531 réponses à ce sujet

[Liber320]

I just wish it was a little more fleshed out than it was. It's pretty much at the same level as the pre-EC endings; abrupt and leaves too much to the imagination.

I would've liked a couple cutscenes showing key moments in the rest of the war, ending with the Reapers returning to dark space. Then the time capsule clip.

Modifié par Liber320, 27 juin 2012 - 05:39 .

[IanPolaris]

TurambarEA wrote...

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.

I personally don't think that Jessica's post counts as canon especially since the GAME INFORMATION trumps what she said (Liara specifically warns the next cycle NOT to use the crucible).  It's just one more example that shows that yes, this was an F.U. on the part of Bioware.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Remember this was the same person who thought that the jungle planet was on earth and that EDI could actually survive the destroy ending (both proven to be false later).

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

[Ryzaki]

gert56nom wrote...

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

This.

I can't even shoot the little bastard anymore before picking Destroy. <_< It's not like he can even feel the damn bullet.

[ArthurVon]

You want to refuse our ABC trolling game? Ok, you all die, lmao.

[Tritium315]

Crusina wrote...

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.

 

That's the cool part of fiction bro, whatever you want to be possible, is.

And it damn sure would make a lot more sense than Sovereign plotting for thousands of years to try and open the citadel first with the rachni then the geth. Then Harbinger trying to go big with the collectors before finally giving up and deciding to just fly in conventionally in the space of a few months. Oh, and the whole part about the citadel being king reaper so why does Sovereign even need to exist.

Now that **** right there? That makes no sense. Conventional victory? Stranger things have happened.

[LordRaptor]

 A big reason refusal is deemed a knock at disgruntled fans is due to its implementation. It feels short, shallow, hackneyed and lacks the updated closure of the other EC endings. It would've fit perfectly with the three original endings in its lack of closure/clarity. So that aggravates people. Then of course we asked for it, but we hoped it would be the ending where choice mattered. It isn't, which I'm fine with because in my filler head canon the next cycle put the proverbial beat down on the reapers by conventional means. 

Oh and I have more supporting my claim of conventional victory in the next cycle than you can raise against it. I'll gladly have that debate if you want.  I don't lack common sense. 

[CrutchCricket]

It IS an insult. Rejection=auto-lose? No matter what you've previously accomplished? Please.  Non-standard game over means you did something wrong. Making a non-standard game over into an ending isn't acquiescing to fan demands because if you arrive at said ending the same way you arrived at the game over before, the implication that we did something wrong is still there. So Bioware is saying "Oh reject our vision do you? WRONG! You lose! Good day sir!"

They keep saying we can't win conventionally. But that's because we dicked around and ignored the warnings, after already wasting so much time in ignorance. There is no evidence that a conventional victory isn't theoretically possible. A species with 50,000 years to prepare against a static enemy who isn't a god or cosmic entity will still lose? **** right off.

I didn't know about them saying the next cycle used the crucible but that's really the final slap.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 27 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[Eterna]

andyftw_ wrote...

Hey how about we give Bioware itself an ending, an ending where all the fans just REFUSE to buy their stuff.

No.

[hoodie_gypsy]

It jumped the crap out of me - I was almost to the red tube, but turned around and shot at the kid because ... just 'cause.

Annoyed as I was to have to reload, I had to laugh. I had another laugh when I saw Chris listed in the credits as "'Evil' Chris Priestly." Was that always there, or was that added for the EC?

[SNascimento]

Perfect post.

[CronoDragoon]

IanPolaris wrote...
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 seves 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.

You argue with it the entire time it is talking about its solution and the Reaper cycle.

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.

Just because something is an info dump does not mean that its beliefs represent the author's beliefs. The EC makes it clear that Shepard does not agree with the Catalyst's solution and that, by extension, neither should you.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 juin 2012 - 05:47 .

[Pitznik]

Bunch of whiners, who expect to have full control what will happen in someone else's story, and see some childish gestures where there are none. I'm sure Bioware has nothing better to do than to taunt people who are indirectly paying their salaries. Unlike some of you, Bioware aren't a bunch of overly emotional 15 years olds. You wanted to see what will happen if you refuse to make a choice even if you spent the whole game just to have the ability to impact the outcome of the war which was impossible to win conventionally. If you decide to sacrifice an entire galaxy of your age in the name of principles, you deserve to lose. And yes, it is a game over screen, that's why there are no battle scenes or anything.

[savionen]

What IanPolaris said.

Really though either it was just REALLY sloppy or it was a intended as an insult to the fans. Especially to add in that shooting the Catalyst results in this ending.

