467 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

RDSFirebane wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Shepard knows very well what is going to happen. How can you even argue about it - it is said all the time by everyone. It turns out that practically all "Refusal" people are in denial about the ability of allied forces to defeat the Reapers and instead build some headcanon. Can't really discuss with headcanon.

I'm not useing head cannon at all its a 50/50 guess I'm sorry do we need to make a list of all the impossiple things done in Me 1 and 2 amd then revisit 3 stateing how the reapers are impossiple to beat plz it came down to the writer decided what would happen and that's it.

also "nothing is impossiple only highly improbable" - quantum mechanics

Crucible is that factor that makes impossible becoming possible. You want another one?

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Looks like controllers, destroyers and synthesizers all hate refusal equally

I would pick synthesis over refusal any day, even if I don't understand it and find it.... way too "magical".

Destroy is my pragmatist Renegade choice.

Control is my idealist Paragon choice.

There is absolutely no way Control is a paragon choice at all.  My Shepard was almost 100% paragon and said things that no paragon Shepard would.  And no paragon Shepard would force people to "live" with the things that killed their families or destroyed their planets-things that are running around with people goo in them.  I don't care how good they are at fixing things and I certainly don't want  them enforcing the peace.  And the Shepard that controls the reapers is no longer Shepard anymore.  A person is not just their intelligence and their attitude is based partly on emotions.  Shreaper has not emotions, merely thought and memory.  No nuance.  If there's a conflict or a dispute, reapers would intervene-and what would they do, scare people into not fighting?  Or would they have to kill some people.  Talk  about nightmares.  I don't care if they are now nicer ex-mass murderers.  I wouldn't want them around. 

I can envision a lot of good people not wanting them alive-Hackett being one of them.  He would think Shepard screwed up and no one would just suddenly stop fighting them.  You have to imagine what happens as Shepard assumes control.  His/her emotions are gone, s/he can't communicate and tell anyone the reapers are their buddies now.  The reapers may stop fighting, but the galaxy wouldn't.  Some people never would stop fighting them.  And Hackett explicitly tells Shepard you can't and shouldn't try to control them, so does Anderson. 

I don't even think it's a renegade thing to do.  If a renegade were faced with these choices s/he would either refuse or would try to get back to the Normandy or some other ship and get out of there to go hide somewhere and have fun till it's all over.  A renegade certainly wouldn't get past the "I control the reapers" thing.

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Shepard knows very well what is going to happen. How can you even argue about it - it is said all the time by everyone. It turns out that practically all "Refusal" people are in denial about the ability of allied forces to defeat the Reapers and instead build some headcanon. Can't really discuss with headcanon.

I'm not useing head cannon at all its a 50/50 guess I'm sorry do we need to make a list of all the impossiple things done in Me 1 and 2 amd then revisit 3 stateing how the reapers are impossiple to beat plz it came down to the writer decided what would happen and that's it.

also "nothing is impossiple only highly improbable" - quantum mechanics

Crucible is that factor that makes impossible becoming possible. You want another one?

The words Suicide Mission help define the ME universe.  Shepard always viewed the impossible as merely a challenge that has not yet been overcome, but one that will.

The only reason the writers determined to make the goal of ME3 impossible was to create a need for the crucible and this outlandish crappy ending.  They  didn't want to have to do anything else.

[Seival]

RDSFirebane wrote...

Seival wrote...

Soon after facing strong vocal opposition to the endings, lead writer stated that Mass Relays were destroyed forever and Galactic Civilization will find new ways for interstellar travel. But some of us were understanding that was not truth. And then there was EC release.

This is called Damage Control. BioWare don't want people to become very disappointed. They prepare them for understanding. Sometimes giving them "false confirmations" before saying the truth, or avoid saying the truth officially like in case of "IT". "IT" was debunked, but BioWare didn't kill "IT" fans' desire do delude themselves.

and you want me to do what with this? um guess we can talk when something comes out to prove what I said is wrong I think that is where u are going with this?

As I said, look for answers in the game, not in twitter. The answers may not please you, but they are real. And you should deal with it.

[iamweaver]

RDSFirebane wrote...

Seival wrote...

Soon after facing strong vocal opposition to the endings, lead writer stated that Mass Relays were destroyed forever and Galactic Civilization will find new ways for interstellar travel. But some of us were understanding that was not truth. And then there was EC release.

