222 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

bboynexus wrote...

Oh, yeah, because that is ENTIRELY acceptable...

Not the point.  The POINT is that when one represents a company (or country or whatever) in an official capacity, then anything you say (and post) will be taken as part of the voice of that compay (or whatever).  That means you DO NOT have the right to shoot off your mouth (or your twitter) even if directly asked.

-Polaris

[JA Shepard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

JA Shepard wrote...

I think it's when it is really out of spite. The crucible is Shepard's and this cycle's weapon. We may not like the catalyst but he is not the one who makes the crucible do what it does. Your own construction does. His line about control when he asks Shepard something lie "do you think I want to be replaced by you?" tells me that. If you want to blame someone, blame the previous cycles for their design.

The catalyst is basically just allowing you to use your own weapon even if it will destroy the reapers, because in his logic driven mind, events that have taken place in this cycle may have rendered his solution obsolete. He's open to new ideas. Refusing to choose is just spiting yourself. It also happens to validate the catalyst's logic because it proves that organics are still so irrational that even the best of them can't see past his own hatred to do what he came to do and save everyone. It's just as an f-you to an enemy that is conceding victory to you when he can still kill you. That's where dying for a cause becomes pointless. 

I like this response a lot.  Thanks for taking the time to write it

Do you think it's fair for someone to choose the refuse end for a non-spiteful reason?  Such as not trusting the Catalyst, or feeling that the costs associated with firing the Crucible are too much and not a decision that one man can make on behalf of others?

It's tough to answer because I think it requires Shepard to ask the catalyst what happens if he does nothing. It's important at that point to actually know the consequences associated with that action. The answer would be very telling. If the catalyst levels with you and says " Seriously, this is your only shot. You don't fire the crucible, and I will roflstomp your entire species and everyone else's as planned", then you can make an informed decision.

If you don't trust him, then you're back to square one because you simply can't know whether or not he's being honest. Under that circumstance staying true to your original plan is the safest route because the only thing that's making you waiver is the mere presence of your enemy. Going by your principles could be a crutch for a lack of conviction. If Shepard doesn't truly believe in the plan, I don't think he would make it that far. The responsibility is his, for better or worse. The galaxy needs him to take on that burden whether he believes he should carry. And refusing to make a decision is still a decision. 

[Dude_in_the_Room]

B/c if you don't fight a war you're in.....you lose.

Just how things work.

[bboynexus]

IanPolaris wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

Oh, yeah, because that is ENTIRELY acceptable...

The POINT is that when one represents a company (or country or whatever) in an official capacity, then anything you say (and post) will be taken as part of the voice of that compay (or whatever).

-Polaris

A ridiculously limited and ignorant expectation perpetuated by morons.

[IanPolaris]

JA Shepard,

I hear ya, and that's why I almost always go "destroy", but you are assuming that 'shooting the tube" will kill the Reapers.

How do you know that? How do you know it won't destroy all humanity instead?

You don't and that's the problem and that's what makes 'refusal' morally justified IMHO. It's saying, "I can't believe anything you are or say, Catalyst because of who and what you are, and that means I can't use the crucible because you clearly control it)."

-Polaris

[PsyrenY]

IanPolaris wrote...

Frankly yes.  He is a member of the Bioware team.  That means he doesn't have the same lattitude as Joe Poster because of what his posts represent or are taken to represent.  You do realize (for example) that in the US it is ILLEGAL for an active duty commissioned officer to criticize the president even privately?  Same idea.

-Polaris

Yes, I know that. But Bioware (the company) gives them certain freedoms in terms of what they're allowed to say. Gamble's been around long enough to know what is kosher and what is not. Certainly he has a better understanding of where the line is than you do.

[IanPolaris]

bboynexus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

Oh, yeah, because that is ENTIRELY acceptable...

The POINT is that when one represents a company (or country or whatever) in an official capacity, then anything you say (and post) will be taken as part of the voice of that compay (or whatever).

-Polaris

A ridiculously limited and ignorant expectation perpetuated by morons.

You've never been an officer then.  Anyone that has had any offical position of authority and responsibility should know what I am talking about.  If you REPRESENT something (or someone) you forfeit the right to shoot your mouth (or twitter) off.  If you can't understand that, then you don't belong in any position of responsibility.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Optimystic_X wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Frankly yes.  He is a member of the Bioware team.  That means he doesn't have the same lattitude as Joe Poster because of what his posts represent or are taken to represent.  You do realize (for example) that in the US it is ILLEGAL for an active duty commissioned officer to criticize the president even privately?  Same idea.

-Polaris

Yes, I know that. But Bioware (the company) gives them certain freedoms in terms of what they're allowed to say. Gamble's been around long enough to know what is kosher and what is not. Certainly he has a better understanding of where the line is than you do.

