Aller au contenu

Photo

Petition to Bioware- Victory Through Refusal


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
712 réponses à ce sujet

#501
Dragoonlordz

Dragoonlordz
  • Members
  • 9 920 messages
No refusal = win. Just no.

Get over it already. We had EC that is the only ending choice DLC they said they were doing. Rightly so too. I rather they spend time making SP pre-endgame DLC and you lot stop with the whining over the ending already. You lot got more than most would of given you so give it a rest.We have 3 potential winning choices depending on your view point and one choice losing this cycle but potentially winning next cycle plus one of the choices has maybe Shepard lives as trade off. The refusal ending was done perfectly as it is and currently does not ruin the balance of having to make a tough choice that you struggle with intentionally between the rest.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 juillet 2012 - 10:18 .


#502
Thore2k10

Thore2k10
  • Members
  • 469 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

then what was the point of spending money on a game if you have to imagine the end

You know what happens at the end: the Reapers are defeated with the Crucible.

You're asking for what happens after the end. By definition, that is impossible.

could have saved money and thought up my own
but why should i if i paid them to tell me

You didn't pay them to tell you if Shepard goes on to reunite with LI X and spend the next Y decades having sex or retiring.

You paid them for the Reaper War. Which they gave you.


this is a character based game! the reapers were the enemy/villain but nothing more. you werent invested in the reapers, you learned nothing about their motives over a 100+ hours of gameplay. they were just the unfathomable evil machines of doom and they were good in that role, best villains ever in a video game imho! well,m at least until the last 10-15 minutes, where they were vastly degraded by starjar...

from your perspective star wars would have ended directly after the emperor died, but it didnt, because star wars was never about the emperor. the main characters were luke, han and laia (leia, leaia whatever) and those were the ones the audience cared about. those were the characters the audience wanted to see and what happened to them after the war.

its the same with mass effect! we want to see how and what the characters do after the war! and we want to win this war in a way that makes sense, which the current endings do not imho! 

Modifié par Thore2k10, 21 juillet 2012 - 10:40 .


#503
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Thore2k10 wrote...

this is a character based game!

It's not. It's a story-based game, with Bioware-traditional emphasis on characters.

All Bioware games, however, end with ambiguity over what happens in the future with the characters.

the reapers were the enemy/villain but nothing more. you werent invested in the reapers, you learned nothing about their motives over a 100+ hours of gameplay. they were just the unfathomable evil machines of doom and they were good in that role, best villains ever in a video game imho! well,m at least until the last 10-15 minutes, where they were vastly degraded by starjar...

We learned a significant part of the Reaper's motivations in ME2: that the Reapers are genocidal preservationists.

from your perspective

Free advice for you in the future: if you start an argument with 'from your perspective,' and the other person hasn't actually given their perspective, you are making a strawman argument.

That is a bad thing, and you should feel bad.

star wars would have ended directly after the emperor died, but it didnt, because star wars was never about the emperor. the main characters were luke, han and laia (leia, leaia whatever) and those were the ones the audience cared about. those were the characters the audience wanted to see and what happened to them after the war.

You know what Star Wars doesn't end with?

What happens to the Empire after the Death Star blows up with the Emperor. There are millions or even billions of more worlds, massive fleets, and the Rebel Alliance is still outgunned, and we get no indication of how or even why the system should collapse.

That's a pretty big deal, even if we don't consider what Luke will do with his life next, what Han and Leia will do, and so on. RotJ doesn't end with an indication of what happens 48 hours after the credits start, let alone 48 weeks.

its the same with mass effect! we want to see how and what the characters do after the war!

Your own analogy of Star Wars didn't provide that.

Mass Effect is pretty unambiguous: characters who didn't die are alive to go on and do their own thing, in the traditional Bioware style of protagonists riding off into the sunset.


and we want to win this war in a way that makes sense, which the current endings do not imho!

After ME2, a plot device victory was the only sensible way to beat the Reapers.

#504
3DandBeyond

3DandBeyond
  • Members
  • 7 579 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

then what was the point of spending money on a game if you have to imagine the end

You know what happens at the end: the Reapers are defeated with the Crucible.

You're asking for what happens after the end. By definition, that is impossible.

could have saved money and thought up my own
but why should i if i paid them to tell me

You didn't pay them to tell you if Shepard goes on to reunite with LI X and spend the next Y decades having sex or retiring.

You paid them for the Reaper War. Which they gave you.


