1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Biotic Sage]

StevenG_CT wrote...

Garrus is my Shepard wrote...

lol I have been as well. I always shoot Elnora in ME2 cause I know she's guilty, even though Shepard doesn't.

Technically you are told beforehand that "every Eclipse member commits a murder to earn their armor" and since she is clearly wearing Eclipse armor you do in fact know she is a murderer.

...but come on now.  You know that the REAL reason you pull that trigger is because of the emotional reaction: you are pissed off at the meta-knowledge that she is going to be getting off scott free when she openly mocks that volus and spits on the concept of valuing life.  haha

You make a good point though.

[felipejiraya]

The Angry One wrote...

I've never played Deus Ex or Human Revolution. Was it like this there too? Were all the options just shoved in your face at the end of the game with no details beforehand?

Yes. 

But the real problem with the endings of DE:HR is that just one of the four endings makes sense when you think about continuity with the original Deus Ex. 

[The Angry One]

Hudathan wrote...

It was my best bet because it was what I believed as a player and as a character, otherwise I would have objected to the game long before the Crucible at the end, which I didn't.

Why do you believe a Reaper?

And you're right, I can't know whether or not the Crucible would be helpful, the game knew this too and it's how the Crucible was presented. I guess my engineers could have been better at their jobs and figured out what the Crucible did before the final battle, but they didn't. My Shepard had nothing to go on but hope. The Crucible was already deep in enemy hands, I have limited time to do something, anything with it, and I did. It happened to work out which is great, if it didn't then we all die anyway.

They didn't, and the ending relies on meta-gaming. That's bad writing, and that's my point.

[Gibril]

I have to disagree with you on this one. Maybe a tad bit of meta-gaming is shining through, I think not, but my shepard is completely for the destruction of the reapers, maybe some possible harnessing of their power. At this point of the fight, he needs a golden gun, and he doesn't care where its from. He has his entire faith in the crucible, and now all he needs to do is decide which way of mentally raping the reapers does he wish to enact. The fact that a twist has come in is actually minor in this, the wounding, with my shepard/headcanon, has made him groggy as all heck, he's mostly ignoring the star child.

[Applepie_Svk]

The problem with Catalyst and his lying nature start right after opening Citadel...
Shepard tired and dying, falling on floor without chance to do something - but something or someone turn on magic evelator and lift Shepard to Catalyst´s chamber. But why ? Shepard was dying and thru that if Crucible doesn´t work on its own than there is no reason to bringing up half dead Shepard and give him chance to destroy reapers, until he isn´t trying to lead you to other ways like - control and synthesis.Since that point I think that Catalyst is trying to manipulate you in his way of thinking because this cycle is different, closest to victory maybe even winning.


Sovereign was saying that numbers of Reaper fleets will shadow skies of each world, but in fact Reapers are doing fullscale invasion and they are focusing only at few key points instead of total war?
I think this Sovereign´s quote was just to decieve Shepard that he/she has no hope, otherwise cycle begin and continue with dirty tactics like: Invasion in Citadel, closing relay network, using indoctrinated agents, focusing just at few points at same time - these tactics just saying otherwise - Reapers were always affraid of losing so they did perfect formula to become unbeatable, but this cycle already destroyed few of their cards.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[Sajuro]

The Angry One wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

If you choose destroy and shoot the pipe, if it works then victory! if it doesn't then you destroyed a pipe and the races are just as hosed as they previously were.

And you might have broken the Crucible, or made it do something that will help the Reapers.
You don't know, and you don't have the information necesarry to make an informed decision, unless you already know what will happen or work with the logic of "these are my only choices and it's a game".

Unless it fixes the Citadel, I don't see how much worse it could get from the reject ending. If you reject the reapers, whose to say that you don't give the reapers time to work on the citadel, replace the keepers, and thus give them a way to activate the citadel relay from darkspace again? Congratulations, you didn't take a leap of faith and now the other races are getting divided up before they know what even hit them

[Tommyspa]

Ugh... No it does not.

[Afalstein]

Rejection is actually the worst choice. It's refusing to use the weapon the Alliance itself made, simply because a glowing child shows up and tells you how to use it. So you can't trust the child? So what? Use the Crucible anyway, choose one of the choices! Starchild didn't make the Crucible, in all likelihood he doesn't know what it does anymore than you do. Worst case, you kill everybody in the galaxy, but that was going to happen anyway.

