435 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It was a risk they were forced to take, however, it was necessary for peace. And, it worked out fine.

Unlike the control ending, in which you had to head-cannon out the Big Brother aspects...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 20 octobre 2012 - 12:27 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

drayfish wrote...

You seem to have some curious (I would argue misguided) notion that once Shepard picks Refuse everyone just lays down their guns and waits for the reapin'. 

Refuse is not the 'Oh well, lets just give up and get a snack...' option that people such as yourself seem to repeatedly categorise it being.  (I'm not sure whether this is just a means of justifying your own choice, but it is extrememly unhelpful.)

Well yes, that's pretty obvious. I wasnt implying that everyone, nor even Shepard, gives up in Refuse.

The war still goes on.  Doubtless it takes decades - and yes it ultimately fails - but arguing that Shepard should have definitely already known, and that moment, that there would never be any hope is metagaming.

Not really. This idiot's best plan before Liara found a gift bomb on Mars is "We fight, or we die." . Not exactly a winning strategy. But that's just it. Without the Crucible, the guy who knows most about this threat has nothing.
I'll reiterate what I said in response to the other guy: using background knowledge from the story is not metagaming.

ME1 established quite clearly that the balance-of-power is lopsided in the Reapers' favor: they have superior numbers (Sovereign: "our numbers will darken the skies of every world") and they have superior strength (Sovereign's rampage through the Citadel fleets. Damn thing took out ships at a time before it finally died, and it sounds like there are more of them than us). Again, we have nothing. We were given nothing, clearly the ME team didn't know themselves since they established the Reapers outside the realm of conventional defeat.

So what did ME2 do toward tipping this balance in our favor, numbers or strength? Nothing. ME3? Without the Crucible as our ace-in-the-hole, again, nothing. It's very straightforward reasoning. No metagaming here.

What Refuse symbolises is that Shepard is unwilling to buy into what appears to be a trap - a gift too good to be true, being offered by the uber-enemy, who has a history of using this very deception on people to pull them into his thrall (I'm sure they whispered: 'You, unlike everyone else, could control us...' to the Illusive Man too), and who is telling Shepard that she has to take up his mission, using his tools of domination, to bring it about.  Nothing in that mix predisposes me to trust.

There's another thing, I do not believe catalyst's control of the Reapers means he's micromanaging them. So, the Reapers lying to you is not the catalyst lying to you, IMO. And think about it: TIM can control you by the end of the game, but then, he's not aware that he himself is under control (until you make him realize it). If the Reapers have a higher-up, odds are they don't know it. Especially after Sovereign stated, wrongly, that they are each independent. I think he simply has the Reapers programmed to harvest, nothing more.

In contrast, Refuse symbolises that even with her back against the wall, even in the darkest hour, when all seems lost (add any number of other epic cliches into the narrative salad), Shepard will not abandon her faith in the fellowship she has gathered.  She will not validate a fundamentally racist world view that is, at its heart, a form of nihilistic surrender.  She will not inflict horror upon her own people - at the request of her enemy - just because its easier.  She will not become an unstoppable totalitarian god (possibly losing all control of herself - as everyone who has ever tried that before has - and strengthening the Reapers by adding herself to the mix).

Well here's the thing, I *get* why Refuse is chosen over Destroy/Synthesis. You called them genocide/eugenics respectively. Therein, I get why people would see those options not being worth it. I don't agree, but I get it.

However, things fall apart for Refuse in my eyes when arguing against Control. If you're going to nix the whole mission with no backup plan of your own, with the lives of the whole galaxy at stake, it should be for a damn good reason. You can make a case for genocide and eugenics being that reason. But fear of power in Control doesn't cut it, because at worst, you're back to where you started (and where Refuse starts immediately) - a galaxy at war with the Reapers. And you write-off a very attractive best-case scenario that Refuse could never offer: ending the war with no further casualties, and the Reapers are not a threat afterwards.

How is that not worth trying over "we fight or we die!" - ?

Also, I'd say it's a bit late to take issue with holding power. You have ME1 making you a council agent who's above the law in just about every way. Part of an agency with a reputation for being corruptible, so....

Again: I'm not saying it's the right choice - every single one of these endings are disgusting - but you keep asking people to explain the 'state of mind' of the Refuser and then slapping them down with dissatisfaction when you get them,

I'm only dissatisified with responses insofar as my singular question remains insufficiently answered.

so maybe this will help you understand why some people choose it, and allow you to show respect enough to not belittle them,

Belittle? I don't see any of that in my post. I conceded that I get why they choose it over two of the options. The other? Not saying they're stupid, I simply stated that I myself don't get it. I've thought about this long and hard, but I've got nothing. So I was wondering if anyone else did. I doubted it, but thought it was worth a try.

or demand that they change their opinion because it does not match yours.

