80611 réponses à ce sujet

[demersel]

jgibson14352 wrote...

xbox

Well, there's your problem. 
I'm on the PC - i don't even take it out of the box - i registered my copy in my origin account, and downloaded it from origin. (I did it both my desktop, and my laptop)

[The Twilight God]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

No. But that is besides the point.

We are talking about one ending. In Refuse, Shepard let's the Reapers win. The Reapers continue the cycle and everyone you know and love dies. Can I will assume you can find no fault with this?

So why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?

If we are talking about Refuse, then yes, in that case the Reapers win. Shepard does not stop them on the grounds that he doesn't like the choices laid before him. This is actually kind of funny (in a dumb, to my mind sort of way) since Shepard was eager and willing to activate the Crucible when he didn't know what it would do. Once he does, however, he's unwilling to make the choice. It's interesting to note that he was willing to gamble away the lives of everyone in the galaxy yet he finds himself somehow backed into a corner when told the actual price of using the device.

As to your massive essay, I posted a reply but I'll have to read it more carefully and, hopefully, from beginning to end.

Question: Why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

[Jere85]

Curious. On the forums, has there been any feedback from the devs, to reply on our feedback?
I guess its too early, but are there like any twitters going on?

[OdanUrr]

The Twilight God wrote...

Question: Why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

We're going in circles. Do you mean in the Refusal ending?

If this is the case, I've not yet chosen that particular ending. The only reason I could see for a Shepard to refuse the Catalyst is because he doesn't want to be responsible for deciding the fate of the galaxy, whether it be through Control, Destroy, or Synthesis. As I've previously stated, this reasoning is pretty weak considering a minute ago he was willing to pay any price to stop the Reapers, after all, he had no idea what the Crucible would do. I ignore what was the reasoning behind players who chose this option.

If you refer to any of the other endings, I've already said Shepard does stop the Reapers but through different means.

[The Twilight God]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Question: Why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

We're going in circles. Do you mean in the Refusal ending?

If this is the case, I've not yet chosen that particular ending. The only reason I could see for a Shepard to refuse the Catalyst is because he doesn't want to be responsible for deciding the fate of the galaxy, whether it be through Control, Destroy, or Synthesis. As I've previously stated, this reasoning is pretty weak considering a minute ago he was willing to pay any price to stop the Reapers, after all, he had no idea what the Crucible would do. I ignore what was the reasoning behind players who chose this option.

If you refer to any of the other endings, I've already said Shepard does stop the Reapers but through different means.

Yes, you originally replied to a post in which I stated Refuse is definitely an indoctrinated ending. I then reiterated that I am only speaking about Refuse. We're not discussing any other ending accept for Refuse.

So I'm going to ask you one more time:

Question: Concerning the Refuse endings only, why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

This can be answered by a single Yes or No. This is a simple question.

[Drewton]

I haven't played Leviathan yet, but I'm excited from what I'm hearing about some more possible IT hints.

Like I've said before, sticking with the IT is the best decision artistically and as a franchise - it's brilliant, fans like it, and it's the easiest and maybe only way to continue the story, ever. Assuming "destroy" is the only way to break free of indoctrination, that's the only ending that can be continued from.

[OdanUrr]

The Twilight God wrote...

Yes, you originally replied to a post in which I stated Refuse is definitely an indoctrinated ending. I then reiterated that I am only speaking about Refuse. We're not discussing any other ending accept for Refuse.

So I'm going to ask you one more time:

Question: Concerning the Refuse endings only, why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

This can be answered by a single Yes or No. This is a simple question.

You clearly do not understand the concept of sarcasm. First of all, Refusal was never a part of the original ending, it was added because people wanted an option to refuse the Catalyst's choices no matter what the outcome of said refusal was. Bioware complied by introducing an ending that implies the Reapers have won in Shepard's cycle.

Did I make this choice? No. Would I make this choice? No, as per what I have told you before. Why have other Shepards made this choice? I don't know, I posited a possible explanation and pointed out the flaws, but there may be others. Do you mean to say you cannot conceive of any possible scenario where a player might choose to refuse the Catalyst's choices? And since you cannot conceive this scenario then surely there must be an ulterior motive for its inclusion? Besides the fact that fans had demanded it? And yes, fans demanded other things and Bioware did not comply, such as a conventional victory (which would render the Crucible useless).

