531 réponses à ce sujet

[frylock23]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

And not only that, but the "logic" used to present these options to you is flawed. The character who presents them to you has no credibility, or shouldn't to anyone who can think just the tiniest bit critically, so in the end, all you can really do is either reject the brat utterly and doom everyone or play a quick round of eeny, meeny or some other stupid schoolyard selection rhyme because for all you know any, all or none of the options in front of you could do any, all or none of the things the Catalyst describes because he is franly an unreliable source at best.

It's like playing Russian roulette with the fate of the galaxy, and BioWare wonders why people are still do incensed when they had the chance to make him more credible and they crazified him instead?

I did not want a Faustian bargain version of the Kobayashi Maru at the end of a video game where it was not in the slightest appropriate to the theme.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Spartan212 wrote...

So Bioware listened to its fans and gave you what you wanted...

No. They gave what you wanted. There is a difference.

[PreciousIsland]

 I agree with the OP.

[RiouHotaru]

That still doesn't make the Catalyst a DEM. Your access to the platforms is a function of game mechanics, which is represented through which platforms you can stumble onto during the last 10 minutes. EMS is essentially "How long did you spend getting ready", so on a high EMS, the Crucible was developed long enough to make it possible.

You're viewing this from the perspective that the Catalyst is the SOLE device behind the choices presented to you, when it's not. He's not a DEM. He tells who what choices you have based on how much effort you put in.


As for the rest...

No, but 50k years isn't enough for anyone to be able to advance fast enough. And since the Reapers win in the Reject ending, they get to reset everything. Only Liara's time capsule warns them about what's to come. That still doesn't mean they'd get ahead technologically and be able to beat the Reapers without using the Crucible.

Again, the idea is "the Reapers OVERALL are too powerful to be defeated any other way." Which I assume is what bothers you. That the Reject epilogue makes that evident (and the tweets then confirm it) is your issue, yes?

But that's still not a fault of the writers. You just don't like how it's presented.

[IanPolaris]

Spartan212 wrote...

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

Presentation matters, and in a medium like this it matters a lot.  The complaint was not that the 'reject' option is available.  Almost everyone approves....even if you ultimately might have to lose in this cycle, most people approve.  It's HOW it's done that makes it a big "F.U." to the fans. [Including the fact you aren't even allowed to shoot at holo-boy in frustration again...don't tell me that wasn't a response to 'understated nerd rage', I dare ya]


-Polaris

[The Night Mammoth]

RiouHotaru wrote...

But that's still not a fault of the writers. You just don't like how it's presented.

Is there a massive divide between those two things? 

[Hakumen]

The only reason why I hated Rejection:

Today I was trying new endings. So far I've seen Control, Synthesis and Rejection ending. Needless to say I was tired as hell because of all unskipable dialogs and slooooooooooow Shepard. And then I wanted to check out the last Destruction Ending. I've sat through another 30 minutes of this dialogs and was on my way to the last ending when I just randomly shot at the kid... and it started Rejection Ending. It was a pure FFFFFUUUUU moment. I just said 'to hell with it I won't be wasting another 30 minutes' and watched the last ending on YouTube.

[Pelle6666]

It was actually the best ending of them all. it made sense and I felt like Shepard remained true to him self and the rest of the galaxy. sucks that there were no way to defeat the reapers conventionally thought.

[The_Other_M]

Yeah....it was definitely an FU to everyone who didn't like their artistic vision of having a "magic off button/Friend request" for the Reapers.

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

That still doesn't make the Catalyst a DEM. Your access to the platforms is a function of game mechanics, which is represented through which platforms you can stumble onto during the last 10 minutes. EMS is essentially "How long did you spend getting ready", so on a high EMS, the Crucible was developed long enough to make it possible.

The access (and even your presence at all) is solely dictated by an AI that we had NO idea existed and reflects the collective conciousness of the Reapers.  Sorry but that IS a DEM.

You're viewing this from the perspective that the Catalyst is the SOLE device behind the choices presented to you, when it's not. He's not a DEM. He tells who what choices you have based on how much effort you put in.

