1027 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

Hudathan wrote...

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.

You're metagaming there. You can't know what the fourth ending does. It says he's not going to follow his logic, not I'm not going to do anything.

Modifié par mauro2222, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:50 .

[Joy Sauce]

 I'm still holding out for a conventional victory DLC. Guess I'll have to headcanon until then.

[The Angry One]

mauro2222 wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

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.

You're metagaming there. You can't know what the fourth ending does. It says he's not going to follow his logic, not I'm not going to do anything.

Indeed, as I've said. You don't know RGB are the only/true functions of the Crucible. You only know this - from Shepard's perspective - because the Catalyst tells you.
Shepard can't know those are the only options, and can't know rejection will absolutely lead to failure.

[Sisterofshane]

I agree that metagaming has a lot to do with why most people here didn't choose refusal, but I don't think it's the only reason.

Through out the game we see instances of the Reapers outclassing and defeating galactic troops. Key military leaders are telling you that you cannot win this conventionally. Part of your troops go down in defeating Cerberus (meaning less for the Reaper war). Then you return to Earth.

Fifty percent of your ground forces never even make it to the ground. That is a staggering amount of losses in just transportation. We can assume that Hackett and the Sword Fleet is not doing much better.

Walking to the beam (after being blasted), you hear about the rest of Hammer being decimated - only you and one other person out of what was once presumably hundreds make it to the beam. The catalyst brings you up, and in a 360 degree view, you can watch the Reapers basically cruising, taking down your ships with ease. The Catalyst makes it clear that he will continue to kill your people if you don't make a choice.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the player to assume at this point that you are going to lose if you don't activate the crucible, and the only way you know how is the way the Catalyst has shown you.

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:01 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

If I chose to believe putting all the resource in the Galaxy to built the Crucible that no one knows what it would do, I'd choose to believe what it provides.

The problem isn't the ending options, but the decision to build the Crucible.

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One: "Squadmates extracted-check, Crucible-check, War Assets-Just over 3100 EMS"

The Catalyst: "3100 EMS is good, the galaxy will be pleased."

*The Catalyst leaves the scene*

The Angry One: "I hate that guy."

Meta-Gamer: "The Catalyst gave you a compliment and a way to defeat the Reapers...so you hate him?"

The Angry One: "You remember to prevent tech singularity from happening; that's good. I just united the galaxy; that's incredible! Besides, deus ex machinas are trouble. I don't like having them on the storyboards. Call me paranoid"

Meta-Gamer: "You're paranoid. Bioware created this project, they have the right to write in a character to help Shepard."

The Angry One: "Yea, that is the official story. Only an idiot believes the official story."

[Hudathan]

mauro2222 wrote...

You're metagaming there. You can't know what the fourth ending does. It says he's not going to follow his logic, not I'm not going to do anything.

I'm not, I had every reason to believe that I needed to use the Crucible before the fleets are overwhelmed. We know Hammer forces are essentially finished, we know that the fleets orbiting Earth are in deep. Either I use the Crucible and something good happens or we're screwed and should've never went to Earth to begin with. And since it was too late for that, I might as well use the Crucible. How is that meta-gaming.

[The Angry One]

Hudathan wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

You're metagaming there. You can't know what the fourth ending does. It says he's not going to follow his logic, not I'm not going to do anything.

I'm not, I had every reason to believe that I needed to use the Crucible before the fleets are overwhelmed. We know Hammer forces are essentially finished, we know that the fleets orbiting Earth are in deep. Either I use the Crucible and something good happens or we're screwed and should've never went to Earth to begin with. And since it was too late for that, I might as well use the Crucible. How is that meta-gaming.

You're ignoring that the Catalyst may be obfuscating another use for the Crucible, for one.
Look at it from Shep's perspective. You came all this way, built the Crucible, assembled your allies... to do what the Reapers tell you to.
If you're going to do that why did you build the Crucible in the first place?

[mauro2222]

Hudathan wrote...

