505 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

KingZayd wrote...
So in that case, Synthesis and the other options would probably be traps? To me, this is the only sensible reason for choosing Refuse.

Yeah that was my impression on the original ending. That Control and Synthesis were massive traps. Was disappointed they weren't. Oh well. I shoot the tube.

[The Divine Avenger]

Mcfly616 wrote...

The refuse ending was awesome....Shepard goes out with his dignity so to speak....."a free man"....he did it his way.....and the.next cycle still wins because of what you accomplished....


Refuse ending was actually brilliant....

People complain about no reunion, or Shepard dying.....tough luck they all make sense now due to the EC....everything is explained perfectly

how do you work out that the endings of deus Ex i mean Mass Effect 3 now make sence 

Controle still has you agreeing with the Illusive man so what was the point of fighting Cerberus all the way up to the end of 3. Also why did we bother to convince the Illusive man to commit suicide / shoot the bas***d if we were just going o give in to him a few min later.

Synthasis still has you agreeing with Seran so again what was the point of killing him / persuading him at the end of 1. Also Synthasis has just stagnated all organic lifes natrual evolution by combining organic & synthetic life together. Meaning that all life that is left will all think the smae way which leaves no room for error which will in turn leave no room for growth & without Growth there can be no evolution making life pointless & ultimatly meaning everything you fought for throughout the series was for nothing. Javik said that the reason the prothians lost was because of lack of deversty in there way of thinking. He stated that because the current cycle still maintained diversity in there ay of thinkinghg is why they still have a chance. For Shep to give in & agree with Seran at the last second has made the Prothians sacrifice all for nothing. The warning they left in the beacon & through Vigil on Vermire were for nothing. So we are not only a bas***d for robbing the galaxy of there right to choose for themselfs & eveolve we are also a tritor for letting the prothians & all who came before die for nothing.

although Distroy is still the only one that makes any dagreee of sence is still only posible if you commit Genocide. 

But now we've been given the refusal which although is one of the options we wanted included is just been made to seem like one great big middle finger to the Mass effect fanbase. 

Well if your content with a nonsencical extended stolen ending then I'm happy for you but I am not & I have no intention of supporting Bioware anylonger. My money is my own & I will not be spending it on anything produced by Bioware in the future. This is one Hardcore fan that is saying, it was fun up untill DA & ME3 but the Bioware I used to love is long dead.

[UFGSpot]

I'm so tired of people taking refuse as an insult. In their story the reapers cannot be beaten toe to toe. Fine if you don't like it, doesnt change it. I saw it as a nod to fans who said that their Shepard would NEVER accept the terms the Catalyst laid out, and they would rather die fighting than do what they were told by it.

So what does Bioware do? They give you a little fan service, and you can't see it for what it is. You're so bound and determined to be mad at something, you insult the thing they went out of their way to give you in appeasement.

[Rage735]

Bioware haven't done this to raise a finger to the fans.

You CANNOT beat the Reapers conventionally. This has been pointed out all game. If you wanted to spend all game building the Catalyst then just throw it out the window that's your silly choice.

You're lucky you got any kind of cut scene at all. You want to be defiant about the Catalyst, fine you got that choice, but you don't get to choose the consequences of it. This isn't GODMODE.

If you could beat the Reapers toe-to-toe the whole of ME3 would have been pointless.

[darkshadow136]

I agree OP it is a slap in the face. Any Paragon or Renegade Sheppard would have refused the Star child's options and what do we get for it the worst ending. I like that they gave more information and filled some plot holes. But all this EC does is show we wanted a refusal option and punish us for it, and continue to show their Star Child circular logic down our throats. I still say during the refusal option they should have given Sheppard the ability to manually us the crucible and the citidel like a death star weapon system to blast the reapers.

[Dusen]

UFGSpot wrote...

I'm so tired of people taking refuse as an insult. In their story the reapers cannot be beaten toe to toe. Fine if you don't like it, doesnt change it. I saw it as a nod to fans who said that their Shepard would NEVER accept the terms the Catalyst laid out, and they would rather die fighting than do what they were told by it.