[xsdob]

So what's wrong with metagaming again?

You say you didn't say it, but the crux of your entire argument seems to be that using meta-gaming is doing the endings wrong.

Maybe I'm misreading all of your replys, but it's starting to come off that way the more I read them, please elaborate and explain it so I can get a better understanding.

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

So what's wrong with metagaming again?

You say you didn't say it, but the crux of your entire argument seems to be that using meta-gaming is doing the endings wrong.

Maybe I'm misreading all of your replys, but it's starting to come off that way the more I read them, please elaborate and explain it so I can get a better understanding.

My point is that a story that relies on meta-gaming while claiming to be a consistent narrative has completely failed.
I said this on the first page.

[David7204]

If the Crucible is a trap, or a ruse, or a dud, the Catalyst would never speak to Shepard. There's just no reason for him too. Shepard is a representative of galactic life. Whether s/he's a valid representative is beside the point. That's what the Catalyst wants out of Shepard.

[xsdob]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

So what's wrong with metagaming again?

You say you didn't say it, but the crux of your entire argument seems to be that using meta-gaming is doing the endings wrong.

Maybe I'm misreading all of your replys, but it's starting to come off that way the more I read them, please elaborate and explain it so I can get a better understanding.

My point is that a story that relies on meta-gaming while claiming to be a consistent narrative has completely failed.
I said this on the first page.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

[Gnoizic]

The Angry One wrote...

Phlander wrote...

My Shepard would agree, but it kind of depends on whether or not you think conventional victory is possible. If your Shepard is convinced it isn't, then rejection is a much larger leap of faith for you than trusting starchild.

Our fleets are a known variable. They've come here to fight and that's what they're doing.
The Catalyst is a total unknown. It appears out of nowhere, proclaims itself the creator and controller of all Reapers (and thus the enemy by default) then asks us to trust everything is says.

Destroy... where is the logic in shooting a tube to activate a device? For all I know, shooting the tube breaks the Crucible!
Control.. Shepard will die.. but won't... yes. It turns out Shepard's personality is copied into the new controlling AI.. but Shepard doesn't know that.
Synthesis.. yes let's just do what the Reapers have always wanted to do. Makes sense.

Trying to break apart the fact that yes, I know how the endings pan out now, but let's try to say I go into this with fresh eyes. The options (as presented) are presented as suicide (Control), suicide (Synthesis), suicide (Destroy, and only allegedly because the starbrat notes that you're partially synthetic too and would at least be harmed in some way), or fight to the death in a hopeless cause (Refusal). Here's the problem with not taking him for his word anyway: you're pretty well dead, all four ways, even logically in Destroy (before seeing the toted breath scene) because of how broken your body already is, stranded up on the Citadel.

Like Phlander said, refusal is actually taking a significantly dumber risk, given that we're shown time and again that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. As a mostly dead Shepard watching the final battle for the galaxy unfold around the Citadel anyway, it's perfectly conceivable that sacrificing one's life in hopes that the starbrat isn't lying is a viable option in and of itself, especially considering that many cycles before this believed that the Crucible would lead to the demise of the Reaper threat in some form.

Refusal is folly. If the Starbrat lied, Shepard dies and nothing different happens than would happen in the refusal ending anyway. If he tells the truth, you actually have a chance of changing the fate of the galaxy.

Just my two cents.

[blue water]

OP,

Based on the information presented, in game, I believe refusal is a perfectly valid choice. I concede that this was Bioware's story to tell. However, no one has been able to convince me that the endings aren't terribly contrived.

Modifié par blue water, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:38 .

[mauro2222]

Without metagaming, you're not refusing to use the Crucible, that's never implied, you're refusing to choose any of the options given by the leader (key word) of the Reapers.

What happens next is just Bioware wanting you to choose their art.

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

So what's wrong with metagaming again?

You say you didn't say it, but the crux of your entire argument seems to be that using meta-gaming is doing the endings wrong.

Maybe I'm misreading all of your replys, but it's starting to come off that way the more I read them, please elaborate and explain it so I can get a better understanding.

My point is that a story that relies on meta-gaming while claiming to be a consistent narrative has completely failed.
I said this on the first page.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

They are not. The problem comes when the story is RELIANT on it to work.