I'm not, I had every reason to believe that I needed to use the Crucible before the fleets are overwhelmed. We know Hammer forces are essentially finished, we know that the fleets orbiting Earth are in deep. Either I use the Crucible and something good happens or we're screwed and should've never went to Earth to begin with. And since it was too late for that, I might as well use the Crucible. How is that meta-gaming.

Again, metagaming. Refuse doesn't imply not using the Crusible, you're refusing to follow StarChild.

[Ageless Face]

Argue with the catalyst about the fact he's the reaper god, sure. But actually reject him? Not necessarily. Shepard knows very well conventional war is not possible. Eventually s/he'll come to terms with the idea that the Crucible is the only way to stop the reapers. Wether or not s/he'll actually use it is up for the player to decide.

[Captiosus77]

TAO is presenting a classic strawman argument just to keep arguing why she hates the endings. Any attempts to point out the reality of the game (that metagaming is inescapable during the course of the trilogy, or that even if you suspend metagaming the four choices have the same direct net effect for Shepard [death!]), are met with subsequent reiterations of the strawman.

Rejection is the second most morally objectionable choice Shepard could make. Why? Because it forces Shepard's morality on the ENTIRE GALAXY and dooms ALL advanced civilizations to death - and metagaming isn't necessary to know widescale death is the end result as it's repeated, by damn near every central character, throughout the game. Only synthesis is more morally reprehensible.

But, whatever. This entire thread is meaningless as TAO will just continue to use Catalyst style flawed logic to justify still being angry.

Modifié par Captiosus77, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:15 .

[Hudathan]

mauro2222 wrote...

Again, metagaming. Refuse doesn't imply not using the Crusible, you're refusing to follow StarChild.

Did you play the game, the refusal options all say "Then I won't use the Crucible" which is something I never wanted to click on. And once the conversation is over, the only thing you can do other than taking one of the three choices is to either shoot the Catalyst for no reason and triggering the refusal ending or standing there and doing nothing which also leads to game over.

[Tyrium]

I understand your argument, and I personally agree control or synthesis require meta gaming to be valid choices without trusting star child, but I disagree about destroy: that has always been the purpose, to destroy the reapers, and Shep can follow through with that.

[Gnoizic]

The Angry One wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

You're metagaming there. You can't know what the fourth ending does. It says he's not going to follow his logic, not I'm not going to do anything.

I'm not, I had every reason to believe that I needed to use the Crucible before the fleets are overwhelmed. We know Hammer forces are essentially finished, we know that the fleets orbiting Earth are in deep. Either I use the Crucible and something good happens or we're screwed and should've never went to Earth to begin with. And since it was too late for that, I might as well use the Crucible. How is that meta-gaming.

You're ignoring that the Catalyst may be obfuscating another use for the Crucible, for one.
Look at it from Shep's perspective. You came all this way, built the Crucible, assembled your allies... to do what the Reapers tell you to.
If you're going to do that why did you build the Crucible in the first place?

Because you're a soldier, not a scientist. And there doesn't seem to be a crapton of buttons to push to make the Crucible do anything else.

And give my other reply a look over. All options end in Shep's death. Catalyst lies, Shep dies, refusal ending happens anyway. If he tells the truth, then that's your chance to save the galaxy. Conventionally, you're screwed. Take the options presented, especially without any other noticable solutions lying around...

[humes spork]

The Angry One wrote...

Why would the Reapers hand you the keys to their own destruction?

Yeah, why would the Reapers hand Shepard the keys of their own destruction, or even hint at or imply where and what they are?

I mean, if I were the Catalyst and hellbent on winning by hook or by crook I'd just let the little bacteria-thing bleed out on the control platform and order the Reapers to blow the Crucible to kingdom come. Forget all this "good faith" nonsense -- I'm the Reaper-God!

[The Angry One]

Gnoizic wrote...

Because you're a soldier, not a scientist. And there doesn't seem to be a crapton of buttons to push to make the Crucible do anything else.

I have a radio. I can call people who are.