So what does Bioware do? They give you a little fan service, and you can't see it for what it is. You're so bound and determined to be mad at something, you insult the thing they went out of their way to give you in appeasement.

IMO, the reason a lot of people, including myself, take that ending to be an insult is one, that it isn' fleshed out like the others. There's no heroic last stand protrayed in a cheap powerpoint like all the others. It's just a quick scene where Liara says we failed and maybe the next cycle can learn from our mistakes. That is rather insulting considering that a low EMS should have decided whether we failed. Otherwise it clearly means that our choices before this one were utterly pointless, did nothing to affect the ending, and the only meaningful choice in the series was the last one. 

On top of that throughout the series, regardless of whether you played paragon, grey or renegade Shepard he never gave into the demands of the enemy, he always stayed true to his beliefs, stood in the face of adversity, and decided his own fate. . . until the end here, where it actually matters. Why the big change in character? He doesn't even try to attack the circular logic presented by series' main villian like normal Shepard should have . . .like any other literary hero would have. . . and if you start to follow that familiar theme of the series, and heroes in general, you get a quick "game over, you failed, maybe the next cycle will be smarter" spiel. 

Modifié par Dusen, 29 juin 2012 - 05:49 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

OrangeLazarus86 wrote...

It's because you're reminded that this is Casey Hudson's game and he'll have you play it on his terms and not Mass Effect's terms.

What is that even supposed to MEAN ? "His terms and not Mass Effect's terms".


... What?

[Father_Jerusalem]

darkshadow136 wrote...

I agree OP it is a slap in the face. Any Paragon or Renegade Sheppard would have refused the Star child's options and what do we get for it the worst ending. I like that they gave more information and filled some plot holes. But all this EC does is show we wanted a refusal option and punish us for it, and continue to show their Star Child circular logic down our throats. I still say during the refusal option they should have given Sheppard the ability to manually us the crucible and the citidel like a death star weapon system to blast the reapers.

Really? ANY Paragon or Renegade Shepard would refuse the Starchild? You sure you're comfortable saying that?

Because my Renegade Shepard accepted the Control option because while he believed in TIM's ideals, he disagreed with the methodology that TIM eventually succumbed to. My Paragon Shepard chose Destroy because she knew that EDI and the Geth would accept the sacrifice as necessary in order to stop the Reapers.

Simply because you see it as a slap in the face, and put your morals above the lives of everyone else in the galaxy doesn't mean that everyone else does.

[Funkdrspot]

darkshadow136 wrote...

I agree OP it is a slap in the face. Any Paragon or Renegade Sheppard would have refused the Star child's options and what do we get for it the worst ending. I like that they gave more information and filled some plot holes. But all this EC does is show we wanted a refusal option and punish us for it, and continue to show their Star Child circular logic down our throats. I still say during the refusal option they should have given Sheppard the ability to manually us the crucible and the citidel like a death star weapon system to blast the reapers.

sorry but paragon shep takes control every time. He saves the galaxy, saves billions of lives and doesnt let his ego, pride or ideology deviate his attention from the fact that there are billions of innocent lives on the line. He also saves the old civilizations that were in reaper form since they were nothing but pawns for the old catalyst. He is now th ultimate galaxy protector. He helps the galaxy rebuild and defends the weak and the innocent. How you think a paragon shepard would somehow place his feelings over the lives of billions is beyond me. That is amoral. You cant make moral choices from inside a bubble, they have to be made within the context of a situation. 

[Ticonderoga117]

Andy379 wrote...
The reapers are NOT the enemy.

Uhm..... yes they are, unless all of those reaperized troops, the Reapers attacking Earth, Palaven, Thessia, the Reapers on Rannoch and Tuchanka, and all of those reaperized troops were all a hallucination.

[Rhosyn]

Funkdrspot wrote...

darkshadow136 wrote...