So, to me it comes down to personal choice. Some people prefer Control, others prefer Destroy, Synthesis, and some chose Refusal. I do not presume to know the reasoning behind every player's choice but I can analyze their strengths and weaknesses. Your question seems to imply that people who chose the Refusal ending chose wrong. I say that people who chose the Refusal ending simply chose different.

Just in case, the "he doesn't like his choices" bit was sarcasm.

[I_eat_unicorns]

Don't ya just wish this game could be rebooted?

[I_eat_unicorns]

 
This is an article from gamesradar that describes why future dlc should alternate the endings:

http://www.gamesrada...-mass-effect-3/ 

I agree with the writer that alternate ending dlc should be released. I understand the dlc try to flesh out the ending, but we already know what happens, why bother flesh it out? And why take pride in poor writing when it goes against the themes of the universe and actions in the game (why is control an option when we shot the illusive man about the idea two seconds ago?). We all wanted Bioware to wow us with a compelling ending that STAYS true to the mass effect universe and a final mission that is more epic than the suicide mission in me2.  I sure would pay for it, so long as its good in the sense that we reunite with our squad. Or maybe have squadmembers like wrex/me2 characters actually be a temp squad for certain missions. Or maybe get rid of the catalyst concept of synthetics vs organics I-robot mentality. 

Or MAYBE, REBOOT THE WHOLE GAME AND MAKE ME3 RIGHT WITH ALL OF THOSE FEATURES!!!!!
YEAAAAAA!!!!!!

...F*ck, this game will never get the ending it deserves, will it?

I thought leviathan would make the ending a lot more fleshed out, but it wasn't illuminating like vigil on ilos because we know it wouldn't change the endings and it added the threat of the leviathans to the universe. 

Well great, and we don't even get a final boss in the game because that would be "too videogamey". Well, we wouldn't want mass effect to be a video game now, would we?

I'm guessing the endings are so bad because the people who wrote it were from another sector of Bioware and didn't do their homework of understanding the me universe, but in most production of video games/animated movies, the story/ voices are written/recorded before the animation is done. How no one was concerned enough to address the ending to everyone at that time is beyond me, but it shows that Bioware wants to defend this poor writing for "integrity", but how can you justify integrity when an ending like mass effect is a shame to the universe?

Can't just reboot the game with all the dlc/good features/better new ending, relaese it a year later, and get profit?

Modifié par I_eat_unicorns, 30 août 2012 - 02:55 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Drewton wrote...

I haven't played Leviathan yet, but I'm excited from what I'm hearing about some more possible IT hints.

Like I've said before, sticking with the IT is the best decision artistically and as a franchise - it's brilliant, fans like it, and it's the easiest and maybe only way to continue the story, ever. Assuming "destroy" is the only way to break free of indoctrination, that's the only ending that can be continued from.

I just bought it today myself. I think I'll look into it half way through my latest play through.

[The Twilight God]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Yes, you originally replied to a post in which I stated Refuse is definitely an indoctrinated ending. I then reiterated that I am only speaking about Refuse. We're not discussing any other ending accept for Refuse.

So I'm going to ask you one more time:

Question: Concerning the Refuse endings only, why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

This can be answered by a single Yes or No. This is a simple question.

You clearly do not understand the concept of sarcasm.

 
 ...clearly.

I assume you saw where I was going with this and decide to jump ship. Fair enough.

[Lokanaiya]

The Twilight God wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Question: Why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

We're going in circles. Do you mean in the Refusal ending?

If this is the case, I've not yet chosen that particular ending. The only reason I could see for a Shepard to refuse the Catalyst is because he doesn't want to be responsible for deciding the fate of the galaxy, whether it be through Control, Destroy, or Synthesis. As I've previously stated, this reasoning is pretty weak considering a minute ago he was willing to pay any price to stop the Reapers, after all, he had no idea what the Crucible would do. I ignore what was the reasoning behind players who chose this option.

If you refer to any of the other endings, I've already said Shepard does stop the Reapers but through different means.

Yes, you originally replied to a post in which I stated Refuse is definitely an indoctrinated ending. I then reiterated that I am only speaking about Refuse. We're not discussing any other ending accept for Refuse.

So I'm going to ask you one more time:

Question: Concerning the Refuse endings only, why do you believe Shepard let's the Reapers win when it is within his capability to stop them?
Your answer: He doesn't like the choices.

