162 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowNinja1129]

Okay people, I sense some serious confusion in this here thread.

For those of you who don't understand why folks think its an F U:

Yes, a total loss scenario was asked for by a large portion of the fanbase. The inclusion of this is NOT what people are complaining about. What they ARE complaining about is they feel it strikes a significant parallel to how this entire Extended Cut situation has unfolded. BioWare has poked fun at things before in their DLCs, what people see the refusal ending is practically BioWare saying "So you want to forge your own path, huh? Don't like these endings here? Well, TOO BAD, if you don't pick one then you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY LOSE FOREVER. So if you want to beat the game PROPERLY, then sit down and shut up." The fact that refusing the catalyst's choices guarantees failure makes people feel like they're being told they're dumb for complaining about the endings, or not wanting to accept any of them from either hate-based, or ethical-based concerns. Additionally, since shooting the Catalyst triggers it too, and that was very clearly born from fans who really hated the endings, people feel like BioWare was targeting them with a very particular message. Whether this was BioWares intention or not is something I can't answer, but I can guarantee a lot of people feel this way.

Personally I was a little disappointed with it too (not for the reason above). Why can't you win without the Crucible? Why not just make it even harder to get than the synthesis ending? They could have even worked in a "Endgame Mission" gameplay section after high EMS refusal that could play out like ME2, where you pick armies and pairs from your crew to lead them, etc. etc. and depending how well you administrate affects if you can even defeat the Reapers with your hard-earned chance. Something like that would have been epic, and would have really hit home an awesome message and intense gratification about overcoming impossible odds through galactic unity (reinforced through the difficulty of obtainment). But only being able to win on the Reapers' terms makes the victory feel hollow, even with the "clarity" the Extended Cut gave us (which, let's be honest, the only things they clarified are "The relays don't go nuclear" and "Everyone left, even the Normandy, survives and is not stranded, Yay!").

And for those of you saying "Hackett said a bazillion times that we can't beat them conventionally" you need to find some better proof. One line does not overturn 2.95 games worth of messages that tell you that, if you do everything right, you can overcome the impossible. Besides, Sovereign said there was no way at all that you could resist the cycle, but you make it up to the room with the Catalyst, don't you? The Catalyst also tells you (in so many words) based on your synthetic implants that you wouldn't survive destroy either, but you can! So many people told you there was no way you could go through the Omega-4 relay, but you found a way.

Also, the "SO BE IT!" line makes me feel like Harby was Starchild. Did he sound exactly like Harby? No, but that's Harby's style, and it makes more sense (in my head, anyway) than the "each a nation" Reapers being controlled by some meta-AI (which, if the Leviathan rumors are true, might lead to more credibility towards that since a Reaper could "defect").

EDIT: I did think the Liara capsule addition was really cool, I just was disappointed that its the only ending you can get if you refuse.

Modifié par ShadowNinja1129, 29 juin 2012 - 06:05 .

[Vox Draco]

JackumsD wrote...

Everyone dies for refusing because that's what's realistic given the circumstances, not because BioWare hate you. I mean, they may, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that refusing results in what's realistic given what's been established in regards to the Reapers and a conventional victory.

If Bioware wanted refuse to be a real option, they could have done it. Same for a onventional victory. Abosolutly no reason to speak of "realism" when it comes to conventional victory. The only reason it isn't an option is because it isn't as "mythical" and pseudo-philosphical, but rather straight-forward and makes the series open for criticism of being "cliched. It also would have been what most players expected all along, and obviously Bioware wanted to be "original" and therefore copied Deus Ex endings...

Again: conventional victory in this scenario is possible, and would still be possible if Bioware wanted it. I am no writer but can come up with a couple of scenarios where it happens, and all I need is just a little bit of "unrealism" and deus ex machina, but even that would be true to the established lore...and I think Bioware would do even better, but they won't, their strange vision of Mass Effect seems different from that of many fans....

Funny in a way...they made Mass Effect more and more into a shooter and less RPG, but in the end they abandon their "action"-strategy as too video-gamey and make that pick your fate silliness...it really makes me wonder sometimes...

