236 réponses à ce sujet

[zambot]

Baa Baa wrote...

I like all the ending choices, other than Synthesis, a lot.
Destroy: Very fulfilling. Feels like a victory.
Control: Dark, you become Dr. Manhattan.
Refuse: Defy your enemy and stick to your morals. "Never Compromise, even in the face of Armageddon"- Rorschach
Refuse is the best ending imo, but it should have been possible for you to witness your friends die in a glorious battle, and go down with them. Then instead of stargazer, it should have been a new character narrating (like the Shepard of this cycle) as all the fleets of the next cycle are preparing to launch the attack on the reapers while they are sleeping in dark space. That would have been amazing imo.

I agree they could have made Refusal better.  I am betting that boils down to a resource issues (time, money, or download size...or all three)

[PoisonMushroom]

Xilizhra wrote...

Shepard has very little reason to believe the Catalysts solutions will work. He also doesn't know that refusing will lead to death, because he's always refused and he's always pulled it out of the bag. What he does know is that if he refuses and we lose, we'll have lost the 'right' way.

Then not only is your Shepard metagaming, but metagaming incorrectly. Harbinger is attacking the Crucible right now--that's why you get a critical mission failure if you take too long to make a decision. There's absolutely nothing Shepard can do in time if she doesn't act on one of the Catalyst's solutions.

I'm assuming you're refering to the bit where I said 'he's always refused and he's always pulled it out of the bag', in which case I didn't mean it quite as literally as you've interpreted it. I mean Shepard's come this far, surmounted seeming insurmountable odds without ever compromising core beliefs. This is something Shepard can feel without the player's involvement. 

As for Harbinger attacking the Crucible. The destruction of the Crucible doesn't necessarily mean the end of the war. It just means the end of Shepard. So it's not over just because time is running out for the crucible. Also, I hate to treat the story as if it's real life, but people have already suggested that destroying the area of the citadel which houses the Catalyst would be a viable solution. So like I said before, refuse isn't giving in. It's just searching for an option which doesn't compromise core beliefs which as I also stated before is definitely most befitting of MY Shepard.

It's withholding the belief's that I'd been fighting for the entire trilogy to project. Belief's that are undermined by each of the other available choices. Destroy values organic life above synthetic, Synthesis undermines diversity and control undermines free-will. Even if my Shepard believes the Catalyst, following through with any of these choices would sacrifice the more abstract progress that you've been working towards in the Galaxy this whole trilogy.

[Baa Baa]

zambot wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

I like all the ending choices, other than Synthesis, a lot.
Destroy: Very fulfilling. Feels like a victory.
Control: Dark, you become Dr. Manhattan.
Refuse: Defy your enemy and stick to your morals. "Never Compromise, even in the face of Armageddon"- Rorschach
Refuse is the best ending imo, but it should have been possible for you to witness your friends die in a glorious battle, and go down with them. Then instead of stargazer, it should have been a new character narrating (like the Shepard of this cycle) as all the fleets of the next cycle are preparing to launch the attack on the reapers while they are sleeping in dark space. That would have been amazing imo.

I agree they could have made Refusal better.  I am betting that boils down to a resource issues (time, money, or download size...or all three)

I'm still confused about this, was that really 1.85 gb? Crazy stuff.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Welcome in, good man.

[Xilizhra]

It's withholding the belief's that I'd been fighting for the entire trilogy to project. Belief's that are undermined by each of the other available choices. Destroy values organic life above synthetic, Synthesis undermines diversity and control undermines free-will. Even if my Shepard believes the Catalyst, following through with any of these choices would sacrifice the more abstract progress that you've been working towards in the Galaxy this whole trilogy.

And with Refusal, there'll be no more synthetics or advanced organics. No more diversity. No more free will. No more anything due to your failure to make a choice. I can't see how this makes sense.

As for Harbinger attacking the Crucible. The destruction of the Crucible
doesn't necessarily mean the end of the war. It just means the end of
Shepard. So it's not over just because time is running out for the
crucible. Also, I hate to treat the story as if it's real life, but
people have already suggested that destroying the area of the citadel
which houses the Catalyst would be a viable solution. So like I said
before, refuse isn't giving in. It's just searching for an option which
doesn't compromise core beliefs which as I also stated before is
definitely most befitting of MY Shepard.