Is that your answer? I just want to be sure before I proceed.

This can be answered by a single Yes or No. This is a simple question.

This is probably a mistake, but I'm going to quote a post of mine from a while back that explains a possible reason for choosing Refuse. (It is assuming Dream theory though, so if you're just going claim that that fact alone invalidates it, don't bother responding please.)

Regarding the debate about whether or not Refuse is a good option, I just want to throw in my two cents and say that in Refuse, you're essentially telling the Reapers that no matter what, you will NEVER compromise with them and NEVER accept their values, even if that means the entire galaxy is screwed. In Destroy however, you stay true to your purpose of ending the Reaper threat once and for all, even if you have to accept one of their options. Yes, Refuse is incredibly stupid. Yes, Destroy is the only option that actually kills all the Reapers.

In Destroy, however, you reveal you have an ultimate purpose-- You want to save the entire galaxy, and especially this cycle. You're even willing to accept one of the self-proclaimed leader of the Reapers' options to do this. It's not much, but a purpose is something that the Reapers, master manipulators that they are, can work with and turn to their advantage. You gave them a fingerhold, and if they can just turn your purpose to their advantage, somehow, you're indoctrinated.

Reject, on the other hand, is a bull-headed, stubborn option that says that you will never, EVER compromise with the Reapers at all. You reject everything they are and everything they say. You are willing to let the entire galaxy die if it just means that you never give anything, anything at all, to the Reapers. Selfish, yes. Ideological, yes. Mind-blowingly stupid, definitely. But what you reveal to the Reapers is that you will never compromise, never give an inch, to them.

That's different than what you try to do in Destroy. In Destroy, you want a better future for everyone AND will compromise with the Reapers, just a little, and accept one of their options if it means a better future for your LI, your squadmates, and everyone you know and love. Sound familiar?

In Reject, your ultimate purpose is no surrender, no retreat, NO COMPROMISE with the Reapers. Incredibly bull-headed, but maybe that's what it takes to defeat indoctrination. An undying conviction to have nothing to do with the Reapers, no matter what.

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that Refuse is the only right ending, or even a valid one at all, I'm just offering one of the possible reasons why people might choose Refuse instead of Destroy.

[Rifneno]

plfranke wrote...

Could it be possible that the entire story we heard in Leviathan is a lie?

I think it's as possible as it being true. There's too many... oddities in their story. And the fact that they refused to consider the Reapers a mistake didn't just set off alarm bells with me, it set off air raid sirens.

BioWare wrote...

http://conspiracyacc...ue.blogspot.ca/

It's spelled "Dekuuna."

paxxton wrote...

The EC Grunt's size remains a mystery.

Fixed.

plfranke wrote...

Yeah and his answer about the crucible just made me facepalm. Does no one know what this thing does? Did the creators of the Crucible even know what it was going to do or did they just start putting a bunch of things together and documenting it step by step.

LOL. Look at him as he answers. He knows a lot more than he's saying. That body language is clear.

P.S. Refloating "Thorian is a larval Leviathan" theory.

[demersel]

magnetite wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

Well great, and we don't even get a final boss in the game because that would be "too videogamey". Well, we wouldn't want mass effect to be a video game now, would we?

With Mass Effect series being story driven, that could be why they left it out. My two cents.

Perhaps they felt that a mind game (IT) would be better than a huge boss battle.

Speaking from the whole art vs video game, I'd have to say that something like Mass Effect is a lot closer to art, than say, driving a racing car, which is more like a video game.

As far as i am concerned - driving a racing car is a sport. ))

[plfranke]

@Rifneno
Yeah I did not like when he said the catalyst was serving its purpose, and I see the reaction when talking about the crucible I guess it's just frustrating I'm not going to dish out another 10 dollars after 10 dollars to get the same stupid answer about the crucible.

[jgibson14352]

Rifneno wrote...


P.S. Refloating "Thorian is a larval Leviathan" theory.

the Leviathan are aquatic.... wouldnt make much sense

[Rifneno]

jgibson14352 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...


P.S. Refloating "Thorian is a larval Leviathan" theory.

the Leviathan are aquatic.... wouldnt make much sense

After the billion year lifespan and ability to possess aliens, I'd think being amphibious wouldn't be that big a stretch.

[jgibson14352]

Rifneno wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...


