531 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

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!

And now you can kill the Reapers! Or make Harbinger your personal maid!

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:

The Dean takes Zorro to school.

Buuurn.

[pjotroos]

I found it very satisfying. Accept the offer and pay the price for peace, or refuse it and pay the price for integrity. I'd say the end of the game feels a lot more complete now.

[Tonymac]

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.

I agree.  Your observations are insightful.

People wanted an option to say FU to the Reapers on their terms.  Well, you can't.  They are Reapers after all.  However, the next cycle gets the job done - so, in essence, you win.  You still win!   It just can't be done conventionally - or so I feel we are led to believe.  However, like the Protheans with Vigil, we left enough behind that the next cycle knew of the danger, and were ready.  However they did it - via Crucible or conventional -or even an improved Crucible that didn't use Reaper tech is unknown.

Considering that we win, this could not possibly be Bioware being rude, or saying anything to us that is negative.  In all of the endings, we win! 

I feel that we as fans (I am still one) need to be less negative.  Bioware sold us the game.  Many of us were not happy.  They re-did it , and they added a lot.  They listened!   Fans demanded the chance to say FU to the Reapers - and they got it.   Lets not  be so negative to the people who did what they could for us and gave us such a wonderful game and series.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
And now you can kill the Reapers! Or make Harbinger your personal maid!

By killing my bros the Geth DX by electruitying myself to death! Those aren't improvements! I want just Reapers and *only* Reapers dead. No ending gives me that DX. AT least with Reject the next cycle'll avenge my Shep but noooo they wanna bend over for Starbrat too. DX

The Dean takes Zorro to school.

Buuurn.

*gasps* Well...Zorro's still cooler.  

Yeah I've got nothing.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 juin 2012 - 12:59 .

[Bigdoser]

Tonymac 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.

I agree.  Your observations are insightful.

People wanted an option to say FU to the Reapers on their terms.  Well, you can't.  They are Reapers after all.  However, the next cycle gets the job done - so, in essence, you win.  You still win!   It just can't be done conventionally - or so I feel we are led to believe.  However, like the Protheans with Vigil, we left enough behind that the next cycle knew of the danger, and were ready.  However they did it - via Crucible or conventional -or even an improved Crucible that didn't use Reaper tech is unknown.

Considering that we win, this could not possibly be Bioware being rude, or saying anything to us that is negative.  In all of the endings, we win! 

I feel that we as fans (I am still one) need to be less negative.  Bioware sold us the game.  Many of us were not happy.  They re-did it , and they added a lot.  They listened!   Fans demanded the chance to say FU to the Reapers - and they got it.   Lets not  be so negative to the people who did what they could for us and gave us such a wonderful game and series.

Its the fact that the next cycle still uses the crucible THATS THE FU. They don't prepare and blast the reapers to hell NOOOOOO they use the crucible. =_=

[LivingHitokiri]

Well since the whole ending is a big FU why people focus on 1 exact part of it ?

[Dessalines]

LivingHitokiri wrote...

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 ?

Shepard: Shepard to Fleet it is not a Reaper Base. It is alive Reaper. I need an Orbital Strike
Shepard: We are clear. Fire at Will.
Admiral Gerrel: What did we hit? (The Quarian fleet weaken the Reaper)
Shepard: The firing chamber. It is looks like weak spot.
Admiral Gerrel:  Jaming towers are preventing us making a precision target.
Shepard: Patch the Quarians to the Normady's weapon system. I want the target laser synch to whole fleet.
You see that all the Quarians ships are firing in one location. It took the entire Quarian fleet to hit 4 times to defeat it, not just one ship. It is entire fleet firing at the exact same time on a single location on a Reaper that was not firing back at it. 

[Dessalines]

You know another reason why it was not meant as FU, because if you did nothing in the previous edition you got the Crucible Destroyed message, and the game was over. You had to restart. That was a FU. You actually got to see you action play out. It is like someone stating that I wanted to do synethis, but I want to be able to visit my LI as an AI.

[malakim2099]

LivingHitokiri wrote...

Well since the whole ending is a big FU why people focus on 1 exact part of it ?

There is some wisdom in what you say.

[LivingHitokiri]

Dessalines wrote...

LivingHitokiri wrote...

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 ?

Shepard: Shepard to Fleet it is not a Reaper Base. It is alive Reaper. I need an Orbital Strike
Shepard: We are clear. Fire at Will.
Admiral Gerrel: What did we hit? (The Quarian fleet weaken the Reaper)
Shepard: The firing chamber. It is looks like weak spot.
Admiral Gerrel:  Jaming towers are preventing us making a precision target.
Shepard: Patch the Quarians to the Normady's weapon system. I want the target laser synch to whole fleet.
You see that all the Quarians ships are firing in one location. It took the entire Quarian fleet to hit 4 times to defeat it, not just one ship. It is entire fleet firing at the exact same time on a single location on a Reaper that was not firing back at it. 

.
Again, there was no quarian fleet bombarding Rannoch, if they where doing that then Rannoch would kiss this world goodbye and it would be destroyed.
It was only 1 Quarian Ship that used Normandy's guidance system in order to attack its weak point, the reaper wasnt weakened  since attack by normandy was ineffective and missed the crucial points.