This is called Damage Control. BioWare don't want people to become very disappointed. They prepare them for understanding. Sometimes giving them "false confirmations" before saying the truth, or avoid saying the truth officially like in case of "IT". "IT" was debunked, but BioWare didn't kill "IT" fans' desire do delude themselves.

and you want me to do what with this? um guess we can talk when something comes out to prove what I said is wrong I think that is where u are going with this?

and again... If you are going to use the data in the EC and other sources to make your choice, then refusal doesn;t seel to be the best choice.  There are choices that allow for racial free will and most, if not all, of them surviving. 

[Zardoc]

Why pick Refuse if you can pick Destroy?


Look at it this way: With Destroy, 2 things can happen. You either successfully destroy the Reapers and end the war, or nothing happens. If the first case happens, you win. If the second one happens, you're essentially in the same situation as you are in Refuse. So you could atleast try.

[iamweaver]

pirate1802 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...
You already know the galaxy is lost unless this Crucible McGuffin is used. 

I'm a bit uninitiated, so what is this McGruffin you speak of and what does it mean?

A McGuffin is an undefined "this thing" that everyone wants, or is a source of conflict or drives the plot significantly.  Honestly, it's not completely applicable to the ME3 story, but I'm shoehorning it in anyway, dagnabit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

Modifié par iamweaver, 30 juillet 2012 - 03:01 .

[RDSFirebane]

Seival wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...

Seival wrote...

Soon after facing strong vocal opposition to the endings, lead writer stated that Mass Relays were destroyed forever and Galactic Civilization will find new ways for interstellar travel. But some of us were understanding that was not truth. And then there was EC release.

This is called Damage Control. BioWare don't want people to become very disappointed. They prepare them for understanding. Sometimes giving them "false confirmations" before saying the truth, or avoid saying the truth officially like in case of "IT". "IT" was debunked, but BioWare didn't kill "IT" fans' desire do delude themselves.

and you want me to do what with this? um guess we can talk when something comes out to prove what I said is wrong I think that is where u are going with this?

As I said, look for answers in the game, not in twitter. The answers may not please you, but they are real. And you should deal with it.

 I have delt with it refusal is the besting ending for me and the next race goes on to win you seem to have the issue here not I.

[RDSFirebane]

3DandBeyond wrote...


The words Suicide Mission help define the ME universe.  Shepard always viewed the impossible as merely a challenge that has not yet been overcome, but one that will.

The only reason the writers determined to make the goal of ME3 impossible was to create a need for the crucible and this outlandish crappy ending.  They  didn't want to have to do anything else.

Agreed. I'd try to have a refusal ending conversation with you but we seem to up to our eyes in " This ending sucks" people lol

[incinerator950]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Shepard knows very well what is going to happen. How can you even argue about it - it is said all the time by everyone. It turns out that practically all "Refusal" people are in denial about the ability of allied forces to defeat the Reapers and instead build some headcanon. Can't really discuss with headcanon.

I'm not useing head cannon at all its a 50/50 guess I'm sorry do we need to make a list of all the impossiple things done in Me 1 and 2 amd then revisit 3 stateing how the reapers are impossiple to beat plz it came down to the writer decided what would happen and that's it.

also "nothing is impossiple only highly improbable" - quantum mechanics

Crucible is that factor that makes impossible becoming possible. You want another one?

The words Suicide Mission help define the ME universe.  Shepard always viewed the impossible as merely a challenge that has not yet been overcome, but one that will.

The only reason the writers determined to make the goal of ME3 impossible was to create a need for the crucible and this outlandish crappy ending.  They  didn't want to have to do anything else.

Or that they never had a stable connecting plot which allowed for planned writing to allow anything other than something like this?  To be quite honest, they would need to change the outcome of all three games to even come out with a coherent ending that is reasonable and without a Deus Ex.  

Which is still a tall order.

[Seival]

pirate1802 wrote...

Looks like controllers, destroyers and synthesizers all hate refusal equally

Indeed.

Hold the line, pro-enders!

[RDSFirebane]

incinerator950 wrote...


Or that they never had a stable connecting plot which allowed for planned writing to allow anything other than something like this?  To be quite honest, they would need to change the outcome of all three games to even come out with a coherent ending that is reasonable and without a Deus Ex.  

Which is still a tall order.

idk I was kinda a fan of the old ending that was orginaly leaked but it was also a little on the risky side.

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...

There is absolutely no way Control is a paragon choice at all.  My Shepard was almost 100% paragon and said things that no paragon Shepard would.  And no paragon Shepard would force people to "live" with the things that killed their families or destroyed their planets-things that are running around with people goo in them.  I don't care how good they are at fixing things and I certainly don't want  them enforcing the peace.  And the Shepard that controls the reapers is no longer Shepard anymore.  A person is not just their intelligence and their attitude is based partly on emotions.  Shreaper has not emotions, merely thought and memory.  No nuance.  If there's a conflict or a dispute, reapers would intervene-and what would they do, scare people into not fighting?  Or would they have to kill some people.  Talk  about nightmares.  I don't care if they are now nicer ex-mass murderers.  I wouldn't want them around. 

