222 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Optimystic_X wrote...

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.

When Forbes writes about it, I think PR nightmare applies.

-Polaris

[JA Shepard]

Optimystic_X wrote...

 

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.

He actually tells you that? I haven't actually triggered that dialog option yet. It makes it even harder to imagine a person choosing to refuse.

[Jadebaby]

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 think the point people are trying to make is why bother? It was clearly a middle finger, if they had of at least taken some time to show the galaxy losing I might see it a different way. But a cut to black after the best speech Shepard makes in all three games? That's a tease, a tease and an insult.

[IanPolaris]

JA Shepard wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

 

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.

He actually tells you that? I haven't actually triggered that dialog option yet. It makes it even harder to imagine a person choosing to refuse.

Again, it's not the first time Shepard has been told "it's hopeless so you should give up" (ref Saren for one), and besides, as I said earlier, it's a very reasonable position for Shepard to take that he can't believe anything the Cataluyst says at face value.  Why would this be different?

-Polaris

[PsyrenY]

JA Shepard wrote...

He actually tells you that? I haven't actually triggered that dialog option yet. It makes it even harder to imagine a person choosing to refuse.

See for yourself.

[MongoNYC]

Carlthestrange wrote...

On the subject of conventional victory though, I'm not so sure right now. With the reveal of possible new "Leviathan of Dis" content suggesting a Rogue Reaper, it could throw the entire concept on its head.

A fleet outfitted with Reaper weaponry... could completely change the tide of the battle.

This.

[Sevrun]

I would have actually liked to have seen this option as well, the problem is that it requires a great deal of effort and set up to put the forces and preparations in place, all of which was funneled toward the Crucible.

Without that hulking pile of junk (and the prep time being spent effectively) You'd have seen a RADICALLY different battle for Earth. I actually sat down and thought it through a couple times and there are several ways to tip the balance of power against the Reapers. The KROGAN managed to decimate virtually every Reaper on Palaven (read the Codex, Miracle of Palaven entry) So if the Reapers can't detect fission or Warp warheads.... Minefields immediately come to mind, which have been a mainstay of area denial tactics since the invention of explosives.

A second unconventional strike decimated several Reaper Capital class vessels (Like Harbinger and Sovereign) in the opening moments of the battle for Palaven, also referenced in the Codex. A third at Thessia stalled the entire Reaper advance there.

My point being this. The argument that the Reapers were simply too powerful to be engaged in ANY fashion short of the Crucible is simply false.

So why not do this??? Because it would have required a serious rewrite and a lot of time from people who have already moved on to other projects. 6 months to a year kind of time. The story arc in and of itself isn't BAD until you hit Star Kiddie where they simply had no Freaking clue how to bring the series to a close with the number of endings they had promised (more than 1)

Hence Deus Ex of the stars was born. The current endings ARE a vast improvement. I don't need happy, war doesn't provide those. I'm honestly impressed they got that much right, since the rest of the militant feel they tried to put in place felt weaker than an old man's bladder control.

[JA Shepard]

IanPolaris wrote...

JA Shepard wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

 

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.

He actually tells you that? I haven't actually triggered that dialog option yet. It makes it even harder to imagine a person choosing to refuse.

Again, it's not the first time Shepard has been told "it's hopeless so you should give up" (ref Saren for one), and besides, as I said earlier, it's a very reasonable position for Shepard to take that he can't believe anything the Cataluyst says at face value.  Why would this be different?

-Polaris

That's a fair point. But what will Shepard do, assuming he can't leave the chamber, and the catalyst doesn't or can't outright kill Shepard? I assume the crucible is either destroyed or damaged to the point it can't operate at all. The galaxy is left to fight it out conventionally. Obviously, if you believe that there chances of success are better that way, it makes sense that you would refuse. It'd be a tactical decision more than a moral one.

[Cant Planet]

IanPolaris wrote...

Again, it's not the first time Shepard has been told "it's hopeless so you should give up" (ref Saren for one), and besides, as I said earlier, it's a very reasonable position for Shepard to take that he can't believe anything the Cataluyst says at face value.  Why would this be different?

Having Saren (or some other enemy) say "Give up, you can never defeat us!" is miles apart from having your trusted military associates tell you, repeatedly, "Our combined military strength is not enough for us to have a chance at winning".

Modifié par Cant Planet, 29 juin 2012 - 02:11 .

[PsyrenY]

Cant Planet wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Again, it's not the first time Shepard has been told "it's hopeless so you should give up" (ref Saren for one), and besides, as I said earlier, it's a very reasonable position for Shepard to take that he can't believe anything the Cataluyst says at face value.  Why would this be different?

Having Saren (or some other enemy) say "Give up, you can never defeat us!" is miles apart from having your trusted military associates tell you, repeatedly, "Our combined military strength is not enough for us to have a chance at winning".

This. Saren is miles apart from Hackett/Anderson/freaking Garrus.

[ThinkIntegral]

SilentWolfie wrote...

So am I right or wrong? High EMS + Refuse = Victory will be the best ending, right?

Wrong. You missed the part where they brought everything they had to the fight at Earth and were still getting their asses handed to them.

[wantedman dan]

How dare the OP question the necessity of the CRUCIBLE LAWL?!!11?/

No, but seriously, I completely agree. This was a complete and utter failure on the part of Bioware.

