531 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

While putting the ending in there was not an FU, Th e way the handled the ending and how the option was present was a dig at people that wanted it. Shepard speech was... meh at best. There should have been cut scenes showing the fleets making their last stand. The last surviving crew members placing the last of the Beacons. EDI holding up somewhere and becoming the New Vigil for next the cycle.

The way it presented it comes off as kinda like.." Here, here is your refusal now shut up."

[cavs25]

I would have 0 complaints about "Reject" if they showed us going down fighting....all of the squad mates ect.
Instead we get a lonely and hopeless shot of Shepard standing alone getting punished for rejecting the writers.
Weren't even given a chance to win the war conventionally....it was I reject!!!! well you lose!!!!!

[Baronesa]

Tritium315 wrote...

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."

THIS

All the post asking for a refuse option also asked for EMS to be factored on the result of such refusal.. but it is convenient to forget that part... right?

[dointime85]

I agree with the OP, this was pretty much the best part about the EC in my opinion.

[IanPolaris]

Of course it was an F.U. to the fans. I don't see how you can play the refusal ending, knowing that the catalyst is clearly an authorial device so the authors can speak to you, and come to any other reasonable conclusion.

It's not about whether or not a conventional victory may have been possible (athough Shepard has made a career out of doing the impossible before), and it's not even about the strict content. It was the WAY it was done.

Let's start with the star-kid's temper tantrum and that is clearly what it was. Why? The starkid is perfectly willing (and willingly tells you!) how to destroy it even though it clearly doesn't regard this solution as the best option, yet it throws a Harbinger-like hissy fit, if you allow it to win? Really? In the context of the game itself, that just doesn't make any sense.

Starkid is able to just "turn off" the crucible when you reject it? Then why didn't it do so before and just win....for that matter why bring Shepard up at all?

Why does the Reject option not have the epilog treatment (which SHOULD be EMS dependant) that the others do? Even if you have to lose this cycle, your EMS should be reflected in HOW you lose. Nada. Just fade to black.

No, in game, it just doesn't add up. However, if you take the starkid as a clear "author's voice", then it does...and it's a clear (and IMHO petty and unprofessional) temper tantrum directed at the fans. Bioware will of course deny it until they are blue in their proverbial face, but it doesn't change what we see on the screen.

The final thing to consider is this: If the option was so reasonable then why wasn't it there in the first place? If it had been, then I don't think anyone would be accusing Bioware of being petty. However, after all these months, after being LIED TO about EMS, MP, and available endings for MONTHS, and the orginal ending bru-ha-ha, Bioware had to know this would be seen as petty even if that wasn't the intent (and I think it was).

Finally, the Bioware tweet insisting, "Oh well the next cycle just used the crucible anyway" is the final insult. Not only does it contradict their own game (where T'Soni explicitly WARNS the next cycle not to use the crucible because it doesn't work), but it also reinforced the idea of basic pettiness, "See, you can only win by having someone buy into our 'candybox' philosophies....no beating impossible odds against our vision for YOU."

-Polaris

[Blacklash93]

Anuvis13 wrote...
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.

The only way to end the cycle was to use the Crucible and the only way that would work given the circumstances is with the Catalyst's consent. It makes sense in the context of what was happening. So yes you do have to "pick a color" as you say and there's nothing wrong with it.

This was not Bioware rubbing failure in the face of everyone. If it was we'd see everyone and everything we cared about in the game dying horribly and probably a speech from the Catalyst about how foolish you were.

[Crusina]

If a Fire Ant fought against a Rock Truck what would win?

Fact, it is literally impossible for the ant to win.

The galaxy is the ant, and the reapers are the rock truck. Not possible. Thinking otherwise means a lack of common sense.

[Anuvis13]

Crusina wrote...

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.

I'm glad you are a BW drone and you are proud of it but some of us like to think for ourselves instead of throwing our money at a company that refuses to give its customers what they want. Look at how personal you take it that someone doesn't kiss the ground BW walks on. You need help if you take such exception to a different opinion. And btw the only thing EC fixed is the plot holes BW made themselves. So it's not like they made any of us a favor.