And give my other reply a look over. All options end in Shep's death. Catalyst lies, Shep dies, refusal ending happens anyway. If he tells the truth, then that's your chance to save the galaxy. Conventionally, you're screwed. Take the options presented, especially without any other noticable solutions lying around...

Shep doesn't die in rejection, there's no way to know when Shep dies in that.
The other options directly kill Shepard (or Shepard does their best to get killed by them).

[mauro2222]

Hudathan wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Again, metagaming. Refuse doesn't imply not using the Crusible, you're refusing to follow StarChild.

Did you play the game, the refusal options all say "Then I won't use the Crucible" which is something I never wanted to click on. And once the conversation is over, the only thing you can do other than taking one of the three choices is to either shoot the Catalyst for no reason and triggering the refusal ending or standing there and doing nothing which also leads to game over.

It says "I reject these choices!"

[RainbowDazed]

Biotic Sage wrote...

RainbowDazed wrote...

For me rejection is the best possible choice and the choice my main Shepard chooses. None of the options the Catalyst offers are good enough - they are all based on their (=reapers) terms. This cycle was not ready to finish the job. Nothing left to do than to die with honor and do what ever is possible to ensure that the next cycle triumphs.

You don't think that activating the Crucible, something we and countless other cycles worked on, is doing something on "our terms?"  How is that less "on our terms" than fighting an overwhelming force that requires orbital bombardment from a fleet just to take down one of them?  If anything, I'd say engaging them in combat is on "their terms."

What I mean is that the Catalyst is giving me three choices. I don't know how the Crucible works and I have no way of knowing wether those are all the choices there are or only the ones that are in it's interests. I also only have it's word on what each choice produces. Even if what the Catalyst tells is true, the choices given are not good enough. 

Choosing to preserve some with the cost of a genocide (=destroy), choosing to control an intelligent species (=control) are out of the question. I am interested in Synthesis and one of my Shepard's will choose it, but to me and to my main-Shepard that choice is too alien to choose with the information given. Hell, I've seen the ending that follows (that's more information than what my Shepard has) and I still am unsure of all that choice means.

Sure, engaging them in combat is on "their terms" if by that you mean that they win. But, for me "my terms" means that I have made a free choice. My Shepard's choice is to reject their choice and with that choice she knowingly chooses extinction for the sentient species in the galaxy. That choice is made on her terms. She dies on her terms.

Biotic Sage wrote...

RainbowDazed wrote...

On
the other hand, though, Shepherd knows EXACTLY what will happen if he
chooses none of them.  Everyone dies.  The end.  The Reapers retreat
into space, the cycle begins again, and Shepard has to trust that
Liara's time capsules succeed where all the Prothean archives and
artifacts failed.  That's the one thing Shepard knows for certain--that
Rejection leads to Extinction.

See that's where
the disagreement is coming from.  Whereas you and I both see things
like that, based on the countless pieces of evidence placed before you
across all 3 games that the Reapers are an overwhelming force that
cannot be conquered by military might, others still try to convince
themselves that we could defeat the Reapers by military strength if
EVERYONE united and fought as one.  Yes, winning by military might
would be ideal if it was feasible.  But I just don't understand how
people think that it IS feasible given the evidence.  I think they WANT
it to be feasible because that's the kind of story they are interested
in, but within the actual story that is being told it is not
feasible.

...and this was a misquote. The first post was written by Afalstein, not me. 

Afalstein wrote...

RainbowDazed wrote...

For
me rejection is the best possible choice and the choice my main Shepard
chooses. None of the options the Catalyst offers are good enough - they
are all based on their (=reapers) terms. This cycle was not ready to
finish the job. Nothing left to do than to die with honor and do what
ever is possible to ensure that the next cycle triumphs.

*shrugs*
If you're not going to take any of the options the Catalyst offers you,
why did you bother building the Crucible in the first place?  Even if
the Reapers are offering the terms, that doesn't necessarily make the
terms bad.  Heck, at that point in the game, ANY terms are preferable
to the near future--total annihilation.

