531 réponses à ce sujet

[spiriticon]

They harvest the knowledge of every civilisaition they reap. They don't need to evolve, cause we do the evolving for them.

They sleep for 50000 years and gain it all when they wake up. Not that there is much to gain anyway because all advanced tech known is based off reaper tech.

Modifié par spiriticon, 28 juin 2012 - 12:07 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

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).

Also very well said.

Though I don't believe Shep would've been able to win. Make it so that some of the species were spared (if only cause they were bought enough time to go into hiding) would've been perfect though.

Someone else using a method you see as repugnant isn't an insult towards you: if anything it's a condemnation of the other person who accepts a morally inferior solution.

[oldag07]

spiriticon wrote...
They don't need to evolve, cause we do the evolving for them.

Circular logic.

[Shallyah]

I liked the Reject ending, to be honest. For players who play a Shepard whose moralities won't allow him to choose either options, you get an option to still win the game. There is a huge sacrifice, which is the whole current cycle, but you see in the epilogue how in the end the knolwedge you gathered was used to remove the Reaper threat in the next cycle.

It is very satisfying in its own context, and by choosing it, you do not give up on any of Shepard's principles.

[oldag07]

oldag07 wrote...

spiriticon wrote...
They don't need to evolve, cause we do the evolving for them.

Circular logic.

Well maybe not circular.  It is self contradictary.  We don't need to evolve, because we are evolving.

[Dessalines]

LivingHitokiri wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

LivingHitokiri wrote...
Shepard destroyed the reaper oN Rannoch by aiming on their wekaness with 3 or 4 shots ( can remmeber exactly) from Normandy. So, taking into account that bigger battleships have greater  firepower yes we can assume that   1 shot is enough if they hit their weakness. We saw that thei are resistance on their exterior body since sovereign fight but we saw it more than once that their interior is way less durrable , and by design alone.

That was a small reaper, compared to the ones like Harbinger.

The reaper on Rannoch that we defeated was sovereign class one, like harbinger. They are the most advanced forms of reapers that hold insignificat firepower along with the abillity to communicate with other species and control them.

That was the entire Quarian and Normady firing their weapons at already weaken Reaper, and it took 4 shots  and it was not firing. So the entire Quarian fleet and the Normady had to hit an already weaken Reaper 4 times to defeat it. Yeah, it is not meant as a FU. I am amazed that Bioware took the time to acknowedge the refuse questions. Really, I am amazed.

[Trauma3x]

and so was" happy endings" too on a personal note: I don't mind the reject ending (all out reaper victory) just as long as you have an all out (galaxy happy ending) well at least a reunion with your sheps LI and surviving crew....no balance in that so not really feelin it

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

By saying regardless of EMS, and the language, fade to black, etc that "Nope, the next cycle used the Crucible you silly boy" is in fact as far as I can call a big "FU" to the fans.

-Polaris

The "silly boy" part is your own bias sneaking in, Ian.  It's  been made obvious it wasn't intended as a jab at players.  That you choose to interpret it as such is your own decision of course, just as long as you realize that's your bias.

Don't you get it yet, Riou? IanPolaris doesn't fall victim to biases. If you don't believe me, just ask him/her.

[LivingHitokiri]

oldag07 wrote...

LivingHitokiri wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

LivingHitokiri wrote...
Shepard destroyed the reaper oN Rannoch by aiming on their wekaness with 3 or 4 shots ( can remmeber exactly) from Normandy. So, taking into account that bigger battleships have greater  firepower yes we can assume that   1 shot is enough if they hit their weakness. We saw that thei are resistance on their exterior body since sovereign fight but we saw it more than once that their interior is way less durrable , and by design alone.

That was a small reaper, compared to the ones like Harbinger.

The reaper on Rannoch that we defeated was sovereign class one, like harbinger. They are the most advanced forms of reapers that hold insignificat firepower along with the abillity to communicate with other species and control them.

Oh no.  Check the wiki.  
http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Destroyer 

We have no evidence that anything else than Sovereign type class or dreadnought have the abillity to communicate with other species. Also i would also question the refference of the wiki article that is using and basing that one in Rannoch is a destroyed type one like the on in Earth since t me it looked far bigger but anyway even if it was a destroyer my point stands, they know reaper weakness hence they can beat him. If 1 man can beat any reaper then imagine what a fleet could do.