I can envision a lot of good people not wanting them alive-Hackett being one of them.  He would think Shepard screwed up and no one would just suddenly stop fighting them.  You have to imagine what happens as Shepard assumes control.  His/her emotions are gone, s/he can't communicate and tell anyone the reapers are their buddies now.  The reapers may stop fighting, but the galaxy wouldn't.  Some people never would stop fighting them.  And Hackett explicitly tells Shepard you can't and shouldn't try to control them, so does Anderson. 

I don't even think it's a renegade thing to do.  If a renegade were faced with these choices s/he would either refuse or would try to get back to the Normandy or some other ship and get out of there to go hide somewhere and have fun till it's all over.  A renegade certainly wouldn't get past the "I control the reapers" thing.

If Reapers are controlled in a perfect way, they are not conscious individuals that can be blamed for their actions, but mere tools. Tools are to be used, and if they are used to good or wrong depends on the one using them. It is within your power to get rid of them, you can even have a trial. As far as I remember both Legion and EDI developed emotions, why would Shepard be any different, especially that he knows what emotions are, unlike true synthetics? I expect my Shreaper have the same personality as my Shepard. Why he couldn't communicate? Harbinger can't shut up, Sovereign wasn't exactly a silent type, even lowly Rannoch destroyer had some thoughts to share. Both Hackett and Anderson can be wrong, even Shepard mere seconds before was thinking the same. New data can and should make people change their minds. There are no downsides to Control, if you can trust your Sheaprd.

[incinerator950]

RDSFirebane wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...


Or that they never had a stable connecting plot which allowed for planned writing to allow anything other than something like this?  To be quite honest, they would need to change the outcome of all three games to even come out with a coherent ending that is reasonable and without a Deus Ex.  

Which is still a tall order.

idk I was kinda a fan of the old ending that was orginaly leaked but it was also a little on the risky side.

The old ending was terrible.  The worst writing Drew can accredit his name to next to some of Shepard's ME1 VA from both Hale and Meer.

[RDSFirebane]

Pitznik wrote...

If Reapers are controlled in a perfect way, they are not conscious individuals that can be blamed for their actions, but mere tools. Tools are to be used, and if they are used to good or wrong depends on the one using them. It is within your power to get rid of them, you can even have a trial. As far as I remember both Legion and EDI developed emotions, why would Shepard be any different, especially that he knows what emotions are, unlike true synthetics? I expect my Shreaper have the same personality as my Shepard. Why he couldn't communicate? Harbinger can't shut up, Sovereign wasn't exactly a silent type, even lowly Rannoch destroyer had some thoughts to share. Both Hackett and Anderson can be wrong, even Shepard mere seconds before was thinking the same. New data can and should make people change their minds. There are no downsides to Control, if you can trust your Sheaprd.

I'd like to ask looking at the bold section what stops ur Shep from decideing the catalyst was right and that the cycle should keep going after gaining all of the Reapers knowledge and processing it/ thinking on it for a while?

[Aethyl]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Looks like controllers, destroyers and synthesizers all hate refusal equally

I would pick synthesis over refusal any day, even if I don't understand it and find it.... way too "magical".

Destroy is my pragmatist Renegade choice.

Control is my idealist Paragon choice.

There is absolutely no way Control is a paragon choice at all.  My Shepard was almost 100% paragon and said things that no paragon Shepard would.  And no paragon Shepard would force people to "live" with the things that killed their families or destroyed their planets-things that are running around with people goo in them.  I don't care how good they are at fixing things and I certainly don't want  them enforcing the peace.  And the Shepard that controls the reapers is no longer Shepard anymore.  A person is not just their intelligence and their attitude is based partly on emotions.  Shreaper has not emotions, merely thought and memory.  No nuance.  If there's a conflict or a dispute, reapers would intervene-and what would they do, scare people into not fighting?  Or would they have to kill some people.  Talk  about nightmares.  I don't care if they are now nicer ex-mass murderers.  I wouldn't want them around. 

I can envision a lot of good people not wanting them alive-Hackett being one of them.  He would think Shepard screwed up and no one would just suddenly stop fighting them.  You have to imagine what happens as Shepard assumes control.  His/her emotions are gone, s/he can't communicate and tell anyone the reapers are their buddies now.  The reapers may stop fighting, but the galaxy wouldn't.  Some people never would stop fighting them.  And Hackett explicitly tells Shepard you can't and shouldn't try to control them, so does Anderson. 