And that's a key thing
to remember about Shepherd's motivation here.  No, he doesn't know that
the Crucible will do what the Catalyst says it does.  He has only the
word of a profoundly arrogant and misguided AI to go on as the user's
manual to the gigantic weapon the Alliance has constructed.  So he has
no way of knowing for sure what will happen if he chooses any of the
paths.

On the other hand, though, Shepherd knows EXACTLY what
will happen if he chooses none of them.  Everyone dies.  The end.  The
Reapers retreat into space, the cycle begins again, and Shepard has to
trust that Liara's time capsules succeed where all the Prothean
archives and artifacts failed.  That's the one thing Shepard knows for
certain--that Rejection leads to Extinction.

Against that, almot
ANY choice is preferable (with the possible exception of a
Collector-like fate)  If his choice blows up the entire Alliance fleet
and kills all non-Reapers in the galaxy... well, heck, that was going
to happen anyway.  At worst, he's deprived the Reapers of five or six
new Capital Ships.  Liara's messages will still survive.  Doing
something is still better than doing nothing.  Isn't that the logic
behind building the Crucible in the first place?  It might be
pointless, but we have to try. 

That is the way most of us people do live our lives indeed. To us almost any choice is more preferable than death. We survive extreme conditions just to live another day and clutch to a hope that things will change better in the future. We betray our moral values when our own wellbeing is threathened. I believe that is in the nature of our species and that's how most of us work. Hell, that's how I'd work  - I'd be most likely begging for my life at my knees, if my life was threathened.

But not my Shepard. She is above that and for that reason she was the first to make it to the Catalyst. She does not let fear compromise who she is and she'd rather choose death than to compromise her values. None of the given choices were good enough for her so she chose to fight to the end. She was there, because she had the guts to make that decision. Everyone else would've crapped their pants and chosen something they can settle on even if they aren't happy with the choice.

This is just my opinion and opinions may and will vary. With the option to reject the choices given by the Catalyst (and the aftermath) Bioware has made me a happy consumer.

Modifié par RainbowDazed, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:25 .

[Gnoizic]

The Angry One wrote...

Gnoizic wrote...

Because you're a soldier, not a scientist. And there doesn't seem to be a crapton of buttons to push to make the Crucible do anything else.

I have a radio. I can call people who are.

And give my other reply a look over. All options end in Shep's death. Catalyst lies, Shep dies, refusal ending happens anyway. If he tells the truth, then that's your chance to save the galaxy. Conventionally, you're screwed. Take the options presented, especially without any other noticable solutions lying around...

Shep doesn't die in rejection, there's no way to know when Shep dies in that.
The other options directly kill Shepard (or Shepard does their best to get killed by them).

Alright, phone a friend. The friends, throughout the game, have no idea what the Crucible will do. They're just running on blueprints. Either way, not my main point.

Shepard will die in rejection, as will the rest of the galaxy. We are outnumbered and outgunned, the Reapers will definitely win, as they always have, simply because we do not have the weaponry or the numbers. An honorable military commander may fight to the end, even if the odds say there is no chance of survival. But a smart commander will take a way that might lead to victory, rather than calling it quits by taking on the Reaper armada on by lack of force.

Can you admit that there's no intelligent reason that Shepard should outright refuse? I can. Meta-gaming or not.

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

You're ignoring that the Catalyst may be obfuscating another use for the Crucible, for one.
Look at it from Shep's perspective. You came all this way, built the Crucible, assembled your allies... to do what the Reapers tell you to.
If you're going to do that why did you build the Crucible in the first place?

Again, that's something I actually addressed in all my posts. I never said I believed the Catalyst, in fact I was actively questioning everything it was telling me. I had no way of knowing whether the options would actually funtion the way he was describing. The point was that I had no choice, I needed to do something with the Crucible because we have already committed to this plan, and I was the only one standing there with little time left.