The end of Shepard, yes. Recall how you said that it had always been your Shepard who'd found a way out. Your Shepard. Not other people. Your Shepard did not, I presume, sit on his ass and die while waiting for other people to find a solution for him  I'm not surprised in the least that this doesn't work.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:29 .

[D24O]

 Refuse should've ended with a sequence like this one:



That might've made it my personal canon choice.

[Pitznik]

Refusing to make that choice, while knowing it is the only chance there is, is like spitting in the face of all those who died in that final assault to let Shepard enter the Citadel. How is that not against Paragon Shepard's principles? People willing to sacrifice so much for the principles are fanatics.

Also, as far as I understand Catalyst is somehow bound by Shepard's decision, he can't refuse him. So if Shepard refuses him, what happens next? Shepard's knows very well he can't leave Citadel on his own, being wounded. He just looks up, watches his allies, people who trusted him and does nothing? Or shouts to Catakiddo: "wait, I changed my mind!", or simply does one of the required actions? Or shoots himself? How in your opinion last minutes of refusing Shepard's life look like?

I don't think this ending (or rather, glorified critical failure screen) should be in the game, since it doesn't end the game, it leaves time for some action, and Shepard isn't really the one to just sit there and do nothing.

[Veneke]

I have to admit, I also rather enjoyed the Refusal ending, largely for the reasons you explore in some depth here. To be honest, I don't think that the FU is in the form of 'Everyone dies, hahaha - go away', though there is a bit of that, rather the FU is in the fact that, apparently, the next cycle basically picks one of the three options. That's what makes Refuse such a crappy choice, it's not that we all die, it's that our deaths mean bugger-all and our Refusal is displayed as little more than some kind of childish tantrum for the next cycle to solve.

I fully suspect that whoever wrote it intended it to be BW's ingame reaction to the expression of the fans outrage of the initial (and current - as they're basically the same) endings: 'Don't like our endings? Fine. GTFO and the next player will pick properly.' If there's a finer reason to pick Refusal from a metagaming standpoint of giving BW the finger right back, I've yet to see it.

In terms of the actual in-game choice, yeah - I completely agree. It's the only ending that I'd expect my Shep to take, in fact all three of mine did - Paragon (Some of your options are tempting, but so were Lucifer's.), Renegade (I've been killing Reapers for years now, one more is just another notch in my bedpost!), Paragade (When I started out they said I was the only one who could save the galaxy. Guess we'll find out.).

[PoisonMushroom]

Dharvy wrote...

Also another look, say your were able to defeat the Reapers without the Crucible in the Refuse ending, with the Reapers superior powers and the fact that you only seem to manage to kill about 3 throughout all your time fighting them and loosing mass amounts of lives in the process that even if you won it would be slim victory and would result in the most lives lost out of all the 4 choices?

This assumes that the only alternative to the crucible is standing like a duck waiting to get shot. It puts you right back where you started and Shepard didn't start the game by saying 'well, you know what. I've only killed like two of these things. I'll probably not bother trying to unite the Galaxy'. No. The only thing that changed is that time is no longer on your side but Shepard would have done exactly what he did at the start. Fight, instill hope and look for options.

[D24O]

Veneke wrote...

I have to admit, I also rather enjoyed the Refusal ending, largely for the reasons you explore in some depth here. To be honest, I don't think that the FU is in the form of 'Everyone dies, hahaha - go away', though there is a bit of that, rather the FU is in the fact that, apparently, the next cycle basically picks one of the three options. That's what makes Refuse such a crappy choice, it's not that we all die, it's that our deaths mean bugger-all and our Refusal is displayed as little more than some kind of childish tantrum for the next cycle to solve.

Or you can refuse to take info critical to the interpertation of the story from Twitter, and give the FU right back.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Refusing to make that choice, while knowing it is the only chance there is, is like spitting in the face of all those who died in that final assault to let Shepard enter the Citadel. How is that not against Paragon Shepard's principles? People willing to sacrifice so much for the principles are fanatics.

Also, as far as I understand Catalyst is somehow bound by Shepard's decision, he can't refuse him. So if Shepard refuses him, what happens next? Shepard's knows very well he can't leave Citadel on his own, being wounded. He just looks up, watches his allies, people who trusted him and does nothing? Or shouts to Catakiddo: "wait, I changed my mind!", or simply does one of the required actions? Or shoots himself? How in your opinion last minutes of refusing Shepard's life look like?