I don't even think it's a renegade thing to do.  If a renegade were faced with these choices s/he would either refuse or would try to get back to the Normandy or some other ship and get out of there to go hide somewhere and have fun till it's all over.  A renegade certainly wouldn't get past the "I control the reapers" thing.

Control is blue, so it's Paragon choice.
Destroy is red, so it's Renegade choice.

:happy:

Joke aside, i agree with most of that, and I still think that all those 3 "choices" were terrible, and had no place in the Mass Effect saga.
Refusal dooms you to fail no matter what, so whatever.

Zardoc wrote...

Why pick Refuse if you can pick Destroy?


Look
at it this way: With Destroy, 2 things can happen. You either
successfully destroy the Reapers and end the war, or nothing happens. If
the first case happens, you win. If the second one happens, you're
essentially in the same situation as you are in Refuse. So you could
atleast try.

Well, Destroy was made to be the selfish choice here, you can live, but you will destroy all your synthetics allies because, after all, it can't only target the Reapers themselves.
At least in refuse, everyone goes down the same way, synthetics and organics.

[RDSFirebane]

incinerator950 wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...


Or that they never had a stable connecting plot which allowed for planned writing to allow anything other than something like this?  To be quite honest, they would need to change the outcome of all three games to even come out with a coherent ending that is reasonable and without a Deus Ex.  

Which is still a tall order.

idk I was kinda a fan of the old ending that was orginaly leaked but it was also a little on the risky side.

The old ending was terrible.  The worst writing Drew can accredit his name to next to some of Shepard's ME1 VA from both Hale and Meer.

I'll agree it wasent the best way to have ended it but I kinda think I would have liked it far better then what we got.

[flanny]

Pitznik wrote...

flanny wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

flanny wrote...



that makes no sense as no-one knows about the catalyst how can you begin to design something that alters something you don't know about.

Building and designing a device that noone knows how it works doesn't make any sense either. To come up with it someone, the original designer of the Crucible, had to know about Catalyst or at least deduct his existence. Crucible requires a great deal of suspension of disbelief to take it seriously :/

which, without metagaming, is why you should distrust it.

I do. But I have no other choice. Practically everyone in the galaxy is willing to bet everything on absolute unknown - that means they have absolutely no faith in any different approach. That means inability of allied forces to defeat Reaper is absolutely obvious for them.

I'd always prefer to role the dice and see what happens, it just so happens bioware weighted them to come up snake eyes. At least refusal has a good basis for headcanon

[Pitznik]

RDSFirebane wrote...


I'd like to ask looking at the bold section what stops ur Shep from decideing the catalyst was right and that the cycle should keep going after gaining all of the Reapers knowledge and processing it/ thinking on it for a while?

He doesn't present any proof for that. The reality doesn't confirm his words either. Most of all, I am not there to stop some eternal war between organic and synthetic, even if that is real, this is not my problem, this is Catalyst's problem. Also I am not an amoral AI, I am person and killing everyone to fix some theoretical problem is wrong as much as it can possibly be. My problem are the Reapers trying to kill everything I hold dear. I want to fix this problem, if there will be some synthtic danger in the future, I have trust in people of the future to deal with it on their own, I am not their mommy.

[DirtyPhoenix]

incinerator950 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Looks like controllers, destroyers and synthesizers all hate refusal equally

I don't hate it, I'm just open about admitting it is fan pandering to those who don't want to make the decision that is freely given to them to make the war end.  On lower EMS, the Catalyst openly admits its disdain in allowing you to take Control or Destroy. 

Ok maybe hate was too strong a word. Dislike? Not-love-it-enough? I don't hate it either, not as much as some people hate synthesis anyways. One of my Shepards picked it. Unfortunately she would my the first and last Shepard to refuse. It just doesn't suit me or my Shepards.

Modifié par pirate1802, 30 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .

[Pitznik]

flanny wrote...


I'd always prefer to role the dice and see what happens, it just so happens bioware weighted them to come up snake eyes. At least refusal has a good basis for headcanon

I would respect this decision at the end of ME1, maybe even ME2. But in ME3 everyone tells you from the beginning "the dice ARE weighted" - so I rather look for other solution instead, even if it is not perfect.

[flanny]

Pitznik wrote...

flanny wrote...


