925 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Goneaviking wrote...

Even if you assume control of the reapers, and even if that somehow does affect the geth, that's still taking away the choice of fewer individuals than allowing the reapers to keep doing their thing.

Pretty much this. For all the sophistry about "freedom" and "choices", no one has been able to point out how a dead character has any freedom. At least someone who dislikes an ending Shepard might have chosen still has the option to end their own life, which was their only alternative anyway. By choosing reject, you've decided for everyone: you're all going to die.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 04:33 .

[Isichar]

Bowie Hawkins wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

At least I didn't kill my own forces to kill the enemy

If you chose the Refuse ending, you let the Reapers survive to kill your forces in the vague hope that somebody might manage to find another way to stop them thousands (or possibly millions) of years later.

You know that the people of the next cycle will ultimately triumph because of what Shepard and Liara did, but that's because you saw the ending play out either during your playthrough or on YouTube. Shepard has no way of knowing that.

I completely disagree. The cycle had failed right from the start, the reapers continually proved they could not perfectly control a cycle and their entire existance was a flawed one. This was made clear as far back as mass effect 1, the crucible was just the reapers saving throw to a problem they could only delay.

If you want to place the entire future of organics on the course of firing the reapers magic space gun then by all means do so, its clear you did so because you felt there was no other way. As I said earlier I was not knowingly going to compromise and work to help the reapers in their moment of desperation.

You do realize the Catalyst would have never stopped if he believed he could keep his solution going for ever right? Even before the magic gun was fired he realized this.

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 04:40 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Isichar wrote...

PanzerGr3nadier wrote...


Choosing refusal is a selfish act. Period.

So is using the crucible.

And if you think this is just a troll thread, then why feed it? If you don't believe its even possible for someone to like refuse other then just to ****** others off then your wrong.

Yes. Stopping the Reapers is selfish.

*rolls his eyes*

[Isichar]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Isichar wrote...

PanzerGr3nadier wrote...


Choosing refusal is a selfish act. Period.

So is using the crucible.

And if you think this is just a troll thread, then why feed it? If you don't believe its even possible for someone to like refuse other then just to ****** others off then your wrong.

Yes. Stopping the Reapers is selfish.

*rolls his eyes*

Not because you stopped the reapers, it all comes down to the means and how you chose to stop them.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Isichar wrote...

Not because you stopped the reapers, it all comes down to the means and how you chose to stop them.

It doesn't exactly sound selfish considering that every previous cycle tried (and failed) to activate the Crucible themselves, and laid out the plans precisely so that subsequent cycles would have an advantage which they did not possess. Activating the Crucible gives meaning to what every previous cycle hoped to achieve: ending the cycle.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Isichar wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Isichar wrote...

PanzerGr3nadier wrote...


Choosing refusal is a selfish act. Period.

So is using the crucible.

And if you think this is just a troll thread, then why feed it? If you don't believe its even possible for someone to like refuse other then just to ****** others off then your wrong.

Yes. Stopping the Reapers is selfish.

*rolls his eyes*

Not because you stopped the reapers, it all comes down to the means and how you chose to stop them.

I chose to stop them using the plan we had since the beginning of the game. Using the device we had been building the entire game. Using resources we had been finding the entire game. With the fleet I had been putting together for the entire game.

Yes. I used the Crucible. Yes. I stopped the Reapers. Yes. I did what I was there to do. Yes. I saved trillions of lives.

No. That does not make me selfish.

[PanzerGr3nadier]

Isichar wrote...

PanzerGr3nadier wrote...


Choosing refusal is a selfish act. Period.

So is using the crucible.

And if you think this is just a troll thread, then why feed it? If you don't believe its even possible for someone to like refuse other then just to ****** others off then your wrong.

Look, We've both said things which you are going to regret

I don't, because IT IS THE WORST POSSIBLE DECISION! Why?

Choosing refusal would undo everything you've ever done... Reapers will win!

Refusal is a jack**s' choice, Even renegade shep would use the Crucible.

[Pitznik]

Someone who sacrifices his life for an ideal is probably a hero.

Someone who sacrifices the whole galaxy for his ideals, is a monster. Or some kind of ancient AI stuck in a loop.

Refusal is becoming a Catalyst essentially - you are willing to sacrifice trillions of lives for some abstract idea, which only has worth as long as people who believe in it exist. If people fighting for freedom of nation X all die, the nation X no longer exists. Those who were fighting for it, ultimately doomed it. There is no freedom with all the free people dead, there is no choice, when all able to choose are dead. Fighting makes sense when you are trying to preserve something you value. Sacrifice is pointless if noone benefits from it.

[Bowie Hawkins]

Isichar wrote...

If you want to place the entire future of organics on the course of firing the reapers magic space gun then by all means do so, its clear you did so because you felt there was no other way. As I said earlier I was not knowingly going to compromise and work to help the reapers in their moment of desperation.