I don't think this ending (or rather, glorified critical failure screen) should be in the game, since it doesn't end the game, it leaves time for some action, and Shepard isn't really the one to just sit there and do nothing.

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

[Xilizhra]

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

I consider both points moot. The dead can no longer be harmed and are irrelevant. All that matters is the living, and whether or not you allow them to be killed.

[Dharvy]

Baa Baa wrote...

I like all the ending choices, other than Synthesis, a lot.
Destroy: Very fulfilling. Feels like a victory.
Control: Dark, you become Dr. Manhattan.
Refuse: Defy your enemy and stick to your morals. "Never Compromise, even in the face of Armageddon"- Rorschach
Refuse is the best ending imo, but it should have been possible for you to witness your friends die in a glorious battle, and go down with them. Then instead of stargazer, it should have been a new character narrating (like the Shepard of this cycle) as all the fleets of the next cycle are preparing to launch the attack on the reapers while they are sleeping in dark space. That would have been amazing imo.

I like that ending as a refuse option better than the one we got and it may be more fulfilling to pick refuse. But the immediate reality is everyone dies horribly but looking to the future? Maybe pockets of peace pockets of war/conflict another go at the reapers maybe half or more the galaxy die in the next battle for victory.

You shepard is leader, leader's make tough decisions all the time; killing the galaxy off because you're indecisive is a bad leader. lol:devil:

Modifié par Dharvy, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:39 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Xilizhra wrote...

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

I consider both points moot. The dead can no longer be harmed and are irrelevant. All that matters is the living, and whether or not you allow them to be killed.

I was arguing his logic, not yours, even though yours is just as unlogical.

[Xilizhra]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

I consider both points moot. The dead can no longer be harmed and are irrelevant. All that matters is the living, and whether or not you allow them to be killed.

I was arguing his logic, not yours, even though yours is just as unlogical.

And you're making decisions based on the wishes of dead spirits that only you can hear? Are you a necromancer?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Xilizhra wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

I consider both points moot. The dead can no longer be harmed and are irrelevant. All that matters is the living, and whether or not you allow them to be killed.

I was arguing his logic, not yours, even though yours is just as unlogical.

And you're making decisions based on the wishes of dead spirits that only you can hear? Are you a necromancer?

No, I'm not, I'm making my decision based on the living and what the dead fought for.

[Xilizhra]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

I consider both points moot. The dead can no longer be harmed and are irrelevant. All that matters is the living, and whether or not you allow them to be killed.

I was arguing his logic, not yours, even though yours is just as unlogical.

And you're making decisions based on the wishes of dead spirits that only you can hear? Are you a necromancer?

No, I'm not, I'm making my decision based on the living and what the dead fought for.

So... your interpretation of what they fought for, as opposed to the living themselves?

Most people aren't willing to let themselves, friends, families and race die based on principle. I'm fairly sure almost everyone was fighting so that the people close to them would have a chance of seeing tomorrow; it's a fight for survival, fundamentally, and little else.

[Bill Casey]

Veneke wrote...

I have to admit, I also rather enjoyed the Refusal ending, largely for the reasons you explore in some depth here. To be honest, I don't think that the FU is in the form of 'Everyone dies, hahaha - go away', though there is a bit of that, rather the FU is in the fact that, apparently, the next cycle basically picks one of the three options. That's what makes Refuse such a crappy choice, it's not that we all die, it's that our deaths mean bugger-all and our Refusal is displayed as little more than some kind of childish tantrum for the next cycle to solve.

Show me where that's in the game...
Liara specifically says they built the Crucible, but it didn't work...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:44 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Xilizhra wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

I consider both points moot. The dead can no longer be harmed and are irrelevant. All that matters is the living, and whether or not you allow them to be killed.

I was arguing his logic, not yours, even though yours is just as unlogical.

And you're making decisions based on the wishes of dead spirits that only you can hear? Are you a necromancer?

No, I'm not, I'm making my decision based on the living and what the dead fought for.

So... your interpretation of what they fought for, as opposed to the living themselves?

Most people aren't willing to let themselves, friends, families and race die based on principle. I'm fairly sure almost everyone was fighting so that the people close to them would have a chance of seeing tomorrow; it's a fight for survival, fundamentally, and little else.