I agree OP it is a slap in the face. Any Paragon or Renegade Sheppard would have refused the Star child's options and what do we get for it the worst ending. I like that they gave more information and filled some plot holes. But all this EC does is show we wanted a refusal option and punish us for it, and continue to show their Star Child circular logic down our throats. I still say during the refusal option they should have given Sheppard the ability to manually us the crucible and the citidel like a death star weapon system to blast the reapers.

sorry but paragon shep takes control every time. He saves the galaxy, saves billions of lives and doesnt let his ego, pride or ideology deviate his attention from the fact that there are billions of innocent lives on the line. He also saves the old civilizations that were in reaper form since they were nothing but pawns for the old catalyst. He is now th ultimate galaxy protector. He helps the galaxy rebuild and defends the weak and the innocent. How you think a paragon shepard would somehow place his feelings over the lives of billions is beyond me. . 

You do realize you're basically saying the same thing by putting down a blanket "Shepard would do this?" None of my characters picked Control, because there was no reason to trust TIM or the Starchild. Even after watching the EC Control ending on Youtube, it feels like a trap. It doesn't feel to me, like it's Shepard. But back to the point. There is no one right answer to Shepard. Because Shepard's personality and ideals permutate with every player. There are always going to be similarities, but you can't just say "Shepard would do X". To make a blanket statement over what any Paragon/Renegade/whatever Shepard would do is completely missing the point of the game. Maybe that's what your Shepard would do.

That is amoral. You cant make moral choices from inside a bubble, they have to be made within the context of a situation

Ahh, this again. Coming from the one who was attacking people earlier for choosing the refuse option and calling them France, Hitler, etc. I'm a bit tired of hearing you drag morals into this discussion. The choices you make in a game are hardly a full depiction of the person behind the screen. I chose a Renegade Ruthless character in ME1. Does that mean I'd throw scores of men into the meatgrinder just to get an objective accomplished? No. Does it mean I'm a mass murderer or psychopath? No. 

Modifié par Rhosyn, 29 juin 2012 - 06:34 .

[KingZayd]

Ryzaki wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
So in that case, Synthesis and the other options would probably be traps? To me, this is the only sensible reason for choosing Refuse.

Yeah that was my impression on the original ending. That Control and Synthesis were massive traps. Was disappointed they weren't. Oh well. I shoot the tube.

I suspected the Starchild was simply lying the first time I played. Suspected it might be trying to trick me into sabotaging the Crucible, and maybe kill myself as a bonus.

[wantedman dan]

Andy379 wrote...

The reapers are NOT the enemy.

What?

Yes... they are, otherwise, why did we spent three games trying to destroy the--Oh, wait. You're talking about that Deus Ex Machina that Mac Walters threw in there for the hell of it, aren't you?

Funkdrspot wrote...

LoL. You goad me by calling me sweat pea, buttercup and dear then try to claim innocence. Nice spin tactic.

Not at all. You used "fruitcup" as a pejorative. Are you blissfully unaware of the denotative attributes of using such a term? I'd bet not.

And you avoided my question. Are you a bigot?

[jpraelster93]

Hudathan wrote...

Then why are you calling it wrong, isn't it your own interpretation? You refused the only tool you had powerful enough to defeat the Reapers, you get the appropriate ending. If you're complaining that it's too short, blame the 360 download limit. If you're complaining that it should have been a different outcome, then I believe the phrase is "tough ******."

the 360 download limit HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT it was biowares way of saying dont like our endings we are children so FU

[VoodooDrackus]

Geneaux486 wrote...

All we know is that we did manage to come to peace with, even forge an alliance with these synthetics (ironically BECAUSE of the Reapers). The point is, we know it's possible.

The Geth proved it was possible, and this is why simply picking control is a viable way to save the galaxy, because we've already created the synthetics and subsequently made peace with them.

I think what a lot of people miss concerning the Geth is that YES we may have proven that it is possible for organics and synthetics to co-exist, but that is just one synthetic race. We were able to talk them into peace by getting the Quarians to also agree. That does not mean that we will be able to do the same thing for future Synthetic beings.