[spiriticon]

oldag07 wrote...

spiriticon wrote...
They don't need to evolve, cause we do the evolving for them.

Circular logic.

Not really, we evolve for 50000 years and they just come and assimilate everything we've learnt.

I think trying to understand reaper motives are pretty dumb anyway, for they have already said a billion times it's not something we can understand.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Someone else using a method you see as repugnant isn't an insult towards you: if anything it's a condemnation of the other person who accepts a morally inferior solution.

Repugnant? Nice assumption. I'm prefectly fine with Destroy.

And yeah I'll always see it as a FU silly rabbit the others chose the smart decision and lived your stupid solution never would've worked. Bias or no.

[Ryzaki]

Heeden wrote...
The Stargazer for the Refusal ending said their cycle didn't have to fight at all thanks to the lessons learned from our cycle.

Which could just mean they used the Crucible (and therefore Starbrat's garbage was acknowledged).

[LivingHitokiri]

Dessalines wrote...

LivingHitokiri wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

LivingHitokiri wrote...
Shepard destroyed the reaper oN Rannoch by aiming on their wekaness with 3 or 4 shots ( can remmeber exactly) from Normandy. So, taking into account that bigger battleships have greater  firepower yes we can assume that   1 shot is enough if they hit their weakness. We saw that thei are resistance on their exterior body since sovereign fight but we saw it more than once that their interior is way less durrable , and by design alone.

That was a small reaper, compared to the ones like Harbinger.

The reaper on Rannoch that we defeated was sovereign class one, like harbinger. They are the most advanced forms of reapers that hold insignificat firepower along with the abillity to communicate with other species and control them.

That was the entire Quarian and Normady firing their weapons at already weaken Reaper, and it took 4 shots  and it was not firing. So the entire Quarian fleet and the Normady had to hit an already weaken Reaper 4 times to defeat it. Yeah, it is not meant as a FU. I am amazed that Bioware took the time to acknowedge the refuse questions. Really, I am amazed.

Commander Shepard discovers a weak spot of the Destroyer design during an encounter on Rannoch:
the Reaper's main weapon is vulnerable when charging up for an attack.
Shepard then proceeds to destroy the Reaper by directing the  Quarian Heavy Fleet fire using a handheld laser designator and the Normandy's weapon guidance systems.

It was 1 ship firing at it, it was  never weakned and it just used normandys weapon guiadiance system.
So again, 1 man managed to discover their weakness while whole galaxy cant ?

[twizbuck]

Seemed like a big "FU, don't tell us what our art is" to me, and I didn't think it was a good route to go down anyway.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Someone else using a method you see as repugnant isn't an insult towards you: if anything it's a condemnation of the other person who accepts a morally inferior solution.

Repugnant? Nice assumption. I'm prefectly fine with Destroy.

I... wasn't referring to Destroy. I was referring to any use of the Crucible.

Now, I will tender an apology if you don't see using the crucible as wrong, or if you feel repugnant is the wrong term.

And yeah I'll always see it as a FU silly rabbit the others chose the smart decision and lived your stupid solution never would've worked. Bias or no.

What about it is 'smart' or 'stupid'?

You made, at some level, a cost-benefit analysis that survival via using the Crucible was not worth it. You made the choice not to use it despite knowing the consequence (extinction), and the alternative for yourself if you did use it (survival). There's no mystery that there is a possible solution, you just chose not to use it.

The people who came next are in no sense obligated to ignore the convenient solution that you personally didn't take.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 juin 2012 - 12:27 .

[Ryzaki]

Only choice I feel repugnant is Synthesis. Don't give a damn about using the Crucible. It's a tool like any other. It's accepting starbrat's asinine logic I have a problem with. If I could give him a "FU" speech while shooting Destroy I'd pick that instead.

As for the next bit. Nope they aren't. Doesn't stop it from being a slap in the face from BW. And we both know we'll go on for pages back and forth on this.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

Only choice I feel repugnant is Synthesis. Don't give a damn about using the Crucible. It's a tool like any other. It's accepting starbrat's asinine logic I have a problem with. If I could give him a "FU" speech while shooting Destroy I'd pick that instead.