I am not sure that he does actually.  There are too many people today that DON'T understand (see a few posts above) what it means to say nothing when you represent someone else.  If Bioware/EA is like most companies I've seen (or like the military) then in fact he should NOT have made that Tweet (esp given the consequences).

-Polaris

[bboynexus]

'Shooting your mouth off' is substantially different from being able to express oneself publiclly to a certain extent. It's like you're suggesting that when one signs up with a company (or, to use your example, the service) you literally forfiet the basic human right to express oneself. There is an inherent contradiction here I simply cannot support. I totally get what you're saying about the service, but I'm fundamentally philosophically opposed to the whole thing anyway.

Modifié par bboynexus, 29 juin 2012 - 12:44 .

[SilentWolfie]

JA Shepard wrote...

I think it's when it is really out of spite. The crucible is Shepard's and this cycle's weapon. We may not like the catalyst but he is not the one who makes the crucible do what it does. Your own construction does. His line about control when he asks Shepard something lie "do you think I want to be replaced by you?" tells me that. If you want to blame someone, blame the previous cycles for their design.

The catalyst is basically just allowing you to use your own weapon even if it will destroy the reapers, because in his logic driven mind, events that have taken place in this cycle may have rendered his solution obsolete. He's open to new ideas. Refusing to choose is just spiting yourself. It also happens to validate the catalyst's logic because it proves that organics are still so irrational that even the best of them can't see past his own hatred to do what he came to do and save everyone. It's just as an f-you to an enemy that is conceding victory to you when he can still kill you. That's where dying for a cause becomes pointless. 

Honestly, I breezed through the endings quickly just to see the epilogue and intend to replay the game with details later, but I wish to write an example of principles.

A terrorist sets up a nuclear bomb in a city. Will you torture his family members in front of him to make him reveal the bomb is?

1) Yes.
2) No.
3) I don't really know.

ME3's endings

a) Cycle may continue, genocide of immediate race, but wins reapers.
Benevolent Reaper God Shepard.
c) Symbiosis and happily ever after (presumably)
d) Refusal because of your principles, you don't want to be like star jar who created a frigging mess in the first place. And for sticking to your principles? Here's a middle finger to all your current galaxy sentient life, and let's make it as unrewarding as it possibly can. - Star Jar (Bioware staff writers)

MAYBE you're right. I don't know, bioware isn't trolling us but writing something that makes "sense" and this was an inevitable outcome... hmm why does high EMS leads to having control, symbiosis as other endings and platforms are raised for you? THAT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE!

I think you're really overthinking this to be honest. It's just as easy to say that Bioware actually did it to spite the fans.

Modifié par SilentWolfie, 29 juin 2012 - 12:44 .

[Reever]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

JA Shepard wrote...

I think it's when it is really out of spite. The crucible is Shepard's and this cycle's weapon. We may not like the catalyst but he is not the one who makes the crucible do what it does. Your own construction does. His line about control when he asks Shepard something lie "do you think I want to be replaced by you?" tells me that. If you want to blame someone, blame the previous cycles for their design.

The catalyst is basically just allowing you to use your own weapon even if it will destroy the reapers, because in his logic driven mind, events that have taken place in this cycle may have rendered his solution obsolete. He's open to new ideas. Refusing to choose is just spiting yourself. It also happens to validate the catalyst's logic because it proves that organics are still so irrational that even the best of them can't see past his own hatred to do what he came to do and save everyone. It's just as an f-you to an enemy that is conceding victory to you when he can still kill you. That's where dying for a cause becomes pointless. 

I like this response a lot.  Thanks for taking the time to write it

Do you think it's fair for someone to choose the refuse end for a non-spiteful reason?  Such as not trusting the Catalyst, or feeling that the costs associated with firing the Crucible are too much and not a decision that one man can make on behalf of others?

Someone already proposed that the next cycle would decide together (hower that would have been realized) what choice they´d take and/or they would have fixed/developed the Crucible so that only the Reapers would be destroyed and nothing else.

Would Shepard really believe Liara´s capsule would make things go in such a direction, it might be the right choice to choose the Refuse Ending.

[PsyrenY]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am not sure that he does actually.  There are too many people today that DON'T understand (see a few posts above) what it means to say nothing when you represent someone else.  If Bioware/EA is like most companies I've seen (or like the military) then in fact he should NOT have made that Tweet (esp given the consequences).

-Polaris

What "consequences?" A bunch of disgruntled whiners on a forum? Oh noes

[IanPolaris]

bboynexus wrote...

'Shooting your mouth off' is substantially different from being able to express oneself publiclly to a certain extent. It's like you're suggesting that when one signs up with a company (or, to use your example, the service) you literally forfiet the basic human right to express oneself. There is an inherent contradiction here I simply cannot support.