Point me to the reaper war and exactly when will we fight to take Earth back.  The list of things they promised that remain unfufilled is vast and varied and one dev did say there would be a reunion.  No one is saying that what you say should even happen, but you do not leave the hero, the face of ME alive or dead (based on the day of the week and what dev is on twitter) in a pile of rubble.  Not in ME.  Nothing like this happened to Zaeed, the Krogan, or anyone else to this extent.  There are others whose stories have not been told, but who was the hero of 3 stories, the main character and the player's avatar?  You don't leave the hero in a pile of rubble, not in this story.  In other stories you can do what you want as long as it fits those stories.  This is ME.

#505
3DandBeyond

3DandBeyond
  • Members
  • 7 579 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's not. It's a story-based game, with Bioware-traditional emphasis on characters.

All Bioware games, however, end with ambiguity over what happens in the future with the characters.


Well, let's see how relevant what happens in other games, even Bioware games is.  The answer, totally irrelevant.  ME is unique.  It carries over character decisions from one game to the next and in it the fate of Shepard is clearly shown in all but one place.

It is character-driven since the most important aspect of the game is Shepard (the player partly becomes Shepard) and the relationships created within it.  The story is formed around the characters.  It is only a story based game because it has a story, but the most important point is that the story is character driven. 

The theme is the build up of relationships with teammates, friends, and LI and even a whole galaxy in order to fight a common foe.  This is more than the traditional emphasis on characters-they supercede the rest of the story in a very real way. 

Want a list of what games ME3 is not?  I know you don't.  So what happens in them does not matter.  What happens in ME is all that matters and ME always showed Shepard's fate, even though they were better suited to be cliff hangers.

#506
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

3DandBeyond wrote...


Point me to the reaper war and exactly when will we fight to take Earth back.

The game, and the last level.

The list of things they promised that remain unfufilled is vast and varied and one dev did say there would be a reunion.

Citation needed.

They could hve, just possibly, said a post-ending reunion was possible.

No one is saying that what you say should even happen, but you do not leave the hero, the face of ME alive or dead (based on the day of the week and what dev is on twitter) in a pile of rubble.  Not in ME.  Nothing like this happened to Zaeed, the Krogan, or anyone else to this extent.

None of the else are in a comparable context either.

Significant characters having ambiguous survival after apparent deaths isn't some travesty to drama. It's not prevalent, but its not unknown either.


  There are others whose stories have not been told, but who was the hero of 3 stories, the main character and the player's avatar?  You don't leave the hero in a pile of rubble, not in this story.  In other stories you can do what you want as long as it fits those stories.  This is ME.

Every story that doesn't end with a character's death faces ambiguity about what happens next. It's the very nature of the 'ride off into the sunset' shindig, leaving it up to the reader to decide whether they go on to have great adventures, retire, or suffer a heart attack five minutes later.

There is no logical end-state to your complaint because there is no universal standard of 'enough.'

#507
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 539 messages

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's not. It's a story-based game, with Bioware-traditional emphasis on characters.

All Bioware games, however, end with ambiguity over what happens in the future with the characters.


Well, let's see how relevant what happens in other games, even Bioware games is.  The answer, totally irrelevant.  ME is unique.  It carries over character decisions from one game to the next and in it the fate of Shepard is clearly shown in all but one place.

It is character-driven since the most important aspect of the game is Shepard (the player partly becomes Shepard) and the relationships created within it.  The story is formed around the characters.  It is only a story based game because it has a story, but the most important point is that the story is character driven. 

The theme is the build up of relationships with teammates, friends, and LI and even a whole galaxy in order to fight a common foe.  This is more than the traditional emphasis on characters-they supercede the rest of the story in a very real way. 

Want a list of what games ME3 is not?  I know you don't.  So what happens in them does not matter.  What happens in ME is all that matters and ME always showed Shepard's fate, even though they were better suited to be cliff hangers.


Considering the narrative of Dragon Age that is being built so far, through multiple characters, I would hardly call Mass Effect unique. 

As for the theme, it is not about building up relationships, although that is a by-product of thongs. The primary themes were always about finding hope through hopefullness situations, self-sacrifice, hard decisions, the dangers of science, inter-galactic politics, and the sythetic/organic question.

As for the question at hand, victory did come through refusal. It just came for those after the human cycle. So Shepard and Liara saved the galaxy in the end, it just took time to see the fruits of their endeavor to occur, and honestly, I thought it was a damn good ending that made sense in terms of the choice given.