The bold parts i posted where dirrectly from wiki not mine.
Plus it was shown more than once and we can easily assume that their weakness is the interior hence the only way  we saw them be destroyed was when we fired in the interior part of their body. ( besides sovereign in me 1)

[RiouHotaru]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
but you'll have to agree that Bioware should have been a little bit more mindful of how people might interpret their work...

No.  That's not the job of the writers at all.

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
but you'll have to agree that Bioware should have been a little bit more mindful of how people might interpret their work...

No.  That's not the job of the writers at all.

It IS the job of their editors and producers though, and they apparently didn't do that job.

-Polaris

[Zine2]

The main problem which turned Reject into a "spite" ending is that they later (via tweets) explicitly say that the next cycle chooses RGB; which shows that the whole exercise was nothing more than an attempt at spite by Bioware ("HAHA, there are smarter people who chose RGB!"). Without these explicit attempts at spite, it's wouldn't have been an FU.

Unfortunately for them, the attempt at spite would only solidify their least preferred ending as the deepest and most meaningful of all the endings.

Synthesis is a stupid rainbows and kumbaya ending where even the Husks become nice and friendly.

Control is the "too good to be true" ending where everything turns out great.

Destroy fulfills the need to avenge everyone who has died so far by destroying the Reapers, but fails completely at addressing the very real moral quandry of being forced to commit genocide in the name of victory.

The Reject ending - and the Reject ending alone - is the one that imparts more than just a shallow moral of the story. It tells us that while we may not always win, what matters is that you refused to compromise on your beliefs. That real victory is not about blowing stuff up. It's not about receiving adoration. It's not about getting a happy ending.

It's the ending where you stand up and say "This is who we are."

It's the ending where you refuse to "Sacrifice the soul of this species", to quote Shep back from ME2. It reminds people that people who stand up for their convictions don't necessarily get to win. A hero may not have crowds cheering for him in the end. He doesn't get to be with his love interest and have little blue babies. But without this sacrifice, such beliefs have less meaning. It's easy to believe in something when it also leads to good things. It's more complicated when there is no one else who will be there to witness your convictions.

Character is what you are in the dark.

Modifié par Zine2, 28 juin 2012 - 02:28 .

[OGWS]

I discovered the "Reject" on accident, when I was first trying out the EC I shot the Catalyst for lulz (as I did the first time I played the endings) and it took me to the scene. I was not expecting it to happen, so I was all "Oh sh-", when Harbinger was all "SO BE IT" but I'm glad it was added, it didn't feel like an "F U" to me

[zyntifox]

Rip504 wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Well i for one am glad to have gotten a ending my paragon Shepard would not be morally repulsed by. I haven't been playing two Mass effect games prior to this one advocating freedom and unity to throw that out of the window in the last minutes of the third game.

I just do not get this. How is protecting the freedom of the Geth and then letting the Geth and every other race die. Protecting freedom or standing up for what you believe in? The Geth lose their freedom and every other race is allowed to keep their freedom and live. Promoting my beliefs with a hard sacrifice. It makes perfect sense. A sacrifice unintended by Shepard or the Catalyst. It's simply a side effect of the crucible. It was not intended,but it happens. The freedom and life of every other race in ME is greater then preserving the Geth for a short time,and ALLOWING the galaxy to crash and burn in name of a Dead Freedom.

You will not willingly make a choice that sacrifices the Geth,but you willingly make a choice that sacrifices every race including the Geth? Freedom to live. You have taken this right and freedom from all,but yet somehow feel good about it? The galaxy died because you were unwilling to make a tough choice.

"The needs of the many,outweigh the needs of a few."

Just my opinion though,and I am truly curious about yours?

ruthless calculus... no thank you. The thing is, if Shepard knows for certain the outcome of every ending he will of course not chose reject. However, since this is a roleplaying game, and Shepard isn't clairvoyant, my Shepard will never sacrifice his principles. Therefore, all my paragons will always chose reject ending.

[oldag07]

Cstaf wrote...

ruthless calculus... no thank you. The thing is, if Shepard knows for certain the outcome of every ending he will of course not chose reject. However, since this is a roleplaying game, and Shepard isn't clairvoyant, my Shepard will never sacrifice his principles. Therefore, all my paragons will always chose reject ending.

So you are saying that you would the millions of lives that were lost just to build the crucible and to launch an invasion that was launched to use the catalyst, died for nothing. I would use the catalyst just for that reason.

[oldag07]

LivingHitokiri wrote...

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.

You just quoted my evidence.  The wiki.  The reaper was a destroyer, not a 
Sovereign type .

spiriticon wrote...

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.

 

We can't understand their motives, so they must not be evolving.  huh?

These arguments saying that the current cycle could have won the war is about as illogical as global warming denial.  We don't have to take care of our environment because the science is shaky.  Scientists would disagree.  Man's contribution to GW is almost unanimous among scientists who are not on the payroll of companies that would benefit from global warming denial.  

