467 réponses à ce sujet

[incinerator950]

RDSFirebane wrote...

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.

Which were Destroy Reapers, side with Reapers to make a human Reaper, and maybe something else?  Or did you just want some random bull**** to have an ending where you get the prospect of making blue babies?  Yes, thats what you people want, another romantic ending or another Good Game Ceremony that Bioware has had for around three or more titles.  <_<

[3DandBeyond]

Seival wrote...

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.

Perhaps you missed the part where Bioware uses twitter to change the meaning of things in the game or to even kill off certain characters like Emily Wong.

They used twitter to say relays exploding didn't destroy star systems but Walters wrote the Arrival to show that they do.  They used twitter to say that Shepard lives in the torso ending and that there would be a reunion and then said Shepard died in that and now they say Shepard could live or die.

They use twitter for everything instead of knowing what was previously in their own stories.  If they can change it using twitter they don't need to know the previous story.  If you look for answers in the game and it contradicts something the kid says or that's in the ending, chances are it's been retconned on twitter.

[RDSFirebane]

incinerator950 wrote...

Which were Destroy Reapers, side with Reapers to make a human Reaper, and maybe something else?  Or did you just want some random bull**** to have an ending where you get the prospect of making blue babies?  Yes, thats what you people want, another romantic ending or another Good Game Ceremony that Bioware has had for around three or more titles.  <_<

wow you really jumped the gun didnt ya buddie and no never even thought about a happy ending and I was more of a ashly/miranda/miranda man myself but hey if you like the blue girl good for you.

[Wayning_Star]

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. 

lol, I don't "hate" anyones decision in the game to 'just say no to catalysts',it's an option. I just felt that it doesn't fit the game so much as it fits the player conception of the game mechanics. Pirate is just trying to 'meta game' others plot felt decision making. In the game, we really don't destroy or control the reapers, we either just delay them/cycle or we become one of them and put Shepard in a forever loop of demi godness. No meta gaming there either.

I only figure synthesis because the game points in that direction for the 'best case' scenerio for the MEU. Technically, they started the problem themselves and carried it to any conclusion by existing in the MEU dependent on everything reaper tech. Or,depending on what I call 'hints' to an 'undertow' of some other 'force' in the game piddling with the mechanics of the MEU reality. This can be done with or without meta gaming. It's just a matter of observation. Throughout the game Shepard is approached and/or contacted by the reapers,or the like, its what set off the IT folks to believe that the whole thing is a dream state and nothing is won and Shep is indoctrinated. But the game pulls back from that eventually,limiting the degree of which Shep is 'controlled'. Shepard is 'guided' by someone/something with his innate ability(unexplained in the game) to communicate with reapers. Saren and the IM are indoctrinated, so they can communicate, but they are not 'independent' as Shepard remains.
 
This is where the IT confusion starts but ends with the crucible and the catalyst actually being 'presented' with alternate paths. All Shep does is choose those paths for the catalyst because that is what the crucible made possible. But this is just another 'hint'(to me anyways) that the crucible was there because the original creators somehow made it possible. There are other plot thickeners, like Shepards resuscitation by an indoctrinated illusive man, but attacked and killed by indoctrinated collectors. These opposing plot lines infer that the catalyst isn't calling 'all the shots' and Shepard is being helped by mysterious and hidden, possibly allies, possible benevolent forces, but then they could just want the reapers to 'go away' so they/it can return to the MEU. To meta game this, the story of Leviathan floating around the outer edges of the real time universe of lore and tell secrets, tends to infer another 'cast member' to the game, yet undisclosed.

Also, to note, that observation in the game is what makes or breaks user conception of what is going on and how to handle the end game, The less in game data we have the less we can assemble a cogent realization of what and why any choice is best for the game/MEU and the user/players. I also suspect that playing online games and getting high returns will probably alter the actual SP game,as the Devs have 'hinted' at, which is meta gameing.In the end, with so much confusion from the game, its a no brainer that many are totally jinxed by this and just walk away in anger generated by their feeling of inablitity to make any decision that merits their involvment playing the game. So I figure the walk away option(added post game or with the EC) totally meta game choice.

[KotorEffect3]

Not using the only weapon that can put down the reapers for good is stupid. Don't need to metagame to know that refuse is just plain idiotic

[Batnat]

RDSFirebane wrote...

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

^This...

Kinda strange, seeing as how many people wished to be able to have the option for Refuse pre-EC. And now it´s suddenly all wrong because..."OMG, total annihilation!" ...can´t have that...so, RGB it is...  

