of life, which comes across as an insult to those who don't agree with the Catalyst.Hawk227 wrote...
I posted this in another thread, but I'll repost here. Essentially, the inclusion of the choice wasn't the problem. The execution wasn't even the problem (I quite liked it). The problem was that the future victory was achieved using the Crucible that we rejected. To expand:I wrote....
-snip-
Fireblader70 wrote...
I like that I have the choice to reject everything the Catalyst says, because we will go down fighting as free men and women, staying true to those principles. And then, because of those efforts, the next cycle has a chance of stopping the Reapers before they cause any serious damage.
That's how I see it, and I'm sticking to it.
Norwood06 wrote...
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'
IanPolaris wrote...
Fireblader70 wrote...
I like that I have the choice to reject everything the Catalyst says, because we will go down fighting as free men and women, staying true to those principles. And then, because of those efforts, the next cycle has a chance of stopping the Reapers before they cause any serious damage.
That's how I see it, and I'm sticking to it.
Bioware has said otherwise though which only reinforces the notion that it was in fact meant to be an FU (or to be more accurate two highly placed Bioware employees associated with Mass Effect have said otherwise in their official roles).
-Polaris
Modifié par Barquiel, 27 juin 2012 - 09:16 .
We took down a reaper with a hand cannon. We took down another with a few missiles. We know their weakness is when they are getting ready to fire, hit them in their laser lens. So yes, I think if you have a high enough EMS, you should be able to achieve a victory.Crusina wrote...
No, by common sense. Which you lack.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... <_<
Retour en haut