234 réponses à ce sujet

[Scottus4]

Now on to metagaming. We all know how all of the choices play out. My personal *best* choice is Control because it does spare everyone and the status quo is regained fairly quickly with the Shreapers repairing the damage. Plus Shepard *survives* and if need be can nudge things back to where they "should" be if the balance gets out of whack.

Next is actually Refuse. The logic of the Leviathan's AI is correct. The only way to ensure the survival of intelligent life is to continue the cycles no matter how monstrous that may seem to each cycle.

Synthesis will solve the problem of organic vs synthetic, until a new synthetic race is created as a subservient race. Then the cycle begins anew.

Destroy breaks the cycle. YAA! No more Reapers! Oh, wait. Now there's nothing to stop the inevitable next generation of synthetics from enslaving/eradicating all organic life. Good luck with that.

If you're looking at cold hard logic, sure. I have to pick Destroy though. I acknowledge that the cycle existed for a reason and that Destroy doesn't solve the root problem, but I'm not willing to make myself the dictator of billions of lifeforms or forcefully implant cybernetics within every living being to fix the problem. It is a problem that galactic society as a whole should come together when they're ready to address. If this cycle can stand united to face the Reapers and build an alien piece of technology they hardly understand, I think they can come to a fair consensus about what to do with synthetics that doesn't involve murdering them.

[Kacynski]

Eterna5 wrote...

Kacynski wrote...

Actually as a player Refuse did give me the best feeling of all the endings. Finally the Reapers have been defeated and destroyed on my terms. Go f*** yourselves big, ugly cuttlefish. Getting to see that my actions mattered and the wisdom gathered and preserved in Liara's time capsule was kind of rewarding.

But in respect to Shepard and the ME galaxy Refuse does not make any sense imho. That was not what my Shepard has come to do for to the Citadel. She came to end the war with the Reapers. She came to save her friends and the galaxy the relied upon her. She could not refuse just to show the Catalyst the middle finger (even if I, as a player, wanted to do exactly that). So she made her choice and destroyed the Reapers because that's what she wanted to do since she first spoke to Sovereign: "You are not even alive, not really! You are just a machine and machines can be broken."

Shepards cycle didn't destroy the reapers though, everyone died. The next cycle used the crucible plans Liara passed down to beat them. 

Which is funny because it makes refuse even more pintless, you died for absolutely nothing. 
 

I probably didn't make my point clear enough, for me it is very distinct between what I see fitting and satisfying for me as a player and what I see fitting and satisfying for my Shepard as a being of the ME universe. Seeing the next cycle succeed with the help of the time capsule was quite satisfying for me as a player, sitting in my chair outside the gameworld. I liked the option to tell Starbrat to f*** off. For my Shepard Refuse does not make any sense as I pointed out above.
I is very distinct in terms of immersed ingame and on a metagame perspective. Although I liked the refuse option I will not choose it for any of my Shepards because Refuse would be my choice and not their choice. I hope this makes clear what I am getting at.

E: Refuse does completely brake the fourth wall for me, it added a nice meta-gaming option but did nothing to help Shepard & Co ingame.

Modifié par Kacynski, 10 décembre 2012 - 10:54 .

[Islandrockzor]

I fancy the Refuse ending. Here is why:

- All three other endings require me to take the Intelligence/the Catalyst on face value.

- Control and Synthesis especially, but arguably Destroy too, are very permanent choices. I don't know the consequences, and ****ing up the galay forever seems not too unlikely. By refusing, I offer the next cycle a chance to do one better with the new information gained in this cycle, and heck, if they too fail, to add to the knowledge of their next cycle etc. = By refusing I **** up the galaxy for the next 50k years, but not permanently.

- Refuse, to me, is the conversation option "Hey, I'm not gonna kill myself on your fancy machines before you give me a reason to trust you." From an in character perspective it makes sense.

- My chosen Shepard usually has the combination Colonist/sole survivor and a good deal of paranoia along with that.

[Islandrockzor]

MrFob wrote...

It is worth noting how the refuse option came to be in the first place. After the original endings prompted the strong reaction that they did, there were quite a few people here on the forums who said they'd rather refuse the catalyst than give in to him, even if we lost. In particular, I remember this fan video here but it's just an example.
I even remember a thread where a dev (although I think it might have been Allan, who is not part of the ME3 team) asked if the ending would have been received better if their was a refuse option that entailed loosing. The overwhelming response was yes.

But why? I do agree that in the light of the EC, refusal seems pointless but in the context of the original endings, it made perfect sense. In these endings, we didn't see into the future, we didn't get to know the consequences of our actions. 99% of the people were convinced that Synthesis would have the worst repercussions possible on the galaxy. Almost as many were convinced that that Shepard becoming the reaper overlord wouldn't turn out well for anyone and more than enough were convinced that the exploding relays either destroyed everything in their blasts or at least stranded everyone where ever they were at the time, at the very least creating huge problems in the sol system and for the dextro-food dependent crew members of the stranded Normandy. Things looked a lot more bleak back then and refusal would have been seen as an outcome on par with the other endings.

