236 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Refuse is the worst of all endings. The egotistical romantic’s ending.

You, yes you, killed everyone in the most horrific way possible.

…

I don’t really see any point in trying to debate the endings in any context but roleplaying. Everything else is completely subjective, and everyone’s standards are completely different. It’s like debating which flavor of ice cream is best.

Modifié par lillitheris, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:49 .

[Ryzaki]

Love Refuse.

3rd favorite ending (including the variations).

[Galbrant]

Refusal is setting out what Shepard has done time and again. Defy the Reapers and win the war on our own terms. Never give up, never surrender! Submitting to the Catalyst is the real coward choice and easiest way out.

But for some God damn reason rocks keeps falling out of space every time I pick refusal and that's not cool Bioware.

[iamweaver]

Wait - let me understand.

Refuse: Deliberately letting all advanced civilizations in the galaxy, synthetic and organic, be victims of genocide, hoping that a later cycle (who knows - 1, 2, 100 cycles down the road) will genocide only the Reapers, with all advanced civilizations between now and then being genocided. And with the Catalyst knowing that plans for the Crucible are probably going to survive - especially after it just told you that it make an error assuming that they didn't, so it probably wouldn't make that mistake again.

This is somehow better than Destroy: Let all current synthetic races in the Galaxy be destroyed, along with the reapers?

When I finished the game late last night, I thought it clear that all the options were horrid. And that's a good thing. War is stupendously, mind-bogglingly horrible. I'm just not convinced that choosing "Refuse" beats "Destroy".

I ended up deciding to force the galactic races into a form of synergy, mostly because the idea of any single human being in control of all that power simply never works ("Control" option), and after finding that the suspicions about how the Reapers were created made, the idea of eliminating everything every galactic culture for millions of years achieved seems simply too criminal to accept.

But regardless, I liked the ending - because there were no "good" choices, as is clear from debates like this one.

[Ryzaki]

Ugh. War is horrible I know that.

This is Mockingjay all the hell over again. Developers get so caught up in their messages themes and preaching that the ending turns to ****.

[iamweaver]

I'm not so sure there was a lot of preaching, other than "war is bad", Ryzaki. Every ending, even the "worst", ultimately comes out OK. Some involve more collateral damage than others, it looks like - but there aren't any that end in utter hopelessness and eternal defeat.

[jsadalia]

In Refuse, Shepard gets to go down fighting... and almost everyone else gets to die screaming in a tube.

It's surrender to ego and madness. Shepard's mission is not to fight the Reapers, it's to stop the Reapers. Refusal is utter abject failure.

[Ryzaki]

iamweaver wrote...

I'm not so sure there was a lot of preaching, other than "war is bad", Ryzaki. Every ending, even the "worst", ultimately comes out OK. Some involve more collateral damage than others, it looks like - but there aren't any that end in utter hopelessness and eternal defeat.

War is bad is preaching enough. And...how does bad destroy come out okay? It pretty much turns it into Fallout in space. How is that good? 

That and victory comes at a terrible cost (either the loss of Shep's humanity, the validation of the Reapers reaping, or through Shep sacrificing his own allies to destroy the Reapers). Bleh.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:00 .

[wright1978]

Ryzaki wrote...

Love Refuse.

3rd favorite ending (including the variations).

Yeah probably my third favourite now. Love the adding of it because it really returns the sense of player agency. Now just have to create and import a Shep who is stubborn as a mule and utterly idealistic who will pick it.

[iamweaver]

Ryzaki wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

I'm not so sure there was a lot of preaching, other than "war is bad", Ryzaki. Every ending, even the "worst", ultimately comes out OK. Some involve more collateral damage than others, it looks like - but there aren't any that end in utter hopelessness and eternal defeat.

War is bad is preaching enough. And...how does bad destroy come out okay? It pretty much turns it into Fallout in space. How is that good? 

That and victory comes at a terrible cost (either the loss of Shep's humanity, the validation of the Reapers reaping, or through Shep sacrificing his own allies to destroy the Reapers). Bleh.

I was confused about this until I researched it a bit on masseffect.wikia.  I see - so deliberately entering the fight unprepared is disastrous.  Well, that's the fault of the shepherd who didn't prepare.  He failed in his mission to start with.

But even if all earth is destroyed - the reapers are defeated, and though the Geth are wiped out (if they weren't already), humanity as a race still exists, as do the other races.  This istill beats all civilizations being shoved into a tube and getting dissolved.

So yes - victory comes at a horrendous cost. But hope is preserved, and the reapers are defeated, and the cycle is broken.

[dreman9999]

 


...Basicly...

[dreman9999]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ugh. War is horrible I know that.

This is Mockingjay all the hell over again. Developers get so caught up in their messages themes and preaching that the ending turns to ****.

