531 réponses à ce sujet

[incinerator950]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Not to jump in that wagon, but from a Military perspective, you've failed every objective by the outcome of the war.  I were to learn of the previous cycles defeat because the Crucible wasn't activated, I will want to know why.  If I learn it was a moral decision, I may choose to vindicate your response depending on how far into the Cycle my race is, or will choose to look down on you with pity that you sacrificed everyone and everything that mattered based on your selfish pride.  

It all depends on circumstance, but so far it looks like the Dev Twitter correction, we would need the Crucible based on writing.  While I lament the excuse that they need to even clarify that, its even more sad that your victory is to allow yourself to die for your beliefs so that someone else can do it, to avenge the name of someone lesser.

[Biotic Flash Kick]

OH REALLY
CAUSE I SWEAR BIOWARE SAID NO NEW ENDINGS
THEN REFUSAL

HOW BOUT DAT SH!T

[crimzontearz]

maybe it was not meant as a FU to the fans and yet, soooooo many felt that way. So honestly I have trouble believing it was not...but at this point it does not at all because it will be always remembered the way it felt....like the developers giving us a big middle finger for DARING to ask in such great numbers and with such passion for something they though was beneath them.....

damn their ego must have been bruised

[Memnon]

Bioware seems to have no problem filling in the blanks - instead of letting our imaginations take over - when it's to spite us. Sorry, but telling us that the NEXT cycle chooses RGB is a big FU to us ...

[BeastSaver]

Ryzaki wrote...

Twitter.

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

Hmm. Okay. Then perhaps the inhabitants of the future cycle were able to finish the Crucible so that it targeted only Reapers. The Catalyst did say that the Crucible was mostly complete (paraphrased - will play through again to see if I remember right).

Edited to add: The Catalyst says the Crucible is "largely intact," so it apparently sustained some damage during deployment. I'm assuming this why the energy does not focus solely on the Reapers. (My EMS was higher than 3500)

Modifié par BeastSaver, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:15 .

[Pascal219]

 Ofcourse because al Bioware wants is to FU it's fans. <_<

Really people, this hate-thing is getting pretty silly. 

[Edrick1976]

How could anyone not take this as a FU from BioWare management...

[Everwarden]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm reading this a lot here, that people feel insulted by the "Reject" choice. You shouldn't. 

You should. It's a pretty clear middle finger to those who don't feel like playing the Starchild's game or buying into his faulty logic. 

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.

I find it incomprehensible that people make this argument. If victory is unattainable and war assets are meaningless why bother at all? Did they really think the Crucible was going to be a key into the Reaper consciousness that let them hit the 'Off' switch?

I doubt it. They admit several times they don't know what the crucible does, or know what the catalyst is.

...which brings up another problem. If you don't know what the machine does or what this critical component of it is, why are you building it? How can each cycle "improve upon" something they don't understand? Fail logic at work, here. 

I'd be fine with anything short of maxed out EMT being a failure, and even at full strength only having a small percentage survive the final battle. But default defeat? It's a middle finger from Casey to us, the whiny-entitled fans for daring to question his dues ex machina. 

[dragonflight288]

I thought the refuse ending was a nice touch. Fans asked for the capacity to lose on their terms, and that's what they got. From the very beginning, way back to ME1, we are pretty much being told defeating the Reapers conventionally is a losing battle. Guerilla tactics, pound for pound, brave last stands, flanking maneuvers, tactical retreats, wars of attritions, have all been tried and tested by every race. The asari perfected hit and run guerilla tactics, and had temporarily stalled the Reapers. The turians used flanking maneuvers and strong military strength, the Krogan do what they do best, charge headfirst into the fray. The protheans used tactical retreats in a war of attrition. The humans play keep away and hit here and there in order to maintain their strength for the final push on Earth.

Ultimately, ALL these tactics fail. The Reapers simply have way too much power and numbers. They adapt and simply overpower their foes, using their own tactics against them. The Turians found themselves unable to fight as they would like because their own tactics had them shooting themselves, the Asari were forced into a conventional trench warfare on Thessia, and were being slaughtered because of it, the humans military might was reserved for the battle on earth, and all the tactics used were meant to use the Crucible. To protect it and keep it safe while it was connected to the Citadel at any cost.

No matter how high the EMS is, there is simply no way to win. None. I can understand people wanting to have the philosophy to go down fighting, lose, but on their own terms. I can understand people wanting a conventional victory and a disney ending. But that happy, picture perfect ending, is simply not possible without Crucible at the point Shepard and the rest of the Galaxy is at.

They spent two years not listening to Shepard, erasing everything he dug up after ME1, denied it all of ME2, and were caught with their pants down in ME3.