I'd always prefer to role the dice and see what happens, it just so happens bioware weighted them to come up snake eyes. At least refusal has a good basis for headcanon

I would respect this decision at the end of ME1, maybe even ME2. But in ME3 everyone tells you from the beginning "the dice ARE weighted" - so I rather look for other solution instead, even if it is not perfect.

you where told the events of ME1 and ME2 were impossible. I mean ME2 is openly called a suicide mission, I think the fact the reapers can't be defeated in the end of ME3 is linked to the contrivance of an ending ans as such doesn't need to be taken seriously, from all i've read in codexs and from what i've seen through the games I believe this cycle stands a chance, maybe not a great chance but a chance none the less. Also I think a pyrrhic victory for the reapers would be better then the atlernative. 

[ThaDPG]

iamweaver wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

But... weren't you chosen to make the decision for the galaxy by a reasonable majority of leaders?  And didn't the leaders who chose you, did so as a matter of choice, using their free will?  And didn't you say that you would stop the reapers, using any means possible?

1. cut it down for space not avoiding your statment.



"Basically, if you assume some level of veracity from the Starchild,
then refuse is only an option if you want to turn traitor and avoid the
task you were chosen to do, in other words playing fickle God by
ignoring the free willed choices of those who trusted you with this
task."

My issue with this is I see the other 3 options also in many ways are betraying one or more groups you've sworn to save. Choseing Refuse is makeing a choice and is no way ignoreing the task I decided to roll the dice sadly the game only allows me to roll snake eyes with my ending.

also Refuse is by far the hardest decsion to chose because of what happens but have a great time paveing your own road to hell with all thouse good intetions you just tried to throw in my face denouceing my free will hand waveing as u call it.

Yeah, sometimes you roll snake eyes.  But hopefully you don't welsh on your bet because of it.

The whole "hell is paved" argument only works if it's just you facing the consequences of your decisions. And you're still missing the point.  When you are chosen as leader, that means that its you who makes the decisions.  You.,  All by your lonesome, without sppending time personally asking everyone who chose you if decision X is right.


What's more - you're actually wrong.  The entire Geth collective chose you to make decisions for you, and volunteered to fight against the reapers, regardless of consequenses - and this is only if you didn't let them get wiped out.  And EDI, the other AI affected by Destroy, personally told you that she was willing to die to stop the reapers.

You have yet to explain how the Control option goes against the free will of folk in the Galaxy.

Exact same thing I've said in other threads, the Geth, and EDI, along with the rest of the united galaxy, were all willing to die to stop the reaper threat, and whether Shepard likes it or not, he has to know that only definitively destroying the Reapers will stop them for good, so knowing that, destroy is the only sensible option, losing 1 species and a good friend to save trillions of lives, the whole galaxy, is a decision that Shepard, whether paragon or renegade, would make.  That decision might haunt him for the rest of his life, but it's the lesser evil of the 4 choices

[Pitznik]

flanny wrote...



you where told the events of ME1 and ME2 were impossible. I mean ME2 is openly called a suicide mission, I think the fact the reapers can't be defeated in the end of ME3 is linked to the contrivance of an ending ans as such doesn't need to be taken seriously, from all i've read in codexs and from what i've seen through the games I believe this cycle stands a chance, maybe not a great chance but a chance none the less. Also I think a pyrrhic victory for the reapers would be better then the atlernative. 

Like I said, I consider the Crucible that factor that can be used to make impossible possible. I know it is not very convincing and rather poorly introduced, but it is all we have. If you weren't willing to use such opportunities in ME1 and ME2, they too would be impossible.

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...


I'd like to ask looking at the bold section what stops ur Shep from decideing the catalyst was right and that the cycle should keep going after gaining all of the Reapers knowledge and processing it/ thinking on it for a while?

He doesn't present any proof for that. The reality doesn't confirm his words either. Most of all, I am not there to stop some eternal war between organic and synthetic, even if that is real, this is not my problem, this is Catalyst's problem. Also I am not an amoral AI, I am person and killing everyone to fix some theoretical problem is wrong as much as it can possibly be. My problem are the Reapers trying to kill everything I hold dear. I want to fix this problem, if there will be some synthtic danger in the future, I have trust in people of the future to deal with it on their own, I am not their mommy.

But if you listen to what Shreaper says with control you become their er, bada** mommy with an attitude.  And she has some rather large buddies that like to "eat" people and that may still need to "eat" people.

Without meta-gaming any Shepard logically would choose to try to fight and would reject the kid-a renegade would just shoot him right as soon as he said "reapers, I am your father".  A paragon might listen and then want to vomit all over him.  And would refuse too.

But I cannot not meta-game, because I can't unsee what it means and I have this image of Hudson and Walters sitting back and laughing at their ****g fans over all that.  So, I tend to exclude it as a choice.  And the last couple times I played ME3, to see again what happens, I have either not played through to the end or not made a decision.  I quit the game.