[loungeshep]

I agree with OP, and I like that you can choose to reject the Catalyst.

[Ryzaki]

It's a mega huge FU actually.

Not because Shep loses. That's actually expected for me.

But because the next cycle even with the warnings, the preparation, the early headstart...still end up using the Crucible and Shep's sacrifice is utterly pointless because the reapers still lose on their own terms.

That's complete and utterly BS and a spit in the face.

It's the ultimate "should've picked our color and listened to your betters neerneer neerneer!" if I ever heard one.

Makes me wanna barf almost as much as synthesis.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 05:20 .

[DS Monkfish]

Agreed OP. Two things I really wanted to see - a "reapers win" ending and the chance to tell StarKid exactly what to do with his options. I was pleased to see the two combined, and grinned when I saw that our sacrifice let the next cycle stop the Reapers. Destroy's my canon, but I "reject" works for me too. Didn't see it as an insult at all.

[CaliGuy033]

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.

This is the single funniest part of this whole ordeal.  After 2.5 games (I'll rule out the first part of ME1 since you dont even really know what you're fighting yet) of being told that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally, people still want to believe that they somehow can.

It's a story.  It's fake.  If the writers say, "You can't beat the Reapers conventionally"....you can't beat them conventionally.  You have no say in the matter.  

[TudorWolf]

Very true. I remember a lot of people asking for basically exactly what we got.

The problem is a lot of people seem to have latched onto the notion that conventional victory was possible, despite the game spelling out it's not. Bioware did flub this point by inventing the Destroyer class Reapers as something you could kill on foot, of course

[Baronesa]

IanPolaris wrote...

Finally, the Bioware tweet insisting, "Oh well the next cycle just used the crucible anyway" is the final insult. Not only does it contradict their own game (where T'Soni explicitly WARNS the next cycle not to use the crucible because it doesn't work), but it also reinforced the idea of basic pettiness, "See, you can only win by having someone buy into our 'candybox' philosophies....no beating impossible odds against our vision for YOU."

-Polaris

Excellent post, good sir... and completetly agree on this last part.

In the end what matter is what WAS PRESENTED IN GAME.

In that ending T'Soni tell them to not use the crucible, so if future cycle wins, it follows LOGICALLY that it was without using the crucible, negating the temper tantrums happening on twitter.

[Teneroth]

IanPolaris wrote...

Of course it was an F.U. to the fans. I don't see how you can play the refusal ending, knowing that the catalyst is clearly an authorial device so the authors can speak to you, and come to any other reasonable conclusion.

It's not about whether or not a conventional victory may have been possible (athough Shepard has made a career out of doing the impossible before), and it's not even about the strict content. It was the WAY it was done.

Let's start with the star-kid's temper tantrum and that is clearly what it was. Why? The starkid is perfectly willing (and willingly tells you!) how to destroy it even though it clearly doesn't regard this solution as the best option, yet it throws a Harbinger-like hissy fit, if you allow it to win? Really? In the context of the game itself, that just doesn't make any sense.

Starkid is able to just "turn off" the crucible when you reject it? Then why didn't it do so before and just win....for that matter why bring Shepard up at all?

Why does the Reject option not have the epilog treatment (which SHOULD be EMS dependant) that the others do? Even if you have to lose this cycle, your EMS should be reflected in HOW you lose. Nada. Just fade to black.

No, in game, it just doesn't add up. However, if you take the starkid as a clear "author's voice", then it does...and it's a clear (and IMHO petty and unprofessional) temper tantrum directed at the fans. Bioware will of course deny it until they are blue in their proverbial face, but it doesn't change what we see on the screen.

The final thing to consider is this: If the option was so reasonable then why wasn't it there in the first place? If it had been, then I don't think anyone would be accusing Bioware of being petty. However, after all these months, after being LIED TO about EMS, MP, and available endings for MONTHS, and the orginal ending bru-ha-ha, Bioware had to know this would be seen as petty even if that wasn't the intent (and I think it was).

