531 réponses à ce sujet

[tobiasks]

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

Pretty much this.

[aburns91]

In my opinion, losing regardless of war asset numbers is a perfectly fine outcome for the game to make. It would've been great to see cinematics of the fleet going down in flames though, of the squadmates dying one by one, and finally the entire galaxy burning.

It would've been very unpleasant, but epic in it's own way.

[Jadebaby]

Strongly disagree. And am insulted that they would listen to people on this and incorporate it when they left out Shepard being reunited with her LI and squad.

The only people that wanted the option to reject the catalyst are the ones that hating the endings, but were realistic enough to know they wouldn't retcon the Catalyst. Period.

[IanPolaris]

Gravbh wrote...

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.

In a movie or in a video game (including this one), first impressions are the ones that matter, and are generally the 'correct' ones (in terms of intent) anyway.  If you have to explain why it wasn't an insult, it probably was.

-Polaris

[Captiosus77]

The option, itself, isn't an FU and yes, it was a community "wish".

The way it plays out, however, IS the FU. Shepard makes a brief speech, fade to ending cutscene with Liara, then credits. That's a big middle finger. They couldn't even take the time to show the ensuing (futile) battle? They couldn't take the time to make some cutscenes or slide shows which show the conclusion of the cycle (which, as we know, takes years to complete)?

The FU is that choosing reject just goes: SO BE IT, BLAM YOU'RE ALL DEAD. We don't get to see anything. Imagine if reject had, instead, showed cut scenes of Shep being picked up and slide shows of the futile attempts to "outrun" extermination by the crew (and remaining galactic survivors) until there's nothing left. A final cut scene of Harby crushing Normandy after tender, but heart breaking, moments with the crew as they know it's the end of everything... THEN a fade to Liara's beacon.

That would be a fully fleshed out, and acceptable, reject ending IMO.

[nitefyre410]

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

 


I agree with all of this. 

[Aurvant]

I choose Refusal as my canon ending, but that doesn't mean I don't get why it was written the way it was.

[IanPolaris]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Strongly disagree. And am insulted that they would listen to people on this and incorporate it when they left out Shepard being reunited with her LI and squad.

The only people that wanted the option to reject the catalyst are the ones that hating the endings, but were realistic enough to know they wouldn't retcon the Catalyst. Period.

Assuming this is true, that makes it even more likely that the "reject" option was a big F.U. 

-Polaris

[CronoDragoon]

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.

-Polaris

The Catalyst is clearly not an authorial device. Shepard spends the entire time arguing with him while he is explaining his origin and his solution. The dialogue wheel options say things like "You are crazy" or "Your logic is flawed" etc etc. The Catalyst is clearly supposed to be a villain. The Crucible is different.

[Teneroth]

OrphanMakrBebop wrote...

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.

There was a tweet somewhere (dunno where, don't have the link, too lazy to look it up) that said the next cycle used the crucible anyways. 

Also, Liara's beacon mentioned that the crucible didn't work in our cycle 'for some reason' implying that they had messed up the construction and that, given more time, the next cycle could do it correctly. Besides, every cycle attempted to warn the next, it was part of the cycle, and no cycle managed to get enough intel to the next one to build up to face the reapers. The protheans came closest, and even mentioned similar attempts from the cycle before, but it never amounted to anything. So I doubt that would of mattered. Maybe we destroyed enough reaper cap ships to make a difference, since the reapers only make like one a cycle, but it could of at least TOLD us that. Rather then 'we just made the crucible and used it, which YOU should of done!' 

I think it would of been better to see cycle after cycle build the crucible, dock it, then tell the starbrat to f**k off with his circular logic, trashing more and more reapers until there simply aren't enough to take the galaxy.

[Malditor]

I remember reading so many times people saying they wanted the right to refuse even if it meant failure. This is what they got but with the added bonus of it showing that the victory is won the next cycle due to providing valuable information. It's valid to wish there was more shown, but to want an outright victory based on refusal would lead to it being the "right" choice even though there isn't supposed to be one.

[Hicks233]

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.

You're trying to apply common sense to a story and world full of

They still struggle to explain how their MacGuffin of the Crucible works, it was a plot device, an ill thought out one at that. We're led to believe that in this world setting it took hundreds of years for the Reapers to finally off the Protheans, what's to stop there from being an alternative way of defeating them - because Bioware say "Nuurrrr... you must use the Crucible!!!"?

A plot device that requires a massive amount of the forces you've put together to be sacrificed so we can get our dose of .

They wrote themselves into a corner and have been trying to justify the corner. By playing by those rules it renders most of the players experience across the three games worthless. So much for diversity and overcoming challenge... oh wait. I forgot - diversity baaaad, synthesis good. <_<

Just another example of the disconnect between the customer and the producer.

[Deputy Secretary of Awesome]

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

Just read this and despite enjoying having the Reject option, this makes a solid argument.

[JBPBRC]

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

T-t-there was a tweet about the next cycle using the Crucible? After being told it doesn't work?

Well there goes my "well at least the Yahg won with conventional means" theory.

[Applepie_Svk]

It was asked ending ofc, but not just in this form ... there should be a possibility that if you realy fought hard than you should be rewarded and not just trolled.

They should rather keep their promise and not adding new ending than this another pointless and depresing ending, I don´t understand how it can please developers to trolling their fans in such a way - so yes it was FU...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 27 juin 2012 - 05:35 .

[Kzak]

Not sure if this was posted in this thread or not, but you also get the same result as if you rejected the Starchild's choices if you try to shoot him, as I found out.

[Blacklash93]

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.