In Mass Effect, we have a fictional universe, where the writers of it say a conventional force could not win in this situation, and people are saying, no the writers are wrong.   Huh?

[RE2_Apocalypse]

Gonna bump for the hell of it, since I agree hugely with the OP.

[Ryzaki]

Well bump for complete and utter disagreement.

[incinerator950]

Therefore, I win this argument.

[BeastSaver]

IanPolaris wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

 What that means is if an already agressive and technological civilization got Liara's data (say the Yahg) and started with 20th century tech and had 50,000 years and FULL info and warning?

-Polaris

Impossible. Only the most primitive civilisation is allowed to live through each cycle. And that means they don't even know how to read and write.

The Yahg were left alone.  That is CANON and they had tech of our 20th century.

If the reapers had won the war, the yahg would have no tech. They maybe allowed to live (not sure where you got this from), but doesn't mean the tech will.

We are specifically told that the Reapers were ignoring the Yahg.  It's right in the game.

-Polaris

Even though the Yahg are being left alone now doesn't mean they would be as reaping progressed...it's open to interpretation as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par BeastSaver, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:03 .

[BeastSaver]

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

Gonna bump for the hell of it, since I agree hugely with the OP.

I agree also. There are some people who are just looking for a reason to be offended. JMHO. If you don't like Refuse, don't pick it.

[Xilizhra]

Zine2 wrote...

The main problem which turned Reject into a "spite" ending is that they later (via tweets) explicitly say that the next cycle chooses RGB; which shows that the whole exercise was nothing more than an attempt at spite by Bioware ("HAHA, there are smarter people who chose RGB!"). Without these explicit attempts at spite, it's wouldn't have been an FU.

Unfortunately for them, the attempt at spite would only solidify their least preferred ending as the deepest and most meaningful of all the endings.

Synthesis is a stupid rainbows and kumbaya ending where even the Husks become nice and friendly.

Control is the "too good to be true" ending where everything turns out great.

Destroy fulfills the need to avenge everyone who has died so far by destroying the Reapers, but fails completely at addressing the very real moral quandry of being forced to commit genocide in the name of victory.

The Reject ending - and the Reject ending alone - is the one that imparts more than just a shallow moral of the story. It tells us that while we may not always win, what matters is that you refused to compromise on your beliefs. That real victory is not about blowing stuff up. It's not about receiving adoration. It's not about getting a happy ending.

It's the ending where you stand up and say "This is who we are."

It's the ending where you refuse to "Sacrifice the soul of this species", to quote Shep back from ME2. It reminds people that people who stand up for their convictions don't necessarily get to win. A hero may not have crowds cheering for him in the end. He doesn't get to be with his love interest and have little blue babies. But without this sacrifice, such beliefs have less meaning. It's easy to believe in something when it also leads to good things. It's more complicated when there is no one else who will be there to witness your convictions.

Character is what you are in the dark.

And what you are, evidently, is someone willing to let trillions die to prove a moral point. You're like those priests who try to stop condom use in Africa despite that letting AIDS kill a lot more people. This isn't admirable, this is sick and quite frankly rather stupid fanaticism demonstrated by a Refusal Shepard.

[BeastSaver]

Zine2 wrote...

The main problem which turned Reject into a "spite" ending is that they later (via tweets) explicitly say that the next cycle chooses RGB; which shows that the whole exercise was nothing more than an attempt at spite by Bioware ("HAHA, there are smarter people who chose RGB!"). Without these explicit attempts at spite, it's wouldn't have been an FU.

Unfortunately for them, the attempt at spite would only solidify their least preferred ending as the deepest and most meaningful of all the endings.

Synthesis is a stupid rainbows and kumbaya ending where even the Husks become nice and friendly.

Control is the "too good to be true" ending where everything turns out great.

Destroy fulfills the need to avenge everyone who has died so far by destroying the Reapers, but fails completely at addressing the very real moral quandry of being forced to commit genocide in the name of victory.

The Reject ending - and the Reject ending alone - is the one that imparts more than just a shallow moral of the story. It tells us that while we may not always win, what matters is that you refused to compromise on your beliefs. That real victory is not about blowing stuff up. It's not about receiving adoration. It's not about getting a happy ending.

It's the ending where you stand up and say "This is who we are."

It's the ending where you refuse to "Sacrifice the soul of this species", to quote Shep back from ME2. It reminds people that people who stand up for their convictions don't necessarily get to win. A hero may not have crowds cheering for him in the end. He doesn't get to be with his love interest and have little blue babies. But without this sacrifice, such beliefs have less meaning. It's easy to believe in something when it also leads to good things. It's more complicated when there is no one else who will be there to witness your convictions.

Character is what you are in the dark.

Where did you get the information? From what I saw on the epilogue was the humanoid saying that the previous cycle fought a war so they wouldn't have to. Liara told them on her time capsule video that the Crucible didn't work. Why would they use something that didn't work?

Modifié par BeastSaver, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:55 .

[Ryzaki]

Twitter.

And yeah it doesn't make any f***ing sense which to me makes it a giant FU.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:59 .