80611 réponses à ce sujet

[ThisOneIsPunny]

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.

I'm not so sure they had to sacrifice too much in profit to make the extended cut, and I also don't think they put much into it. Why not show EDI or any potential geth being killed by the destroy rays if so? Surely that would have been a more prominent scene to focus on than three variations of the same two generic human soldiers fighting husks.

[TheProtheans]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

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)

Choosing destroy is the trap, using the crucible in the dream sequence is doing what the Reapers want you to do.
By choosing the choices that made for you, you're accepting them into your mind.
Only be refusing do you truly resist Indoctrination.

- 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.

While you reject chaos, you're still allowing the Reapers into your mind by choosing to use the choices they cunningly made for you.

- 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.

Again they made the choice as a test to see what you would do, not matter what you pick and for what reasons.
You let them in because the choice they offered you gives that are not real and you accepted them as your own.
They will use this against destroy shepards as a way to control them.

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."

Non IT is irrelevant.
Refusing the Reapers choices they offered you is the only way to battle the Reapers, if you accept the ways they offer you in your converse with them, you're no better than TIM and Saren.
In refuse you want to continue the fight without compromise and without surrender and accepting the choices the Reapers give you.
The Catalyst says all your friends will die.
You spit in his face and say bring it on, "try me".
The Catalyst becomes angry.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:59 .

[Restrider]

TheProtheans wrote...


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.

There is this neat, little theory about Refuse and IT.
Conider this:
The original endings had no correct choice and the correct choice to break indoctrination would've been added in the reveal. However, due to the sh!tstorm owing to the poor concept of the literal endings, Refuse was added to the EC, but without being able to see the results (yet).

Personally I think Refuse has its merits, since it pisses the Guardian off and it is the one and only thing that comes close to thinking outside-the-box in the endings. People pointing out that conventional victory is not possible and thus Refuse is asinine should reconsider, since we are told in ME1 and 2 that what we are trying to do is also impossible.

The only thing needed to fully sell Refuse is something like the breath scene.
Edit: Lol you ninja'd me!

Modifié par Restrider, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[byne]

Restrider wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...


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.

There is this neat, little theory about Refuse and IT.
Conider this:
The original endings had no correct choice and the correct choice to break indoctrination would've been added in the reveal. However, due to the sh!tstorm owing to the poor concept of the literal endings, Refuse was added to the EC, but without being able to see the results (yet).

Personally I think Refuse has its merits, since it pisses the Guardian off and it is the one and only thing that comes close to thinking outside-the-box in the endings. People pointing out that conventional victory is not possible and thus Refuse is asinine should reconsider, since we are told in ME1 and 2 that what we are trying to do is also impossible.

The only thing needed to fully sell Refuse is something like the breath scene.
Edit: Lol you ninja'd me!

Except in ME1 and ME2, what we were told was impossible was just getting to a location. All we needed to do to accomplish those tasks was find a way to get there.

We're not going to find a lost Relay or an IFF that suddenly makes conventional victory possible. We'd have to find an entire fleet of Reaper strength ships to even have a chance.

[Restrider]

Yes, that is true.
But you have to consider that Refuse in the light of IT =/= believing in conventional victory.
Heck, this is a main problem of IT, if you believe that the Crucible is a trap (and many here do).
How do you beat them without the Crucible?

I'd say most people, when using the term "conventional victory" do not mean beating the Reapers head-on rather than a victory without using the Crucible as shown in the endings!
Hell, even Rifneno - the single person that hates the whole conventional victory discussion most - admitted that a victory without using the Crucible as shown in the endings would make a lot of sense (since he also believes that the Crucible is not kosher).

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Restrider wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...


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.

There is this neat, little theory about Refuse and IT.
Conider this:
The original endings had no correct choice and the correct choice to break indoctrination would've been added in the reveal. However, due to the sh!tstorm owing to the poor concept of the literal endings, Refuse was added to the EC, but without being able to see the results (yet).

Personally I think Refuse has its merits, since it pisses the Guardian off and it is the one and only thing that comes close to thinking outside-the-box in the endings. People pointing out that conventional victory is not possible and thus Refuse is asinine should reconsider, since we are told in ME1 and 2 that what we are trying to do is also impossible.

