80611 réponses à ce sujet

[TheProtheans]

RavenEyry wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

How does Refuse fit into IT? (Genuine Curiousity)

I've always considered it failing to act and retreating into your mind, but you'll probably get different answers from others. It's a divisive topic.

Your view of it doesn't make much sense in regards to the whole premise of it.
If the ending is indeed Indoctrination, Shepard stood by his principles and is in the best position to arise with a clear head in refusal.

[BleedingUranium]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

How does Refuse fit into IT? (Genuine Curiousity)

It's more debated than most things, but it's generally viewed as Shepard being paralyzed with fear and failing to make a decision, and/or his mind being broken. He doesn't align is his with the Reapers' goals, but he doesn't have the will to fight either.

Put simply, you entered that room wanting to destroy the Reapers (that's not up to the player, ever Shepard does) and now you don't do it because of what the leader of the Reapers said.

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Refuse is something people generally pick because they don't want to play the kid's game/pick his choices, but that doesn't apply in IT, as they're not his, per se. At least, destroy isn't.

The choices are nothing more than a representation of Shepard's current goal. Shepard's current goal when entering the room is to destroy the Reapers, thus is must appear there, the kid can't alter that.

[paxxton]

Dwailing wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Interrupts have always had a sound cue when activated.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.  It doesn't matter when, where, or why, but they always have a sound cue.

So?

[Heimdall]

byne wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Shepard can give pretty speeches all she wants, but in the end, she's still refusing to act, and allowing the Reapers to win.

I know, but if this is IT why was the Catalyst against Refuse?

[Dwailing]

TheProtheans wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

How does Refuse fit into IT? (Genuine Curiousity)

I've always considered it failing to act and retreating into your mind, but you'll probably get different answers from others. It's a divisive topic.

Your view of it doesn't make much sense in regards to the whole premise of it.
If the ending is indeed Indoctrination, Shepard stood by his principles and is in the best position to arise with a clear head in refusal.

However, in Refusal, Shepard refused to act when the ability to Destroy the Reapers was available to him.  There's a difference between standing by your principles, and actually acting on them.  The former sounds good, but it pointless.  The latter is hard, but worth it.

[TheProtheans]

byne wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Shepard can give pretty speeches all she wants, but in the end, she's still refusing to act, and allowing the Reapers to win.

I don't see how wanting the war to continue in her mind == failure to act.
Failure to act on what?

[Dwailing]

Lord Aesir wrote...

byne wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Shepard can give pretty speeches all she wants, but in the end, she's still refusing to act, and allowing the Reapers to win.

I know, but if this is IT why was the Catalyst against Refuse?

It was against Refuse because in Refuse, Shepard's will is broken.  For once in his life, he's refusing to act when the ability to finish this is available.

[byne]

Lord Aesir wrote...

byne wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Shepard can give pretty speeches all she wants, but in the end, she's still refusing to act, and allowing the Reapers to win.

I know, but if this is IT why was the Catalyst against Refuse?

I see refuse Shepard as basically a broken person. She's like the indoctrinated salarians on Virmire, and absolutely useless to the Reapers. At least in Control and Synthesis, she's actively working towards the Reapers goals now.

In refuse, when faced with hard choices, she isnt able to handle them, and just gives up.

[Dwailing]

TheProtheans wrote...

byne wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Shepard can give pretty speeches all she wants, but in the end, she's still refusing to act, and allowing the Reapers to win.

I don't see how wanting the war to continue in her mind == failure to act.
Failure to act on what?

Failure to act on the oppurtunity to destroy the Reapers.

[demersel]

So....Saren. Remeber that guy? He was indoctrinated into thinking he is saving the universe, and had the Krogan, (because he cured the genophage) and the Geth (because they were promised to become truly alive, through Reaper technology) as allies.

What two major things did we do in ME3 again? Got the krogan to help us by curing the genophage, and the Geth by helping them achive true conciousness thrue reaper technology? Now why does that sound familiar?

[BleedingUranium]

Lord Aesir wrote...

byne wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Shepard can give pretty speeches all she wants, but in the end, she's still refusing to act, and allowing the Reapers to win.

I know, but if this is IT why was the Catalyst against Refuse?

It's what I said about Shepard being a man (or woman) of action, Shepard will always get whatever it is done, however they do it. That's why I consider Control or Synthesis to be more in character for Shepard than Refuse. Wrong, but more likely.

[TheProtheans]

Dwailing wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

How does Refuse fit into IT? (Genuine Curiousity)

I've always considered it failing to act and retreating into your mind, but you'll probably get different answers from others. It's a divisive topic.

