531 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

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.

The story and writers themselves have conveyed time and time again that this cycle cannot win conventionally against the Reapers. Soooo many times.

You can call it inconsistent with the available information, but that's what the writers intended and Rejection reflects that. They aren't giving that ending the short end of the stick because they want to spite fans, but because it makes sense in what they've wanted this conflict to be from the start.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 27 juin 2012 - 05:59 .

[IanPolaris]

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

No it's not.  Neither of them are writers and both have been flat wrong before.  They don't write the canon.

As for the rest of it, just no.  If the ending comes across emotionally at first play as a big F.U. to the fans (and it DOES), then either it was intended (which I believe), or it was extremely bad writing which is just as bad.

In any event, the fact that "The reapers can only be beaten by 'our' way no matter what" by Bioware insiders simply enhances my point, doncha think?

-Polaris

[hard-case]

Crusina wrote...

...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.

Who says it has to be "conventional" though? It's why a small part of me prefers the Refuse ending out of all the choices. If the combined military expertise of a whole host of species across the known galaxy, and their individual military histories, and even the man chosen to oversee the entire project to fight the Reapers (Admiral Hackett) have never encountered the concept of asymmetric warfare, that just seems to rapidly approach "too stupid to live" levels...

[savionen]

Blacklash93 wrote...

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.

The story and writers themselves have conveyed time and time again that this cycle cannot win conventionally against the Reapers. Soooo many times.

You can call it inconsistent with the available information, but that's what the writers intended and Rejection reflects that.

The problem is, even if they implicitly state that conventional war is impossible, Shepard has already done the impossible multiple times. Sovereign was supposed to invincible, but is still defeated. Going to the Collectors was supposed to be a Suicide Mission, yet you can escape unscathed. After being told something is impossible so many times, it's like the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" with the writers.

The whole idea of EMS and War Assets is so worthless and out of place in ME3. It turns from "Build the biggest fleet you can to defeat the Reapers!" to "Build a bare-minimum fleet to guard the Crucible for a few minutes." Why even have Thanix cannons in the game? Why even have these Codex stories of great victories against the Reapers?

Modifié par savionen, 27 juin 2012 - 06:01 .

[IanPolaris]

Blacklash93 wrote...

The story and writers themselves have conveyed time and time again that this cycle cannot win conventionally against the Reapers. Soooo many times.

You can call it inconsistent with the available information, but that's what the writers intended and Rejection reflects that.

I also point out that one of the defining characteristics of THIS cycle and Shepard in particular is (somehow) doing the impossible.  This is fiction, remember.

However, let's set that aside.  It's not really important.  HOW you lose should have been convayed and it's impact on the next cycle (based on your EMS) should have been told. "Fade to Black"/You lose sucker regardless of EMS was an insult, intended or not.

Saying that the next cycle bought into starbrat's logic the next cycle by some bioware employees that IMHO really need to be far more circumspect about this is the final insult (whether I regard it as canon or not....and I do not).

-Polaris

[Pitznik]

Why there was no refusal in the original ending? Because it was a choice that didn't make ANY SENSE considering what Shepard knew about Reapers and how impossible it is to defeat them. In games like this authors usually give you only options that make at least some sense. But you wanted to have an autolose option, now you have it, and you feel insulted?

TheTrueObelus wrote...

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.

What's the message of the "refuse" ending? That if you know that when you'll put your hand into fire it will get burn, and you decide to put it there nonetheless, it in fact gets burn. Just that.

[RiouHotaru]

IanPolaris wrote...

No it's not.  Neither of them are writers and both have been flat wrong before.  They don't write the canon.

As for the rest of it, just no.  If the ending comes across emotionally at first play as a big F.U. to the fans (and it DOES), then either it was intended (which I believe), or it was extremely bad writing which is just as bad.

In any event, the fact that "The reapers can only be beaten by 'our' way no matter what" by Bioware insiders simply enhances my point, doncha think?

-Polaris

No, it means the fans are easily offended at anything that doesn't match up to their imagined outcome.  It's not the fault of the writers if the fans can't think of anything beyond thinking that it's a huge FU.