#508
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's not. It's a story-based game, with Bioware-traditional emphasis on characters.

All Bioware games, however, end with ambiguity over what happens in the future with the characters.


Well, let's see how relevant what happens in other games, even Bioware games is.  The answer, totally irrelevant.  ME is unique.  It carries over character decisions from one game to the next and in it the fate of Shepard is clearly shown in all but one place.

ME is not unique to the laws of dram or convention.

It is character-driven since the most important aspect of the game is Shepard (the player partly becomes Shepard) and the relationships created within it.  The story is formed around the characters.  It is only a story based game because it has a story, but the most important point is that the story is character driven. 

What you enjoyed most is different from what the driving focus of the game is. ME2 was a character-driven game: the overarching plot was primarily a framing device, while character development was the majority of the content.

That can't be said about ME3. In ME3, the primary focus of the game is the war.

The theme is the build up of relationships with teammates, friends, and LI and even a whole galaxy in order to fight a common foe.  This is more than the traditional emphasis on characters-they supercede the rest of the story in a very real way. 

Not in ME3, because ME3 was focused on the foe. Allies were a theme, but building friendships didn't get you the war-winning alliance: plot developments like the genophage cure, the Citadel coup, and the Big Decision of the Geth/Quarian conflict did.

'Relationships' in ME3 drove the story in the same way that they drove the story in Dragon Age: Origins: they didn't.



Want a list of what games ME3 is not?  I know you don't.  So what happens in them does not matter.  What happens in ME is all that matters and ME always showed Shepard's fate, even though they were better suited to be cliff hangers.

ME never showed Shepard's past, let alone his/her fate. Even the lion's majority of emotional investment with love interests exists solely in the realm of head-canon.

#509
Han Shot First

Han Shot First
  • Members
  • 21 194 messages
No.

Bioware should leave the Refusal ending as it is. Thankfully it won't be changing, since there won't be any more DLC that alters the ending. The Refusal ending worked perfectly fine for what it was designed to do: debunk the indoctrination theory.

That, and conventional victory against the Reapers just isn't possible.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 22 juillet 2012 - 12:01 .


#510
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages
ME1 and ME2 does show Shepards fate in that game, ME3 should have done the samething, but they got lazy

#511
Geneaux486

Geneaux486
  • Members
  • 2 248 messages

AresKeith wrote...
1. only his mind is preserved, the Starbrat says this when it tells of the control option, everything else that was Shepard is gone


His mind = his thoughts, memories, morals, personality, so basically exactly what I initially said.

2. Because the Shepard AI is still Catalyst, and it claims it controls the Reapers, but the Leviathan is rogue.


You don't know the cirucmstances surrounding the Leviathan, nor have you proven that its existence in any way means control won't work.  In fact, as I've pointed out, we see in the resulting cinematic that it completely works.

new possibilities meant the three choices


Complete control being one of them.

#512
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
1. only his mind is preserved, the Starbrat says this when it tells of the control option, everything else that was Shepard is gone


His mind = his thoughts, memories, morals, personality, so basically exactly what I initially said.


2. Because the Shepard AI is still Catalyst, and it claims it controls the Reapers, but the Leviathan is rogue.


You don't know the cirucmstances surrounding the Leviathan, nor have you proven that its existence in any way means control won't work.  In fact, as I've pointed out, we see in the resulting cinematic that it completely works.


new possibilities meant the three choices


Complete control being one of them.


there is really no point in trying to discuss with you since you wanna act stubborn and ignore half of what I say.

I don't know if your trolling or just stubborn

#513
Father_Jerusalem

Father_Jerusalem
  • Members
  • 2 780 messages

liggy002 wrote...

Nero Narmeril wrote...

I found at least four quotes from game saying the Reapers cannot be defeat conventionaly (Hackett, EDI, Garrus, Liara), so how do you imagine this?


Maybe they're all wrong.  So, because of who they are, they must be right?


Try it and see. 

Oh. You mean they were actually right all along, and you just doomed every advanced life form in the galaxy to either a horrible horrible death or existence as a Reaper/Reaper minion?

Sad for you.

#514
Father_Jerusalem

Father_Jerusalem
  • Members
  • 2 780 messages

RiouHotaru wrote...

Breaking news:

Fans hate player agency.

People don't want to decide for themselves what happens to their Shepard, they want Bioware to tell them.

Even after knowing the galaxy turns out alright, it's still not explicit enough


Pretty much this, unfortunately. 

