531 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Lord Goose wrote...

Especially with the IT-supporting reaper voice

I really do not understand that part. As far as I remember, IT was based on premise, that correct ending is to reject Catalyst's logic. Reject is just about that because Shepard clearly refuses to do as Catalyst proses, and wants to fight the Reapers on his own.

But it seems like, that he doom the cycle by doing that.

If I were IT supporter, it would everything for me, because idea is ruined completely. And voice wouldn't change anything, because Catalyst is a AI who created the Reapers and embodiment of their consiciousness. It's only natural to have such a voice. It cannot help the fact, that Shepard's resistance (true, show resistance) leads to futile end.

Well, maybe it's just me.

Huh. I thought the correct answer for IT was Destroy it's just assumed the Catalyst's a bald faced liar about killing EDI and the Geth.

Doing nothing doesn't seem constructive.

[Necrotron]

IanPolaris wrote...

Many posters have patiently explained why, "how it was done", was insulting at best.  In short, even if this cycle most lose if we reject the solutions of the enemy (and if you talk to the Calalyst you find he is most DEFINATELY the enemy), then how we lose should be expanded on, because how we lose could have a huge impact on how )(or if) the next cycle can win.  In short, refer to your EMS.

Not only that, but the tweets by highly placed Bioware people saying, "Oh well the next cycle played ball" seems further evidence that this was in fact a "F.U." to the fans.

-Polaris

The fact that the next cycle just 'played ball' makes the reject option nearly pointless as an option.  You can reject the starchild, but the end result is the next cycle will accept his 'options'.

I know that wasn't their intention to say 'screw you' to fans, it was put in by massive fan request, and was a reasonable and feasible option to put in game, but given how the player is forced into accepting the starchild regardless, there really isn't a point in that option.

Modifié par Bathaius, 27 juin 2012 - 07:33 .

[Blacklash93]

IanPolaris wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
How can an authorital device be portrayed to have flaws? Riddle me that.

The Greeks did it all the time.  The god in question (or gods often) were openly written with many serious human-like flaws but were still authorial devices.

Were the gods flaws portarayed in the stories themselves? Were their very reasoning contradicted with hypocrisy and extreme methods that were explicitly meant to be questioned?

An authorital device says how something should be done and what the best course of action is. Bringing hypocrisy and questionable acts into the picture with the intent of making their logic seem possibly faulty defeats that purpose. That would be the writer saying their own logic is faulty and how does that make sense?

Modifié par Blacklash93, 27 juin 2012 - 07:35 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Wow, really? Now they're insulted by having the option to say no? I do believe that I saw a fair number of people requesting a shot at rejecting all the choices. If you want to take that road, then honestly, you should have expected the universe to burn. We're not even as advanced as the Protheans, and they couldn't win a victory through conventional warfare. It's not an "FU" just because you people who believe that is was an insult had completely unrealistic expectations that you could somehow pull off a miraculous victory. I mean, excuse me, but Admiral Hackett flat-out says that we can't win conventionally. No matter how many shiny war assets you have, it's not happening. So revel in your freedom of choice to throw away our future! You got what you wanted, a chance to defy the Catalyst.

It is in a way. The Crucible was supposed to be a weapon against the reapers. However, it turned out to be a device that forced you to obey the brat. The brat's logic is... erm... suspect. And that of the writers too. The whole synthetics threat was dreamed up after that dark energy script leaked. So, it hard to comply to the brat's wishes when there is absolutely nothing to support his claims. The first time I was there, I really tried to shoot the brat, because I had enough of him forcing me to use one of the following: betrayal, violate the right of self-determination, force radical racial identity changes and genocide. I really have problems with these concepts. They disgust me. Especially when I need to use them to finish a game. The fourth option felt like a delayed variation of the other 3. This time you didn't have to make a choice, but the next cycle does. In the meantime everyone dies. The game never gives me the chance to liberate anything, eventhough it is using WWII-like threats on a galactic scale. I am willing to let my Shepards die, but not as martyrs to a hypothetical cause and certainly not using methods that I disgust and are borderline war-crime-like.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 27 juin 2012 - 07:40 .

[Lord Goose]

Huh. I thought the correct answer for IT was Destroy it's just assumed the Catalyst's a bald faced liar about killing EDI and the Geth.

Let's clarify that we are talking about same thing.

According to IT, ending is trap of the Reapers. If you choose anything besides Destroy, you will accept them. You can only deny them via Destroy. Now we have chance to deny Harbinger's avatar directly. And it doesn't work out.

And what are you talking about?

[RiouHotaru]

Bathaius wrote...

The fact that the next cycle just 'played ball' makes the reject option nearly pointless as an option.  You can reject the starchild, but the end result is the next cycle will accept his 'options'.