What if in the future, the Krogan develop (yes I know how laughable this sounds) a Synthetic AI that takes on the Krogan's thirst for war. A Krogan AI would not be able to be reasoned with (IMO) and would proceed to conquer all life.
The point is, just because we have proven one Synthetic lifeform can co-exist does not mean all synthetic lifeforms can co-exist.

But the fact that we were able to accomplish that at all is a first in the history of the galaxy. I wouldn't call that a major achievement though. I would call bringing all the races in the galaxy together a bigger one.

Geneaux486 wrote...


 If Shepard refuses in the end though, the Catalyst probably thinks "So because I conceded, he's refusing to use his own weapon, even to kill us.  Not as evolved as I thought.  Maybe the next cycle will have its **** together..."

Well put. Pretty much sums up what they were thinking for the refuse choice. (my opinion)

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Were they? We don't have enough information to say that.

We know what we're told by the likes of the Catalyst, Vendetta, and Javik.  Basically, the Catalyst tells you that up until the current cycle, synthetics always rebelled against organics.  Taking him at his word is a choice, but choosing to believe he's lying brings the entire ending into question, and the fact that we see that he was telling the truth regarding the effects and outcomes of each choice proves that he was honest about that, so it wouldn't make sense for him to lie about that one specific thing while being truthful about everything else.  In other words, were the Catalyst a liar, that would have somehow been followed through with before the story ended, but it's not.  Is this meta-gaming?  Absolutely, but I'm discussing the series not as Shepard, but as a player, discussing the story as someone who enjoyed the story, not as someone who is still a part of it post-game. 

Javik's cycle was one of many. We know about what happened in that cycle. Vendetta tells us nothing about synthetics. Starchild is the only one that asserts that Synthetics will always wipe out organics. But since the Starchild wipes out the Organics before that happens anyway, there's just no evidence for it.

Interestingly, Vendetta infers a manipulating force behind the Reapers, but asserts that "the only thing that is certain is its intent: Galactic Annhilation". And considering Vendetta knows there is a reaping cycle, (he was just talking about that in his reasoning), it would be interesting to see where he gets the "Galactic Annhilation" from.

Geneaux486 wrote...

All we know is that we did manage to come to peace with, even forge an alliance with these synthetics (ironically BECAUSE of the Reapers). The point is, we know it's possible.

The Geth proved it was possible, and this is why simply picking control is a viable way to save the galaxy, because we've already created the synthetics and subsequently made peace with them.

True, but then control has some nasty implications itself (even if you take it at face value). Can anyone be trusted with absolute power for eternity? Even someone who means well at first?

Geneaux486 wrote...

I think the problem comes from the EC, where the dialogue is changed and Starchild implies the Crucible is only a battery :/


Yeah that was weird, and kinda the opposite of what Vendetta tells us.  Still, it's the word of Vendetta, the representative of the last race to succesfully construct the thing, vs. the word of the Catalyst, who thought the plans for the thing were eradicated up until the point that the finish product was plugged into his front yard.  I think both are giving their honest opinion on the Crucible's function, the question is which one is more knowlegeable about it.

Well the Starchild should be able to analyse the hardware more sufficiently shouldn't it? But what Vendetta says makes more sense. It seems to me that the EC actually made this stuff less clear, rather than bringing clarity.

Geneaux486 wrote...

But as far as they know, that does nothing to help against the Reapers. So there isn't really a reason for them to add it to an anti-Reaper weapon.

As far as we know they didn't think it would help against the Reapers.  Yet they still added the function, because we know the Catalyst didn't, so they must have figured out at least part of the overall situation, perhaps even all of it.  One thing we can learn from meeting Javik, is that while each cycle has (marginally) increased success against the Reapers, that doesn't mean each cycle is more advanced than the last.  The Protheans were capable of a level of perception that only the Asari come close to matching in our cycle, and even then just barely.  Entirely possible that there was a race before them that was so perceptive, so intelligent, that it did figure out why the Reapers did what they did, and were even able to come up with a better solution.  Like I said, the Crucible is the weapon of the organics, not the Reapers, so we know somebody stuck it in there.