Of course he is.  He gets to choose which ones you get, that makes him the sole device.

As for the rest...

No, but 50k years isn't enough for anyone to be able to advance fast enough. And since the Reapers win in the Reject ending, they get to reset everything. Only Liara's time capsule warns them about what's to come. That still doesn't mean they'd get ahead technologically and be able to beat the Reapers without using the Crucible.

Again, the idea is "the Reapers OVERALL are too powerful to be defeated any other way." Which I assume is what bothers you. That the Reject epilogue makes that evident (and the tweets then confirm it) is your issue, yes?

But that's still not a fault of the writers. You just don't like how it's presented.

ORLY?  REALLY?

Compare Earth of 2185 to earth of 1685 (that's a mere 500 years) and tell me that 50,000 years wouldn't be enough to prepare.  For that matter consider the weaponry of dreadnaughts (or even the Normandy) of ME3 to that of ME1.

No, most of the 50,000 years is spent just relearning how to be civilized and have a spacefaring civilization at ALL in most cycles.  Give any aggressive technologicall civilizaton an extra 1000 years along WITH all the information this cycle has (something the Protheans tried and failed to do) let along 50,000 years and the Reapers will be curbstomped.  The Reaper technological curve is flat and they have extreme difficulty recovering losses (of ships I mean).  Not so for a living technological civilization.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  How something is presented is most definately the responsibility of the writers and it is absolutely fair to criticize them for it.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 27 juin 2012 - 07:03 .

[RiouHotaru]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

But that's still not a fault of the writers. You just don't like how it's presented.

Is there a massive divide between those two things? 

Yes.  If you don't like the idea of something, you're not going to like it no matter how it's presented.

[Ryzaki]

CrutchCricket wrote...

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.

I figured though the Reapers would be more careful of that since in Shep's cycle they would've almost lost because of that. As for the Protheans true enough.

She could just be a species similar to the Asari. The child she's talking to sounds male after all and Asari don't have male young (or male relatives). Granted it could just be a child she knows...but yeah.

Though yes Asari would be one of species for translating.

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

But that's still not a fault of the writers. You just don't like how it's presented.

Is there a massive divide between those two things? 

Yes.  If you don't like the idea of something, you're not going to like it no matter how it's presented.

A->B does NOT mean B->A

Most of us LIKE the idea of the rejection ending, but that doesn't mean we like how it's presented.  IMHO it's presented in a very petty and unprofessional way.

-Polaris

[Blacklash93]

IanPolaris wrote...
There you go again saying things I didn't say.

And you realize your whole argument could be doing the exact same thing with the Bioware devs, right? We have limited information on this. We cannot read minds. We can only make conclusions with a significant degree of ignorance.

It's fine if you thought Reject was done in bad taste, but assuming it was done out of pettyness from a team that has been tried to be nothing but pleasant and professional with us even after the original outcry? That is very presumptuous and even petty itself. That's my real issue with it.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 27 juin 2012 - 07:06 .

[Pottumuusi]

People felt insulted because it was short and half-assed. Bioware didn't take reject seriously as an option.

[Neothanos]

They are sticking their guns for their "ending" so yes the options was kinda of FU. Get our endings or die kinda of thing.

[Spartan212]

IanPolaris wrote...

Spartan212 wrote...

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

Presentation matters, and in a medium like this it matters a lot.  The complaint was not that the 'reject' option is available.  Almost everyone approves....even if you ultimately might have to lose in this cycle, most people approve.  It's HOW it's done that makes it a big "F.U." to the fans. [Including the fact you aren't even allowed to shoot at holo-boy in frustration again...don't tell me that wasn't a response to 'understated nerd rage', I dare ya]

I don't understand "how it's done"=insulting.  You basically ignore what the game has told you for the past 20 hours and and try to shoot a hologram in the face.  I thought the ending was appropriate, even unnecessary.  The entire game tells you that you will lose if you don't use the catalyst.  So, in the end, you choose to....not use the catalyst.  The reapers win.  You lose.  Everyone is dead so there is no "what are they doing now" ending.  How anyone could possibly be insulted is beyond me.  