I know that wasn't their intention to say 'screw you' to fans, it was put in by massive fan request, and was a reasonable and feasible option to put in game, but given how the player is forced into accepting the starchild regardless, there really isn't a point in that option.

But again, the question remains: "Would you rather have nothing at all?"  Because if you wait around long enough, the Crucible gets destroyed anyway and the cycle continues anyway.  This just gives you direct option to say no, and lets you see the end result instead of the "Critical Mission Failure" message.

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

-Polaris

Did you pay attention to any of the Catalyst's new dialog?

You believed him?

-Polaris

[TeffexPope]

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.

Exactly. Its sacrificing everyone in this cycle in hopes that the future will eventually win out. Even though the Catalyst now knows about the Crucible, Liara's doohickey will tell them abot it early enough that they are able to win, and to know the sacrifices made by those who came before them.

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

The fact that the next cycle just 'played ball' makes the reject option nearly pointless as an option.  You can reject the starchild, but the end result is the next cycle will accept his 'options'.

I know that wasn't their intention to say 'screw you' to fans, it was put in by massive fan request, and was a reasonable and feasible option to put in game, but given how the player is forced into accepting the starchild regardless, there really isn't a point in that option.

But again, the question remains: "Would you rather have nothing at all?"  Because if you wait around long enough, the Crucible gets destroyed anyway and the cycle continues anyway.  This just gives you direct option to say no, and lets you see the end result instead of the "Critical Mission Failure" message.

Given the choice, yes.  I would have rather had nothing at all.

-Polaris

[mrcanada]

RiouHotaru wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Posted this in response to a Bioware employee who responded to the exact style of this thread and asked "Would you rather have had nothing at all then?

Yes, I would have prefered it not to be there in its current state. EMS does not influence it at all and the abruptness is all the more telling in its intent. That intent is a direct reflection of how you chose to deal with the fans who questioned the colored choice endings. It also reinforces your intention of only allowing the Starchilds choices to be the only ones in the end as that is how the cycle is eventually concluded.

It is a direct response to the IT crowd and it is dismissive as to the questions it asked. Questions I add, that only were asked through obvious shortcomings in the endings and coincidences in the game. Thing that I still can't understand were missed in testing prior to release. Almost anyone playing the game for the first time notices the main points of what supported the IT theory.

Overanalysis HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Underanalysis gooooooooooooo.

[IanPolaris]

TeffexPope wrote...

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.

Exactly. Its sacrificing everyone in this cycle in hopes that the future will eventually win out. Even though the Catalyst now knows about the Crucible, Liara's doohickey will tell them abot it early enough that they are able to win, and to know the sacrifices made by those who came before them.

Except Bioware has already gone on record of rejecting this as well.  The Future cycle uses the crucible anyway.  I read that as a big "F.U." from Bioware.

-Polaris

[RiouHotaru]

IanPolaris wrote...

You believed him?

-Polaris

You didn't?

[Ryzaki]

Lord Goose wrote...

Huh. I thought the correct answer for IT was Destroy it's just assumed the Catalyst's a bald faced liar about killing EDI and the Geth.

Let's clarify that we are talking about same thing.

According to IT, ending is trap of the Reapers. If you choose anything besides Destroy, you will accept them. You can only deny them via Destroy. Now we have chance to deny Harbinger's avatar directly. And it doesn't work out.

And what are you talking about?

You don't deny him by chosing nothing though. You say you won't do anything. Full stop. Doing nothing isn't stopping the Reapers. It's letting them ramapage unapposed. Killing them is doing something.

So...what you are YOU talking about?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 07:42 .

[IanPolaris]

Bathaius wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Many posters have patiently explained why, "how it was done", was insulting at best.  In short, even if this cycle most lose if we reject the solutions of the enemy (and if you talk to the Calalyst you find he is most DEFINATELY the enemy), then how we lose should be expanded on, because how we lose could have a huge impact on how )(or if) the next cycle can win.  In short, refer to your EMS.

Not only that, but the tweets by highly placed Bioware people saying, "Oh well the next cycle played ball" seems further evidence that this was in fact a "F.U." to the fans.

-Polaris

The fact that the next cycle just 'played ball' makes the reject option nearly pointless as an option.  You can reject the starchild, but the end result is the next cycle will accept his 'options'.

I know that wasn't their intention to say 'screw you' to fans, it was put in by massive fan request, and was a reasonable and feasible option to put in game, but given how the player is forced into accepting the starchild regardless, there really isn't a point in that option.

Intentional or not, how is this anything other than a big FU if you or the next cycle is forced to accept the Starbrat's twisted logic anyway?

-Polaris

[mrcanada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Many posters have patiently explained why, "how it was done", was insulting at best.  In short, even if this cycle most lose if we reject the solutions of the enemy (and if you talk to the Calalyst you find he is most DEFINATELY the enemy), then how we lose should be expanded on, because how we lose could have a huge impact on how )(or if) the next cycle can win.  In short, refer to your EMS.