[Clayless]

Qeylis wrote...

This argument is stupid.  It has been well established that this is one of the best examples of Deus ex Machina in recent history.  

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

Star Child solved all our problems, not the Citidel.  The Citidel was not the Catalyst, Star Child was.  

He was a god introduced to rosolve a plot and extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.

He was and unexpected, artificial, and extremely improbable character or device that was introduced suddenly in a work of fiction to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.

He was a person or event that provided a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

Now, please stop arguing with Our Last Scene.  He is wrong, let him pound sand.

How can you say he solves anything when it's the Crucible, Shepard and the Citadel which solves everything? He relays what the Crucible and the Citadel will do, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything, in fact it's Shepard that chooses how to solve the situation without any input from the Catalyst other than it telling you what the Crucible does. It's not even revealed late in the game, the Catalyst is one of the 3 main driving forces behind the plot for a large part of it.

[PinkysPain]

JackumsD wrote...

Everyone dies for refusing because that's what's realistic given the circumstances

There is no such thing as "the circumstances" ... we don't have a complete picture, a writer can trivially asspul something to make victory suddenly possible.

Again it could go something like this ... why is the starbrat granting
you so much power? Does he have some ulterior motive? (would make more
sense than the story we have now.) He actually needs Shepard to end the
war quickly, because a team of researchers on the citadel is getting
close to his AI core which would allow them a measure of control over
the reapers (lets say turn off their mass effect shielding). Blocks in
his AI programming prevent him from activating any of the colour coded
choices himself, but a free willed organic can perform the task ... so
he gets Shepard (because he is a vindictive little git) and tries to
trick him in ending the game on his terms.

See .... it's easy. It's BS all the way down, a little more doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

[DRTJR]

I like Refuse, and thematically it's the best ending.

[Qeylis]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

How can you say he solves anything when it's the Crucible, Shepard and the Citadel which solves everything? He relays what the Crucible and the Citadel will do, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything, in fact it's Shepard that chooses how to solve the situation without any input from the Catalyst other than it telling you what the Crucible does. It's not even revealed late in the game, the Catalyst is one of the 3 main driving forces behind the plot for a large part of it.

We aren't talking about the Crucible.  Did Star Child exist before the Crucible did?  Billions of years before as far as I can tell.  Did Shepard have the power to pick any of those "choices" without the gods help? Nope.  In fact, that little god (who I will call Persus, the Titan of Destruction) woke a dying Shepard up to make those decisions, sounds like a difficult situation to me.

Persus is the reason Shepard won.  The Crucible helped, but he couldn't have won without Persus.  Proven by the F U ending.

Oh, and I almost forgot, here is some sand, pound it.

[Jackums]

Vox Draco wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

Everyone dies for refusing because that's what's realistic given the circumstances, not because BioWare hate you. I mean, they may, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that refusing results in what's realistic given what's been established in regards to the Reapers and a conventional victory.

If Bioware wanted refuse to be a real option, they could have done it. Same for a onventional victory. Abosolutly no reason to speak of "realism" when it comes to conventional victory.

PinkysPain wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

Everyone dies for refusing because that's what's realistic given the circumstances

There
is no such thing as "the circumstances" ... we don't have a complete
picture, a writer can trivially asspul something to make victory
suddenly possible.

When did I imply or state that they couldn't have created a conventional victory if they wanted to?

I said it was unrealistic given what has been presnted; what we do know and have seen/been told. Given what had been presented to us up until the Catalyst scene, a conventional victory was not possible. The writers could have added more to make it possible, but based on what we had, it wasn't.

[PinkysPain]

JackumsD wrote...

I said it was unrealistic given what has been presnted

No, you said circumstances ... and the circumstances are an unknown.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 29 juin 2012 - 06:17 .

[mass perfection]

What makes you think we can beat the Reapers without the Crucible?We might be able to beat them at Earth,but there's still thousands of them all over the galaxy.Maybe via DLC we can beat them conventionally,but it would take 50-100 years and I expect the Batarians,Elcor,Volus,Drell,and Hanar to go extinct.