P.S. Refloating "Thorian is a larval Leviathan" theory.

the Leviathan are aquatic.... wouldnt make much sense

After the billion year lifespan and ability to possess aliens, I'd think being amphibious wouldn't be that big a stretch.

the thorian had an immense life span, but i dont think the Leviathan were ever covered. progeny doesnt mean direct, 1st generation descendants, which i think you posted a while back.

[Cheesemonke]

okay haven't been keeping up with the thread as of the last few hours but have been playing through leviathan and noticed a few interesting things. One of the thralls (and therefore, leviathan) in the mineral lab is studying the effects of biotics on human evolution. Why would leviathan be interested in human evolution? I also noticed during the conversation with levy that he places a lot of emphasis on how his race was the apex of organic civilization. When you ask about the reapers he says that each cycle results in the birth of a new reaper "perfect in its design" created in harbingers image then his eyes narrow and he puts extra emphasis on the words "OUR IMAGE" now remember humans are as far as we know the only other race the reapers tried to create a reaper in the image of. This would suggest they consider us perhaps to be the next level of evolution perhaps superior to the leviathans and it would seem levy himself is quite upset about this. I don't know what the larger implications might be.

[The Twilight God]

Lokanaiya wrote...

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that Refuse is the only right ending, or even a valid one at all, I'm just offering one of the possible reasons why people might choose Refuse instead of Destroy.

Technically speaking, if it's a dream and Shepard is aware that it is a dream it shouldn't matter what he picks as even if he is picks Control or synthesis his convictions are still his. He could pick Synthesis to deceive the Reapers into believing he is with them (which the books lead me to believe would be impossible anyway, but Shepard doesn't know this). So for any choice to have meaning Shepard has to believe it is occuring and that his choice will have real consequences.

With that in mind, dream or not I don't see how killing them can be seen as compromising with them. You came there to use the Crucible to destroy them and that's what you do and what you would have done even if no glowing blue kid showed up to chat with you. It being a comprimise implies that they are rolling over and killing themselves. If they want to do that they can just lower their shields and let us obliterate them and we don't even need to bother with the Crucible. If we assume it's mandate is genuine (for the sake of argument) then it would want to preserve all life, including synthetics. 

[The Twilight God]

Cheesemonke wrote...

okay haven't been keeping up with the thread as of the last few hours but have been playing through leviathan and noticed a few interesting things. One of the thralls (and therefore, leviathan) in the mineral lab is studying the effects of biotics on human evolution. Why would leviathan be interested in human evolution? I also noticed during the conversation with levy that he places a lot of emphasis on how his race was the apex of organic civilization. When you ask about the reapers he says that each cycle results in the birth of a new reaper "perfect in its design" created in harbingers image then his eyes narrow and he puts extra emphasis on the words "OUR IMAGE" now remember humans are as far as we know the only other race the reapers tried to create a reaper in the image of. This would suggest they consider us perhaps to be the next level of evolution perhaps superior to the leviathans and it would seem levy himself is quite upset about this. I don't know what the larger implications might be.

Aren't all reapers made to resemble the harvested race, but the outside is always a cuttelfish?

Or do you think a reaper starts small and physically grows with a steady diet of soylent green?

[Cheesemonke]

The Twilight God wrote...

Cheesemonke wrote...

okay haven't been keeping up with the thread as of the last few hours but have been playing through leviathan and noticed a few interesting things. One of the thralls (and therefore, leviathan) in the mineral lab is studying the effects of biotics on human evolution. Why would leviathan be interested in human evolution? I also noticed during the conversation with levy that he places a lot of emphasis on how his race was the apex of organic civilization. When you ask about the reapers he says that each cycle results in the birth of a new reaper "perfect in its design" created in harbingers image then his eyes narrow and he puts extra emphasis on the words "OUR IMAGE" now remember humans are as far as we know the only other race the reapers tried to create a reaper in the image of. This would suggest they consider us perhaps to be the next level of evolution perhaps superior to the leviathans and it would seem levy himself is quite upset about this. I don't know what the larger implications might be.

Aren't all reapers made to resemble the harvested race, but the outside is always a cuttelfish?

Or do you think a reaper starts small and physically grows with a steady diet of soylent green?

Ah thats true I didn't realize the human-reaper was just a smaller internal portion of what would be the larger cuttlefish design my b. Still strange how interested leviathan is in human evolution though.