[Crusina]

...wow. Are you kidding me?

Conventional war is impossible, this may be fiction, but it has been established time and time again, throughout all of ME3 that we just can't do it.

Listen, it's not that I don't want that option to be possible, I'm not against it, but it just isn't possible with the forces we have left. Their are not enough Dreadnoughts, and everything else to win against the Reapers. No amount of ships we have will beat them, they don't have a home base, or need supplies, they don't need to discharge their cores, or stop to eat.

We do, we fight at earth, lose most of our forces and then what? Each planet will one by one go dark, we'll fight battles to the end, destroy dozens more Capital Ships and Destroyers and probably millions of Reaper forces, but we will lose in the end.

I'd really like that ending where we win by force, but it isn't possible.If everyone had united in the first game, then I'd say it would have been possible, but they didn't, and that was half the point of the first two games, why one man and his crew had to save what others refused to do.

And because of the galaxies inaction, they are now suffering the possible ultimate repercussion, The death of our cycle.

Modifié par Crusina, 27 juin 2012 - 05:48 .

[Ryzaki]

CrutchCricket wrote...

It IS an insult. Rejection=auto-lose? No matter what you've previously accomplished? Please.  Non-standard game over means you did something wrong. Making a non-standard game over into an ending isn't acquiescing to fan demands because if you arrive at said ending the same way you arrived at the game over before, the implication that we did something wrong is still there. So Bioware is saying "Oh reject our vision do you? WRONG! You lose! Good day sir!"

They keep saying we can't win conventionally. But that's because we dicked around and ignored the warnings, after already wasting so much time in ignorance. There is no evidence that a conventional victory isn't theoretically possible. A species with 50,000 years to prepare against a static enemy who isn't a god or cosmic entity will still lose? **** right off.

I didn't know about them saying the next cycle used the crucible but that's really the final slap.

This. It makes no damn sense that the other cycle would even use the Crucible. Let alone have to. Especially not with the drawbacks of each ending. There's just no. The Reapers are not so advanced that at least a thousand year headstart and knowledge of their weaknesses would still result in the next cycle losing to them. Just...no. Shep's cycle killed a decent number of reapers and they only had about 5 years of warning at most. (And most of those years were spent doing nothing!) So not buying the Reapers having to be defeated using the Crucible (which Shep's cycle warned the other cycle doesn't even work! ) instead of conventially or with a weapon that wasn't the Crucible. Screw that.

It's a slap in the face of the refuse ending. Childish and petty. Some people need to grow up. People didn't like the endings deal with it. The whole "see see! Our endings are necessary!" is nonsense. The Crucible being necessary for Shep's cycle to live? Fine. Those idiots threw all their resources into it anyway so clearly it's their only chance. For the next cycle though? **** off.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 05:57 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

While I was an advocate of the "rejection" idea, I actually wish it had been fleshed out differently. More "What happens immediately after" and less "what ultimately happens." I'd have liked to see Liara's holo start up, her explain that we decided not to use the Crucible because it was a bad choices machine, and then cut to black. That way it's really uncertain how much damage we did... we could even be sleeping out there somewhere, like the Protheans, only smart enough to actually build a power system that could last for a few thousand years.

[IanPolaris]

CronoDragoon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
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 seves 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.

You argue with it the entire time it is talking about its solution and the Reaper cycle.

You don't in the original ending, and you really don't in the EC unless you outright say 'No' which triggers the rejection ending.  That's not a give and take arguement.  It's an info dump and a pretty blatent one IMO.

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.

Just because something is an info dump does not mean that its beliefs represent the author's beliefs. The EC makes it clear that Shepard does not agree with the Catalyst's solution and that, by extension, neither should you.

When an authorial device give you an info dump and then has a clear preference, that should be viewed as the author's preference.  However, in this case we have out of game comments by the same writers describing the synthesis ending as the 'best' and 'most beautiful".  Also trusting the Starkid or "just lose, go home, wah!" is exactly what the authors are asking you to do and by doing so you at some level are asked to agree with the Starkid...or just lose.

-Polaris

[Blacklash93]

IanPolaris wrote...
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

The Catalyst scene is not going to turn into a long philisophical debate between Shepard and space god. Info dump was all it was ever meant to be. Apperantly the writers are guilty until proven innocent here.

A DEM is something that happens when a writer realizes they have written their story into an unwinnable situation and suddenly introduces a new element that makes it solveable. That is not authorital.

[TheTrueObelus]

What's the message with the "refuse" ending?

That freedom of choice, respecting individuality, embracing diversity as a strength, and the belief that in spite of our differences by working together we can overcome anything = game over you lose.

