234 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

dbollendorf wrote...

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.

Man got the job done and went home. It's as simple as that. I shed no tears for the Geth. EDI was a tragic but unavoidable loss on account of her Reaper architecture.

[TK514]

I'm a destroyer, personally, but without meta gaming, I suspect they see a character who has never failed to beat the odds when it mattered. Up to and including recovering from suffering EVA suit breach and falling from orbit.

Once you've set the expectation that not even dying can stop someone, is it really a stretch to expect that they can give a nonsensical AI the finger and come out ahead?

[Pedrak]

I have to say that if Destroy wasn't a viable option, it would not be too much of a stretch to assume that a real Shepard in that situation (rather than the player controlling him) could possibly choose Refuse rather than trusting the Catalyst that Control (which is what TIM wanted, and will keep Reapers around) and Synthesis (which sounds... pretty vague and dangerous) are going to work.

Both apparently turn out to be fine, but in that context a real Shep would be a lot less inclined than a player to take that kind of risk.

Modifié par Pedrak, 10 décembre 2012 - 03:24 .

[JesseLee202]

^ thats why destroy is a choice...

[EagleScoutDJB]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...

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.

Man got the job done and went home. It's as simple as that. I shed no tears for the Geth. EDI was a tragic but unavoidable loss on account of her Reaper architecture.

Fair enough, honestly I see every choice as being potentially right, it just depends on what kind of person is the Shepard you built in your playthrough.  Refuse is just the choice that fits the way I play Shepard in most of my games.

[3DandBeyond]

arial wrote...

 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

I don't pick refuse because of course I know what happens.  But, I do understand it.  My Shepard said, "you don't condemn a race to extinction based upon what MIGHT happen."  She also said, "you don't kill some people over here to save others over there."  She saved the scientists in Bring Down the Sky.  She wanted to save the Batarians in the Arrival (and I don't care to play that stupid DLC).  I do have a problem in that the "best ending" or the one that leaves some chance for Shepard to have an actual life after having sacrificed so much of herself, requires that she kill those allies that always saw the reapers as threats-the only ones in the galaxy to understand this.  It also requires that she kill the best examples of why the stuff the kid says is anything but logical.

Considering refuse.  Shepard has no real knowledge of how the crucible works or what it is supposed to do.  Shepard gets to the citadel and finds it is full of dead bodies and the citadel is being used to suck the life out of people.  TIM thinks he can control the reapers, but he's been deceived by them to believe this is possible for him to achieve.  Then, Shepard meets the kid.  The kid says he controls the reapers, and the citadel is a part of him.  He is not a part of the citadel, it is a part of him, just like your arm is a part of you. 

So he controls the reapers, he controls the citadel, and so he is responsible for unspeakable things being done.  He either knows this (he thinks he understands everything because he's not just a simple AI) and he is intentionally deceptive, or he has been crippled either by bad programming or by somehow becoming warped and flawed.  And the choices exist, not within the crucible, but within the citadel, a part of him.  His solution was the reapers.  He needed new solutions.  The crucible changed him and 3 choices were created.  So, also they either were created by him or because of him.  The crucible could have changed his programming, but his programming is a mess.  And he controls the reapers.  He says they don't work anymore.  Logically, if they don't work then doing nothing should see them stop doing what they are doing.

Furthermore, Shepard has no idea that what she's been told is accurate-whether the kid can lie or whether he lacks understanding, or is meant to promote the choices to still solve the synthetic vs. organics problem.  Shepard could also think the crucible could work as some huge energy weapon that shuts down the reapers, outside of the choices.  Shepard would not know the crucible would just shut off if she refuses to make a choice.  Again, metagaming, the fact that the kid only gets mad when Shepard does refuse/reject, indicates the choices are at least something he wants Shepard to use, but refusing to do so is not.

I know this is long, but for me none of this is simple to explain.  Refuse is the only thing that allows Shepard to say that she thinks the whole situation that the kid has created is moronic, and that she is not going to do something that is meant to solve a problem that she does not see as relevant.  The fact that it becomes a suicidal effort is in my opinion a product of flawed writing.  The writers said through the kid that the reapers do not work anymore.  No logic device is going to keep trying to make 1+1=3, so the reapers should stop.  But, they don't.  This makes no sense to me, and I'm not saying this should be what happens-I'm saying this is what the writers have said (through their writing) should happen.

The speech that Shepard gives is the most honest thing about the endings, and certainly IMO the best.  However, as I said I don't choose to refuse, nor do I choose any of this.  I refuse to play these endings.

[dorktainian]

www.youtube.com/watch 

''but can you win?''


''every time I say no!''

[Fiannawolf]

B5 is the answer to everything....*huggles her favorite sci fi show to bits*

[dorktainian]

Fiannawolf wrote...

B5 is the answer to everything....*huggles her favorite sci fi show to bits*

 

it works for me....also www.youtube.com/watch

[upsettingshorts]

arial wrote...

 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

Well.

Shepard could view Starbrat's options as a ruse, and interpret the Crucible as having been a failure.  Thus, a resort to conventional warfare is necessary.  They lose of course, but the fact a future generation finds the details and is able to defeat the Reapers without said choice lends credence to this possibility.  Though Shepard can't know the future.

Rejection is just that, a rejection of the premise.  

[shepskisaac]

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...

Sure, killing EVERYONE in this cycle is very Paragon

[Kel Riever]

Seeking logic in the ending, HAHA.