Then you shouldn't sign up with that company (or enlist).  Your choice isn't being taken away.  You are making a choice to set those rights aside, but it is YOUR choice.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Optimystic_X wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I am not sure that he does actually.  There are too many people today that DON'T understand (see a few posts above) what it means to say nothing when you represent someone else.  If Bioware/EA is like most companies I've seen (or like the military) then in fact he should NOT have made that Tweet (esp given the consequences).

-Polaris

What "consequences?" A bunch of disgruntled whiners on a forum? Oh noes

You scoff, but yes, that's exactly what I am talking about.  The whole reason the EC was made was to placate an angry fanbase so (hopefully) they would continue to BUY things from you (like paid DLC, other games, etc), and doing something like this runs contrary to the entire purpose of the EC.

If *I* were his boss, I'd have some very sharp and direct words about shooting off one's mouth.

-Polaris

[JA Shepard]

IanPolaris wrote...

JA Shepard,

I hear ya, and that's why I almost always go "destroy", but you are assuming that 'shooting the tube" will kill the Reapers.

How do you know that? How do you know it won't destroy all humanity instead?

You don't and that's the problem and that's what makes 'refusal' morally justified IMHO. It's saying, "I can't believe anything you are or say, Catalyst because of who and what you are, and that means I can't use the crucible because you clearly control it)."

-Polaris

I think that's where the writing has a flaw (maybe unavoidable, in fairness) because they are using the enemy for exposition for us and having the in-game character of Shepard react to that as explanation. In addition, how the crucible activates is symbolic for us but functional for Shepard. There should be consistency there but it isn't. So it depends on how you are playing. If you are playing as from a first person perspective then not believing the catalyst and refusing is actually understandable. If I'm playin from a third person pov, then I believe that it is more probable that the catalyst is telling the truth.

[brentcerickson]

I like that they included this as an option. Quite a few people on this board were calling for a 'no' option, and they got it. Bioware has been pretty good about listening to fan feedback lately, with ME3 or DA3.

[Allan Schumacher]

JA Shepard wrote...

It's tough to answer because I think it requires Shepard to ask the catalyst what happens if he does nothing. It's important at that point to actually know the consequences associated with that action. The answer would be very telling. If the catalyst levels with you and says " Seriously, this is your only shot. You don't fire the crucible, and I will roflstomp your entire species and everyone else's as planned", then you can make an informed decision.

If you don't trust him, then you're back to square one because you simply can't know whether or not he's being honest. Under that circumstance staying true to your original plan is the safest route because the only thing that's making you waiver is the mere presence of your enemy. Going by your principles could be a crutch for a lack of conviction. If Shepard doesn't truly believe in the plan, I don't think he would make it that far. The responsibility is his, for better or worse. The galaxy needs him to take on that burden whether he believes he should carry. And refusing to make a decision is still a decision. 

Interesting.

Do you think the ability to refuse should not be in the game at all?

[AllergevKev]

Simply responding to OP:

Shut up

Modifié par AllergevKev, 29 juin 2012 - 12:58 .

[IanPolaris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

JA Shepard wrote...

It's tough to answer because I think it requires Shepard to ask the catalyst what happens if he does nothing. It's important at that point to actually know the consequences associated with that action. The answer would be very telling. If the catalyst levels with you and says " Seriously, this is your only shot. You don't fire the crucible, and I will roflstomp your entire species and everyone else's as planned", then you can make an informed decision.

If you don't trust him, then you're back to square one because you simply can't know whether or not he's being honest. Under that circumstance staying true to your original plan is the safest route because the only thing that's making you waiver is the mere presence of your enemy. Going by your principles could be a crutch for a lack of conviction. If Shepard doesn't truly believe in the plan, I don't think he would make it that far. The responsibility is his, for better or worse. The galaxy needs him to take on that burden whether he believes he should carry. And refusing to make a decision is still a decision. 

Interesting.

Do you think the ability to refuse should not be in the game at all?

Given the way it was executed, yes.  I think including refuse in this form was a mistake.  It wasn't expected after all (and based on public statement prior we had no reason to expect it).  Like I told another poster, if you can't do something right (rully expand on the ending...which may or may not include a victory option but should be EMS sensitive), then don't do it.

-Polaris

[DarthSliver]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

JA Shepard wrote...

It's tough to answer because I think it requires Shepard to ask the catalyst what happens if he does nothing. It's important at that point to actually know the consequences associated with that action. The answer would be very telling. If the catalyst levels with you and says " Seriously, this is your only shot. You don't fire the crucible, and I will roflstomp your entire species and everyone else's as planned", then you can make an informed decision.