For 100 hours paragon Shepard had been persuasively arguing all of these themes. Then by refusing to abandon those beliefs in the last 5 minutes of the game every advanced race that he had convinced to stand with him is exterminated.

It's a big FU.

[thefallen2far]

Michael Richad's "N" word standup routine was supposed to entertain the audience but it came across as a racist tirade. See, I know that it was meant to be a fan request option, but with no way of having it so yould reject the Catalyst and defeat the Reapers comes across as "eff you if you don't like my idea of Casper the genocidal ghost".

[Thornne]

As a few others have pointed out, I don't think that the addition of the Refusal ending was meant to be an insult at all.

What does seem insulting is the fact that they tied it to shooting Star Kid. Many, many people have described how they did this in frustration at the end of the game. Then it became a bit of a joke.

Bioware could have just left it the way it was, but instead they made shooting the Star Kid automatically trigger Refusal and end the game with you losing. This does seem to be saying to the audience "Respect our Star Kid, or else we'll take away your other ending choices." That message, intended or not, is pretty insulting IMO.

[RiouHotaru]

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

Uhhh, no.  For starters, the point of the Reject ending was for the people who continually stated they wanted to as it was aptly put, "Reject" the Catalyst's logic.  But everyone playing the game knew and should know that the fleet wouldn't be able to stand up to the Reapers.  Look at the Destroy ending, there's barely a fleet left when it's all said and done.  Did anyone actually expect to be able to defeat the Reapers otherwise considering how many of them are in the galaxy?

Also, once again, people over analyze.  This isn't an FU.  This was specifically done as part of feedback saying "I want to reject the Catalyst."  The problem is that people seemed to forget that rejecting him means everyone dies because you CAN'T win without the Crucible.  Ignore Shepard's "God Sue" tendencies and realize those were isolated examples against single or small groups of enemies.  Not against an entire army.

And Liara doesn't warn about using the Crucible, she simply stated "We tried to use it, and it didn't work."  All it means for the next cycle is "Well, they couldn't get it to work, maybe we can."  And since Liara has a complete blueprint for the WHOLE thing, likely they use it much earlier and avoid the long, dragged out battle we (the last cycle) thought.

And the Catalyst's sudden change of voice isn't a hissy fit, remember that he's the collective consciousness of ALL REAPERS.

As for why this ending wasn't in the original?  I don't think Bioware expected people to be so adamant about refusing the Catalyst's offer.  And looking at it from their view, I'm still amused people demanded it.  So no, it's not an FU.  Overanalyzing the ending and looking for a context that does not exist won't make it any more of an FU than it already isn't.

It's an option, with a consequence that's been stated and drilled into you since the beginning of the game, deal with it.  At least be happy it's an option.

EDIT: For the record, Jessica AND Gamble both said the ending implies the next cycle used the Crucible.  Word of God.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 27 juin 2012 - 05:54 .

[Captiosus77]

Crusina wrote...
I'd really like that ending where we win by force, but it isn't possible.

I just want the "reject" ending to be as fleshed out as the three other endings where we actually see the repercussions of the decisions rather than its current implementation where all it offers is the simple implication that everything is dead and the next cycle finds Liara's beacon.

Cutscenes and slide shows of length equal to the other endings showing the desperate attempt to survive for the next years as the Reapers just run rampant over the galaxy, completing the cycle. Then the beacon end scene. That would have been great.

My disappointment is in the execution, not the result.

Modifié par Captiosus77, 27 juin 2012 - 05:56 .

[IanPolaris]

Blacklash93 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
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

The Catalyst scene is not going to turn into a long philisophical debate between Shepard and space god. Info dump was all it was ever meant to be. Apperantly the writers are guilty until proven innocent here.

After the original endings?  Yes and justifiably so.  This is not a court of law.

A DEM is something that happens when a writer realizes they have written their story into an unwinnable situation and suddenly introduces a new element that makes it solveable. That is not authorital.

Sure it is.  What do you think the "D" in DEM means?  "Hint, Greek for "god"".  Having the author come down and speak to you/make things right is exactly what a DEM does....and thus anything a DEM says should be regarded as coming straight from the author unless we are shown that it doesn't (and we aren't).

-Polaris

[hard-case]

Blacklash93 wrote...
The Catalyst scene is not going to turn into a long philisophical debate between Shepard and space god. Info dump was all it was ever meant to be. Apperantly the writers are guilty until proven innocent here..

Doesn't help that there's a few references to the devs considering Synthesis to be the "best" ending, and the Catalyst presenting Synthesis in the best light for the three choices.....