The Catalyst is a CHARACTER. Not some relay of the developers thoughts. That is a very presumtuous interpretation.

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.

The Catalyst says two lines that convey it is understandably insulted and frustrated by what it views as senseless inaction and says the cycle will continue. Then you see a ship destroyed then it cuts to Liara's message to the next cycle and the new epilogue where the Reapers were defeated.

That's it. How was it done to come off as insulting to the player or meta-preaching? People are just looking way too much into it.

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.

Expecting much of this story to make sense and be consistent considering what we've gotten before is vastly naive.

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?

It already said it was helping Shepard do this becuase he proved the cycle was not foolproof. The Catalyst was consenting to the use of the Crucible.

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.

Because the current galaxy dies. What does it matter how? Going into depth about the next cycle would be useless padding. All you need to know is that they won with Liara's message. The Reapers are unstoppable with this cycle's means to combat them.

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).

They've already said they didn't expect the reactions from the original endings. They didn't know people would rather die and let the galaxy fall than end the cycle with the help of the Reapers.

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."

Again, sloppy and forgetful storytelling that we've come to expect from this writing team. That doesn't mean the ending was an FU.

And the the endings are not philosophies. Destroy and Control made complete sense and Synthesis, despite space magic, was meant to embody what they believed the main theme of Mass Effect to be. Sometimes in life you're presented with options and none are appealing, but the choice is picking what you gather as the lesser of the evils or inaction which will have even worse consequences.

Shepard, in a sense, did win by rejecting the Catalyst too.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 27 juin 2012 - 05:40 .

[gert56nom]

the thing that I find off about the reject ending is that you can activate by shooting the starkid.
Now how many times have videos commenting on how bad the original endings were been showing countles amounts of ammo shot at the starkid .

your telling me that is not a reaction to the fans

[dtones520]

Remember when starchild says that the crucible is not perfect when he talks about the destroy ending and how it hasn't been perfected to just target Reapers? So he is saying to us, you made the crucible and it will end this war, but your choice will have consequences. Or you can say, well, we got this far. Let's let another cycle perfect this thing. They will have all the knowledge that we had on building the crucible and what the reapers are doing and will now be able to focus all their energy on perfecting the thing to actually destroy the reapers.

Modifié par dtones520, 27 juin 2012 - 05:32 .

[Crusina]

Tritium315 wrote...


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.

Let me repost.



You know how the entire galaxy's united fleet was still barely holding their own at Earth?



Remember how when  you went to Earth for the final assualt, every single other place in the galaxy was invaded by Reapers?



I bet not even half of the entire Reaper force was at Earth, and they
still barely, just barely held their own. Now they have to fight of the
entire galaxy of Reapers after losing nearly everything at the Battle
for Earth.


OH YEAH SO POSSIBLE.

IanPolaris wrote...

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

Yes it does, Synthesis. Goes on and on and on about, and how its the
final option, and the best one. He's already told you that he's tried it
before, HE TRIED to get organics and sythetics to cooperate before, he was created to do so. And now he's giving you the chance to change it. He says it
himself, synthesis can not be forced, it can only be choosen. That was his mistake. It only
takes one person to choose, and you are that one person.



It's not proving him right, it's just the only way to save your cycle, if not, you'll end up saving the next. Sacrifice.

[LordRaptor]

Crusina wrote...

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... <_<

No, by common sense. Which you lack.

Actually you lack the common sense to not take characters' opinions as objective fact.  Characters who's logic and reason is clouded by abject fear and awe. It's shock and awe, very impressive and intimidating during the outset of an engagement. It immediately puts the defending force on their heels, reeling.  

Shepard and others proved several times a reaper (or reapers) can be defeated with smart tactics and appropriate weaponry; ie the Cain.  Strange it was suspiciously removed from the game except one scene where it literally obliterates a Destroyer Reaper. You're all basing your judgment off the bleak outlook of the moment, not in the long run or the grand scheme. 

If 

[Zero132132]

So people see it as a "**** you" rather than the logical outcome of not using your most badass superweapon against an unbeatable enemy? Or is it that you don't get to watch everyone die painfully and horribly? Because it seems like people thinking it should give a genuine option for victory (which would make no damned sense) would feel WAY more trolled if what followed was watching their friends all die horribly.

So do people feel insulted because, as the game repeatedly tells you, you can't win without the Crucible, or because it doesn't show you exactly how bad you'll lose?

[TurambarEA]

I wouldn't have minded it nearly as much if Jessica and some other Bioware employee hadn't confirmed that the next cycle uses the Crucible anyway. It makes this option pretty hollow.

"I won't choose" --> literally EVERYONE important dies --> next cycle they make one of the Crucible choices you found too abhorrent to do anyway.

Your choice just got everyone you cared about killed and resulted in one of the things you didn't want to choose happening anyway. Hard trolled by Bioware imo.

[IanPolaris]

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

-Polaris

The Catalyst is clearly not an authorial device. Shepard spends the entire time arguing with him while he is explaining his origin and his solution. The dialogue wheel options say things like "You are crazy" or "Your logic is flawed" etc etc. The Catalyst is clearly supposed to be a villain. The Crucible is different.

Of course the Catalyst is an authorial device.  Always has been.  You don't get to argue with it (other than ultimately rejecting it) and it serves as a last minute "Info Dump" that changes was was the main plot and theme of the game to this point into something completely different literally at the last minute.

A DEM (which is an Authorial device) is exactly what Starkid is, and what comes from his lips should be regarded as coming from the authors w/r/t the philosophies and preferences therein.

-Polaris

[gert56nom]

well the starkid starts off saying "no you cant" then gives you 3 options that you can ???