No, I'm fighting for what the galaxy agreed to do, kill Reapers.

Also, most people aren't willing to commit genocide to win a war, do something like control your enemy which you've been against the whole time, or do what your enemy wanted to do. so your point is?

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:45 .

[Bill Casey]

Xilizhra wrote...

So... your interpretation of what they fought for, as opposed to the living themselves?

Most people aren't willing to let themselves, friends, families and race die based on principle. I'm fairly sure almost everyone was fighting so that the people close to them would have a chance of seeing tomorrow; it's a fight for survival, fundamentally, and little else.

Who says Shepard was going to let everyone die?
He was going to defeat the Reapers without the Crucible...

It didn't work out, but there you go...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:48 .

[Xilizhra]

No, I'm fighting for what the galaxy agreed to do, kill Reapers.

Also, most people aren't willing to commit genocide to win a war, do something like control your enemy which you've been against the whole time, or do what your enemy wanted to do. so your point is?

As a matter of fact, if it was that or have everyone die, I'm certain that most people would do any of those, or at least want them to be done. True, they may be too cowardly to do so if it was their choice alone, but it's what they'd want and would be happy, or at least relieved, to see done and know that someone had made the hard decision.

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Refusing to make that choice, while knowing it is the only chance there is, is like spitting in the face of all those who died in that final assault to let Shepard enter the Citadel. How is that not against Paragon Shepard's principles? People willing to sacrifice so much for the principles are fanatics.

Also, as far as I understand Catalyst is somehow bound by Shepard's decision, he can't refuse him. So if Shepard refuses him, what happens next? Shepard's knows very well he can't leave Citadel on his own, being wounded. He just looks up, watches his allies, people who trusted him and does nothing? Or shouts to Catakiddo: "wait, I changed my mind!", or simply does one of the required actions? Or shoots himself? How in your opinion last minutes of refusing Shepard's life look like?

I don't think this ending (or rather, glorified critical failure screen) should be in the game, since it doesn't end the game, it leaves time for some action, and Shepard isn't really the one to just sit there and do nothing.

And commiting genocide and co-existing/controlling the Reapers is not spitting to the faces of the people who died?

It's not, because it is the lesser evil. It's like Garrus example - 10 billion here, 20 billion here, you have to pick your poison. 300 000 Batarians versus the galaxy? Sorry Batarians. All Geth versus the galaxy? Sorry Geth, I like you, but Earth is more important for me and I get every other organic as a bonus. Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire? Sorry Ash/Alenko, I have to pick one. You always pick what you consider lesser evil, now you just have to do it again. You don't trust Catakiddo and you don't know what will happen? Well, you DO know what will happen if you don't pick, so it's worth the risk anyway.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Xilizhra wrote...

No, I'm fighting for what the galaxy agreed to do, kill Reapers.

Also, most people aren't willing to commit genocide to win a war, do something like control your enemy which you've been against the whole time, or do what your enemy wanted to do. so your point is?

As a matter of fact, if it was that or have everyone die, I'm certain that most people would do any of those, or at least want them to be done. True, they may be too cowardly to do so if it was their choice alone, but it's what they'd want and would be happy, or at least relieved, to see done and know that someone had made the hard decision.

And how does that justify it doing it? Your arguement is since someone else would have done it, it means therefore is the correct choice.

[D24O]

Oh boy, this thread just took a terrible turn.

[Xilizhra]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No, I'm fighting for what the galaxy agreed to do, kill Reapers.

Also, most people aren't willing to commit genocide to win a war, do something like control your enemy which you've been against the whole time, or do what your enemy wanted to do. so your point is?

As a matter of fact, if it was that or have everyone die, I'm certain that most people would do any of those, or at least want them to be done. True, they may be too cowardly to do so if it was their choice alone, but it's what they'd want and would be happy, or at least relieved, to see done and know that someone had made the hard decision.

And how does that justify it doing it? Your arguement is since someone else would have done it, it means therefore is the correct choice.

So your argument, at first, is that it's justified to let everyone die because everyone was fighting to beat the Reapers perfectly. Then, when I say they weren't, in fact, fighting for that, it no longer matters what they were fighting for? What does matter, then? What you alone were fighting for? What makes you more important than the whole galaxy?