NOW all I hear is victory beeing impossible...what did those who wanted to refuse expect to get...it couldn´t be win, ´cause that´s just not possible...couldn´t be a loss either obviously...I´m confused...

Most the pro-Refusal people probably gave up on ME after they got the kick to the quads seeing the outcome.

Naturally I would enjoy Refuse quite a bit more, if the outcome depended on EMS, and I´m not getting into the argument why or how it COULD be possible. I´m not in the mood to talk against a brick wall. I just agree to disagree with those who think a win-situation in that scenario isn´t possible.  

Having said that...I also like Refuse the way it is...better that than to be forced to bow down to the enemy with every single one of my Sheps...without metagaming the outcome of that option is as much open to speculations than every other one!!!

[Wayning_Star]

the word speculation has almost replaced space magic as the, like, totally 'dis' word for ingame misinformation. Maybe next we can all use meta game disinformation and blame twitter for our endgame decision snafu?

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...
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.

Shepard can't quit, he has too much responsibility on his hump. He has to decide and deal with guilt, if he survives. He doesn't know who Hudson and Walters are.

[3DandBeyond]

RDSFirebane wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

To sacrifice some of the people who put their trust in you to achieve your common goal is reality of war, not betrayal. To suddenly abort your goal despite having everyone else to believe in it and invest in it and give their life for it is betrayal. Refusal is betrayal.

Not when applied to entire races. When your allowing a whole race to die its betrayal cold and simple I promised to save everyone and when I couldnt I gave them the chance to try and save themselves it was the best I could do.

Refusal is the only decision that could logically be construed as self-determination.  It is relying on oneself to try and defeat the enemy, not relying on choices the enemy gives you to survive no matter the cost.

In battle, it's one thing for people to die in making the sacrifice to fight.  In ME3 Shepard is not allowing the geth and EDI to die (even that is wrong if another viable possibility exists).  Shepard is actively choosing that their extermination along with the extermination of a whole race.  This is not a casualty of war, this is genocide.  Before the EC one could have argued there was no choice but to pick from one of the 3 bad options.  Now there is no excuse.

You have 3 bad choices that all ask that you compromise standard known morality in order to accomplish them.  You are also asked to impose a cost on the whole galaxy.  If they want to live they will do so as Shepard decides.  Shepard is a god-given the power by the kid, the enemy.  Which in effect makes Shepard a devil if any of the choices are made because Shepard would be making a deal with the devil.  The cost of this kind of survival is too high. 

The last point is quite true.  If you give people the option to be overrun by reapers, turned into cyborgs, destroy a race of people, and try and fight for themselves-try to cast off reaper influence once and for all on their terms, I think refuse is the clear option.

[Batnat]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Not using the only weapon that can put down the reapers for good is stupid. Don't need to metagame to know that refuse is just plain idiotic

Putting all resources into building a weapon that no previous cycle ever even got to finish, a weapon that no one has any idea what it does and using it because my enemy tells me to is just as idiotic. Just saying...

[DirtyPhoenix]

Wayning_Star wrote...

*epic snip*

Look up, I corrected my mistake.<_<

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
They used twitter to say relays exploding didn't destroy star systems but Walters wrote the Arrival to show that they do.  They used twitter to say that Shepard lives in the torso ending and that there would be a reunion and then said Shepard died in that and now they say Shepard could live or die.

You got a link to the tweet where they said Shep dies in the breath ending? My recollection of the tweet was that it was facetious, obviously so, but I don't have it handy.

As for the relays, is it really your position that the original intent was for the Crucible to induce supernovae in every system with a relay? Or is that just silly rhetoric?

And if that's your actual position, then where did the Normandy land?

[iamweaver]

flanny wrote...

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. 

In ME1, you really didn't have any other optoins but to tag along behind Saren like that unwanted, younger kid brother and hope to catch something.

In ME2, I could never figure out why it was called a suicide mission prior to entering the relay.  Now once you were in there, and you have crash-landed on the base, it looks a little more like suicide, but even then it's really just another mission that actually has a reasonable tactical plan behind it, and a measurable chance of success.

In ME3:

All civilized planets with a spacefaring industrial capability are completely overrun - with the exception of Palaven, which is fighting a doomed, losing battle, despite having the two best ground defence races working in tandem.  This means that on a strategic level, you have no industrial base to rebuild or repair.  And you, as Shep, know this.