The problem with this argument is that there was no such moment of desperation on the Reapers' part. For every Reaper ship that is destroyed (or even significantly damaged) in the battle raging around Earth, the allied forces lose several of their own.

Shepard has no evidence to indicate that Refusal will result in anything other than this being the last gasp of the spacefaring species before they are either converted into Reapers or driven to extinction. And even though we as players know that the Reapers are defeated in the next cycle, that means that we also know that in this one - the one where Shepard and her allies fought their war across the span of three games - the Reapers win.

It's the exact sort of Hobson's choice that Garrus talks about with Shepard in ME3, when he talks about how Shepard might be forced to sacrifice millions, or even billions, in order to save trillions. And the sad reality is that if you choose Refuse because you are unwilling to sacrifice those millions or billions, they still die, and the trillions that might otherwise have been saved do also.

[SpamBot2000]

What it must come down to from a RP point of view is "Do you believe the holokid enough to do what he tells you to do?" If not, you'd try to do something else while up there. But there you get screwed by the script that has Shepard just standing there frozen while the atrocity goes on. So there you go, critical mission failure because you didn't give up on RP and just pick a (very video gamey) ABC choice. And that's your bad ending being bad indeed.

"But will someone please think of the children?!?!?!" Dude, there's no universe there. BioWare just broke it and replaced it with a hypothetical ABC experiment. And a bad one at that.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 16 août 2012 - 09:51 .

[ATiBotka]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

What it must come down to from a RP point of view is "Do you believe the holokid enough to do what he tells you to do?" If not, you'd try to do something else while up there. But there you get screwed by the script that has Shepard just standing there frozen while the atrocity goes on. So there you go, critical mission failure because you didn't give up on RP and just pick a (very video gamey) ABC choice. And that's your bad ending being bad indeed.

"But will someone please think of the children?!?!?!" Dude, there's no universe there. BioWare just broke it and replaced it with a hypothetical ABC experiment. And a bad one at that.

What else could he do?

[SpamBot2000]

ATiBotka wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

What it must come down to from a RP point of view is "Do you believe the holokid enough to do what he tells you to do?" If not, you'd try to do something else while up there. But there you get screwed by the script that has Shepard just standing there frozen while the atrocity goes on. So there you go, critical mission failure because you didn't give up on RP and just pick a (very video gamey) ABC choice. And that's your bad ending being bad indeed.

"But will someone please think of the children?!?!?!" Dude, there's no universe there. BioWare just broke it and replaced it with a hypothetical ABC experiment. And a bad one at that.

What else could he do?

**** **** up? 

Damn censorship, ruining my good idea. But basically he could start by having a look around.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 16 août 2012 - 10:03 .

[ghost9191]

you trust in the machine that the races built, the only option that you should distrust is synthesis, just because it is the only option that is influenced by the catalyst. Destroy and control are part of the crucible, what it was built for

synthesis is achieved and can only be achieved with shepard and the catalyst whereas you would always have the control or destroy no matter ems

so when i choose destroy, i am not trusting the catalyst, i am trusting the races of the galaxy and what they built, if the catalyst wasn't there you would still arrive at 2 of the choices

and the out come cannot be worse then refuse

the downside to destroy is understandable, if not forced by the devs. to take out the reapers you would need to target synthetics or reaper code, which the geth have thanks to their upgrade ( which i might add goes against everything legion says before that ) so the catalyst doesn't really have much control there. and it hates the idea

control is iffy, i don't see why they can't just scan sheps brain and make a copy , rather then "absorbing" him by disintegration or whatever.

don't feel like making my post "synthesis hate" so i will avoid that topic

but yeah the crucible was built for control or destroy, it is not really a matter of trusting the catalyst but those that built the crucible

in my opinion

[SpamBot2000]

ghost9191 wrote...

but yeah the crucible was built for control or destroy, it is not really a matter of trusting the catalyst but those that built the crucible

Says you. See the problem?

[ghost9191]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

but yeah the crucible was built for control or destroy, it is not really a matter of trusting the catalyst but those that built the crucible

Says you. See the problem?

hints the "in my opinion" part

and pretty sure it does have fact to it. the crucible was built for destroy, then down the road control was added on, which split the groups. then synthesis was added by the catalyst

[Examurai]

So Shepard sacrificing trillions of lives to save face is a better choice??
Sorry man but THAT to me, is what you call selfish. While the RGB choices maybe morally wrong, if it takes only Shepard's morals to be sacrificed in turn on saving trillion of lives than hell i'll pick those choices over refusal.
To me refusal will always be just a middle finger from Bioware, nothing more.

[Goneaviking]

Examurai1 wrote...

So Shepard sacrificing trillions of lives to save face is a better choice??
Sorry man but THAT to me, is what you call selfish. While the RGB choices maybe morally wrong, if it takes only Shepard's morals to be sacrificed in turn on saving trillion of lives than hell i'll pick those choices over refusal.
To me refusal will always be just a middle finger from Bioware, nothing more.

To be honest, I've always thought that refusal was a middle finger directed at Bioware.