Your view of it doesn't make much sense in regards to the whole premise of it.
If the ending is indeed Indoctrination, Shepard stood by his principles and is in the best position to arise with a clear head in refusal.

However, in Refusal, Shepard refused to act when the ability to Destroy the Reapers was available to him.  There's a difference between standing by your principles, and actually acting on them.  The former sounds good, but it pointless.  The latter is hard, but worth it.

There never was an ability to destroy the Reapers.
The Catalyst only wanted to see how much you would compromise to "win".

If IT is indeed true he wouldn't have made it appear as a clear victory otherwise, refusal is the only logical choice.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:13 .

[byne]

demersel wrote...

So....Saren. Remeber that guy? He was indoctrinated into thinking he is saving the universe, and had the Krogan, (because he cured the genophage) and the Geth (because they were promised to become truly alive, through Reaper technology) as allies.

What two major things did we do in ME3 again? Got the krogan to help us by curing the genophage, and the Geth by helping them achive true conciousness thrue reaper technology? Now why does that sound familiar?

To quote myself from Banshee's wall of awesome:

Quick you guys! Who am I talking about?

-Is a famous Spectre
-Gets the krogan to follow them by curing the genophage
-Gets reaper augmented geth to follow them
-Killed another Spectre who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time
-Is partially organic, and partially synthetic

[RavenEyry]

Lord Aesir wrote...

byne wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hmm.  I just find it odd since the dialogue for Refise is more about resisting Reaper ideas and choices than any other while Destroy is viewed as the "correct" IT choice.

Shepard can give pretty speeches all she wants, but in the end, she's still refusing to act, and allowing the Reapers to win.

I know, but if this is IT why was the Catalyst against Refuse?

Because they want to indoctrinate Shep. Or maybe have them escape as a worthy foe. They don't want a vegetable.

[BleedingUranium]

demersel wrote...

So....Saren. Remeber that guy? He was indoctrinated into thinking he is saving the universe, and had the Krogan, (because he cured the genophage) and the Geth (because they were promised to become truly alive, through Reaper technology) as allies.

What two major things did we do in ME3 again? Got the krogan to help us by curing the genophage, and the Geth by helping them achive true conciousness thrue reaper technology? Now why does that sound familiar?

Because Shepard is Saren's foil, it's a common literary device, and nothing bad. He's the same, yet the opposite.

[Heimdall]

BleedingUranium wrote...

It's what I said about Shepard being a man (or woman) of action, Shepard will always get whatever it is done, however they do it. That's why I consider Control or Synthesis to be more in character for Shepard than Refuse. Wrong, but more likely.

I guess I understand the logic. Seems like an odd thing for Bioware to add though.

[BleedingUranium]

TheProtheans wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

How does Refuse fit into IT? (Genuine Curiousity)

I've always considered it failing to act and retreating into your mind, but you'll probably get different answers from others. It's a divisive topic.

Your view of it doesn't make much sense in regards to the whole premise of it.
If the ending is indeed Indoctrination, Shepard stood by his principles and is in the best position to arise with a clear head in refusal.

However, in Refusal, Shepard refused to act when the ability to Destroy the Reapers was available to him.  There's a difference between standing by your principles, and actually acting on them.  The former sounds good, but it pointless.  The latter is hard, but worth it.

There never was an ability to destroy the Reapers.
The Catalyst only wanted to see how much you would compromise to "win".

If IT is indeed true he wouldn't have made it appear as a clear victory otherwise, refusal is the only logical choice.

What takes place after the choice is what Shepard hopes will happen, it's what he wanted to see. Indoctrination is willingly aligning yourself with the Reapers' goals, and Destroy in no way does that, so you can't be indoctrinated.

[BleedingUranium]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

It's what I said about Shepard being a man (or woman) of action, Shepard will always get whatever it is done, however they do it. That's why I consider Control or Synthesis to be more in character for Shepard than Refuse. Wrong, but more likely.

I guess I understand the logic. Seems like an odd thing for Bioware to add though.

Just like the rest of EC, it was added because of fan outcry.

-Did the relays kill everyone?
-How did my squadmates get on the Normandy?
-Why can't I ask the kid questions or disagree with him?
-Screw the kid and his options!

Those were the most common things said after launch, and that's all the EC clarified/added. Note that the renegade choices while talking to the kid, why you don't want to do each choice, are each an echo of why the community didn't like them.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:20 .

[TheProtheans]

BleedingUranium wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

How does Refuse fit into IT? (Genuine Curiousity)

I've always considered it failing to act and retreating into your mind, but you'll probably get different answers from others. It's a divisive topic.