[SwitchN7]

Stop the Hate Train.I want to get off.Well in all fairness i actually jumped off after playing the EC on 3 characters.I had a serious personal problem with the original endings.They were addressed.I thank Bioware for that.Made me care again.

Modifié par SwitchN7, 29 juin 2012 - 06:19 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Debatable, and not quite what you think it is.

[Clayless]

Qeylis wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

How can you say he solves anything when it's the Crucible, Shepard and the Citadel which solves everything? He relays what the Crucible and the Citadel will do, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything, in fact it's Shepard that chooses how to solve the situation without any input from the Catalyst other than it telling you what the Crucible does. It's not even revealed late in the game, the Catalyst is one of the 3 main driving forces behind the plot for a large part of it.

We aren't talking about the Crucible.  Did Star Child exist before the Crucible did?  Billions of years before as far as I can tell.  Did Shepard have the power to pick any of those "choices" without the gods help? Nope.  In fact, that little god (who I will call Persus, the Titan of Destruction) woke a dying Shepard up to make those decisions, sounds like a difficult situation to me.

Persus is the reason Shepard won.  The Crucible helped, but he couldn't have won without Persus.  Proven by the F U ending.

Oh, and I almost forgot, here is some sand, pound it.

Did the Catalyst solve anything? No. The Catalyst relays information on what the Crucible does, but the Catalyst itself does nothing else. Shepard wouldn't know what the choices were without the Crucible, which caused the Catalyst to tell him this, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything it just gives Shepard the information on what the Crucible and Shepard can do.

A deus ex machina solves things, the Catalyst does not.

[Jackums]

PinkysPain wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

I said it was unrealistic given what has been presnted

No, you said circumstances ... and the circumstances are an unknown.

No, I was referring to the circumstances we were aware of; which is that the Reapers were too powerful for us to defeat conventionally.

[PinkysPain]

Which is why he is also called a Diablos ex Machina ... something which comes out of nowhere and gives you a choice of **** sandwiches.

[Qeylis]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Qeylis wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

How can you say he solves anything when it's the Crucible, Shepard and the Citadel which solves everything? He relays what the Crucible and the Citadel will do, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything, in fact it's Shepard that chooses how to solve the situation without any input from the Catalyst other than it telling you what the Crucible does. It's not even revealed late in the game, the Catalyst is one of the 3 main driving forces behind the plot for a large part of it.

We aren't talking about the Crucible.  Did Star Child exist before the Crucible did?  Billions of years before as far as I can tell.  Did Shepard have the power to pick any of those "choices" without the gods help? Nope.  In fact, that little god (who I will call Persus, the Titan of Destruction) woke a dying Shepard up to make those decisions, sounds like a difficult situation to me.

Persus is the reason Shepard won.  The Crucible helped, but he couldn't have won without Persus.  Proven by the F U ending.

Oh, and I almost forgot, here is some sand, pound it.

Did the Catalyst solve anything? No. The Catalyst relays information on what the Crucible does, but the Catalyst itself does nothing else. Shepard wouldn't know what the choices were without the Crucible, which caused the Catalyst to tell him this, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything it just gives Shepard the information on what the Crucible and Shepard can do.

A deus ex machina solves things, the Catalyst does not.

Wrong, sand.

[Clayless]

Qeylis wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Did the Catalyst solve anything? No. The Catalyst relays information on what the Crucible does, but the Catalyst itself does nothing else. Shepard wouldn't know what the choices were without the Crucible, which caused the Catalyst to tell him this, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything it just gives Shepard the information on what the Crucible and Shepard can do.

A deus ex machina solves things, the Catalyst does not.

Wrong, sand.

Elaborate, don't troll.

[SirCroft]

Qeylis wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

This is exactly what MANY fans demanded for in this past 3 months. All of a sudden it's an F U when it's in the game.

Some people just want to hate Bioware it seems.