And actually, the implication that the next Cycle used the Crucible anyway is simply the writing being consistent.  I'll make this as clear as possible:

You cannot.  Beat the Reapers.  In a standard war.

It won't work.  No matter what the Readiness message says, no matter what Shepard does, a standard conflict will result in defeat.  Read the Codex.  The "Miracle of Palaven" only brings the Reapers to a momentary halt.  It's temporary, and won't last.  Garrus even pretty much states that it won't hold.

Again the game drops the "Conventional will fail" anvil over and over again.  To suddenly make it possible to beat them in the last five minutes would've been a MASSIVE thematic break.

[Blacklash93]

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

The most the devs expressed was ignorance of criticism and not spiteful or hostile attitudes. They were still respectful and professional, though embarassingly naive or denying of the fault in their story.

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).

The "God" refers the tendency of DEMs to bring in godly forces to save the day. Not their tendency to preach to the audience like out of a holy book.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 27 juin 2012 - 06:08 .

[Wowky]

The main thing I wish about the "reject" ending is that it were a bit longer. I loved the principle (once I accepted that we wouldn't get conventional victory out of it), but it was just so short! It felt like we could have had some cut scenes of the galaxy slowly being bled dry by the Reapers and maybe the next cycle winning.

[PoisonMushroom]

Maybe it was an FU. I don't care. Shepard's final words during that ending were badass, and they lead to a failure ending with Liara's time capsule that I wanted to see from the start (see sig).

[AngryFrozenWater]

It is very hard to defend the reject option as anything else but a finger from the BW team: Instead of an ending which has nothing to do with Shepard's in-game adventures the team attached an ending that nobody could foresee, because it was only dreamed up after the dark energy script leaked to the internet. If people cannot understand that the synthetics are a thread then it is because they never were! They only became that because two people at BW couldn't dream up anything better.

And thus the 3 options are solutions to a hypothetical problem. And you are forced to select one of them. The fourth is a delay. Everything will be wiped out and the next cycle can make the choice. So, no matter what, the 3 options are pushed through the throats of organics, whether they like it or not.

And what is worse is that these all these options involve one or more of the following: Betrayal, violations of the right of self-determination, forced radical racial identity changes and genocide.

No thanks. What a disgusting mess.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 27 juin 2012 - 06:12 .

[CrutchCricket]

Blacklash93 wrote...
The story and writers themselves have conveyed time and time again that this cycle cannot win conventionally against the Reapers. Soooo many times.

You can call it inconsistent with the available information, but that's what the writers intended and Rejection reflects that. They aren't giving that ending the short end of the stick because they want to spite fans, but because it makes sense in what they've wanted this conflict to be from the start.

This cycle pissed all its time away when it could've been preparing. And ultimately despite the "overcoming the impossible" theme we had going throughout the entire series losing is a very real and reasonable outcome. It's the "auto-lose" I have a problem with.

And saying conventional victory can never happen? Ridiculous.That's the real insult.

I would be willing to compromise on the reject. Have all options lose but have EMS affect how much you lose, how long you hold out. Show stasis pods in the bunker (Space Grandma's clearly an asari). Maybe have EMS dictact how many species you can save. And show the yahg (doesn't have to be them but somebody) finding the bunker and/or crushing the Reapers sans Crucible in 50,000 years.

This I would be alright with.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 27 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[Ryzaki]

Ugh DP

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[Zardoc]

It was requested, yeah. What wasn't requested was the automatic Game Over it results in. Not like our EMS could've finally been useful or anything.

[Ryzaki]

Oh for the love of christ.

Convential war doesn't work because for the most part the Reapers start off with a RIDCULOUS advantage.

THEY ARE NOT GODS.

Conventional war doesn't work because they blindside their opponents with overwhelming strength and technology who then have no time to play catch up.

That's it. Full stop. That's why the Reapers win.

Without those advantages and against a foe that knows their tactics and weakness? And has had thousands of years to prepare?

THEY WILL LOSE CONVENTIONALLY.

That's all there is to it.