But we don't know the option doesn't come from the Starchild. So this earlier cycle, saw the problem that the Reapers were solving, and came up with the solution, but were unable to stop the Reapers? Why? And why did the Reapers kill them instead of letting them fix the problem, and why did they destroy the plans? You say the Crucible is a weapon of the organics, not the Reapers, but we don't know who came up with these plans. Just that the Protheans found these plans, and that we got the plans from the Protheans.

Geneaux486 wrote...

In the EC. He says it didn't work because Organics weren't ready, but that because Shepard was there, that somehow meant all Organics were magically ready for synthesis.

Pretty sure he also said the Reapers were incapable of doing so themselves.  The "being ready" part refers to the Catalyst's belief that Synthesis is the final evolutionary stage, meaning that until organics can get to the point where they can accomplish it, they aren't ready for it.  Shepard, and the allies that got him to where he was, built the Crucible, and got it into place, proved that they were ready, in the Catalyst's eyes at least, which is why he surrenders and cooperates.  If Shepard refuses in the end though, the Catalyst probably thinks "So because I conceded, he's refusing to use his own weapon, even to kill us.  Not as evolved as I thought.  Maybe the next cycle will have its **** together..."

he said they'd tried, but failed BECAUSE organics weren't ready. If the Starchild wanted evolution, killing the most evolved species is a stupid way of doing things.

If this earlier cycle was capable of creating technology greater than what the Reapers could create, then the earlier cycle should have been advanced enough to beat the Reapers.

[Dendio1]

TIM said it best

There are choices coming that you are not prepared to handle.

[Ryzaki]

KingZayd wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
So in that case, Synthesis and the other options would probably be traps? To me, this is the only sensible reason for choosing Refuse.

Yeah that was my impression on the original ending. That Control and Synthesis were massive traps. Was disappointed they weren't. Oh well. I shoot the tube.

I suspected the Starchild was simply lying the first time I played. Suspected it might be trying to trick me into sabotaging the Crucible, and maybe kill myself as a bonus.

That's a reasonable way to treat someone who is the leader of the bad guy.

But in the normal endings Shep just takes his word as gospel for...some reason.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Heres something: People who mistrusted the catalyst, did you ever trust Legion or Edi and if so why?

I kept Legion on a short leash because I thought he was trying to trick me and lie to me for the geth. I thought EDI would go crazy if i allowed her to alter her programming and I panicked when she wanted to go to the Cerberus Headquarters with me. I was wary of the geth as rannoch drew to a close and they gained sentience. I was worried something would happen in the wake of the reaper war and that history would repeat itself when the geth eventually sought new answers to the questions that arose from the reaper intelligence.

I didnt find the Catalyst anywhere near as untrustworthy as them. I saw him as a program that honestly wanted to solve this problem of where the galaxy was destined to head in the big picture. If he was evil he would have just turned off the mass effect fields on the citadel and killed everyone instantly.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 01 juillet 2012 - 01:22 .

[Geneaux486]

[quote]Javik's cycle was one of many. We know about what happened in that cycle. Vendetta tells us nothing about synthetics.[/quote]

Vendetta talks about each cycle being nearly identical, and we know from Javik that the Protheans did go to war with synthetics.
 
[quote]Starchild is the only one that asserts that Synthetics will always wipe out organics. But since the Starchild wipes out the Organics before that happens anyway, there's just no evidence for it.[/quote]

Incorrect, the assertion is that synthetics will always try to wipe out organics, and this is, like I said, based on the observation of such happening repeatedly even before the Reaper solution came into being.