Your view of it doesn't make much sense in regards to the whole premise of it.
If the ending is indeed Indoctrination, Shepard stood by his principles and is in the best position to arise with a clear head in refusal.

However, in Refusal, Shepard refused to act when the ability to Destroy the Reapers was available to him.  There's a difference between standing by your principles, and actually acting on them.  The former sounds good, but it pointless.  The latter is hard, but worth it.

There never was an ability to destroy the Reapers.
The Catalyst only wanted to see how much you would compromise to "win".

If IT is indeed true he wouldn't have made it appear as a clear victory otherwise, refusal is the only logical choice.

What takes place after the choice is what Shepard hopes will happen, it's what he wanted to see. Indoctrination is willingly aligning yourself with the Reapers' goals, and Destroy in no way does that, so you can't be indoctrinated.

You forget they are cunning and intelligent, they set it up this way.
Remember the only ending Shepard doesn't have the visions of the future is in the refuse ending.
Destroy is demonstrating that you will do whatever it takes to destroy the Reaper, even sacrifice your own humanity.
The Reapers will use this against Shepard, this is how indoctrination.
I see it now, all of  the endings apart from Refusal involved Shepard being indoctrinated one way or another.


Refusal is no accident, Bioware put it there on purpose when they decided to go with IT.
If there is any  solid evidence of IT, it is refusal.
I suspect Refusal will be the best placed Shepard with minor to zero indoctrination.
He refused.
The Catalyst tries to put us off it by saying bad things and then he is mad when we refuse.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Destroy is the right ending for several reasons in IT:

- You have to fight to escape the trap (Omega foreshadows this, with Aria tearing at the fabric of the forcefield)
- Destroy is the only ending in which you refuse to accept the catalyst's assertions that the chaos will come back, that conflict between creators and created is inevitable, etcetera.
- Destroy is the only ending in which we achieve our own future, we refuse the Reaper solutions, we blow up the Crucible, rejecting Reaper technology, etcetera.

Non-IT:

- You can't always win and save everyone at the same time. You want victory, you need to be prepared to make sacrifices. There's no easy way out in this one.

In refuse, you no longer want to destroy the Reapers, because you accept the catalyst's assertions that your friends will die.

It's a moral stand, nothing more.

As Javik says: "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead, and ask the ghosts if honour matters. The silence will be your answer."

[Heimdall]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Just like the rest of EC, it was added because of fan outcry.

-Did the relays kill everyone?
-How did my squadmates get on the Normandy?
-Why can't I ask the kid questions or disagree with him?
-Screw the kid and his options!

Those were the most common things said after launch, and that's all the EC clarified/added. Note that the renegade choices while talking to the kid, why you don't want to do each choice, are each an echo of why the community didn't like them.

I have to be honest, this is one of the points where IT really falls down for me.  I just can't fathom the idea that Bioware would go through the trouble of paying for new cinematics and voice acting, then give it out for free, and have it all be a blatant lie to reveal at a later date... A date that is apparently over a year after the game's release.

[DoomsdayDevice]

I like how, in Omega, Nyreen dies a pointless death by being selfless to the point of stupidity.

Aria however, won't go down without a fight, and as a result, everyone lives to fight another day.

There's more to Omega than meets the eye at first glance. SO much ending foreshadowing there, it's awesome.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:36 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Just like the rest of EC, it was added because of fan outcry.

-Did the relays kill everyone?
-How did my squadmates get on the Normandy?
-Why can't I ask the kid questions or disagree with him?
-Screw the kid and his options!

Those were the most common things said after launch, and that's all the EC clarified/added. Note that the renegade choices while talking to the kid, why you don't want to do each choice, are each an echo of why the community didn't like them.

I have to be honest, this is one of the points where IT really falls down for me.  I just can't fathom the idea that Bioware would go through the trouble of paying for new cinematics and voice acting, then give it out for free, and have it all be a blatant lie to reveal at a later date... A date that is apparently over a year after the game's release.

If they had a grand plan to reveal indoctrination at the end of the DLC cycle, this was the only way to address the outrage and still stick to their plan.

IT doesn't presume they will change the endings, merely give them more context by what happens after.

[Lakeshow1986]

This sure makes synthesis fun doesn't it!

[demersel]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

I like how, in Omega, Nyreen dies a pointless death by being selfless to the point of stupidity.

Aria however, won't go down without a fight, and as a result, everyone lives to fight another day.

There's more to Omega than meets the eye at first glance. SO much ending foreshadowing there, it's awesome.

+1. Exactly what i've been saying. 

The other thing i like is how the power literally flows through Omega's viens and it is the same color as the liquid that being pumped into the human reaper thing. ))