The only thing needed to fully sell Refuse is something like the breath scene.
Edit: Lol you ninja'd me!

Conventional victory as it stands is not possible.

We will need something, wether it is a special strategy, a weapon, reinforcements, to defeat the Reapers conventionally as of this moment we are horribly outgunnned even in the best of situations.

I know Shepard has pulled of the impossible before, but this is not just Shepard or even the Normandy and its crew this time. With both Ilos and the Collector base Shepard made the impossible possible, but it was contained to things he could handle with his squad. His squad or Shepard cannot take on the Reaper armada, for that you need a fleet and unless something interferes, that fleet is going to be defeated.

This time it is an entire armada and Shepard for all his doing the impossible is not going to pull a Gurren Lagnn on us and transform the Normandy into a mecha and combine with the Citadel / fleet before kicking Reaper ass (as awesome as that would be).

The Normandy wont magically turn the tides in the battle above as it stands, Shepard wont turn the tide as it stands. We need something outside to turn the tide, possibly (probably) something Shepard and crew makes happen even if that is simply the Crucible beeing reconfigured, but we need something.

But above all in order to do the impossinle you actually need to do something. Shepard's speech is nice and all in refuse, but it is words backed by nohing as Shepard simply stands around as the lights go out. The impossible is not accomplished by standing around.

Now dont get me wrong, i do see the merits of refuse, but despite his speech Shepard does nothing to back it up and that really bugs me. Shepard dosent look like a victor at the end as the catalyst disappears, Shepard looks beaten.

Also I will be quite pissed if the only way to break free, the only way out was not even in the original ending. Because then it is no longer a question off beeing fooled, then it is just deception with no way to avoid it. To me taht is worse than the litteral ending.

But refuse as an extra way out? I can see that happening, despite my problems with it.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:20 .

[jojon2se]

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.

Sallying recklessly forth, in blind, single-minded, bezerker rage and literally leaping right into a trap, that the more levelheaded Shepard has to pull her out of - yep, yep... What were you arguing for again?

Please forgive the snark - I had hoped I was above dishing out as well as I take, but I guess not.

I do agree that Nyreen's sacrifice, the way it is presented, is extremely forced and could do with having had better everything; motivational weight, situational opportunity and so on.

I guess both Aria and Nyreen let acting go before thinking...

[RavenEyry]

jojon2se wrote...

Sallying recklessly forth, in blind, single-minded, bezerker rage and literally leaping right into a trap, that the more levelheaded Shepard has to pull her out of - yep, yep... What were you arguing for again?

What, like the beam run?

[GethPrimeMKII]

Refuse doesnt make much sense in the literal view. Why would the catalyst be angry if you refuse to do anything? Wouldn't that allow his solution to continue on unchallenged? It also brings up the question: Why Shepard? Why is she needed to make any of these new solutions work?

[GethPrimeMKII]

jojon2se wrote...

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.

Sallying recklessly forth, in blind, single-minded, bezerker rage and literally leaping right into a trap, that the more levelheaded Shepard has to pull her out of - yep, yep... What were you arguing for again?

Please forgive the snark - I had hoped I was above dishing out as well as I take, but I guess not.

I do agree that Nyreen's sacrifice, the way it is presented, is extremely forced and could do with having had better everything; motivational weight, situational opportunity and so on.

I guess both Aria and Nyreen let acting go before thinking...

Aria is usually the level headed one who plans every last detail. That scene in Afterlife proves Petrovsky got to her and clouded her judgement.

[shepskisaac]

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

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.

I'm not so sure they had to sacrifice too much in profit to make the extended cut

Because developement time costs and the first few months after a game releases are the most lucrative for DLC sales and EC was free so no profit was made and it delayed paid DLC. All in all, EA lost money on EC so why would anyone think they would waste money on polishing what is only a fake/trick ending is beyond me. This is EA we're talking about.

[GethPrimeMKII]

RavenEyry wrote...

jojon2se wrote...

Sallying recklessly forth, in blind, single-minded, bezerker rage and literally leaping right into a trap, that the more levelheaded Shepard has to pull her out of - yep, yep... What were you arguing for again?

What, like the beam run?