#515
Father_Jerusalem

Father_Jerusalem
  • Members
  • 2 780 messages

AresKeith wrote...

ME1 and ME2 does show Shepards fate in that game, ME3 should have done the samething, but they got lazy


You mean like in Control where he dies and becomes an AI to control the Reapers?

Or in Synthesis where he dies in order to be the template for Synthesis?

Or low EMS Destroy, where he dies?

Or high EMS Destroy, where he doesn't die?

Oh if ONLY ME3 had shown you Shepard's fate. IF ONLY, I tells ya.

Curse you BioWare! Cuuuuuuurse you! *shakes fist and rages at the heavens*

#516
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 698 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You know what Star Wars doesn't end with?

What happens to the Empire after the Death Star blows up with the Emperor. There are millions or even billions of more worlds, massive fleets, and the Rebel Alliance is still outgunned, and we get no indication of how or even why the system should collapse.

That's a pretty big deal, even if we don't consider what Luke will do with his life next, what Han and Leia will do, and so on. RotJ doesn't end with an indication of what happens 48 hours after the credits start, let alone 48 weeks.


Come to think of it, according to the EU doesn't the war just drag on for a long anticlimactic time?

#517
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 698 messages

3DandBeyond wrote...

Point me to the reaper war and exactly when will we fight to take Earth back.  


I know I posted something about this upthread, but I'm still certain that I played some game with a big battle on Earth where I was trying to liberate the planet from genocidal alien robots. And as I recall, the battle ended with the genocidal alien robots being defeated.

#518
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 698 messages

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
I will repeat it again.  The crucible was originally supposed to be a dark energy weapon which could manipulate Mass effect fields and lower the mass of objects in the field.  Reapers on a planet lower their mass which weakens their kinetic barriers making them more vulnerable.  So, had the crucible been used to create dark energy to lower the mass of reapers and weaken their barriers they might have been more vulnerable.


Would it also have stopped the Reapers from just running away out of  range until they could fix their barriers? Or maybe hand them the Idiot Ball (like in Independence Day) so they stand there and fight even though they're suddenly at a disadvantage?


It lowers their mass-I believe there is something about their speed and all related to that in the codex as to their vulnerabilities (they do have them).  What is out of range?  Do you know how far said dark energy crucible will fire?


I thought the proposal was to use the Catalyst to weaken the Reapers and then destroy them with conventional weapons, rather than have the Catalyst be a big Kill All Reapers button. So by "range " I mean the range of the conventional weapons.

Note that reducing the Reapers' mass would make them even faster, but since they can already outrun Citadel forces that isn't much of a disadvantage. But it still leaves you with the problem of forcing them to stand and fight if they don't want to. Even if the Crucible can reduce the barriers of all Reapers everywhere and keep them reduced forever, it still leaves the Reapers with the option of avoiding Citadel fleets altogether and nuking  planets until the galactic economy collapses and the Citadel fleets starve.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 juillet 2012 - 02:02 .


#519
The_Crazy_Hand

The_Crazy_Hand
  • Members
  • 989 messages

Dragoonlordz wrote...

No refusal = win. Just no.

Get over it already. We had EC that is the only ending choice DLC they said they were doing. Rightly so too. I rather they spend time making SP pre-endgame DLC and you lot stop with the whining over the ending already. You lot got more than most would of given you so give it a rest.We have 3 potential winning choices depending on your view point and one choice losing this cycle but potentially winning next cycle plus one of the choices has maybe Shepard lives as trade off. The refusal ending was done perfectly as it is and currently does not ruin the balance of having to make a tough choice that you struggle with intentionally between the rest.


Actually that's not true, other game companies have done more over smaller fan reactions.  Because they understood the principle that you do not comprimise with customers, you give in so that they'll kep buying.

#520
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You know what Star Wars doesn't end with?

What happens to the Empire after the Death Star blows up with the Emperor. There are millions or even billions of more worlds, massive fleets, and the Rebel Alliance is still outgunned, and we get no indication of how or even why the system should collapse.

That's a pretty big deal, even if we don't consider what Luke will do with his life next, what Han and Leia will do, and so on. RotJ doesn't end with an indication of what happens 48 hours after the credits start, let alone 48 weeks.


Come to think of it, according to the EU doesn't the war just drag on for a long anticlimactic time?

Yes and no. There's conflict for the next two decades or so, but it's pretty much resolved within... five years?