We can have our morals and standards, so we can reject the Catalyst. But we'd lose the largest military force in galactic history in a single battle, and all the world's would be left on their own. Garrus said it well. The turians had to make a choice, continue to defend Palavan, or put all their forces for the defense of the Crucible.

If the reject option is taken, the Turians won't have a fleet anymore. And with their homeworld taken, have also lost ALL capacity to build more. Same with Asari, Krogan, and the Salarians prefer their wars won before its fought. Not possible against the Reapers.

In the end, using only things from the game, its safe to say any form of conventional victory is impossible. Reject and lose, good for you. You lose on your own terms. There is a strength to be admired for that philosophy. Or you can accept losses and destroy, possibly feel guilty the rest of your life, but this cycle will have a future, and so on and so forth.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Luvinn wrote...

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.

[Ryzaki]

BeastSaver wrote...
Hmm. Okay. Then perhaps the inhabitants of the future cycle were able to finish the Crucible so that it targeted only Reapers. The Catalyst did say that the Crucible was mostly complete (paraphrased - will play through again to see if I remember right).

I think he said something like it was crude but intact. The most he says is if you're EMS is low that it's damaged.

Doesn't help that the choices actually come from the citadel part of the joining.

[spiriticon]

It could have been taken as an FU had you doomed the cycle to exist for an eternity. But no.

The information that Shepard's cycle obtained in death was crucial to the victory of a future cycle. There's still win in it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

It is both. It's abundantly clear to anyone listening to the criticisms that there were people who wanted to tell the catalyst that he/she rejected those options.

That being said, it is the single most moronic thing Shepard can possibly do in the series. So they gave players what they deserve for picking it. And they should feel no shame in doing so.

[spiriticon]

Respecting the right of every sentient being to live free from the tyranny of a genocidal, deistic, irrational, toddler was moronic? It's clear you're an authority on the subject,....please explain.

It's moronic in a sense because it would mean Shepard spent the entire time in ME3 trying to find a way to build the Crucible which he didn't plan on using.

Modifié par spiriticon, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:00 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Fandango9641 wrote...


Respecting the right of every sentient being to live free from the tyranny of a genocidal, deistic, irrational, toddler was moronic?

Yes. You're acting like Urdnot Wreav on Tuchanka when he sees Mordin. You ignore the fact that the guy is presenting an opportunity to help. Instead, you throw a hissy fit and just go "YOU'RE THE ENEMY DURR DURR DURR!"

And by doing so, everyone succumbs to the tyranny of the catalyst. Bravo.

[spiriticon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

It could have been taken as an FU had you doomed the cycle to exist for an eternity. But no.

The information that Shepard's cycle obtained in death was crucial to the victory of a future cycle. There's still win in it.

Disagree. The throwaway nature of the 'reject' ending only served to underline the faith Bioware (mis)placed in our original 3 colour conclusion. Moreover, they gave anyone who felt  that a path to victory without complicity was necessary the finger. Couldnt be more obvious.

Well it wasn't that throwaway was it? Liara's Time Capsule showed that a bit of thought actually went into it. A throwaway FU ending would have been nothing but a "Game Over" screen.

[IanPolaris]

spiriticon wrote...

Respecting the right of every sentient being to live free from the tyranny of a genocidal, deistic, irrational, toddler was moronic? It's clear you're an authority on the subject,....please explain.

It's moronic in a sense because it would mean Shepard spent the entire time in ME3 trying to find a way to build the Crucible which he didn't plan on using.

No it's not.  Shepard didn't have full information (no organic did to be fair).  Shepard (and everyone else) was assuming the Crucible was some sort of super-weapon. Build it, activate it, and no more reapers (or at least the Reapers become much weaker).

Given that assumption (which was reasonable with the information he had), it's not moronic at all to track down personelle and resources to build it.

That plan doesn't change until Shepard figures out it's a Reaper trap.

-Polaris

[spiriticon]

The Crucible IS an unconventional super weapon. The presence of the Catalyst doesn't change that.

[xsdob]

The solution to everyone whining about the twitter post is simple, ignore the mike gamble twitter post about it.

It's never said in game the crucible is used, it's never stated that in the star gazer scene or any other scene. So it doesn't exist, unless this was the official ME3 twitter account or included in the game it does not exist and is mike gamble speculation, dismissible like all other speculation.

It's like shepard's gender, if mike gamble posted that shepard is a male character, I doubt anyone would change their shepard's gender or start decrying it as being the cannon, because shepard's gender and first name have no cannon. The same goes for how the next cycle beats the reapers.

[spiriticon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Unless Liara's beacon tells the next cycle what colour to pick they're buggered. If theEC showed us anything, it's that a conventional victory, a victory without compliance is impossible (again underlining the original premise).

That shouldn't come as a surprise. We have been told several times over the course of the game that a conventional victory is impossible for this cycle.

As I mentioned before, we can always try to win, but impossible is impossible.