[savionen]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

But that's still not a fault of the writers. You just don't like how it's presented.

Is there a massive divide between those two things? 

Yes.  If you don't like the idea of something, you're not going to like it no matter how it's presented.

And this pretty much summarizes all of your close-minded posts.

[IanPolaris]

Blacklash93 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
There you go again saying things I didn't say.

And you realize your whole argument could be doing the exact same thing with the Bioware devs, right? We have limited information on this. We cannot read minds. We can only make conclusions with a significant degree of ignorance.

It's fine if you thought Reject was done in bad taste, but assuming it was done out of pettyness from a team that has been tried to be nothing but pleasant and professional with us even after the original outcry? That is very presumptuous and even petty itself.

No.  I am basing my arguments on what Bioware has said both in their authorial device, Catlyist Boy (and it's reactions) as well as what they have said since (the infamous tweets that say...yeah the next cycle defeated the reapers out way, so nyah)

Also in entertainment such as this, what seems to be true and what is taken to be true is vastly more important that what may have been intended.  So even if the authors didn't mean this to be a big F.U. (and I still think they did) the fact it's being taken that way is just as bad.

-Polaris

[Zaire Taylor]

Who could complain about the opportunity to give StarBrat the middle finger?

[Blacklash93]

Pottumuusi wrote...

People felt insulted because it was short and half-assed. Bioware didn't take reject seriously as an option.

It's a completely new DLC ending. Did you expect it do have the depth of the endings most would see as ideal options?

EC was almost to the size limit for DLC. They couldn't afford to put much more into it.

[savionen]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Pottumuusi wrote...

People felt insulted because it was short and half-assed. Bioware didn't take reject seriously as an option.

It's a completely new DLC ending. Did you expect it do have the depth of the endings most would see as ideal options?

EC was almost to the size limit for DLC. They couldn't afford to put much more into it.

They could if they..... compressed it. It was 2gb of data for 10 minutes of content.

[The Night Mammoth]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

But that's still not a fault of the writers. You just don't like how it's presented.

Is there a massive divide between those two things? 

Yes.  If you don't like the idea of something, you're not going to like it no matter how it's presented.

That........ doesn't really adress the point. 

The presentation of an idea matters a lot. 

As presented before; I hated each ending equally. 

Now I like destroy because the presentation improved. My perception of the idea changed because it was 'explained' better. 

[Nightwriter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm reading this a lot here, that people feel insulted by the "Reject" choice. You shouldn't. An option to refuse the Catalyst was requested by many fans, and many of those explicitly said they'd refuse even if it meant a Reaper victory. 

I was one of those who proposed almost the exact scenario we got, as a means to flesh out the "Critical mission failure" you get when you try to walk back to the elevator. 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.

If you want to blame anyone for this option, blame me and others who requested it. It's meant for those who wanted the "Critical mission failure" fleshed out, not as dangling a conventional victory in people's faces only to deny them.

Personally, I find Shepard's lines in Reject too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle, but after all, principles is what this option is about. It is fitting. The result is fitting, and the scenario is still hopeful since it suggests the next cycle will win.

For every MISSION FAIL request, I saw three "let us reject the Catalyst and win on our own terms" requests. It is kind of weird that they chose to merge these two requests when the spirit behind them is so different.

[grey_wind]

There were a hundred different ways they could have had the Reject ending lead to a victory if they weren't so eager to tell everybody who hated their options to go f*ck off.

Catalyst: I am the Collective Consciousness of every Reaper.
Shepard: Really? Change of plans, Hackett. Have the entire fleet blow the Citadel to hell.
Catalyst: Wait, what are you doing?
Shepard: See, I remember what happened the last time a Reaper poured his consciousness into something and I destroyed that something. So if you claim to be the Collective Consciousness of every single Reaper.... see where I`m going with this?

Once the Catalyst has been blown into whatever balck hole of sh!t writing he came out of, and the shields of every single Reaper fail, your victory is determined by whether or not your EMS is high enough.