Finally, the Bioware tweet insisting, "Oh well the next cycle just used the crucible anyway" is the final insult. Not only does it contradict their own game (where T'Soni explicitly WARNS the next cycle not to use the crucible because it doesn't work), but it also reinforced the idea of basic pettiness, "See, you can only win by having someone buy into our 'candybox' philosophies....no beating impossible odds against our vision for YOU."

-Polaris

What would of been perfect, is if your EMS was high enough, ok you still couldn't win, but wasn't there a tweet/codex/something about how reapers only build a single new capitol ship per cycle, and they typically don't loose any? What if we trashed so much of their s**t this cycle that next cycle COULD win conventially, rather then buy into the catalysts logic. As it stands it is, as I said in an earlier post, the writers saying 'see, if you HAD accepted our circular, backwards, nonsense logic you could be all alive and not reaper food or anything!'

[Crusina]

Let's start with the star-kid's temper tantrum and that is clearly what it was. Why? The starkid is perfectly willing (and willingly tells you!) how to destroy it even though it clearly doesn't regard this solution as the best option, yet it throws a Harbinger-like hissy fit, if you allow it to win? Really? In the context of the game itself, that just doesn't make any sense.
-Polaris

I am almost thinking of CLU on tron legacy.

An imperfect creation of an imperfect creator, trying to use it's limited logic to impose perfection.


Yeah that is essentially what I mean. You listen to the Catalyst talk and you realize that it has essentially become the very thing it is trying to prevent, but it doesn't see it. It admits the Reapers are synthetic creations meant as a solution to prevent organic and syntheticlife from destroying each other. However, we know this is wrong if you
save both geth and quarians, that organic and synthetic life can co-exist. However, it cannot seem to fathom this outcome. Also the Reapers are not a means of preservation, again a topic I have talked about at great length, but instead are just synthetics wiping out organics. We can see these flaws and understand the Reapers are
synthetics trying to justify why they are perpetuating the very thing they claim to be fighting to stop.

I actually like that. It gives you more understanding as to why the Reapers have to be stopped since they are imperfect beings that cannot see they are the very thing they claim to oppose.






So why the hissy fit? It's giving you, the sole person who might be able to change things, a chance to do so. He doesn't like destroy because it will kill him too, but he allows you the choice because you've proved that organics can do more then just bicker and destroy each other.

Then you reject it, and you prove him right, and it pisses him off.

Modifié par Crusina, 27 juin 2012 - 05:21 .

[Norwood06]

IanPolaris wrote...

Of course it was an F.U. to the fans. I don't see how you can play the refusal ending, knowing that the catalyst is clearly an authorial device so the authors can speak to you, and come to any other reasonable conclusion.

It's not about whether or not a conventional victory may have been possible (athough Shepard has made a career out of doing the impossible before), and it's not even about the strict content. It was the WAY it was done.

Let's start with the star-kid's temper tantrum and that is clearly what it was. Why? The starkid is perfectly willing (and willingly tells you!) how to destroy it even though it clearly doesn't regard this solution as the best option, yet it throws a Harbinger-like hissy fit, if you allow it to win? Really? In the context of the game itself, that just doesn't make any sense.

Starkid is able to just "turn off" the crucible when you reject it? Then why didn't it do so before and just win....for that matter why bring Shepard up at all?

Why does the Reject option not have the epilog treatment (which SHOULD be EMS dependant) that the others do? Even if you have to lose this cycle, your EMS should be reflected in HOW you lose. Nada. Just fade to black.

No, in game, it just doesn't add up. However, if you take the starkid as a clear "author's voice", then it does...and it's a clear (and IMHO petty and unprofessional) temper tantrum directed at the fans. Bioware will of course deny it until they are blue in their proverbial face, but it doesn't change what we see on the screen.

The final thing to consider is this: If the option was so reasonable then why wasn't it there in the first place? If it had been, then I don't think anyone would be accusing Bioware of being petty. However, after all these months, after being LIED TO about EMS, MP, and available endings for MONTHS, and the orginal ending bru-ha-ha, Bioware had to know this would be seen as petty even if that wasn't the intent (and I think it was).