Many more were asking for a conventional victory with the refuse ending, thats how.

Damn, a few people ask for something stupid, so we all asked for something stupid?

Conventional victory is not possible, if it were, Reapers would be dead by now. I find it hard to believe that out of the God knows how many cycles the current one (regardless of how high your EMS is) would be the only one to be able to defeat the Reapers through raw fire power.
This is a plot hole.

[77boy84]

If you refuse to choose the crucible, the star kid yells at you, you lose, and get to watch Shepard stare dumbfounded as all of his friends and allies are killed in front of him. And then you get the satisfaction of knowing just how WRONG refusal is by finding out that the next cycle used the crucible and won anyway.

I don't understand how people can say it wasn't an FU. The message behind the refusal ending is pretty freaking clear. "You were wrong. We were right. Damn you for refusing."

[PinkysPain]

SirCroft wrote...
Conventional victory is not possible, if it were, Reapers would be dead by now. I find it hard to believe that out of the God knows how many cycles the current one (regardless of how high your EMS is) would be the only one to be able to defeat the Reapers through raw fire power.
This is a plot hole.

Your logic is void ... none of the previous cycles had Shepard.

[77boy84]

PinkysPain wrote...

SirCroft wrote...
Conventional victory is not possible, if it were, Reapers would be dead by now. I find it hard to believe that out of the God knows how many cycles the current one (regardless of how high your EMS is) would be the only one to be able to defeat the Reapers through raw fire power.
This is a plot hole.

Your logic is void ... none of the previous cycles had Shepard.

And none of the previous cycles had the advanced warning or the relay network like we did.
Every other iteration of the cycle, the reapers shut down the network and started at the citadel... That didn't happen to this one because Shepard stopped them in ME1.

Those two facts alone mean we have a much better chance of beating the reapers conventionally than in any other cycle, and it pretty much kills the whole "Well no one else did it before!" arguement.

[Qeylis]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Qeylis wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Did the Catalyst solve anything? No. The Catalyst relays information on what the Crucible does, but the Catalyst itself does nothing else. Shepard wouldn't know what the choices were without the Crucible, which caused the Catalyst to tell him this, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything it just gives Shepard the information on what the Crucible and Shepard can do.

A deus ex machina solves things, the Catalyst does not.

Wrong, sand.

Elaborate, don't troll.

I'm trying to end this argument.  This thread is about the F U ending, not was Persus an example of Deus ex Machina.  Of course he was.  He was a god from the machine that solved my problems.  He brought me back to life, a big problem solved.  He said "The Crucible changed ME."  Not, the Citidel.  

The Crucible made the Deus ex Machina possible.  If we had not attached the Crucible, Persus might not have been inclined to help.  

Persus, god.  Citidel + Crucible, machine.  Persus from machine, truest definition of DeM.  Problems solved because Persus came from machine.  Couldn't do it without Persus, F U ending proves that.

Can we get back to the F U ending now?

Modifié par Qeylis, 29 juin 2012 - 06:35 .

[IanPolaris]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Qeylis wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Did the Catalyst solve anything? No. The Catalyst relays information on what the Crucible does, but the Catalyst itself does nothing else. Shepard wouldn't know what the choices were without the Crucible, which caused the Catalyst to tell him this, but the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything it just gives Shepard the information on what the Crucible and Shepard can do.

A deus ex machina solves things, the Catalyst does not.

Wrong, sand.

Elaborate, don't troll.

I'll elaborate.  While Catalyst may not have made the endings, he had total control over the crucible even to the ability to turn it off (as proven if you do take reject) and including your access to the interfaces that would enable each solution.  Even he (Catalyst) says that the crucible has become part of him, which means the solutions are now his.

Heck it was the Catalyst that even ALLOWED Shepard to be there at all (instaed of bleeding out alongside TIM and Anderson).  So yes, it's all Catalyst and as a godlike AI, he's a DEM.