But that's how wars are. You can't fault them for being truthful. The entire point of ME is to put the player into moral conflict with the choices they have. War does that.

[SMichelle]

PoisonMushroom wrote...


I think this is where the metagaming thing comes in again. As I said before Refuse is the same choice my paragon Shepard has always been making, it's only that in this instance that it kills you. 
He refused Saren's offers to join with Sovereign in what essentially sounds like Synthesis anyway. He refused TIMs views on Control. The player might know that refuse leads to death, but Shepard doesn't. Refuse isn't the same as giving in.

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.

I don't know why people who pick refuse say all the rest of us must be metagaming.  The first time I played through and the Catalyst said "you can Destroy us..." I said; "okay".  My Shepard is paragon and her whole raison d'etre has been to stop the Reapers at any cost.

Obviously, the first time I played through there was no Refuse ending.  However, even if there had been, MY Shepard would still/and will always pick Destroy.  I didn't trust the Catalyst, but what were Shepard's options?  Take to long - Mission Fail.  Furthermore we are told that conventional victory is NOT possible.  Countless cycles have tried to defeat the Reapers conventionally and failed.  Each and every one.  That's how you know that it won't succeed.  The only thing that makes this cycle any different from all of those that failed - is the Crucible was completed.  I know we'd all like to think our Shepard is Superman, (I mean she did survive the vacuum of space and all ) but Shepard can not defeat the Reapers without the Crucible.

I was not metagaming.  The only option for my Shepard is Destroy.  If you want to pick Refuse, more power to you - your decision doesn't affect me at all.  However, don't say that my choice is any less valid.

[memorysquid]

lillitheris wrote...

Refuse is the worst of all endings. The egotistical romantic’s ending.

You, yes you, killed everyone in the most horrific way possible.

…

I don’t really see any point in trying to debate the endings in any context but roleplaying. Everything else is completely subjective, and everyone’s standards are completely different. It’s like debating which flavor of ice cream is best.

A lot, I would argue most of the people on BSN, don't look at it that way.  They look at the endings as an aesthetic reflection of one's ethical preferences.  So rather than you saying "vanilla tastes best" and me saying "chocolate tastes best" and no disagreement is involved, this is more along the lines of you saying "galactic genocide is preferable to tough moral decision making" and me disagreeing vehemently and most importantly at most one of us can be right.

[eye basher]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It doesn't fit my Shepard, who's greatly Paragon, of course, but also capable of understanding that sometimes, you just can't win perfectly. It would have been ideal to simply disable Sovereign so that it didn't have to explode and kill a bunch of people on the Citadel with its debris, but we couldn't do that; it didn't mean we refused to fight Sovereign. It would have been ideal to save the colonists from the Collector base, but we couldn't do that; it didn't mean we refused to bring down the Collectors. This decision is no different, and you can't interact with an ideal as if it was reality if you want to succeed at anything.

I think this is where the metagaming thing comes in again. As I said before Refuse is the same choice my paragon Shepard has always been making, it's only that in this instance that it kills you. 
He refused Saren's offers to join with Sovereign in what essentially sounds like Synthesis anyway. He refused TIMs views on Control. The player might know that refuse leads to death, but Shepard doesn't. Refuse isn't the same as giving in.

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.

There is no losing the right way there's just losing you can make any excuse you want but in the end your still dying there in no moral high ground when beating the reapers no matter what you'll be standing in a pile of corpses. But then again you are standing in a pile of corpses so there you moral high ground.

[Ryzaki]

@iamweaver: still annyingljy preachy

[iamweaver]

So what should the ending look like, Ryzaki?

There's no doubt that both the "Destroy" and "Control" options belong on the plate. Are you saying there should have been another option, or that the ending scenes should be different? Or that the flavor of the end should be similar to that of ME1, with you getting the chance to do some kind of firefight that eliminates the reapers once and for all, without all the moralizing? My problem there is that moralizing has been a major part of the game since ME1.

[memorysquid]

Ryzaki wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

I'm not so sure there was a lot of preaching, other than "war is bad", Ryzaki. Every ending, even the "worst", ultimately comes out OK. Some involve more collateral damage than others, it looks like - but there aren't any that end in utter hopelessness and eternal defeat.

War is bad is preaching enough. And...how does bad destroy come out okay? It pretty much turns it into Fallout in space. How is that good? 

That and victory comes at a terrible cost (either the loss of Shep's humanity, the validation of the Reapers reaping, or through Shep sacrificing his own allies to destroy the Reapers). Bleh.

How does turning anything into Fallout in space not come out okay? 

Synthesis stops Reaping, it doesn't validate it.  It is proof it was a bad idea, unnecessary.

[Reorte]

memorysquid wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

I don’t really see any point in trying to debate the endings in any context but roleplaying. Everything else is completely subjective, and everyone’s standards are completely different. It’s like debating which flavor of ice cream is best.