[quote]Interestingly, Vendetta infers a manipulating force behind the Reapers, but asserts that "the only thing that is certain is its intent: Galactic Annhilation". And considering Vendetta knows there is a reaping cycle, (he was just talking about that in his reasoning), it would be interesting to see where he gets the "Galactic Annhilation" from.[/quote]

The Protheans' best guess is where he gets it from.

[quote]True, but then control has some nasty implications itself (even if you take it at face value). Can anyone be trusted with absolute power for eternity? Even someone who means well at first?[/quote]

We see that as a result of control, Shepard's personality was preserved, ergo it will be the character we know that will be guiding the Reapers, so it's just a matter of what you think your character would do.

[quote]Well the Starchild should be able to analyse the hardware more sufficiently shouldn't it? But what Vendetta says makes more sense. It seems to me that the EC actually made this stuff less clear, rather than bringing clarity.[/quote]

Yes, but just that specific part.  Like you said, it makes more sense that the Crucible is using the Citadel as a power source, not vice-versa or similar.

[quote]But we don't know the option doesn't come from the Starchild.[/quote]
 
The Catalyst says the Crucible created the new possibilities, and before that he thought that the plans for the Crucible had been wiped out.  That's assuming what the Catalyst tells you is true (which, again, if the writers intended for him to lie, that would have been followed through with before the game's end).

[quote]So this earlier cycle, saw the problem that the Reapers were solving, and came up with the solution, but were unable to stop the Reapers? Why?[/quote]

Same reason nobody was able to use the Crucible in previous cycles or the following cycles, because they ran out of time. 

[quote]And why did the Reapers kill them instead of letting them fix the problem, and why did they destroy the plans?[/quote]

The Catalyst states that the Crucible had changed much since the Reapers saw the plans.  Presumably, when the Reapers were aware of the plans, the only capability it had was destroy, so the Catalyst would have no reason to suspect that the Crucible had the potential to synthesize. 

[quote]You say the Crucible is a weapon of the organics, not the Reapers, but we don't know who came up with these plans. Just that the Protheans found these plans, and that we got the plans from the Protheans.[/quote]

I'm not saying the Crucible is the weapon of the organics, the game is. They were passed down from cycle to cycle, and when the Reapers discovered the plans, they sought to wipe them out, and believed they had. 

[quote]he said they'd tried, but failed BECAUSE organics weren't ready. If the Starchild wanted evolution, killing the most evolved species is a stupid way of doing things.[/quote]

From his perspective the Reapers were the highest form of evolution.  True synthesis was not a possibility until the Catalyst saw that the Crucible was capable of it.

[quote]If this earlier cycle was capable of creating technology greater than what the Reapers could create, then the earlier cycle should have been advanced enough to beat the Reapers.[/quote]

As I said, they probably ran out of time like every other cycle.

[veramis]

Some ways I think refusal could've been improved was, make all of starbrats last two sentences said by harbinger. This would allow room for indoctrination theory. Then depending on EMS, allow the ending to either be the liara message, or a scene of a devastated planet, then show conflict between reapers and the galaxy still duking it out. They could be a little fanciful about what the reapers and what the resistance look like to keep people guessing just how far into the future is, but it should be presented in a way to make it seem like the battle is still undecided and Shepard's refusal choice, with high enough EMS, wasn't entirely in vain.

And IT people would probably consider it the best option.

[eye basher]

Well you pissed off the all powerful overlord what the hell did you think was gonna happen.

[thefallen2far]

saracen16 wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

I think if Bioware said you had to shoot either Kaiden or Ashley to beat Saren, and they had a cut scene to you refusing and he kills you, the audience garnered would be more to your [and mac walters and Casey Hudson's] liking.

Are you going to protect the bomb from the geth who might disarm it, or are you going to leave it be because the person guarding it armed it and is a dead man or woman anyways?

The bomb goes off regardless.  You make a choice.  That's your decision.  I liked that choice.  It's presented to you by events that transpired, not Star Jar and his backwards logic.  And they didn't give you a choice to try an save both and then the Normandy blew up.... that would've been lame.