The entire galactic fleet has been divided into two forces - one to protect a ground assault, the other to protect the crucible. Both forces have been said to be unable to survive a sustained battle.  And a strategically wise, but tactically foolish choice has been made to drop down both forces where they can be mousetrapped by a superior reaper fleet and be decimated in one battle, rather than dividing them into smaller, but powerful forces to perform guerrilla warfare until the lack of resupply and repair options causes them to die.  This was the plan all along, as it was to set up a superior trap for the Reapers by gathering *their* fleet where the Crucible would destroy them.

So if you assume that the Starchild offered actual choices, what is the advantage to "everyone dies" over "not everyone dies"?

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
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.

Shepard can't quit, he has too much responsibility on his hump. He has to decide and deal with guilt, if he survives. He doesn't know who Hudson and Walters are.

Oh cripe.  Really?  I said I (as in me and not Shepard) can't play it now without meta-gaming it so I won't play the ending ever and if I did I wouldn't make a choice because they are equally evil.

But the real Shepard would choose refuse and want to try and fight.  He wouldn't choose this crap and wouldn't make people live out any fate created by the choices.  The real Shepard wouldn't make a choice offered by the enemy to solve the enemy's problem.  The real Shepard would try for a fight and a possible win on his and the galaxy's terms, not the enemy's.  A renegade would never get past the kid saying, "I control the reapers."  Shepard would shoot the kid at that point.  A paragon would listen and refuse to make one of those choices.

[AlanC9]

Batnat wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Not using the only weapon that can put down the reapers for good is stupid. Don't need to metagame to know that refuse is just plain idiotic

Putting all resources into building a weapon that no previous cycle ever even got to finish, a weapon that no one has any idea what it does and using it because my enemy tells me to is just as idiotic. Just saying...

A plan that might work is better than no plan at all.

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Refusal is the only decision that could logically be construed as self-determination.  It is relying on oneself to try and defeat the enemy, not relying on choices the enemy gives you to survive no matter the cost.

In battle, it's one thing for people to die in making the sacrifice to fight.  In ME3 Shepard is not allowing the geth and EDI to die (even that is wrong if another viable possibility exists).  Shepard is actively choosing that their extermination along with the extermination of a whole race.  This is not a casualty of war, this is genocide.  Before the EC one could have argued there was no choice but to pick from one of the 3 bad options.  Now there is no excuse.

You have 3 bad choices that all ask that you compromise standard known morality in order to accomplish them.  You are also asked to impose a cost on the whole galaxy.  If they want to live they will do so as Shepard decides.  Shepard is a god-given the power by the kid, the enemy.  Which in effect makes Shepard a devil if any of the choices are made because Shepard would be making a deal with the devil.  The cost of this kind of survival is too high. 

The last point is quite true.  If you give people the option to be overrun by reapers, turned into cyborgs, destroy a race of people, and try and fight for themselves-try to cast off reaper influence once and for all on their terms, I think refuse is the clear option.

Is self-determination and abstract morality a value greater than real benefit for billions of people? I'm against stealing in any form, but if someone close to me would be dying from hunger, I would be the first one to go and steal, against my principles and ethic beliefs.

Is deal with the devil, or compromise with the devil any worse than letting the devil call all the shots and just do his thing like he always did, without any input from you?

[KotorEffect3]

Batnat wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Not using the only weapon that can put down the reapers for good is stupid. Don't need to metagame to know that refuse is just plain idiotic

Putting all resources into building a weapon that no previous cycle ever even got to finish, a weapon that no one has any idea what it does and using it because my enemy tells me to is just as idiotic. Just saying...

Except you do and then you don't use it at the last minute so that is why refuse is a stupid decision.  The whole point of the entire battle of the sole system was to deploy and use the crucible.  To me refuse would only make sense if you reject the crucible early on in ME 3 and then you work on an alternative way to destroy the reapers but the game wasn't structured like that.  You spent all of ME 3 gathering fleets and resources for the sole purpose of deploying the crucible.  Not using the crucible means you put everybody else's efforts in vain and for nothing.  All those fleets and soldiers died for nothing because you wouldn't pull the trigger

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

To sacrifice some of the people who put their trust in you to achieve your common goal is reality of war, not betrayal. To suddenly abort your goal despite having everyone else to believe in it and invest in it and give their life for it is betrayal. Refusal is betrayal.

Not when applied to entire races. When your allowing a whole race to die its betrayal cold and simple I promised to save everyone and when I couldnt I gave them the chance to try and save themselves it was the best I could do.

Refusal is the only decision that could logically be construed as self-determination.  It is relying on oneself to try and defeat the enemy, not relying on choices the enemy gives you to survive no matter the cost.