By the EU, the Empire effectively breaks apart as Moffs and Warlords, controlling various systems and fleets, begin to fight eachother as much as the Rebels. Besides a few strong contenders, it's mostly a case of the Alliance taking one foe at a time, usually with the Alliance being the stronger one.

It's been awhile, but IIRC...

Ysanne Isard, Director of Imperial Intelligence, took over Coruscant following the Emperor's Death. She was the defacto leader of the central part of the Empire, by virtue of controlling the capital, but didn't have that much military strength. After the fall of Coruscant, which she laced with an alien-killing plague to stress the resources of the Alliance, her strength rested primarily in controlling the Bacta-homeworld Thyferra and her own Super Star Destroyer.

In capturing Coruscant and Thyferra, the Rebel Alliance transitioned into the New Republic, moving from an insurgency to claiming legitimacy as the ruling power.


Warlord Zsinj was the most powerful warlord in the post-Emperor Empire, at his peak controlling something like a third of the galaxy and rivaling both the New Republic and the rest of the Empire. Zsinj had numerous fleets, an extensive web of alliances and monetary backing from the more independent systems, as well as a super star destroyer. He died after the Republic struck an alliance with the Hapes Cluster, and without him his one-pony show fell apart.

As the greatest of the Warlords, the fall of Zsinj marked the end of the Warlord Era in the sense of whether the Warlords would take over the galaxy and leave the Republic a minor force, and marked the last time in the Republic fought a near-equal force of Imperials. For the most part afterwards, the Republic was the big side either forcing a capitulation or capture of smaller systems.


The last Imperial threat, about a decade after Endor, was Grand Admiral Thrawn. Thrawn's forces were smaller, but his tactics were superior. Combined with the rediscovery and usage of cloning facilities, as well as the recovery of a lost Clone Wars-era fleet, Thrawn was a viable threat to the New Republic. Thrawn conducted a number of major victories and operations against the Republic, even threatening Coruscant, until he was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards.

Thrawn was the last credible Imperial military threat the Republic faced, though smaller warlords and the occassional Palpatine-era super-weapons popped up here and there. After Thrawn, most of the Republic's crisis were political in nature, until the arrival of the Yuuzhan Vong.

#521
Father_Jerusalem

Father_Jerusalem
  • Members
  • 2 780 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You know what Star Wars doesn't end with?

What happens to the Empire after the Death Star blows up with the Emperor. There are millions or even billions of more worlds, massive fleets, and the Rebel Alliance is still outgunned, and we get no indication of how or even why the system should collapse.

That's a pretty big deal, even if we don't consider what Luke will do with his life next, what Han and Leia will do, and so on. RotJ doesn't end with an indication of what happens 48 hours after the credits start, let alone 48 weeks.


Come to think of it, according to the EU doesn't the war just drag on for a long anticlimactic time?


Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

And, here's the thing, it goes on AGAIN in the FUTURE. Sith vs Jedi, Empire vs Republic, Skywalker vs the Emperor.... just keeps going round and round and round.

#522
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 698 messages
Reminds me of Dr. Manhattan's line. "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 juillet 2012 - 02:33 .


#523
darthoptimus003

darthoptimus003
  • Members
  • 680 messages

Dragoonlordz wrote...

No refusal = win. Just no.

Get over it already. We had EC that is the only ending choice DLC they said they were doing. Rightly so too. I rather they spend time making SP pre-endgame DLC and you lot stop with the whining over the ending already. You lot got more than most would of given you so give it a rest.We have 3 potential winning choices depending on your view point and one choice losing this cycle but potentially winning next cycle plus one of the choices has maybe Shepard lives as trade off. The refusal ending was done perfectly as it is and currently does not ruin the balance of having to make a tough choice that you struggle with intentionally between the rest.

um no i wont quit complaining because these chocies go against everything estblished in the series

#524
Geneaux486

Geneaux486
  • Members
  • 2 248 messages

AresKeith wrote...
I don't know if your trolling or just stubborn


Neither, I'm right.

You say Shepard wasn't preserved.  This is untrue according to the game itself, his mind was preserved.

You say Leviathan invalidates the Control option.  This is based on nothing as you don't know any more about the Leviathan DLC than any of us, nor is there any reason to jump to the conclusion that Leviathan's existence has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of a superweapon that had not yet been used.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 22 juillet 2012 - 06:17 .


#525
Taboo

Taboo
  • Members
  • 20 234 messages
You uh, are told twice before you go to the Citadel for the first time that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

I would think that this would sink in eventually...