And so, while BW "listened" to the fans with this option, yet again, they didn't really get the point. By slapping happy sunshine and rainbow outcomes on all the ending choices (the failure of which goes far beyond the point that is discussed here IMO), the refusal choice is seen in a very different context. From a meta gaming point of view it cannot be defended (unless you employ trick like the IT).
It can only be defended from Shepards point of view and that is best illustrated with the pre-EC endings. Shepard doesn't know the happy EC outcomes. S/he has not seen the slides where Wrex gets back to Tuchanka, where the Geth and the Quarians celebrate hand in hand (in synthesis at least) and where the Normandy takes of after 2 sunny weeks on the vacation planet. As far as Shepard is concerned, he just heard the most insane three proposals from the boss of the reapers.

And now comes the crucial point: Who is your Shepard? Is s/he ruthless enough to choose destroy? Is s/he arrogant enough to choose control? Is s/he enough of an optimist (or maybe even naiv enough) to choose synthesis? Or does s/he just have the right measure of insanity and idealism to leave it up to the next cycle? That is up to the player and that is a good thing.

People say that BW slapped the fans in the face with the refusal ending. I think it's the other way round. I think BW slapped those who wanted refuse in the first palce in the face with the EC epilogues for the old endings.

This post here is a pretty decent one too, and I agree with most points it brings up.

[Steelcan]

Am I the only person for whom the fate of EDI and the geth was a complete non issue?

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Steelcan wrote...

Am I the only person for whom the fate of EDI and the geth was a complete non issue?

Nope. They are machines, they will be missed only momentarily.

[DeinonSlayer]

Islandrockzor wrote...

I fancy the Refuse ending. Here is why:

- All three other endings require me to take the Intelligence/the Catalyst on face value.

- Control and Synthesis especially, but arguably Destroy too, are very permanent choices. I don't know the consequences, and ****ing up the galay forever seems not too unlikely. By refusing, I offer the next cycle a chance to do one better with the new information gained in this cycle, and heck, if they too fail, to add to the knowledge of their next cycle etc. = By refusing I **** up the galaxy for the next 50k years, but not permanently.

- Refuse, to me, is the conversation option "Hey, I'm not gonna kill myself on your fancy machines before you give me a reason to trust you." From an in character perspective it makes sense.

- My chosen Shepard usually has the combination Colonist/sole survivor and a good deal of paranoia along with that.

I don't get what refusers find so difficult about this... in a choice between certain death for EVERYONE. (by your own admission, likely more than one cycle) and Big Risk, you go with Big Risk.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 10 décembre 2012 - 01:34 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

I think refuse would be a lot less popular if it showed you the aftermath of people dying and being brutally massacred by the Reapers.

[Steelcan]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Am I the only person for whom the fate of EDI and the geth was a complete non issue?

Nope. They are machines, they will be missed only momentarily.

  I like this human, (s)he understands!

Modifié par Steelcan, 10 décembre 2012 - 01:43 .

[Applepie_Svk]

PKchu wrote...

I think refuse would be a lot less popular if it showed you the aftermath of people dying and being brutally massacred by the Reapers.

That´s sounds even better, it would just showed real sacrifice and not some dumb jumping into beam/touching electrodes/ walking to explosion...

I would be also glad if that Catalyst was lying turn to be true /well it´s obvious that he was speaking lot of fallacies and contradictions/ and Synthesis showed your friends to be processed and Control showed your friends to become new husks behind Omega 4 relay, and destroy dunno maybe backfired against cycle and closed all relays or something like that... 

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 10 décembre 2012 - 01:46 .

[Pedrak]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Am I the only person for whom the fate of EDI and the geth was a complete non issue?

Nope. They are machines, they will be missed only momentarily.

Even if they were people, I'd rather sacrifice a whole race than every race (refuse).

As for the other options, I believe they imply a certain level of metagaming. As a player I might choose them, because if the devs tell me that they're acceptable solutions, I trust they won't cheat me in the last decision of the game, indoctrination theory notwithstanding.

But a REAL Shepard in that contest... I really can't see him trusting what the Catalyst says about Control actually working ("Hey, TIM was delusional, but with you it's going to be fine, I promise!") or about Synthesis ("You're tampering with everyone's DNA and with the very nature of life, but it's going to be ok. Choose this, pretty please with sugar on top!"). 

After all he's been through, I suspect a real Shep would simply not trust any other solution than his original intent - destroying the Reapers.

[EagleScoutDJB]

PKchu wrote...

I think refuse would be a lot less popular if it showed you the aftermath of people dying and being brutally massacred by the Reapers.

I already know that's the likely outcome, I just feel that as long as there is a chance, no matter how small, it is worth fighting for.  When we get to the end and meet the creater of the Reapers I didn't want an ending where we fight to the bitter end, our's or their's, what I wanted was an ending kinda like the end of the Shadow war on Babylon 5.  I wanted to be able and tell them we don't need them anymore and that we will find our own way and get them to leave and never come back.  But we couldn't do that so fighting it out was the only option I was left with that felt like a choice that the man who fought Sovereign, even though victroy should have been impossible, and that went on a suicide mission and brought his entire crew back would make.

