531 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

Once more:  The actual reject ending isn't the F.U.  In fact I agree with the decision to include it but it should have been an option from the very start. (If it had been then most of this conversation wouldn't be happening but too much trust has been lost and too many bridges burnt).

It's the WAY it was done and the commentary both in the game and by bioware insiders (for iMHO should know better and have kept silent about this) is what hammers this home as an F.U.  See the distinction?

-Polaris

[RiouHotaru]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

So what you're basically saying is that you wanted there to be a victory to be possible without the use of the Crucible/Catalyst.

And why should your EMS matter?  The Reapers win, harvest life, make more Reapers, and then leave.  Remember, the Reapers around Earth do not comprise the whole of their forces.  The Galaxy Map after Cronos Station implies the Reapers have control of (essentially) the entire galaxy.  What you fight at Earth isn't likely even the majority of their forces.

What you're asking for is something you should know the writers weren't going to give you (the possibility that the Reapers can be beaten WITHOUT using the Plot Device)

And no, for the last time to some of the other posters, the Catalyst isn't a DEM.  We've been over this before.

[CrutchCricket]

Ryzaki wrote...
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.

By saving races I mean saving enough of them to start over (i.e. a viable gene pool). Asari are the easiest since they can do it with anything. Geth would also be easy. Quarians would be hardest because of their suits.

[Blacklash93]

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

Defeating the Reapers is doing the impossible whatever the means. They just chose to use something like the Crucible instead of conventional warfare. If that isn't the case that doesn't change how insistent the writers and story were about this. If you think conventional warfare would have been better that's fine, but don't pretend the writers weren't insisting both in and out of the game this wasn't going to happen.

I don't think it matters how everyone dies and I'm sure plenty would agree with me. So they do a little better in one scenario? They died horribly anyway so why should I care? They died period and there's no point in elaborating on that in what was clearly a tight-budgeted production.

[RiouHotaru]

IanPolaris wrote...

Once more:  The actual reject ending isn't the F.U.  In fact I agree with the decision to include it but it should have been an option from the very start. (If it had been then most of this conversation wouldn't be happening but too much trust has been lost and too many bridges burnt).

It's the WAY it was done and the commentary both in the game and by bioware insiders (for iMHO should know better and have kept silent about this) is what hammers this home as an F.U.  See the distinction?

-Polaris

There's a reason it wasn't in the original (vanilla) game.  Because the writers didn't expect such a negative outcry to the Catalyst.  And before you go "But how couldn't they?!", just remember they aren't mind-readers.  I think that if the Catalyst's info dump had been present in Vanilla, a lot of the outcry would've been avoided as well.  But they felt the info dump was inappropriate for what was literally the final decision.

[Zero132132]

savionen wrote...

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.

The Deus ex Machina is the Crucible, but it's introduced early enough in ME3 that even that's debatable. It's a random plot element of absurd power introduced in the third act to solve the Reaper problem. The Catalyst isn't. He doesn't offer resolution to the major narrative, he's just an explicative device that the writers used to detail the possible ways to actually stop the Reapers from killing us.

So the story doesn't end with a DEM. That was introduced well before the actual ending. It's still sort of a weird plot element out of left field, but it's annoying to hear people call the Catalyst a Deus ex Machina.

[Blacklash93]

IanPolaris wrote...
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

And so the Catalyst automatically falls into all of it? You have the option to choose destroy and FU the Catalyst even in the orignal ending. If the Catalyst was truly the writers infallible in-universe logic Shepard would not be able to reject it in any fashion. Nor would players be rewarded with surviving in that particular ending.

[admcmei]

Yes, reject was requested by many fans, me included, but the way it's done seem a bit passive-aggressive. From the way it starts (by shooting and not by dialogue as it shoudl have been) to the complete lack of elaboration. Yes, we lose the war and it's ok, no problem with that, but the cycle should still have a few decades, they could have shown a bit of that, Shepard and the LI and the Normandy crew still fighting even if it's hopeless, to the end. And only after that, the Liara message (clearly updated by Liara herself with Shep's information after the battle of Earth anyway). The thing goddamn nearly writes itself.
Don't get me wrong, I'm satisfied with the EC overall, but this one, if they had to do throw it out so badly they could have not done it at all. This way it's very underwhelming.

Modifié par admcmei, 27 juin 2012 - 06:26 .