You don't have to accept the Catalyst's logic: whatever reasons you have for a choice are your own.

Defining yourself in opposition to someone actually gives them more influence over your own character.

As for the next bit. Nope they aren't. Doesn't stop it from being a slap in the face from BW. And we both know we'll go on for pages back and forth on this.

Shall we make parting insults to eachother now, then?


Your name is strange.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah well this is a game. I should've at least been able to tell the bad guy STFU and a reasons he sucks speech. Only way I even half get that is with refuse. I could accept that if refuse didn't blow. Refuse meaning Shep loses but the next cycle pwns the Reapers without Reaper aid? Hellz yes. But nooooo can't have that. Even with a ra knows how long headstart and advanced warning. BS. BS I say!

LOL you have those silly underscores in your name so you can't talk.

[WarBaby2]

Sorry, but I doubt the fans requested an auto-loose ending... I know I didn't.

What I wanted to see was a way to get around the endings BW forced on us and defeat the reapers by conventional means... you know, by actually using these war assets I collected over the course of the friggen game... and we know that was possible, since the next cycle did it.

Modifié par WarBaby2, 28 juin 2012 - 12:42 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yeah well this is a game. I should've at least been able to tell the bad guy STFU and a reasons he sucks speech. Only way I even half get that is with refuse. I could accept that if refuse didn't blow. Refuse meaning Shep loses but the next cycle pwns the Reapers without Reaper aid? Hellz yes. But nooooo can't have that. Even with a ra knows how long headstart and advanced warning. BS. BS I say!

When was the last time Bioware gave a decent 'STFU and reasons he sucks speech'? You barely get to ****-slap Dr. Archer.

LOL you have those silly underscores in your name so you can't talk.

Yeah, but you know what I don't have?

The letter 'z'.

Can't trust people you have the z's, I always say.

[kj0600]

I felt like it was troll ending only because I shot the AI while walking towards the destroy ending, I stopped it half way and restarted. My curiosity got the best of me with the new dialogue options that I felt fit what my Shepard would say and the speech she delivered made that ending worth it.
My Shepard wouldn't submit to an AI's choices and would rather fight to the bitter end, and seeing that Liara's archive was put to use and another cycle was saved made this ending my canon ending.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
When was the last time Bioware gave a decent 'STFU and reasons he sucks speech'? You barely get to ****-slap Dr. Archer.

But I did get to *****slap him! Even got to chew him out in the third game too!

Yeah, but you know what I don't have?

The letter 'z'.

Can't trust people you have the z's, I always say.

Pssh. The letter Z is awesome. You know who else has  a Z in their name? Zorro. Suck on that!  

Meanwhile you're Dean what a borrring name. :innocent:

[Bigdoser]

WarBaby2 wrote...

Sorry, but I doubt the fans requested an auto-loose ending... I know I didn't.

What I wanted to see was a way to get around the endings BW forced on us and defeat the reapers by conventional means... you know, by actually using these war assets I collected over the course of the friggen game... and we know that was possible, since the next cycle did it.

Actually the next cycle used the crucible. This is why I am pissed off at the reject ending, well i packed my bags and I am going to be moving to the bethesda forums and proceed to throw my money at them. 

Modifié par Bigdoser, 28 juin 2012 - 12:49 .

[waldstr18]

i really liked the reject ending. it was the only one, which made me say: "wow! that was nice!". the others were exactly what i wanted, but somehow not that fullfilling. destory didnt work for me, cause edi dies. in control i felt like a worker bee rebuilding stuff, well, and in synthesis; i dont know. the whole green glowing stuff... i didnt need that. since there is electricity already in our brains, what do we need all the glowing stuff on the outside? anyone seen dollhouse?

edit: i could have lived without the voice change in reject, though, but i guess its for the indoctrination guys so they have something to speculate about.

Modifié par waldstr18, 28 juin 2012 - 12:49 .

[Ryzaki]

Bigdoser wrote...

WarBaby2 wrote...

Sorry, but I doubt the fans requested an auto-loose ending... I know I didn't.

What I wanted to see was a way to get around the endings BW forced on us and defeat the reapers by conventional means... you know, by actually using these war assets I collected over the course of the friggen game... and we know that was possible, since the next cycle did it.

Actually the next cycle used the crucible. 

Thus where the FU comes from.