[SpamBot2000]

ghost9191 wrote...

hints the "in my opinion" part

and pretty sure it does have fact to it. the crucible was built for destroy, then down the road control was added on, which split the groups. then synthesis was added by the catalyst

I know it's your opinion, you made it clear. But that's the problem. The player has to decide that stuff in advance, not basing it on what's said in the game (because they don't - "We have no idea what the Crucible does" etc.) for picking an option from the holokid's menu to make sense. Yet pick you must, or Game Over. I'd say that qualifies as pretty weak writing.

[ghost9191]

but then bioware gave themselves the middle finger

:blush:

Modifié par ghost9191, 16 août 2012 - 10:19 .

[SpamBot2000]

Here's a thought: The ending is a middle finger, and the players are just the ones caught in the line of fire. And paying for the privilege.

[Pitznik]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

but yeah the crucible was built for control or destroy, it is not really a matter of trusting the catalyst but those that built the crucible

Says you. See the problem?

There are no benefits from Destroy or Control for the Catalyst, compared to his working solution, the Reapers. None.

But I agree that refusal shouldn't be cut to black, because it is pretty normal to refuse at first, just to check and see, esepcially that choice isn't confirmed through dialogue, but through certain action. It should be just empty room, terminals active, EMS counting down to zero, kid staying still with his stupid face. And you limp around watching your ems getting lower and lower, looking frantically for something that isn't RGB.

Instead I just headcanon Shepard calling out the Catalyst again and reload the game.

Modifié par Pitznik, 16 août 2012 - 10:24 .

[ATiBotka]

Examurai1 wrote...

To me refusal will always be just a middle finger from Bioware, nothing more.

What did you expect? Conventional victory?

[ghost9191]

SpamBot2000 wrote...



I know it's your opinion, you made it clear. But that's the problem. The player has to decide that stuff in advance, not basing it on what's said in the game (because they don't - "We have no idea what the Crucible does" etc.) for picking an option from the holokid's menu to make sense. Yet pick you must, or Game Over. I'd say that qualifies as pretty weak writing.

yeah i just try to make the best of what i got, i wish they would do a better job with destroy. they talked about closure and whatnot for ec but they leave it opened. that is not closure. i just want to know if shep lives or dies, can take it eitehr way, figure my shep is dead now until i see otherwise

but that is off topic, as i was saying i am just trying to make the best of it, i prefer to think of the options that were presented , not being done by the catalyst but by those that created the crucible, otherwise the villian that was introduced in the last 10 mins becomes the hero . and shepard is just a tool

i see it as you have no real option other then to take the choices at face value, i mean you can see them all as morally wrong and choose refuse but refusing to save face is wrong on it's own. one mans morals not worth saving the galaxy?

[ghost9191]

Pitznik wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

but yeah the crucible was built for control or destroy, it is not really a matter of trusting the catalyst but those that built the crucible

Says you. See the problem?

There are no benefits from Destroy or Control for the Catalyst, compared to his working solution, the Reapers. None.

But I agree that refusal shouldn't be cut to black, because it is pretty normal to refuse at first, just to check and see, esepcially that choice isn't confirmed through dialogue, but through certain action. It should be just empty room, terminals active, EMS counting down to zero, kid staying still with his stupid face. And you limp around watching your ems getting lower and lower, looking frantically for something that isn't RGB.

Instead I just headcanon Shepard calling out the Catalyst again and reload the game.

my shepard , if it was my shepard in the last 10 mins,. i mean i don't choose refuse as my "canon" but the way shep acts in doing it, well up to standing there doing nothing, he sounds like the shep i molded , anyways my shep would go find a avenger rifle ,and blow that fu*king citadel up from the inside, i mean you just find out that the thing leading the reapers is on the citadel, oh let me think for a minute. so the leader of the reapers, controller of machines that harvest, lives on the citadel   


let's blow this fu*ker up ( takes off sunglasses )

[SpamBot2000]

ghost9191 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...



I know it's your opinion, you made it clear. But that's the problem. The player has to decide that stuff in advance, not basing it on what's said in the game (because they don't - "We have no idea what the Crucible does" etc.) for picking an option from the holokid's menu to make sense. Yet pick you must, or Game Over. I'd say that qualifies as pretty weak writing.

yeah i just try to make the best of what i got, i wish they would do a better job with destroy. they talked about closure and whatnot for ec but they leave it opened. that is not closure. i just want to know if shep lives or dies, can take it eitehr way, figure my shep is dead now until i see otherwise

but that is off topic, as i was saying i am just trying to make the best of it, i prefer to think of the options that were presented , not being done by the catalyst but by those that created the crucible, otherwise the villian that was introduced in the last 10 mins becomes the hero . and shepard is just a tool

i see it as you have no real option other then to take the choices at face value, i mean you can see them all as morally wrong and choose refuse but refusing to save face is wrong on it's own. one mans morals not worth saving the galaxy?

Yeah, cool if it works for you. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, just making a valid case for refusing to pick.