[Ryzaki]

CrutchCricket wrote...
By saving races I mean saving enough of them to start over (i.e. a viable gene pool). Asari are the easiest since they can do it with anything. Geth would also be easy. Quarians would be hardest because of their suits.

I know. I just would've liked it even those few representives were endangered if you didn't have high enough EMS. (and not enough to start the races over. I have a feeling they'd end up like Ilos and Javik's pod with power having to be deviated anyway).

But yeah I'm sick of hearing the Reapers can't be defeated conventially. That's not true. Shep's cycle (nor could Javik's cycle) couldn't defeat the Reapers conventially. That's true. There's a reason for that. They were unprepared and didn't have the manpower or resources necessary. That doesn't always have to be the case especially not with a cycle that gets understandable warnings thousands of years in advance.

The Reapers are not gods. Shep's cycle defeats a number of them conventially. It just wasn't possible to kill all of them because they lacked the resources and preparation.

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

[Aquilas]

Of course BioWare is flipping off the fans via the Reject ending--as presented. BioWare proved they listened, and then gave us the galactic raspberry---that's Harbinger's basso profundo "So be it."

I do commend BioWare for including the Reject ending. I adamantly maintained that excluding it trampled all notion of choice and free will, two pillars of the ME experience. I chose Reject first when I played through all four EC endings. It affirms Shepard's stance in ME and ME2--it's better to die free than to submit. It rejects Saren's premise: that it's better to go along to get along. Yeah Saren? Yeah Sovereign? Yeah Harbinger?  Yeah Star-jar? Screw that.

I agree conventional victory in Shepard's cycle was impossible given what we're told in all three games--Hackett says so several times. There are just too many Reapers. For instance, the Catalyst could've deployed a Reaper "Dyson Sphere" around the Citadel to defend it--aeons of Reaper creation, dontcha know, so there are lots and lots of 'em. That the Catalyst didn't is a whole nother issue--contrived, crap plot device and all. But anyway, I'll concede the point: the races couldn't have beaten the Reapers, at least in Shepard's cycle, without using the Crucible.

No, BioWare would have to break ME lore to allow a conventional victory...oh wait.  They already did that with Star-jar and the A,B,C endings.  But again, that's a whole nother discussion.

But the way Reject plays out is arrogant, condescending, insulting, juvenile, petty...you get my drift. At the last we see Shepard standing forlornly and alone on the Citadel. Not even a close-up of Shepard's face, perhaps expressing a mix of, or transition from, sadness to anger to resolve to grim, fierce acceptance. Nope...a long-off camera shot, a small Shepard, slouching, defeated.

The real proof is in what happens when you shoot Star-jar in his glowy little head. I walked up the Destroy ramp on my way to blast the Reapers, then roleplayed I'd start with the Crapalyst and put a round in his brain. Guess what? As others have said--Reject ending. No mocking laugh from Star-jar, no instruction to shoot the pipe--Reject.

There are lots of positive ways BioWare could've had Reject play out. Many writers in this thread have described some rousing, uplifting scenarios--truly bittersweet endings. But that's not what BioWare wanted for Reject. They wanted to punish the Rejecters. We'll see how that works out for them come ME3 DLC and DA3. I have the whip-hand there--the one with my wallet in it.

Modifié par Aquilas, 27 juin 2012 - 06:57 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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"?

No. I think that betrayal, the violation of the right of self-determination, forced radical racial identity changes, and genocide are disgusting. Especially when one or more of these are forced down my throat to finish a game.

And of course the fact that the hypothetical threat was used as a rationalization behind the brat's motives, when it is pretty obvious to anyone that this was only dreamed up after the dark energy plot leaked the internet.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 27 juin 2012 - 06:30 .

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

So what you're basically saying is that you wanted there to be a victory to be possible without the use of the Crucible/Catalyst.

*sigh*  No.  I didn't say that.  Please don't misrepresent what I do say again.  What I said was that how you lost should matter even if you think that no victory was possible.  I don't think that no conventional victory is possible is an absolute fact but I would be willing to accept that for this cycle AND I SAID THIS.

And why should your EMS matter?  The Reapers win, harvest life, make more Reapers, and then leave.  Remember, the Reapers around Earth do not comprise the whole of their forces.  The Galaxy Map after Cronos Station implies the Reapers have control of (essentially) the entire galaxy.  What you fight at Earth isn't likely even the majority of their forces.