Finally, the Bioware tweet insisting, "Oh well the next cycle just used the crucible anyway" is the final insult. Not only does it contradict their own game (where T'Soni explicitly WARNS the next cycle not to use the crucible because it doesn't work), but it also reinforced the idea of basic pettiness, "See, you can only win by having someone buy into our 'candybox' philosophies....no beating impossible odds against our vision for YOU."

-Polaris

If EMS doesn't = ability to defeat the reapers but only = ability to distract the reapers long enough to trigger the crucible, then reject makes more sense.  If you don't use the crucible, then your forces will necessarily lose. 

re: the destroy option being on the the table, subject to EMS:  The reapers are an unstoppable force, where the only way to survive is to build & utilize a reaper device (crucible) to alter the reaper cycle, but only in the 3 ways the reaper controller allows.  Reaper controller likely views destroy as a reset button, where the conflict between organic and synthetic, followed by the reaper solution, will begin again.  So he doesn't oppose you because you're still playing his game, going down a path he selected.

I personally think the Reaper controller is wrong about the conflict being inevitable, therefore destroy is the best choice.  But I don't agree that reject is a FU to the fans.  I'm happy that it's there. 

Modifié par Norwood06, 27 juin 2012 - 05:24 .

[OrphanMakrBebop]

Teneroth wrote...


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.

I have to disagree here.  Wouldn't it make much more sense if the next cycle's civilization learned from our mistake?  The most important information contained within Liara's time capsule/archives was the statement that the Crucible didn't work.  Instead of wasting time and resources on an unknowable object, they could concentrate on defense and weaponry.  The intimate knowledge of Reapers from the the Geth intel alone would have given the next cycle an advantage no other civilization ever had.  So on and so forth.

[Tritium315]

Crusina wrote...

If a Fire Ant fought against a Rock Truck what would win?

Fact, it is literally impossible for the ant to win.

The galaxy is the ant, and the reapers are the rock truck. Not possible. Thinking otherwise means a lack of common sense.

Oh my bad bro, I didn't realize you lived in the mass effect universe and saw everything with your own eyes. Here in reality fiction has this unique property where if you write something then that's how it is in the story. Remember that story about a tortoise and a hare? Yea, the tortoise wouldn't win in real life.

Not to mention half the **** in the ending doesn't make sense, and a conventional victory would be tiny on the plot hole scale compared to some of the other bull**** they pulled.

[Anuvis13]

IanPolaris wrote...

Of course it was an F.U. to the fans. I don't see how you can play the refusal ending, knowing that the catalyst is clearly an authorial device so the authors can speak to you, and come to any other reasonable conclusion.

It's not about whether or not a conventional victory may have been possible (athough Shepard has made a career out of doing the impossible before), and it's not even about the strict content. It was the WAY it was done.

Let's start with the star-kid's temper tantrum and that is clearly what it was. Why? The starkid is perfectly willing (and willingly tells you!) how to destroy it even though it clearly doesn't regard this solution as the best option, yet it throws a Harbinger-like hissy fit, if you allow it to win? Really? In the context of the game itself, that just doesn't make any sense.

Starkid is able to just "turn off" the crucible when you reject it? Then why didn't it do so before and just win....for that matter why bring Shepard up at all?

Why does the Reject option not have the epilog treatment (which SHOULD be EMS dependant) that the others do? Even if you have to lose this cycle, your EMS should be reflected in HOW you lose. Nada. Just fade to black.

No, in game, it just doesn't add up. However, if you take the starkid as a clear "author's voice", then it does...and it's a clear (and IMHO petty and unprofessional) temper tantrum directed at the fans. Bioware will of course deny it until they are blue in their proverbial face, but it doesn't change what we see on the screen.