Charging a division sided element towards a beam we only *think* will transport us to the Citadel does reek of desperation.

[RavenEyry]

Firewalker was free...

[BleedingUranium]

RavenEyry wrote...

Firewalker was free...

And took far more effort than EC.

And again, some people are missing a key point about Refuse: Destroy is not an option presented by the kid, it merely exists and he can't make it go away. Destroy can't be a trap in IT.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:53 .

[spotlessvoid]

Do you not remember the cluster**** of rage after launch? They were going to struggle to sell DLC without putting that ferocious beast down.

EC wasn't much of a decision. We can debate on what was and wasn't already made, but the EC existing doesn't change whatever the intention was pre-launch.

[estebanus]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Refuse doesnt make much sense in the literal view. Why would the catalyst be angry if you refuse to do anything? Wouldn't that allow his solution to continue on unchallenged? It also brings up the question: Why Shepard? Why is she needed to make any of these new solutions work?

Because in the literal version, the catalyst wants to find a new solution. As it itself said: "You have altered the variables. TZhe crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen." 

By choosing refuse, the catalyst can't fulfill it's reprogrammed primary objective. As such, it goes back to its old solution.

Shepard him/herself is not necessarily needed, it's simply that s/he is the first organic to have made it that far, I think.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:56 .

[estebanus]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Do you not remember the cluster**** of rage after launch? They were going to struggle to sell DLC without putting that ferocious beast down.

EC wasn't much of a decision. We can debate on what was and wasn't already made, but the EC existing doesn't change whatever the intention was pre-launch.

Sure, but instead of making the EC, they could have just released the IT DLC. That would've been much smarter to do, since they wouldn't have had to spend money on making the EC. Plus, the fan reaction would've been much more positive than what happened after the EC.

[RavenEyry]

estebanus wrote...
Because in the literal version, the catalyst wants to find a new solution. As it itself said: "You have altered the variables. TZhe crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen." 

Explain again how a supposed battery changed it.

[BleedingUranium]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Do you not remember the cluster**** of rage after launch? They were going to struggle to sell DLC without putting that ferocious beast down.

EC wasn't much of a decision. We can debate on what was and wasn't already made, but the EC existing doesn't change whatever the intention was pre-launch.

Exactly. People forget how bad it was then, to the point of death threats, law suits, coverage on BBC, they had to do something.

[BleedingUranium]

RavenEyry wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Because in the literal version, the catalyst wants to find a new solution. As it itself said: "You have altered the variables. TZhe crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen." 

Explain again how a supposed battery changed it.

It doesn't, but Estebanus was just pointing out how it's explained to work in literal, whether it makes sense or not.

If Starbinger said something like "I am three people and also one person", then that's what he would be if taken literally. That it doesn't make sense doesn't matter when taking something at face value.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:59 .

[estebanus]

RavenEyry wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Because in the literal version, the catalyst wants to find a new solution. As it itself said: "You have altered the variables. The crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen." 

Explain again how a supposed battery changed it.

We don't exactly know what other functions the crucible has besides of being a battery. We essentially get nothing else to know about it other than that it can release massive amounts of energy. If I'd come up with an explanation, it'd simply be speculation, not anything else.

[paxxton]

RavenEyry wrote...

Firewalker was free...

Really? Could you elaborate?

[RavenEyry]

paxxton wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Firewalker was free...

Really? Could you elaborate?

Someone was saying EC being free was damaging the lucrative early DLC time period.

[demersel]

Firewalker was actually awesome.

[Xd2delo]

estebanus wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Do you not remember the cluster**** of rage after launch? They were going to struggle to sell DLC without putting that ferocious beast down.

EC wasn't much of a decision. We can debate on what was and wasn't already made, but the EC existing doesn't change whatever the intention was pre-launch.

Sure, but instead of making the EC, they could have just released the IT DLC. That would've been much smarter to do, since they wouldn't have had to spend money on making the EC. Plus, the fan reaction would've been much more positive than what happened after the EC.

Yeah, this is what worries me.  Why NOT have the IT DLC ready to go then, or better yet, just include it in the game?  Why wait so long?  I suspect, if this IS IT DLC they're working on now, it'll come out on the 1 year anniversary of the release.