Read your history.  How you lose can matter a great deal.  Consider the Prothean cycle.  Did the Protheans lose?  Sure, but it took a very long time, and it gave the Protheans the ability to leave enough clues that should have enabled us to actually fight the Reapers had short sighted people not squandered the opportunity. (In this the illusive man was dead right.)

It should be the same here.

What you're asking for is something you should know the writers weren't going to give you (the possibility that the Reapers can be beaten WITHOUT using the Plot Device)

And no, for the last time to some of the other posters, the Catalyst isn't a DEM.  We've been over this before.

The catalyst is by definition a DEM.  The crucible isn't but the catalyst as an intelligent AI with god-like powers is almost a quintessential DEM.  To answer the first sentence, I am saying that even if this cycle had to lose with "reject" with a high enough EMS it should have given the next cycle the opporunity to beat the Reapers without playing their sick little game.

The fact that Bioware didn't even apparently consider all this along with what we see on the screen especially after all the bad blood after all these months screams of pettiness to me.  In fact that was my first reaction when I saw it...and that was the reaction of a LOT of people.

-Polaris

[bobwill]

delphonic 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.

How is the perfect Destroy ending not a happy ending? Just because of the Geth and EDI?

I guess some people wanted a Return Of The Jedi ending where not even one Ewok dies...

It's a war with the Reapers. Some casualties are to be expected. To win the war that easily and have Shepard + crew survive seems about as happy an ending as one could possibly hope for.

You mean, instead of everyone on Endor dying horribly, as an object the size of a small moon in close orbit, and loaded with some form of big reactor supplying enough power to do a 1 shot kill on a planet, just exploded.

[Toxic Waste]

If it was an insult, fine. I took it light hearted. I do know I loved it. It's my second favorite ending from the EC. Control now being my favorite. Pre-EC my favorite was destroy.

BW, I am not taking the refusal personaly. If it was an F U, then I applaude how you did it.
If it was not intentional then nice work.

[RiouHotaru]

No, oh no. The board has gone over this a million times.

The Catalyst is NOT a DEM, not even by definition. We're told it's a vital component to making the Crucible work. We're told without it, we cannot stop the Reapers. That we learn that it's actually the Citadel doesn't change anything.

That the Catalyst is an AI doesn't change anything either. All it does is tell you HOW the Crucible can be used. That's not Deus Ex Machina, unless you consider being told how to use the Plot Device a DEM, which is ridiculous.

And again, what you're asking for is for it to be possible to break theme. Since you admit it's not possible to beat the Reapers this cycle without using the Plot Device, you wanted some implication that the next cycle can do it. Again, you want the writers to allow you to break theme just so you'll get some feeling of vindication (" I am saying that even if this cycle had to lose with "reject" with a high enough EMS it should have given the next cycle the opporunity to beat the Reapers without playing their sick little game.")

[TheTrueObelus]

Pitznik wrote...

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.

How would the player "know" what you suggest? Every previous decision point they were given an option for victory that reinforced the themes I previously mentioned.

Yes, it had been stated over and over that a conventional war would end in defeat. I understand that and I'm fine with it. My question is why didn't the writers offer a "refuse" option that led to an unconventional victory? That's what people expected. That's why many people are upset.

As is the endings are an almost a complete rejection of the themes put forward in the preceding 100 hours if you played as a paragon.

Modifié par TheTrueObelus, 27 juin 2012 - 06:41 .

[richard_rider]

The idea is sound, but the execution is poor.

Also, how can everyone call "conventional" victory, impossible, childish, unattainable, etc, etc, etc, but space magic, started with a shoddy plot device, and accentuated by a glowing reaper-space-god-child is completely okay???

Can anyone please answer this for me; I would honestly like an explanation for this?

[KevShep]

richard_rider wrote...

The idea is sound, but the execution is poor.

Also, how can everyone call "conventional" victory, impossible, childish, unattainable, etc, etc, etc, but space magic, started with a shoddy plot device, and accentuated by a glowing reaper-space-god-child is completely okay???

Can anyone please answer this for me; I would honestly like an explanation for this?

TTTHAAANNKKK YYYOOUU!

[Blacklash93]

richard_rider wrote...

Also, how can everyone call "conventional" victory, impossible, childish, unattainable, etc, etc, etc, but space magic, started with a shoddy plot device, and accentuated by a glowing reaper-space-god-child is completely okay???

Conventional victory being impossible is what required those devices to be present in the first place, obviously. But they were poorly excecuted and no one is denying that.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 27 juin 2012 - 06:42 .