Shep's cycle? Javik's cycle? They were unprepared! That's it. That's why the lost! it's not that the Reapers are undefeatable. It's that no cycle so far has the means to defeat them. Liara and Shep gives the next cycle that chance. The Protheans tried but their warning came too late to be of any use other than if Shep's cycle used the Crucible. The Reapers were too advanced in comparison and too unknown in terms of strengths or weaknesses to be defeated conventially by Shep's cycle. The next cycle however won't have the Reapers having the same advantages therefore it's highly plausible for them to win conventially. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 06:13 .

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

No it's not.  Neither of them are writers and both have been flat wrong before.  They don't write the canon.

As for the rest of it, just no.  If the ending comes across emotionally at first play as a big F.U. to the fans (and it DOES), then either it was intended (which I believe), or it was extremely bad writing which is just as bad.

In any event, the fact that "The reapers can only be beaten by 'our' way no matter what" by Bioware insiders simply enhances my point, doncha think?

-Polaris

No, it means the fans are easily offended at anything that doesn't match up to their imagined outcome.  It's not the fault of the writers if the fans can't think of anything beyond thinking that it's a huge FU.

And actually, the implication that the next Cycle used the Crucible anyway is simply the writing being consistent.  I'll make this as clear as possible:

You cannot.  Beat the Reapers.  In a standard war.

It won't work.  No matter what the Readiness message says, no matter what Shepard does, a standard conflict will result in defeat.  Read the Codex.  The "Miracle of Palaven" only brings the Reapers to a momentary halt.  It's temporary, and won't last.  Garrus even pretty much states that it won't hold.

Again the game drops the "Conventional will fail" anvil over and over again.  To suddenly make it possible to beat them in the last five minutes would've been a MASSIVE thematic break.

Maybe so, but one of the defining characteristics of Shepard and Humanity as a whole until then is the notion that the impossible is only merely improbable.  However, that's not the most important reason why it's a big F.U. to the fans.

It's the WAY it's done.

I would be completely on board with the idea that this cycle will always lose, but showing >> telling.  Your EMS even in losing should matter for the next cycle and it doesn't.  If it did, and you saw this cycle go down in a blaze of glory and perhaps, just perhaps with a very high EMS allowed for a shred of hope for the next cycle to win conventionally or even by some other means than doing the Reaper's bidding, that would be one thing.

But it's not.  It's comes across (and IMHO is) like a spiteful tin-god DM in a TRPG saying, "Fine, be that way and reject my 5 hours of carefully plannned out plot.  Blue bolts from heaven kill everyone dead.  Game over."

The fact that highly placed poeple in bioware are insisting that the next cycle had to buy into the B.S. that the Starkid was selling is the final proof IMHO that Bioware is being spiteful here.

-Polaris

[savionen]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

No it's not.  Neither of them are writers and both have been flat wrong before.  They don't write the canon.

As for the rest of it, just no.  If the ending comes across emotionally at first play as a big F.U. to the fans (and it DOES), then either it was intended (which I believe), or it was extremely bad writing which is just as bad.

In any event, the fact that "The reapers can only be beaten by 'our' way no matter what" by Bioware insiders simply enhances my point, doncha think?

-Polaris

No, it means the fans are easily offended at anything that doesn't match up to their imagined outcome.  It's not the fault of the writers if the fans can't think of anything beyond thinking that it's a huge FU.

And actually, the implication that the next Cycle used the Crucible anyway is simply the writing being consistent.  I'll make this as clear as possible:

You cannot.  Beat the Reapers.  In a standard war.

It won't work.  No matter what the Readiness message says, no matter what Shepard does, a standard conflict will result in defeat.  Read the Codex.  The "Miracle of Palaven" only brings the Reapers to a momentary halt.  It's temporary, and won't last.  Garrus even pretty much states that it won't hold.

Again the game drops the "Conventional will fail" anvil over and over again.  To suddenly make it possible to beat them in the last five minutes would've been a MASSIVE thematic break.

In which case it's just terrible writing. To end a 100+ hour story with a deus ex machina device. The player has made too long of a journey to just be handed victory automatically by the writers. Since they lowered the EMS scores I'm not even sure how possible it is to get the bad endings. You can get the best endings with 3K EMS, even though 10k is still possible.