Modifié par dbollendorf, 10 décembre 2012 - 02:03 .

[Doctoglethorpe]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Thats hilarious.  Why does that lady get so freaked out like he's about to puke on her?

[Islandrockzor]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Islandrockzor wrote...

I fancy the Refuse ending. Here is why:

- All three other endings require me to take the Intelligence/the Catalyst on face value.

- Control and Synthesis especially, but arguably Destroy too, are very permanent choices. I don't know the consequences, and ****ing up the galay forever seems not too unlikely. By refusing, I offer the next cycle a chance to do one better with the new information gained in this cycle, and heck, if they too fail, to add to the knowledge of their next cycle etc. = By refusing I **** up the galaxy for the next 50k years, but not permanently.

- Refuse, to me, is the conversation option "Hey, I'm not gonna kill myself on your fancy machines before you give me a reason to trust you." From an in character perspective it makes sense.

- My chosen Shepard usually has the combination Colonist/sole survivor and a good deal of paranoia along with that.

I don't get what refusers find so difficult about this... in a choice between certain death for EVERYONE. (by your own admission, likely more than one cycle) and Big Risk, you go with Big Risk.

As I choose to see it when I choose Refuse: The choices are:
1: Big risk of permanently destroying life as we know if forever
2: Certain slow and painful death for everyone in this cycle, while empowering the coming cycle or the one after to get a victory that doesn't compromise.

In those playthroughs, with a Shepard likely to follow that line of reasoning I choose to refuse. If you don't get what I'm aiming at, I can respect that, but it won't change my mind about the matter either. To quote one of the finest graphic novel heroes of all time: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

[Constipator369]

My Shep thought "Well, none of the options are without severe consequences, so maybe synthesis... You know, the galaxy is already in a pathetic condition, it's a big sacrifice, but let this cycle be destroyed, so the next one can do what we couldn't. Die, starchild!" and then she shot the starchild.

[Islandrockzor]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Islandrockzor wrote...

To quote one of the finest graphic novel heroes of all time: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

I wasn't aware that Rorscach was meant to be a particularly good role model.

He isn't, but he doen't take the easy way out and sell out who he is, that integrity is a damn impressive feat.

[DeinonSlayer]

Islandrockzor wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Islandrockzor wrote...

I fancy the Refuse ending. Here is why:

- All three other endings require me to take the Intelligence/the Catalyst on face value.

- Control and Synthesis especially, but arguably Destroy too, are very permanent choices. I don't know the consequences, and ****ing up the galay forever seems not too unlikely. By refusing, I offer the next cycle a chance to do one better with the new information gained in this cycle, and heck, if they too fail, to add to the knowledge of their next cycle etc. = By refusing I **** up the galaxy for the next 50k years, but not permanently.

- Refuse, to me, is the conversation option "Hey, I'm not gonna kill myself on your fancy machines before you give me a reason to trust you." From an in character perspective it makes sense.

- My chosen Shepard usually has the combination Colonist/sole survivor and a good deal of paranoia along with that.

I don't get what refusers find so difficult about this... in a choice between certain death for EVERYONE. (by your own admission, likely more than one cycle) and Big Risk, you go with Big Risk.

As I choose to see it when I choose Refuse: The choices are:
1: Big risk of permanently destroying life as we know if forever
2: Certain slow and painful death for everyone in this cycle, while empowering the coming cycle or the one after to get a victory that doesn't compromise.

In those playthroughs, with a Shepard likely to follow that line of reasoning I choose to refuse. If you don't get what I'm aiming at, I can respect that, but it won't change my mind about the matter either. To quote one of the finest graphic novel heroes of all time: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

What cause is there to believe the next cycle has any better chance at a "conventional" victory than ours did? You've seen the enemy's numbers, the strength of their individuals ships.

[Pedrak]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Islandrockzor wrote...

To quote one of the finest graphic novel heroes of all time: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

I wasn't aware that Rorscach was meant to be a particularly good role model.

Every violent masked vigilante automatically becomes that to a lot of people.

[EagleScoutDJB]

So how do those that think Refuse is the wrong choice see Shepard. Keep in mind that every enemy we've faced in the trilogy told us their way was the only way to survive and that to fight meant certian death for everyone.

[Islandrockzor]

Pedrak wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Islandrockzor wrote...

To quote one of the finest graphic novel heroes of all time: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

I wasn't aware that Rorscach was meant to be a particularly good role model.

Every violent masked vigilante automatically becomes that to a lot of people.

If meant as a general statement, possible, but if aimed at my specific case, I direct you to my reply to that post.

[AshenSugar]

I always considered Refuse to be a petulant, sulky response.

"Can't have what I want? Fine! then I'll have nothing!"

*throws toys out the pram*

[Pedrak]

Islandrockzor wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

Every violent masked vigilante automatically becomes that to a lot of people.

If meant as a general statement, possible, but if aimed at my specific case, I direct you to my reply to that post.

Not aimed at you specifically, man - just stating the fact that a lot of fans see Walter Kovacs as an awesome hero rather than as a compelling but utterly deranged human being.