[Voutsis1982]

I build a super weapon to fight the Third Reich based on designs I don't fully understand. Then a hologram of Hitler appears and tells me what the machine does and how to activate it - with one option vaporizing me, another requiring me to jump off a high place, and a third involving shooting a vital component of a machine I don't understand. Hitler doesn't make sense in most of this conversation.

Modifié par Voutsis1982, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:40 .

[mauro2222]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Sovereign was saying that numbers of Reaper fleets will shadow skies of each world, but in fact Reapers are doing fullscale invasion and they are focusing only at few key points instead of total war?
I think this Sovereign´s quote was just to decieve Shepard that he/she has no hope, otherwise cycle begin and continue with dirty tactics like: Invasion in Citadel, closing relay network, using indoctrinated agents, focusing just at few points at same time - these tactics just saying otherwise - Reapers were always affraid of losing so they did perfect formula to become unbeatable, but this cycle already destroyed few of their cards.

Exactly... too much psychological warfare and attrition tactics for an unbeatable adversary.

[David7204]

That's a stupid analogy.

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

Disclaimer: If you can't take people disagreeing with you on the interwebs, there is a little glowy button on your CPU, push and you've silenced the voice of dissent!

When talking about rejection compared to the other endings, people often bring up how the Reaper threat is still ended one way or another and how selfish people are for rejecting and so on. That's debatable, but not the point here.
One important point that I think is often missed though pointed out many times before by various people - how does Shepard know that?

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word - and that alone - of the creator and controller of the Reapers. Shepard will not even survive to see these options pan out. Definitely so in control and synthesis, and at least a likely possibility in destroy (especially since Shepard tries to commit suicide by explosion).
From Shepard's perspective, all she sees is the head Reaper giving her an ultimatum, the logic of which is flawed. Why would the Reapers hand you the keys to their own destruction? The Catalyst does not adequately explain the reasons for this, other than the current solution no longer being viable for arbitrary reasons.

Shepard sees nothing of the sort; Shepard thinks the logic is fine, since he's written that way.  Since the Reapers DO hand you the keys to their destruction, you need to be able to rebut the simple idea that the final choice scene is simply literal, was intended that way by the writers and is understood as is by Shepard in the game.  You've spewed your headcanon all over the place.  Reject is a great choice if you like soliloquies; Shepard's stirring  speech in defense of his honor will be no small comfort to the ashes of trillions.  If you like getting optimal outcomes in an RPG given certain pieces of evidence, then reject isn't such a great choice.  It all depends on your point of view.

Modifié par memorysquid, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:43 .

[RenegonSQ]

This is LOGICALLY the best ending if you put it that way, but is it fulfilling? Not at all. No cutscenes, no "slideshows", nothing. Sorry, after 3 games I'll take what I can get with the RGB endings.

[memorysquid]

Voutsis1982 wrote...

I build a super weapon to fight the Third Reich based on designs I don't fully understand. Then a hologram of Hitler appears and tells me what the machine does and how to activate it - with one option vaporizing me, another requiring me to jump off a high place, and a third involving shooting a vital component of a machine I don't understand. Hitler doesn't make sense in most of this conversation.

Well let's hope your author doesn't write you to accept those choices as completely understandable and logical.

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

Why do you believe a Reaper?

They didn't, and the ending relies on meta-gaming. That's bad writing, and that's my point.

And you're missing my point. I never said I believed the Catalyst, you must have missed the parts where I repeatedly said I didn't not know what the Crucible would do. I was simply in a position where I believed that doing something/anything was better than doing nothing, and I took the best bet out of the three for me.

[memorysquid]

mauro2222 wrote...

Without metagaming, you're not refusing to use the Crucible, that's never implied, you're refusing to choose any of the options given by the leader (key word) of the Reapers.

What happens next is just Bioware wanting you to choose their art.

Of course you are.  Shepard hasn't the slightest clue how to activate it.  Until the Catalyst elevates him, he's just lying there bleeding in ignorance.  The Catalyst lets him know how he can use it, including a choice that is exactly what he planned to do initially, but with an unforeseen consequence.

[Afalstein]

Voutsis1982 wrote...

I build a super weapon to fight the Third Reich based on designs I don't fully understand. Then a hologram of Hitler appears and tells me what the machine does and how to activate it - with one option vaporizing me, another requiring me to jump off a high place, and a third involving shooting a vital component of a machine I don't understand. Hitler doesn't make sense in most of this conversation.

However, you're losing the war pretty irreversibly anyway, so why not?