Modifié par savionen, 27 juin 2012 - 06:12 .

[RiouHotaru]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Long post about how 3 ending suck

This is basically the manifesto for everyone who hates the endings.  Regardless of the fact that the game portrays it differently, you say that unless it conforms to your logic, it's "disgusting"?

Also, Ian, that you interpret that way again, isn't the fault of the writers.  You just have a bias, and are using the writing to try and make other people believe your bias is accurate.  You're going into this assuming the writers somehow have it out for you.

I believe a dev already stated that the Reject ending was done specifically as a fan request.  That it comes with an obvious consequence (you lose) shouldn't be a shock.

[IanPolaris]

Blacklash93 wrote...

The "God" refers the tendency of DEMs to bring in godly forces to save the day. Not their tendency to preach to the audience like out of a holy book.

Actually in the ancient Greek Plays where the term originates, the "god" would typically do both.  Save the day and them preach the author's intended morality.

-Polaris

[liquiddemon]

Correct me if im wrong but i thought the stargazing asari hinted that because of liaras warnings civilization just didnt become advanced enough to be reaped anymore. Like the cycle continues but the reapers are not reaping civs because they dont create ai and cause unbalance. So now every 50ktime years the reapera just check in to make sure and go back to dark space leaving every one alone.

[AlexPorto111]

I agree with the OP.

[Optimus J]

I strongly believe it was a FU. Only that was not a FU from Bioware to the players, it was from the team to the producers.

[Ryzaki]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
The story and writers themselves have conveyed time and time again that this cycle cannot win conventionally against the Reapers. Soooo many times.

You can call it inconsistent with the available information, but that's what the writers intended and Rejection reflects that. They aren't giving that ending the short end of the stick because they want to spite fans, but because it makes sense in what they've wanted this conflict to be from the start.

This cycle pissed all its time away when it could've been preparing. And ultimately despite the "overcoming the impossible" theme we had going throughout the entire series losing is a very real and reasonable outcome. It's the "auto-lose" I have a problem with.

And saying conventional victory can never happen? Ridiculous.That's the real insult.

I would be willing to compromise on the reject. Have all options lose but have EMS affect how much you lose, how long you hold out. Show stasis pods in the bunker (Space Grandma's clearly an asari). Maybe have EMS dictact how many species you can save. And show the yahg (doesn't have to be them but somebody) finding the bunker and/or crushing the Reapers sans Crucible in 50,000 years.

This I would be alright with.

This is pretty much what I would've expected if BW was taking the ending seriously. Maybe not even saving entire races but rather a representive from each race (similar to Javik). Maybe EMS determines how many of them survive and are able to warn the next race and allow them to prepare.

With low EMS I expected the refuse ending just to result in the next cycle being forced to use the Crucible or die out. Not with high EMS though. High EMS should've had the next cycle defeating the Reapers conventially. EXTREMELY high EMS? Reapers get curbstomped in darkspace.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 06:18 .

[CrutchCricket]

liquiddemon wrote...

Correct me if im wrong but i thought the stargazing asari hinted that because of liaras warnings civilization just didnt become advanced enough to be reaped anymore. Like the cycle continues but the reapers are not reaping civs because they dont create ai and cause unbalance. So now every 50ktime years the reapera just check in to make sure and go back to dark space leaving every one alone.

No they won. They got the warnings in time, didn't dick around this time and smoked the Reapers the moment they arrived without space magic. Twitter be damned that's what I'm going with.

[Zero132132]

hard-case wrote...

Crusina wrote...

...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.

Who says it has to be "conventional" though? It's why a small part of me prefers the Refuse ending out of all the choices. If the combined military expertise of a whole host of species across the known galaxy, and their individual military histories, and even the man chosen to oversee the entire project to fight the Reapers (Admiral Hackett) have never encountered the concept of asymmetric warfare, that just seems to rapidly approach "too stupid to live" levels...

Have you read any of the codex entries? It's pretty clear that during the course of the game, they're engaging in asymmetric warfare. The only time where they directly confront the enemy fleets with their own is at the end, and that's only because we NEED the crucible to work, because nothing else is.