In battle, it's one thing for people to die in making the sacrifice to fight.  In ME3 Shepard is not allowing the geth and EDI to die (even that is wrong if another viable possibility exists).  Shepard is actively choosing that their extermination along with the extermination of a whole race.  This is not a casualty of war, this is genocide.  Before the EC one could have argued there was no choice but to pick from one of the 3 bad options.  Now there is no excuse.

You have 3 bad choices that all ask that you compromise standard known morality in order to accomplish them.  You are also asked to impose a cost on the whole galaxy.  If they want to live they will do so as Shepard decides.  Shepard is a god-given the power by the kid, the enemy.  Which in effect makes Shepard a devil if any of the choices are made because Shepard would be making a deal with the devil.  The cost of this kind of survival is too high. 

The last point is quite true.  If you give people the option to be overrun by reapers, turned into cyborgs, destroy a race of people, and try and fight for themselves-try to cast off reaper influence once and for all on their terms, I think refuse is the clear option.

lol.. meta gaming
as we are actually setting home on a computer chair deciding a fate for the MEU, saying the 'defiant' hell with this and shooting their chances down on the whim of an EC olive branch seems counter intuitive to in game lore and best case scenerio. Also good anti game fodder.
 
If it weren't for almost all your posts tending negative toward the ME game as a whole, I'd say you actually liked it and would play it over and over.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
They used twitter to say relays exploding didn't destroy star systems but Walters wrote the Arrival to show that they do.  They used twitter to say that Shepard lives in the torso ending and that there would be a reunion and then said Shepard died in that and now they say Shepard could live or die.

You got a link to the tweet where they said Shep dies in the breath ending? My recollection of the tweet was that it was facetious, obviously so, but I don't have it handy.

As for the relays, is it really your position that the original intent was for the Crucible to induce supernovae in every system with a relay? Or is that just silly rhetoric?

And if that's your actual position, then where did the Normandy land?

The statement as to it meaning Shepard dies was not in a tweet but was made by Chris Hepler in a panel discussion at the SDCC.  He said the gasp meant Shepard was dead. 

In the final hours app there is a flowchart of dialogue for the game where it is said the Crucible would lead to a galactic dark ages.

In an interview (and I have posted the link all over the place on the forums but you are free to search it on youtube) Mac Walters in Feb was discussing why there would be no post-ME3 DLC.  He said it would be pointless becaust eh galaxy is a wasteland and no one would want to play in a wasteland.

Nevermind--here's the link:

http://www.youtube.c...m3Vnt5zxI#t=77s

I would appreciate it if you would quit trying to act like I'm making stuff up.  Ever read the codex Desperate Measures-that said that merely the rupture of a relay would ruin any terrestrial planet in a system.

There also was a tweet shown on these forums that showed how they retconned the exploding relays by saying later that the explosion wasn't that bad.

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
They used twitter to say relays exploding didn't destroy star systems but Walters wrote the Arrival to show that they do.  They used twitter to say that Shepard lives in the torso ending and that there would be a reunion and then said Shepard died in that and now they say Shepard could live or die.

You got a link to the tweet where they said Shep dies in the breath ending? My recollection of the tweet was that it was facetious, obviously so, but I don't have it handy.

As for the relays, is it really your position that the original intent was for the Crucible to induce supernovae in every system with a relay? Or is that just silly rhetoric?

And if that's your actual position, then where did the Normandy land?

The statement as to it meaning Shepard dies was not in a tweet but was made by Chris Hepler in a panel discussion at the SDCC.  He said the gasp meant Shepard was dead. 

In the final hours app there is a flowchart of dialogue for the game where it is said the Crucible would lead to a galactic dark ages.

In an interview (and I have posted the link all over the place on the forums but you are free to search it on youtube) Mac Walters in Feb was discussing why there would be no post-ME3 DLC.  He said it would be pointless becaust eh galaxy is a wasteland and no one would want to play in a wasteland.

Nevermind--here's the link:

http://www.youtube.c...m3Vnt5zxI#t=77s

I would appreciate it if you would quit trying to act like I'm making stuff up.  Ever read the codex Desperate Measures-that said that merely the rupture of a relay would ruin any terrestrial planet in a system.

There also was a tweet shown on these forums that showed how they retconned the exploding relays by saying later that the explosion wasn't that bad.

OP's hint is in the title: ""Why (No Metagaming) Refuse is the Best Choice."" mind those handy ()'s..