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No, oh no. The board has gone over this a million times.

The Catalyst is NOT a DEM, not even by definition. We're told it's a vital component to making the Crucible work. We're told without it, we cannot stop the Reapers. That we learn that it's actually the Citadel doesn't change anything.

The catalyst as a godlike AI most certainly IS.  There is no forshadowing that the catalyst in an intelligent god-like being that will win the day for us.  ZERO.  Nada. Zilch.  It IS a DEM.  Please don't bother denying it.

That the Catalyst is an AI doesn't change anything either. All it does is tell you HOW the Crucible can be used. That's not Deus Ex Machina, unless you consider being told how to use the Plot Device a DEM, which is ridiculous.

He does more than that.  Without him, you don't get access to the three platforms.  He and only he choses which platforms you get to interact with.  He can even turn the crucible OFF (and does so in "reject").  DEM is exactly what he is.

And again, what you're asking for is for it to be possible to break theme. Since you admit it's not possible to beat the Reapers this cycle without using the Plot Device, you wanted some implication that the next cycle can do it. Again, you want the writers to allow you to break theme just so you'll get some feeling of vindication (" I am saying that even if this cycle had to lose with "reject" with a high enough EMS it should have given the next cycle the opporunity to beat the Reapers without playing their sick little game.")

There you go again saying things I didn't say.  I said that it might be impossible to beat the Reapers conventionally in this cycle.  However, it doesn't break theme in the slightest to suggest a future cycle given enough warning, enough information,and enough of a technological head start might be able to.  The Reapers are technologically static.  The civilizations they harvest are not...and the Reapers are NOT invincible.

No, this was a giant F.U. because of the way it was implemented, and the tweets afterwards simply confirm it.  If you want to stay true to the real (ME1-2) Shepard, dare the impossible, and reject Saren's/TIM's solution, then you lose and someone else will.  That's vindictive and petty IMHO.

-Polaris

[CrutchCricket]

Ryzaki wrote...
I know. I just would've liked it even those few representives were endangered if you didn't have high enough EMS. (and not enough to start the races over. I have a feeling they'd end up like Ilos and Javik's pod with power having to be deviated anyway).

Ilos wasn't found for 50,000 years and those Protheans didn't have a viable gene pool. Javik's bunker was meant to start over but it was compromised.

Our bunkers should be meant to just wait until the Reapers leave and then instantly come up and start rebuilding and preparing. Regardless of how many species are viable it seems the asari survive. And some would need to anyway, to make sure the warnings are understood. No matter how advanced your civilization is communication just can't happen unaided over 50,000 years.

[The Night Mammoth]

Some great and ultimately contradictory messages they're sending with these options.

Choose Control: become a dictator.
Choose Synthesis: do nothing that couldn't be achieved by choosing destroy.
Choose Destroy: advocate genocide of an entire species as a valid solution for the betterment of the rest.
Choose Reject: prove BioWare don't give a sh*t about the themes of cooperation and unity they've been pushing for five years.

No one wins in the end.

[CrazyRah]

I was very suprised that it was in there but so pleased about it. It was there after all because people asked for it and Bioware listened and went with it

[revo76]

Many fans also wanted, alive shepard ending like ME1 with max EMS, also re-union with squad after final. Most of them wanted it as Indoctrination Theory, it's thread passed 1000 pages already.

Why they didnt care this but reject ?

There's no artistic integrity in RPG games, because they are Role Playing Games, aka player make his artistic integrity. BW Writers will understand this fact and they will stop pretending like someone who wrote plot of Avatar, in future. But until then, people will give up.

To answer your question, yes reject is insult and is a 'FU' to people who criticized 'artistic vision' of writers. Shoot the kid, like many did as a response and showing anger against non-sense endings and you will have so be it option.

You cant even shoot the kid anymore, this is a secret response to players who questioned 'artistic integrity'

Modifié par revo76, 27 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Spartan212]

So Bioware listened to its fans and gave you what you wanted for free and you're still crying about it? No matter how you try and spin it, 30 minutes into the game they told you that the crucible was the only way to win. They said numerous times that conventional war couldn't defeat the reapers. If you ignore that for 20 hours and try to do it anyway, you should lose. You should get the exact ending that they gave you. This is their game. It's their rules. Honestly, some of you would cry even if Bioware gave you a four-hour personalized ending. Get over it