234 réponses à ce sujet

[arial]

 I often see people on these forums saying they pick refuse because "My Shepard would not commit Genocide".

which makes me want to ask.

do you really picture Shepard the kind of person that would doom everyone, just because there were ones he could not save? 



I believe Spock said it best: www.youtube.com/watch

[DeinonSlayer]

I'm sure the soldier being mauled to death on Earth by husks after his wife was turned into one, and his daughter was rendered into gray paste, will die happy in the knowledge that The Shepard kept his hands clean when total victory was thirty paces and half a thermal clip away.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 10 décembre 2012 - 12:26 .

[ChrisDV]

Well, my refusal playthrough came at the end of the save file which saw Shepard turn out to be a barely competant mood swinging jackass. It seemed like the right fit.

[Bill Casey]

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

[GreyLycanTrope]

Shepard doesn't know she's dooming the galaxy though, she's acting within her defined character. She's never been one to throw people under the proverbial bus just because it was more convenient. Not to mention that listening to the Reapers or their overlord hasn't historically worked out well for people.

Whenever she picks destroy she ends up feeling like this:

Regrets and bad feels. Her therapist's going to be rich.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 10 décembre 2012 - 12:38 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

Another reason why playing as a "pure paragon" is stupid.

[arial]

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

[Sejborg]

Or maybe the kind of Shepard that is willing to let everyone die for what he believes in!

Greylycantrope wrote...

Shepard doesn't know she's dooming the galaxy though, she's acting within her defined character. She's never been one to throw people under the proverbial bus just because it was more convenient. Not to mention that listening to the Reapers or their overlord hasn't historically worked out well for people.

No. Shepard should know. Especially if you listen in on the radio on Earth. The forces are being squashed and blown to pieces in no time. 

[DeinonSlayer]

arial wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

It's basically the same as if Shepard chose to stand around until the Virmire bomb goes off because he couldn't save both Kaidan and Ashley... only this time EVERYONE dies.

[arial]

Sejborg wrote...

Or maybe the kind of Shepard that is willing to let everyone die for what he believes in!

Greylycantrope wrote...

Shepard doesn't know she's dooming the galaxy though, she's acting within her defined character. She's never been one to throw people under the proverbial bus just because it was more convenient. Not to mention that listening to the Reapers or their overlord hasn't historically worked out well for people.

No. Shepard should know. Especially if you listen in on the radio on Earth. The forces are being squashed and blown to pieces in no time. 

not to mention, Shepards response everytime he is told "You know we can't win this thing conventionally" (be Liara, Hackett or Anderson saying it) has always been "I know".

[Peranor]

What is this talk about "genocide"? I pick refuse because it's inspiring and uplifting.

[Ticonderoga117]

"I've been sticking it to the Reapers since this all started years ago, why should I stop now?"

Modifié par Ticonderoga117, 10 décembre 2012 - 12:47 .

[gavinbrindstaar]

arial wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

Refuse is saying "I won't play by your rules." Some Shepards are out to save as many people as possible, and that's fine. My Shepard decided that choosing one of the Catalyst's options was the same thing as letting him win. My Shepard decided not to trust the magical space boy that just admitted to being the big bad guy.

[GreyLycanTrope]

arial wrote...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

Saving as many as possible is exatly what Shep is trying to do in refuse, it doesn't work but that is what's intended.

"If we reduce this war to arithmetic we're not better than the Reapers" doesn't sound like it to me <_<

[Kawamura]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

arial wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

It's basically the same as if Shepard chose to stand around until the Virmire bomb goes off because he couldn't save both Kaidan and Ashley... only this time EVERYONE dies.

Sure. 

But only if, on Virmire, every possible outcome involved compromising every moral you'd ever had. You can save Ash at expense of Kaidan, but only if you take control of her body and forever deny her will. You can save Kaidan at expense of Ash, but only if you two embrace the bomb and have your consciousness impressed on his forever destroying his differences without his consent. You can destroy the bomb and have all your crew die for, uh, reasons that the Normandy randomly stops working. Oh, and you die too? 

Or you can decide to sacrifice all three of yourselves in the knowledge that the bomb will explode and the next group will be able to do it without the cost of each of the above action. 

It's not a perfect metaphor, but with refuse, the cost of every other option, of every choice given to you by a machine that might be lying anyways, their costs are far too high. So knowing that Liara has put away a time capsule with your junk in it, you take the long term view. You set up a cycle that will win without compromise and without possibly aiding the Reapers. You sacrifice one last cycle for the sure freedom of all life in the galaxy after you. 

[Bill Casey]

anorling wrote...

What is this talk about "genocide"? I pick refuse because it's inspiring and uplifting.

From a literal interpretation, refuse is the most hopeful ending...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 10 décembre 2012 - 12:49 .

[Sejborg]

gavinbrindstaar wrote...

arial wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

Refuse is saying "I won't play by your rules." Some Shepards are out to save as many people as possible, and that's fine. My Shepard decided that choosing one of the Catalyst's options was the same thing as letting him win. My Shepard decided not to trust the magical space boy that just admitted to being the big bad guy.

"Shepard you only have time to save one of us. Go save Ashley"
"No Shepard! You have to save Kaidan!"
"...I won't play by Sarens rules! I refuse to save any of you!" 

[GreyLycanTrope]

Sejborg wrote...
No. Shepard should know. Especially if you listen in on the radio on Earth. The forces are being squashed and blown to pieces in no time. 

It's a though battle, she expects casualties.

arial wrote...
not to mention, Shepards response everytime he
is told "You know we can't win this thing conventionally" (be Liara,
Hackett or Anderson saying it) has always been "I know".