I digress, you are 'self' determined..

[3DandBeyond]

Wayning_Star wrote...


lol.. meta gaming
as we are actually setting home on a computer chair deciding a fate for the MEU, saying the 'defiant' hell with this and shooting their chances down on the whim of an EC olive branch seems counter intuitive to in game lore and best case scenerio. Also good anti game fodder.
 
If it weren't for almost all your posts tending negative toward the ME game as a whole, I'd say you actually liked it and would play it over and over.

Well, that's an out and out lie.  I've never been negative toward ME as a whole, ever.  I have in fact totally loved the series and accepted flaws in all of it until the end of ME3.  That put the rest of it all up to a magnifying glass.  BW said to speculate and invited analysis.  The end of ME3 ignores the lore and all of ME that came before, even what is in ME3 itself.  I have often praised the great things within the games and ME3 has some awesome stories and writing, but it also has a lot of crap in it, crap I could have ignored if the ending delivered.

We play as Shepard in the game so our decisions make sense in that context.  We do make decisions based on meta-gaming too.

I was responding to the OP or did you not read that the OP said "without metagaming"?

Please have the decency to actually be accurate with what I've said and to pay attention to the original questions asked before making stuff up about me.

I don't hate ME3 and never said I did.  I've said the ending ruined it for me and that's still true. 

[iamweaver]

3DandBeyond wrote...

RDSFirebane wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

To sacrifice some of the people who put their trust in you to achieve your common goal is reality of war, not betrayal. To suddenly abort your goal despite having everyone else to believe in it and invest in it and give their life for it is betrayal. Refusal is betrayal.

Not when applied to entire races. When your allowing a whole race to die its betrayal cold and simple I promised to save everyone and when I couldnt I gave them the chance to try and save themselves it was the best I could do.

Refusal is the only decision that could logically be construed as self-determination.  It is relying on oneself to try and defeat the enemy, not relying on choices the enemy gives you to survive no matter the cost.

In battle, it's one thing for people to die in making the sacrifice to fight.  In ME3 Shepard is not allowing the geth and EDI to die (even that is wrong if another viable possibility exists).  Shepard is actively choosing that their extermination along with the extermination of a whole race.  This is not a casualty of war, this is genocide.  Before the EC one could have argued there was no choice but to pick from one of the 3 bad options.  Now there is no excuse.

You have 3 bad choices that all ask that you compromise standard known morality in order to accomplish them.  You are also asked to impose a cost on the whole galaxy.  If they want to live they will do so as Shepard decides.  Shepard is a god-given the power by the kid, the enemy.  Which in effect makes Shepard a devil if any of the choices are made because Shepard would be making a deal with the devil.  The cost of this kind of survival is too high. 

The last point is quite true.  If you give people the option to be overrun by reapers, turned into cyborgs, destroy a race of people, and try and fight for themselves-try to cast off reaper influence once and for all on their terms, I think refuse is the clear option.

The initial plan was that you would somehow activate the Crucible (you, personally), destroying the Earth and the Reaper fleet.  And you were OK with that.  But once you find out that other options exist, they are worse, somehow?

Well, hopefully you have at least learned from this that war sucks.  Unless the thought of everyone that Shepherd has even known and loved getting shoved into a tube and turned into liquid makes you go, "meh.  They asked for it.".

[3DandBeyond]

Fandango9641 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Not using the only weapon that can put down the reapers for good is stupid. Don't need to metagame to know that refuse is just plain idiotic

Absolute tosh. I'm a bright enough lad and had no idea choosing Refuse would result in Mac and Casey giving me the virtual bird! Lets be absolutely clear: Refuse leads to the annihilation of everything in the galaxy only because the aforementioned 'artists' were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more invested in defending their original endings than appeasing those who refused to roleplay a war criminal.

Yep it forces you to go and view all their awesomeness.  Not really because you can just quit before that.

[Wayning_Star]

Fandango9641 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Not using the only weapon that can put down the reapers for good is stupid. Don't need to metagame to know that refuse is just plain idiotic

Absolute tosh. I'm a bright enough lad and had no idea choosing Refuse would result in Mac and Casey giving me the virtual bird! Lets be absolutely clear: Refuse leads to the annihilation of everything in the galaxy only because the aforementioned 'artists' were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more invested in defending their original endings than appeasing those who refused to roleplay a war criminal.

Unfortunately, a machine cannot be a 'war criminal' no matter how bad it's programming error is, maybe their creators and those utilizing reaper technology could be busted on a conspiracy charge, but who'd try them?