[MegaSovereign]

You can't beat the reapers conventionally. Plain and simple.

[Allan Schumacher]

JA Shepard wrote...

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. 

Cool!  Thanks for the discussion!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's the Sophie's Choice Dilemma. It was the first time, and it still is, except now it's even more obvious. You are given in this case three choices, all of which are bad:

* Absolute Power for a billion yrs -- which I wouldn't trust myself with.
* Genetically rewriting the entire galaxy -- even EDI said she'd prefer non-functionality rather than be rewritten. It's molecular rape, and Starbrat is still in charge.
* Potential Genocide of a race to save the rest of the galaxy.

But if you refuse to choose, everyone gets exterminated.

So refusing to choose is still making a choice. And you put the whole thing on the next cycle and who is to say they'll do anything different. They might have the same problems we did. The same inaction, and not come up with anything until it was too late. It could be another quintillion deaths before it's solved again. And you blew it by refusing to make the choice.

Geth weren't around. I had to make Sophie's Choice. Take EDI. It wasn't easy either, but it was that or sacrifice the galaxy.

[malakim2099]

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?

Personally, as written, yes. If you can't get some measure of victory from it (even if it's an ungodly number, like EMS 15-20K even), then why have it in there in the first place?

It seems like it's just the writers going, "You want to refuse? Well, ******** you people!"

I mean, really, when you get to EMS at that high of a level, considering that you have a whole lot of N7s you've promoted from multiplayer "into" the Single Player? Between all the different engineers, infiltrators, soldiers, vanguards, adepts, and sentinels... I don't know if we're talking all that "conventional" of victories anyway at that point.

[Ryzaki]

All they had to do to make Reject palatable was give some last stand slides. Could've been beautifully sad. The next cycle then thanks to Shep's sacrifice can shove the Crucible up the Catalyst's rear end (or preferably just straight up destroys him before the cycle can begin throwing the Reapers into severe confusion and they clean up the confused remnants). They defeat the Reapers on their own terms. No magical weapon needed. (or at least no magical weapon that requires Reaper input and involves RGB).

If some cheese was allowed maybe have Harbinger be destroyed by a flagship called the SSV Shepard or SSV Normandy as an additional take that from beyond the grave.

There's sacrifice, loss and victory. Sad but uplifting. Shep died free but his sacrifice allowed not only for the next cycle to live but live free.

Instead I feel like I got smacked. Blargh.

*smashes Destroy button* EDI and the Geth are rebuilt nothing in game contradicts that so I'll go with that.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 03:54 .

[LilyasAvalon]

Ryzaki wrote...

*smashes Destroy button* EDI and the Geth are rebuilt nothing in game contradicts that so I'll go with that.

*Agrees with Ryzaki and smashes the **** outta that Destroy button*

[Unfallen_Satan]

I am not insulted, but I respect your right to be. I'd start a separate thread for people who are not insulted, but BioWare may count both sides in this one, so I thought I just say that here.

[Arppis]

It's not an insult.

Too bad you take it that way. Sometimes your options are limited.

[Dendio1]

Anyone who expected to beat the reapers conventionally is either new to the series or expected bioware to flagrantly nerf the main antagonists in the last 10 mins.

[Scott2998]

Garlador wrote...

Hackett; "We can't win by conventional means."
The Council: "We can't win by conventional means."
Anderson: "We can't win by conventional means."
Turian Primarch: "We can't win by conventional means."
EDI: "We can't win by conventional means."
Liara; "We can't win by conventional means."
Illusive Man: "We can't win by conventional means."
Javik: "We didn't win using conventional means."

*tries to win using conventional means. Fails. Acts upset about it*

[Zemorion]

Anyone who chose Refuse due to lack of trust in the Catalyst, could perhaps try to look at it another way. You have had to make difficult choices throughout the entire series - choices that were absolute and where you didn't know what future impact they would have. Why should the choices presented by the Catalyst be any different than those presented by anyone else through the series?

The way I see it, the ending is pretty much a grand scale version of the Quarian/Geth conflict - a Human/Reaper conflict. The Catalyst have been programmed to find a solution to an old conflict between organics and synthetics, which it have simply been carrying out with success ever since because no other valid options was made available. The same way that Legion and the Geth initially became hostile towards the Quarians after becoming sentient - since no other options was ever made available to them after the Geth War began, they believed killing Quarians and everyone else was the only way.

That is until they meet Shepard and become intrigued and interested in the new ways and options that he/she brings. So Shepard is ultimately able to change the ways of the Geth entirely, from hostile units showing no mercy, to something greater - thoughtful beings with what resembles a soul.

When we meet the Catalyst, we realize that Shepard have a similar effect on the Reapers, as he/she is the first being from a cycle under harvest to actually be able to make an impact. The Catalyst now realize that there are new options available, and starts to question itself and it's current programming. So once again, and for the final time, you have to make a last choice that will decide the future of the Reapers and the galaxy. If you have shown trust and willingness to aid the Geth to new ways, why not the Reapers?

I appreciate that Bioware added the Refuse option, and after seeing what it does, I think it's a fair ending because you already know what the outcome will be. It's like if you would refuse to address the Geth/Quarian conflict entirely - which would then inevitably end in the two annihilating eachother. Some choices will always be hard, even close to impossible to make, but you still have to make it and then you have to go with what resonates the most with you.