If you don't trust him, then you're back to square one because you simply can't know whether or not he's being honest. Under that circumstance staying true to your original plan is the safest route because the only thing that's making you waiver is the mere presence of your enemy. Going by your principles could be a crutch for a lack of conviction. If Shepard doesn't truly believe in the plan, I don't think he would make it that far. The responsibility is his, for better or worse. The galaxy needs him to take on that burden whether he believes he should carry. And refusing to make a decision is still a decision. 

Interesting.

Do you think the ability to refuse should not be in the game at all?

I like the Refuse ending because it was nice to see that Liara's capsule that she made helped the next cycle end the Reaper Cycle. I just think not getting a clear view of what the next cycle species looked like was dissappointing, would be nice if you added more detail on the Stargazer scene. I enjoyed the creative build of the alien races in Mass Effect and wouldve enjoyed the new species that did defeat the Reapers.

[KLGChaos]

My refusal ending is basically refusing to play through the game again. I'll keep my own headcanon that Shep managed to talk Star Child down after he managed to unite the galaxy and make peace between organics and synthetics after a ton of hard work over three games. Star Child self-destructs and takes only the Reapers with him, leaving Edi and the Geth alive while Shep helps Tali build her house.

That's the ending I will keep with me and why I will not buy another ME game. I like my happy endings-- and ending where my choices actually mattered, like I was lead to believe they would. Sad that I managed only one playthrough of ME3 after a couple dozen of the first two games between them. But no matter, time to move on.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 29 juin 2012 - 01:03 .

[PsyrenY]

 

IanPolaris wrote...

If *I* were his boss, I'd have some very sharp and direct words about shooting off one's mouth.

-Polaris

It's rather disrespectful of you to call engaging with the fans "shooting off one's mouth."

Regardless, I'll just be glad you're not (nor will never be) his boss - or mine - and leave it at that.

JA Shepard wrote...

It's tough to answer because I think it requires Shepard to ask the catalyst what happens if he does nothing. It's important at that point to actually know the consequences associated with that action. The answer would be very telling. If the catalyst levels with you and says " Seriously, this is your only shot. You don't fire the crucible, and I will roflstomp your entire species and everyone else's as planned", then you can make an informed decision.

The Catalyst DOES tell you that. "You will die knowing that you failed to save everything you have fought for." Cut and dried.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 29 juin 2012 - 01:02 .

[IanPolaris]

Optimystic_X wrote...

It's rather disrespectful of you to call engaging with the fans "shooting off one's mouth."

Engaging in fans==good.  Creating PR nightmares because you couldn't engage your brain before opening your mouth (or using your fingers to type)  == bad.  Pretty much any person in authority or anyone that has any kind of fame, or notoriety (a pro athelete for example) knows the difference. 

-Polaris

[JA Shepard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

JA Shepard wrote...

It's tough to answer because I think it requires Shepard to ask the catalyst what happens if he does nothing. It's important at that point to actually know the consequences associated with that action. The answer would be very telling. If the catalyst levels with you and says " Seriously, this is your only shot. You don't fire the crucible, and I will roflstomp your entire species and everyone else's as planned", then you can make an informed decision.

If you don't trust him, then you're back to square one because you simply can't know whether or not he's being honest. Under that circumstance staying true to your original plan is the safest route because the only thing that's making you waiver is the mere presence of your enemy. Going by your principles could be a crutch for a lack of conviction. If Shepard doesn't truly believe in the plan, I don't think he would make it that far. The responsibility is his, for better or worse. The galaxy needs him to take on that burden whether he believes he should carry. And refusing to make a decision is still a decision. 

Interesting.

Do you think the ability to refuse should not be in the game at all?

It should absolutely be in the game and I love that it was added. At the end of the day, this is just a game and that addition makes it more fun. After the EC, I actually look forward to the last scene and I never thought that would happen. I think the writers were clever in the way they presented that choice. The "SO BE IT" is glorious. Even if it was just them being cute, which I don't think is totally the case, it's funny as hell. Like I said, I think refuse validates the catalyst's logic when he was just starting to question his own need to exist. Having unwitting players prove right an argument that nearly all of us, including myself, thought was ridiculous was well done. It's a joke within a joke. 

[PsyrenY]

IanPolaris wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

It's rather disrespectful of you to call engaging with the fans "shooting off one's mouth."

Engaging in fans==good.  Creating PR nightmares because you couldn't engage your brain before opening your mouth (or using your fingers to type)  == bad.  Pretty much any person in authority or anyone that has any kind of fame, or notoriety (a pro athelete for example) knows the difference. 

-Polaris

Pretty sure they know the difference between a handful of whiners and a "PR nightmare" also.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 29 juin 2012 - 01:09 .