A lot, I would argue most of the people on BSN, don't look at it that way.  They look at the endings as an aesthetic reflection of one's ethical preferences.  So rather than you saying "vanilla tastes best" and me saying "chocolate tastes best" and no disagreement is involved, this is more along the lines of you saying "galactic genocide is preferable to tough moral decision making" and me disagreeing vehemently and most importantly at most one of us can be right.

^ This. Even though I think I've completely disagreed with you on some other threads (can't recall whether it was over ending choice or not though) I completely agree with this.

[Pacifien]

Ryzaki wrote...
That and victory comes at a terrible cost (either the loss of Shep's humanity, the validation of the Reapers reaping, or through Shep sacrificing his own allies to destroy the Reapers). Bleh.

So you didn't like the endings because they were endings with brutal consequences?

I realize that some people wanted Mass Effect to not end on a down note, that playing a game that basically keeps kicking them in the gut and leaves them feeling kicked in the gut is simply not their cup of tea. In fact, I'd say what the developers did with their ending only appeals to a very small niche of people, which is why I sort of respect them for doing it. I mean, you can argue all you want that they ruined several years of your life by pulling that stunt, but I personally respect it. This is because I belong to that very small niche of people. I like a story about war where the victors look at each other and say "how come it feels like we didn't win?"

[iamweaver]

memorysquid wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

I'm not so sure there was a lot of preaching, other than "war is bad", Ryzaki. Every ending, even the "worst", ultimately comes out OK. Some involve more collateral damage than others, it looks like - but there aren't any that end in utter hopelessness and eternal defeat.

War is bad is preaching enough. And...how does bad destroy come out okay? It pretty much turns it into Fallout in space. How is that good? 

That and victory comes at a terrible cost (either the loss of Shep's humanity, the validation of the Reapers reaping, or through Shep sacrificing his own allies to destroy the Reapers). Bleh.

How does turning anything into Fallout in space not come out okay? 

Synthesis stops Reaping, it doesn't validate it.  It is proof it was a bad idea, unnecessary.

Assuming you buy the logic involved, it shows the real tragedy of the last millions of years.  That had the Catalyst/Reaper construct waited, they might have found other organic races who were at the point where they could handle the synthesis process, with both sides gaining something that they lacked.  Though for me, this logic is a bit suspect, as EDI and Legion at the end of his existance were able to develop into a fully-actualized creature without synthesis.

[iamweaver]

Pacifien wrote...

I realize that some people wanted Mass Effect to not end on a down note, that playing a game that basically keeps kicking them in the gut and leaves them feeling kicked in the gut is simply not their cup of tea. In fact, I'd say what the developers did with their ending only appeals to a very small niche of people, which is why I sort of respect them for doing it. I mean, you can argue all you want that they ruined several years of your life by pulling that stunt, but I personally respect it. This is because I belong to that very small niche of people. I like a story about war where the victors look at each other and say "how come it feels like we didn't win?"

Any game that has conversations involving children made orphans, has you bringing death poetry to a grieving spouse, shows kids being shot down, and contains no feel-good moments to date shouldn't be expected to exit on a light note.

I didn't break down and get ME3 because I thought it would be a good FPS - I'm pretty old, and generally do poorly at twitch games .  I did so because I liked the way the story created characters and a story that grew with you through ME1&2.  Now that I've finally played it, I'm not so sure I needed to wait until the cutscenes were added - but IMO it was still worth the wait.

[Nashiktal]

The refuse ending is the only ending that retains even a small fraction of Mass Effect themes throughout the series, and while I won't say I approve of it, I will say that if I ever do play Mass Effect 3 single player again... That is the only one I can bring myself to choose.

[iamweaver]

Nashiktal wrote...

<snip>The refuse ending is the only ending that retains even a small fraction of Mass Effect themes throughout the series <snip>

The game is designed so that Shepherd already has to choose whether the Geth or Quarians get genocided without enough paragon/renegate points. In ME2, you had a number of (renegade) Krogan genocide options and comments. So it might not match your playstyle, but it's clearly built into ME.

In fact, if you already chose the Quarians over the Geth, the Destroy option is a complete no-brainer.  Your mission was to stop the Reapers. The galactic civilizations signed on knowing that they were likely to be sacrificed for that. I can't see how deciding that the mission must fail because it will hurt someone is a the only right choice.

Modifié par iamweaver, 08 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[lillitheris]

Nashiktal wrote...

The refuse ending is the only ending that retains even a small fraction of Mass Effect themes throughout the series, and while I won't say I approve of it, I will say that if I ever do play Mass Effect 3 single player again... That is the only one I can bring myself to choose.

I suppose, if you enjoy killing everybody.