-Polaris

[darthclide]

Like only 1 other person has said in this thread, I would have been somewhat fine with the refusal ending, if they gave more than what? 2 sentences of dialogue at most? A dejected Shephard standing there "mocking" the player by seeming to say "you idiot, why did you do this? You could have saved everyone!"

Also just to reiterate what someone else posted. The refusal ending isn't as "hopeful" as it would seem. Liara specifically states that the Crucible did NOT work. So why the heck would the current cycle's "Shephard" go through the whole EMS thing again, for an object that is known not to work? At that point, they would just be looking at the plans and seeing "wow, this thing has a lot of power in it", perhaps we can make a weapon with it? But wait a second, from what we can tell, the "crucible" only has a function when connected to the Citadel (where the star child resides), so that would be very unlikely that the next cycle's somehow "break free" and use the Crucible for some other Super Weapon.

And even IF the next cycle repeated the whole "connect the citadel with the crucible" all over again. The same 3 options would resurface, and the next "Shephard" would have to make the hard "reject" choice again. And so the cycle would continue....

Maybe, just maybe, the next cycles make "improvements" that makes 4 or more choices available... But by then we have gone from normal "space magic" to "EXTREME deep space, whole other galaxy" magic. You might as well throw in some other kind of space magic that makes us beat the reaper through conventional means.

With all this said, I know that I won't ever choose "reject", because as far as I can tell, the cycles will continue forever until "one Shephard" comes along and says "okay, I want to choose Destroy Reapers". So it might as well be the first cycle right? Why put future cycles through all the horrors just have it all end with a "Shephard" saying "nope, I reject these options because all of them hurt humanity in some way".

The plot direction they took after Drew left was bound to be confusing at the VERY least. I mean what would you expect if Stephen King writes 1/2 of a novel, but J.K. Rowling finishes the last 1/2? The "undercurrent" theme would be askew at the very least. Let alone the writing style, also the kinds of new characters you want to introduce would be completely different...

I emailed Drew about 2 months ago and he responded (completely surprised by that) talking about how many different "plot" ideas were going around during the ME1 days (no, he wasn't going into detail on what these were). He of course was modest in response to my message which in a nutshell said how much I loved his "dark energy" idea. He sadly didn't go into specifics on what he had in mind (stupid legality crap I am sure), but one day I wish he could write a TRUE ending to this ME series in the form of a book.

sorry for this long post... Hope I didn't bore any of you to death...

[Wittand25]

Vox Draco wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

Everyone dies for refusing because that's what's realistic given the circumstances, not because BioWare hate you. I mean, they may, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that refusing results in what's realistic given what's been established in regards to the Reapers and a conventional victory.

If Bioware wanted refuse to be a real option, they could have done it. Same for a onventional victory. Abosolutly no reason to speak of "realism" when it comes to conventional victory. The only reason it isn't an option is because it isn't as "mythical" and pseudo-philosphical, but rather straight-forward and makes the series open for criticism of being "cliched. It also would have been what most players expected all along, and obviously Bioware wanted to be "original" and therefore copied Deus Ex endings...

Again: conventional victory in this scenario is possible, and would still be possible if Bioware wanted it. I am no writer but can come up with a couple of scenarios where it happens, and all I need is just a little bit of "unrealism" and deus ex machina, but even that would be true to the established lore...and I think Bioware would do even better, but they won't, their strange vision of Mass Effect seems different from that of many fans....

Funny in a way...they made Mass Effect more and more into a shooter and less RPG, but in the end they abandon their "action"-strategy as too video-gamey and make that pick your fate silliness...it really makes me wonder sometimes...

Not without a genre shift.
Mass effect is no strategy game in which you are a commander controlling fleets and units, it is a game centered around controlling a small team. In such a game the ending will always be achieved by the team pressing the right button/ using the right spell/ killing the main antagonist during tha final show down.

You simply cannot do a conventional victory ending with the limitations that the game mechanics provide and that was clear long before ME3 launched. A conventional victory would ,even if we assume that the galaxy could do it, take years to achieve and would have to happen offscreen resulting in the same people that complain now to complain that the true end happend without their input.