The final thing to consider is this: If the option was so reasonable then why wasn't it there in the first place? If it had been, then I don't think anyone would be accusing Bioware of being petty. However, after all these months, after being LIED TO about EMS, MP, and available endings for MONTHS, and the orginal ending bru-ha-ha, Bioware had to know this would be seen as petty even if that wasn't the intent (and I think it was).

Finally, the Bioware tweet insisting, "Oh well the next cycle just used the crucible anyway" is the final insult. Not only does it contradict their own game (where T'Soni explicitly WARNS the next cycle not to use the crucible because it doesn't work), but it also reinforced the idea of basic pettiness, "See, you can only win by having someone buy into our 'candybox' philosophies....no beating impossible odds against our vision for YOU."

-Polaris

This. Excellent post.

[Ryzaki]

IanPolaris wrote...

Of course it was an F.U. to the fans. I don't see how you can play the refusal ending, knowing that the catalyst is clearly an authorial device so the authors can speak to you, and come to any other reasonable conclusion.

It's not about whether or not a conventional victory may have been possible (athough Shepard has made a career out of doing the impossible before), and it's not even about the strict content. It was the WAY it was done.

Let's start with the star-kid's temper tantrum and that is clearly what it was. Why? The starkid is perfectly willing (and willingly tells you!) how to destroy it even though it clearly doesn't regard this solution as the best option, yet it throws a Harbinger-like hissy fit, if you allow it to win? Really? In the context of the game itself, that just doesn't make any sense.

Starkid is able to just "turn off" the crucible when you reject it? Then why didn't it do so before and just win....for that matter why bring Shepard up at all?

Why does the Reject option not have the epilog treatment (which SHOULD be EMS dependant) that the others do? Even if you have to lose this cycle, your EMS should be reflected in HOW you lose. Nada. Just fade to black.

No, in game, it just doesn't add up. However, if you take the starkid as a clear "author's voice", then it does...and it's a clear (and IMHO petty and unprofessional) temper tantrum directed at the fans. Bioware will of course deny it until they are blue in their proverbial face, but it doesn't change what we see on the screen.

The final thing to consider is this: If the option was so reasonable then why wasn't it there in the first place? If it had been, then I don't think anyone would be accusing Bioware of being petty. However, after all these months, after being LIED TO about EMS, MP, and available endings for MONTHS, and the orginal ending bru-ha-ha, Bioware had to know this would be seen as petty even if that wasn't the intent (and I think it was).

Finally, the Bioware tweet insisting, "Oh well the next cycle just used the crucible anyway" is the final insult. Not only does it contradict their own game (where T'Soni explicitly WARNS the next cycle not to use the crucible because it doesn't work), but it also reinforced the idea of basic pettiness, "See, you can only win by having someone buy into our 'candybox' philosophies....no beating impossible odds against our vision for YOU."

-Polaris

This.

[ChubLump]

Apathy is death.

[Gravbh]

Agreed OP, though I have to admit that my first thought after seeing refuse was "Wow, they're trolling their critics". But then I thought about it a little more and remembered people saying they really would rather lose fighting on their own terms. That's their prerogative and I'm glad they have the option to do so now.

[Deputy Secretary of Awesome]

I actually appreciated that they included the Reject option. It made sense that the Reapers win that cycle, but it was a nice touch to throw in the time capsule and reference to helping the next cycle win the war.

Admittedly, it would have been nice to have war assets and EMS perhaps have had an impact on whether you could beat the Reapers conventionally, or force a withdrawal.

[IanPolaris]

Crusina wrote...

So why the hissy fit? It's giving you, the sole person who might be able to change things, a chance to do so. He doesn't like destroy because it will kill him too, but he allows you the choice because you've proved that organics can do more then just bicker and destroy each other.

At no point does the starkid express a desire to change things.  At best it's an acceptance that things must change.  There is a difference.  AIs do (or at least can) have emotions in Mass Effect (and we find the Starkid definately does).

Then you reject it, and you prove him right, and it pisses him off.

Failing to see how "reject" is proving the kid right in anything.  It's a classic temper-trantrum by the mouthpiece of the authors.  The video makes that excruciatingly clear.

-Polaris