Wasn't supposed to walk away from the collector base without losing people either Shepard's done the impossible before.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 10 décembre 2012 - 12:51 .

[xAmilli0n]

The only time I've ever considered refuse was with HEAVY headcanon involving the Catalyst (not IT, but similar idea in that it is trying to trick you).  It still ends in the Reapers winning, but its because there was no other choice.  I like this for story reason, but its not what is presented in game.

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

Another reason why playing as a "pure paragon" is stupid.

Agreed.

[arial]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
No. Shepard should know. Especially if you listen in on the radio on Earth. The forces are being squashed and blown to pieces in no time. 

It's a though battle, she expects casualties.

arial wrote...
not to mention, Shepards response everytime he
is told "You know we can't win this thing conventionally" (be Liara,
Hackett or Anderson saying it) has always been "I know".

Wasn't supposed to walk away from the collector base without losing people either Shepard's done the impossible before.

lol, compared to Reapers, the Collectors were stuffed cats.

and besides, Shepard was at least saying back in ME2 that they had a chance against the Collectors, compared to ME3 where he utterly admits they can not win conventionally

[Sejborg]

Kawamura wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

arial wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

It's basically the same as if Shepard chose to stand around until the Virmire bomb goes off because he couldn't save both Kaidan and Ashley... only this time EVERYONE dies.

Sure. 

But only if, on Virmire, every possible outcome involved compromising every moral you'd ever had. You can save Ash at expense of Kaidan, but only if you take control of her body and forever deny her will. You can save Kaidan at expense of Ash, but only if you two embrace the bomb and have your consciousness impressed on his forever destroying his differences without his consent. You can destroy the bomb and have all your crew die for, uh, reasons that the Normandy randomly stops working. Oh, and you die too? 

Or you can decide to sacrifice all three of yourselves in the knowledge that the bomb will explode and the next group will be able to do it without the cost of each of the above action. 

It's not a perfect metaphor, but with refuse, the cost of every other option, of every choice given to you by a machine that might be lying anyways, their costs are far too high. So knowing that Liara has put away a time capsule with your junk in it, you take the long term view. You set up a cycle that will win without compromise and without possibly aiding the Reapers. You sacrifice one last cycle for the sure freedom of all life in the galaxy after you. 

Only. The next cycle will stand in the exact same dilemma. And by your logic refuse is the best choice, so if everyone follows that logic, then the reapers are never ever defeated. Thankfully the next cycle do not refuse, and life can continue to evolve. 

[Kawamura]

Sejborg wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

arial wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

It's basically the same as if Shepard chose to stand around until the Virmire bomb goes off because he couldn't save both Kaidan and Ashley... only this time EVERYONE dies.

Sure. 

But only if, on Virmire, every possible outcome involved compromising every moral you'd ever had. You can save Ash at expense of Kaidan, but only if you take control of her body and forever deny her will. You can save Kaidan at expense of Ash, but only if you two embrace the bomb and have your consciousness impressed on his forever destroying his differences without his consent. You can destroy the bomb and have all your crew die for, uh, reasons that the Normandy randomly stops working. Oh, and you die too? 

Or you can decide to sacrifice all three of yourselves in the knowledge that the bomb will explode and the next group will be able to do it without the cost of each of the above action. 

It's not a perfect metaphor, but with refuse, the cost of every other option, of every choice given to you by a machine that might be lying anyways, their costs are far too high. So knowing that Liara has put away a time capsule with your junk in it, you take the long term view. You set up a cycle that will win without compromise and without possibly aiding the Reapers. You sacrifice one last cycle for the sure freedom of all life in the galaxy after you. 

Only. The next cycle will stand in the exact same dilemma. And by your logic refuse is the best choice, so if everyone follows that logic, then the reapers are never ever defeated. Thankfully the next cycle do not refuse, and life can continue to evolve. 

The hope is that they're ready to win conventionally, with heavy losses, but no creepy ****. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Kawamura wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

arial wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...
And any other time, he'd find another way to win...

lol, not at all.

Refuse is basicly saying "You won't let me save <insert here>? fine, go kill us all then!".

Shepards (even Paragon Shepards) goal has been "Save as many as possible". and according to various tidbits of dialogue throughout the trilogy you easily gain the impression that he knows "saving everyone" is unrealistic.

It's basically the same as if Shepard chose to stand around until the Virmire bomb goes off because he couldn't save both Kaidan and Ashley... only this time EVERYONE dies.

Sure. 

But only if, on Virmire, every possible outcome involved compromising every moral you'd ever had. You can save Ash at expense of Kaidan, but only if you take control of her body and forever deny her will. You can save Kaidan at expense of Ash, but only if you two embrace the bomb and have your consciousness impressed on his forever destroying his differences without his consent. You can destroy the bomb and have all your crew die for, uh, reasons that the Normandy randomly stops working. Oh, and you die too? 

Or you can decide to sacrifice all three of yourselves in the knowledge that the bomb will explode and the next group will be able to do it without the cost of each of the above action. 

It's not a perfect metaphor, but with refuse, the cost of every other option, of every choice given to you by a machine that might be lying anyways, their costs are far too high. So knowing that Liara has put away a time capsule with your junk in it, you take the long term view. You set up a cycle that will win without compromise and without possibly aiding the Reapers. You sacrifice one last cycle for the sure freedom of all life in the galaxy after you. 

No... your "destroy" metaphor falls flat on its face. Destroy just means you're sacrificing one (say, Kaidan) to save all the rest (Geth vs. every other race). Refuse means you stand around until the bomb goes off and everyone dies.

The only Shepard of mine who chose Refuse was my failshep, who walked towards Destroy, then heel-turned and popped the Catalyst out of spite.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 10 décembre 2012 - 01:00 .