Not only that, but the tweets by highly placed Bioware people saying, "Oh well the next cycle played ball" seems further evidence that this was in fact a "F.U." to the fans.

-Polaris

The fact that the next cycle just 'played ball' makes the reject option nearly pointless as an option.  You can reject the starchild, but the end result is the next cycle will accept his 'options'.

I know that wasn't their intention to say 'screw you' to fans, it was put in by massive fan request, and was a reasonable and feasible option to put in game, but given how the player is forced into accepting the starchild regardless, there really isn't a point in that option.

Intentional or not, how is this anything other than a big FU if you or the next cycle is forced to accept the Starbrat's twisted logic anyway?

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You believed him?

-Polaris

You didn't?

No.  He is clearly a servant/manifestation of the reapers.   I have no reason to believe a word he says.  The fact he goes "reaper" on us (in reject) shows it.

-Polaris

[Lord Goose]

You don't deny him by chosing nothing though. You say you won't do anything. Full stop. Doing nothing isn't stopping the Reapers. Killing them is.

Have you played Reject?

In reject Shepard is more than willing to fight against the Reapers. He just considers all options provided by "Harbinger's avatar" to be unacceptable and wants to fight on his own terms.
So, basically, if you refuse to use the Crucible in your dream, you're succumbed to indoctrination.

How what is even possible, let alone logical?

Modifié par Lord Goose, 27 juin 2012 - 07:44 .

[LKx]

I can accept that a conventional battle would lead to reaper win.
The problem with it is that Shepard just sit down and wait.

If
that was Shepard's plan, it should have at least tried control, even
under the convinction that  it was a trap, because (s)he wouldn't have
anything to loss, and anything would be better thant stay there watching
allies die.

My point is that, with a rejection option, Shepard
should have tried something... trying to destroy the catalys himself
(and i don't mean by shooting an hologram...),or calling a nuke toward
the citadel core!

I would have been still totally ok for a reaper win even after this, but it would still have had some meaning.
What the reject option is now really looks like a middle finger

[TheTrueObelus]

grey_wind wrote...

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.

^^^ THIS ^^^

[Lord Goose]

My point is that, with a rejection option, Shepard
should have tried something... trying to destroy the catalys himself
(and i don't mean by shooting an hologram...),or calling a nuke toward
the citadel core!

Citadel is pretty much indestructible. They need to make sun to go supernova, to destroy it.

[RiouHotaru]

If by the Catalyst's "logic" you mean the three choices, those aren't twisted. His logic is that synthetics will eventually wind up surpassing and destroying organics. And it's impossible to say his logic is "twisted" when he states that conflict KEPT happening no matter how often they (his creators) tried. His logic is FLAWED in this cycle because you come up with a way to stop the "conflict" (Geth vs. Quarian).

But there's barely enough information to say whether his logic is "twisted" or "wrong".

[grey_wind]

IanPolaris wrote...

TeffexPope wrote...

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.

Exactly. Its sacrificing everyone in this cycle in hopes that the future will eventually win out. Even though the Catalyst now knows about the Crucible, Liara's doohickey will tell them abot it early enough that they are able to win, and to know the sacrifices made by those who came before them.

Except Bioware has already gone on record of rejecting this as well.  The Future cycle uses the crucible anyway.  I read that as a big "F.U." from Bioware.

-Polaris

WHAT. THE. F*CK?
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
That's like two FUs, not one.

Now I really regret my decision not to tell Casey Hudson to go f*ck himself when I ran into him on Friday. I can`t believe I was actually nice to him and acted civil.

GODDAMIT!!!

[mrcanada]

TheTrueObelus wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

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.

^^^ THIS ^^^

[Blacklash93]

RiouHotaru wrote...
But there's barely enough information to say whether his logic is "twisted" or "wrong".

We can always speculate about it. Then present our personal conclusions undebatable fact.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 27 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[Ryzaki]

Lord Goose wrote...
Have you played Reject?

In reject Shepard is more than willing to fight against the Reapers. He just considers all options provided by "Harbinger's avatar" to be unacceptable and wants to fight on his own terms.
So, basically, if you refuse to use the Crucible in your dream, you're succumbed to indoctrination.

How what is even possible, let alone logical?

Yes I have played reject.

Shepard KNOWS they can't defeat them conventionally. They wasted all their resources on the Crucible. They fight and lose without the crucible. Said Reapers go on unapposed. Shep knows this is a last stand. He/she Stands there like a moron once the Catalyst does his so be it thing. Shep can't win that fight, he knows it everyone knows it.

The only chance to actually destroy the Reapers is *drumroll* DESTROY! Mostly because this cycle didn't have any time to prepare for a actual war with the Reapers that required them going toe to toe.

As for IT *shrugs* Maybe an ITer could explain it better.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 juin 2012 - 07:52 .