Our engineers never figured out the Crucible before we had to move ahead with the plan. Shepard and I had nothing to go on except the Catalyst's words. I can either stand there and watch the galaxy burn down around me, or I can shoot a tube and hope for the best which I felt was the point of the scene. To hold my breath and hope for the best. It has nothing to do with meta-gaming, in fact I was quite immersed in the moment.

[mauro2222]

Haha, I see what you meant Hudathan. I can clearly see Walters writing the dialogue...

"I don't believe you"
"YOUR BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED!"

[Hulk Hsieh]

mauro2222 wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

I'm not, I had every reason to believe that I needed to use the Crucible before the fleets are overwhelmed. We know Hammer forces are essentially finished, we know that the fleets orbiting Earth are in deep. Either I use the Crucible and something good happens or we're screwed and should've never went to Earth to begin with. And since it was too late for that, I might as well use the Crucible. How is that meta-gaming.

Again, metagaming. Refuse doesn't imply not using the Crusible, you're refusing to follow StarChild.

For RPGs, usually there are 3 to 4 choices for one matter. There are no other options other than the one presented.

You can say it is meta gaming. But I think it is just "gaming" in general, like is BG/PS:T and all other games.

[Hudathan]

mauro2222 wrote...

It says "I reject these choices!"

Every time a refusal option came up during the conversation, there was an alternative option to ask the Catalyst a question which is what I did. The final answer to my final question ended in the Catalyst presenting me with all three choices and the conversation ended right there. For me to reject those choices, I had to not only choose a speech option I didn't personally believe in, I also had to not ask the questions I really wanted to ask. None of which was something I would do if I was in my character's shoes being given those options.

[Zine2]

Actually, as pointed out here:

http://www.forbes.co...of-mass-effect/

You don't actually have to commit yourself to anything. You know that your current cycle has already forced the Reapers to deviate MASSIVELY from their plan. The question really - beside not trusting the Star Child who is still happily blasting away at your ships despite claiming to have given up to the Almighty Shep - is the moral question.

Is victory at any cost acceptable? Shall we sacrifice the soul of our species just to "win".

Refuse, ironically, becomes the only artistic ending by making you lose for taking a moral stand. It makes you realize that standing for your convictions does not automatically result in victory. It is the only ending that isn't rainbows and sunshine (which the 3 other endings have become). It is the only ending that is actually a bittersweet ending.

And that's actually why I would think that people will eventually realize that it's the best ending. Video games typically tell a story of how you win.

The Refuse Ending tells the story of how you lived, and how you can face the end with dignity.

Sometimes, that is enough.

[Voutsis1982]

Afalstein wrote...

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?

All the more reason not to listen to the enemy about how to use the machine you built to destroy them.

It's become cliched to say that following someone else's path blinds you to alternatives, but there are alternatives. Maybe I should shoot the handlebars. Maybe I should jump onto the pipe. Maybe I should throw Anderson's corpse into the beam.

Or - and stay with me here - maybe I should contact Hackett and talk to some Crucible engineers, the dudes who actually built the thing, aren't its target and have no reason to lie to you. Because the Catalyst didn't build the thing, is defintely its target and has every reason to lie to you.

Who knows? They might say something like "Oh yeah, we just pump power into the Citadel, it works on the dark energy principles that powers the relays and the reapers, and it burns them out!"

By having the Leader of the Enemy say what needs to be done, Shepard has to consider that this may be a last minute attempt to defeat him/her. After all, parts of Shepard are still sizzling from the last attempt. For all Shepard knows, the Crucible is seconds away from discharging and killing the Reapers once and for all, and Starchild is trying to get him/her to sabotage it.

Easy solution - Vendetta should have done the talking, an ancient AI with knowledge of the Crucible, now plugged into the Citadel, and isn't the worst murderer in the history of everything.

And if you want, it can look like a child.

The ending was made into One or Zero - either you believe something you have every reason not to believe, or you die. This was not a necessary situation, or a natural outcome of the story, but the result of the contrivances used to put Starchild into the scene so we could all enjoy the cliche.