I'm not demanding anything. Simply looking at my sig should be enough to show Control is not even my choice.

At least, I hope you haven't taken my parody to mean anything.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 octobre 2012 - 02:23 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Phil Dingus wrote...

I'd pick Refuse just because it's nonsensical (a trap) that after all these millenia, the Starkid just lifts me up there and says "All right, well, pick a button to end all this stuff, I guess."

That was the part of the ending that bugged me the most.

rofl... a "Dingus" in a Brule thread?!

Too good. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

DrGunjah wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
There's a key difference here: by simply carrying the ring, they took the same risk one makes by choosing Control.

No. Because there's another difference - the ring is not a high energy power source that may blow up in your hands when just carrying it.

You misunderstood me.

The notion of the ring corrupting its holder is no less a risk in Frodo's hands than Gandalf's, really. So, there's a chance that Frodo might decide he wants to keep the ring rather than destroy it, somewhere along the way (and he almost did). But, again, it was a chance they needed to take. It beat refusing to do so and letting the enemy win.

It's not really comparable to Control OR Destroy. It would be like ~ destroying the Reapers through controlling them (I know that doesn't exist in-game, just saying).

Further, it's actually his buddy gandalf that tells him he should carry the ring to finally destroy it. It's not that sauron knocks on his door and says "hey dude, you should really carry that ring and go destroy it because otherwise I will kill you all. Unfortunately there's no time to tell you why and you wouldn't understand it anyway. Oh and hurry up! *"

Uhh...

So if Gandalf told Frodo to jump off a bridge to his death for no good reason, and Sauron tells him not to, Frodo should go commit suicide - just because the former is your buddy and the latter is not??

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 octobre 2012 - 02:25 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Bill Casey wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It was a risk they were forced to take, however, it was necessary for peace. And, it worked out fine.

Unlike the control ending, in which you had to head-cannon out the Big Brother aspects...

What are you talking about? I didn't even choose Control. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

I've only ever said that headcanon is appropriate for an ending that is as heavily centered around the PC as Control is.

Anthonx wrote...

like someone stated earlier no one ever made it back from the omega 4 relay either. Shepard's story filled with a lot of impossible situations he conquers.

Like controllan the Reapers? 

[dreaming_raithe]

Kiasa Shepard wouldn't become her enemy (Control).
Kiasa Shepard wouldn't resort to eugenics to win a war (Synthesis).
Kiasa Shepard wouldn't sacrifice the Geth she fought to save to win (Destroy).

She never believed that conventional victory was impossible, and never trusted the Catalyst. Refusal was obvious for her. From an in-character perspective, I chose the dialogue choices that seemed appropriate for my Shepard. I got to Refuse without being entirely sure that's what I was picking, and to be honest, I'm bitter about it. I got an unsatisfactory conclusion because I stayed in character the entire way (which is marginally better than being forced to break character as in the original ending).

Ultimately, that's why I haven't come back to the game. I'm not sure that I ever will at this point.

[DrGunjah]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
You misunderstood me.

The notion of the ring corrupting its holder is no less a risk in Frodo's hands than Gandalf's, really. So, there's a chance that Frodo might decide he wants to keep the ring rather than destroy it, somewhere along the way (and he almost did). But, again, it was a chance they needed to take. It beat refusing to do so and letting the enemy win.

It's not really comparable to Control OR Destroy. It would be like ~ destroying the Reapers through controlling them (I know that doesn't exist in-game, just saying).

But obviously it is less a risk in frodos hands than in boromirs. Which of these two characters would you rather compare to shepard? Even a 100% paragon shepard is not a saint.
By the way I don't get why you make the comparison so complex. The obvious comparison would be frodo standing within the mountain. All the time people told him he has to destroy the ring. Now inside the mountain there is no lava but sauron waits for him and tells him that he is misunderstood. And that he has to make the decision: put down the ring in this bowl over there to destroy him (but that will also kill all dwarfs), control him by using the ring or turn everybody into orks so you can be friends forever! But uhm did I mention you will be killed by the last two options. 
I guess they would have changed the ending for the movie then

So if Gandalf told Frodo to jump off a bridge to his death for no good reason, and Sauron tells him not to, Frodo should go commit suicide - just because the former is your buddy and the latter is not??

Unless you explain what "jump off the bridge" 's counterpart in the me universe is, this argument is irrelevant. If frodo is not supposed to trust gandalf, then shepard is also not supposed to trust hackett or anderson or whichever person you think the ME gandalf is. (... If you like control, maybe even the illusive man? )

[jpraelster93]

Control sucks because whos to say they wont break free of that control one day

[M Hedonist]

This thread is still alive?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Sauruz wrote...

This thread is still alive?

Yes. 5 pages after you prayed desperately for its death, and now again after asking this question.

This hurts you...