Basically, if you accept the autodialog, you are going to have a hard time resolving it. Congradulations speculators. In the meantime, it is pretty clear that if you simply chalk it up as immensely bad writing, then you already have all of your explanations why it makes no sense.

[upsettingshorts]

IsaacShep wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...

Sure, killing EVERYONE in this cycle is very Paragon

Shepard doesn't know that they will fail.

Every other time in the series Paragon Shepard has stuck to principles and determined that they could win while retaining them, he/she has been right.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 03:37 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is very much in line with what Paragon Shepard would do...

Sure, killing EVERYONE in this cycle is very Paragon

Shepard doesn't know that they will fail.

Every other time in the series Paragon Shepard has stuck to principles and determined that they could win while retaining them, he/she has been right.

I think this is where we cross into "mind-so-open-my-brain-fell-out" territory. And not every Paragon choice is "right."

[shepskisaac]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Shepard doesn't know that they will fail.

Every other time in the series Paragon Shepard has stuck to principles and determined that they could win while retaining them, he/she has been right.

Except that he's been hearing how they can't beat the Reapers via conventional means throughout the entire trilogy. Yeah lol love how Refusers justify killing EVERYONE

[EagleScoutDJB]

Fiannawolf wrote...

B5 is the answer to everything....*huggles her favorite sci fi show to bits*

The war with the Reapers felt like I was fighting in the Shadow war.  You spend almost the entire game uniting the galaxy to fight an enemy so powerful victory seems impossible, and then at the best part it craps out and tries to do something new.

[upsettingshorts]

DeinonSlayer wrote...
I think this is where we cross into "mind-so-open-my-brain-fell-out" territory. And not every Paragon choice is "right."

I'm one of the biggest critics of how Shepard was written there is, but the series has thoroughly established that when Paragon Shepard makes a principled call, it works out.

That isn't to say Refuse is "right," only that if a Paragon is taking it out of principle, then it's totally in-character for them to do so and still expect to win.

IsaacShep wrote...
Except that he's been hearing how they can't beat the Reapers via conventional means throughout the entire trilogy. Yeah lol love how Refusers justify killing EVERYONE

Why do you assume I'm "a Refuser?"  I can justify taking any option with the right character.  It's not about what I would do, but what my character would, and some of them are different people who learned different lessons from the series.

It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, to have played the series and taken from it that everyone other than Shepard is usually wrong.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Kel Riever]

Here, I'll jump in on the faux logic.

It is true that Shepard doesn't know they will fail, based on simply refusing the crap choices offered to him/her.

Suddenly baby catalyst can't handle it and decides to destroy things anyway. Of COURSE, Shepard is somehow too stupid to point out solutions which are obvious.

So don't hate Shepard for commiting genocide with 20/20 hindsight goggles. Hate the Catalyst for being too stupid to wait for a solution and Shepard for being too stupid to point out obvious ones.

But again, my original suggestion makes a lot more damn sense. Someone wasn't thinking when they ordered the ending. And it shows.

[upsettingshorts]

Kel Riever wrote...

So don't hate Shepard for commiting genocide with 20/20 hindsight goggles. Hate the Catalyst for being too stupid to wait for a solution and Shepard for being too stupid to point out obvious ones.

People would hate Paragon Shepard a lot more if their principled stances throughout the series blew up in their faces as much as Refuse does.

But they don't, so people love him/her.  

[dorktainian]

maybe the choice is not to choose from the choices given. notice i said 'given' as in choices given to us by a reaper.

''That we have power...to give or withhold our assent at will, is so evident that it must be counted among the first and most common notions that are innate in us. – Descartes ''

[Kel Riever]

The problem here already is people taking the refuse ending seriously.

EITHER, BioWare wanted to make an attempt to include people who thought their choices were awful. And so they added the refuse out of the goodness of their hearts.

OR BioWare was ticked off that people thought the endings were dumb, and so wanted to slap players in the face with an insult. You would think people would be above spending all that time coding. But this is potential ego we are talking here....

Refuse is a meta choice for people as far as I can tell and is based on the interpretation above. Only an ending fan sits there trying to justify refuse and then say, "Ha Ha awful choice." Completely oblivious to the failure that BioWare made in a) the EC as an explanation for their terrible job on the endings instead of making a worthwhile ending, and including refuse.

Most refusers I see choose it because they are basically saying, "Hey, since your writing is awful, I'll choose this awful nonsense called refuse because I still don't like your choices A, B or C. Or just because you think you are insulting me and it still doesn't make your choices A, B or C any better." Honestly, few people I know sit there and waste time trying to make sense of refuse. I wish a lot more people would spend a lot less time trying to make any sense out of any of the mutant endings. Then we can all just spend time laughing at it.

Laughter heals!  Its like Medigel.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 10 décembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[77boy84]

In the last moments between the fight against the reapers, the catalyst reveals to you that he controls the reapers. Then, he says you can win if you do one of three things, two of which he admits will kill you, the other he implies will kill you.

I don't know how you picture your Shepard, but I seriously don't picture mine to be dumb enough to believe the reapers when they say "if you literally kill yourself right now we'll all be nice forever, honest."

[Steelcan]

Islandrockzor 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.

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.

. Rorschach would have killed the reapers without a second thought.

Also, not compromising can be dumb, what happened to Rorscach?  

[3DandBeyond]

Kel Riever wrote...

Seeking logic in the ending, HAHA.

Basically, if you accept the autodialog, you are going to have a hard time resolving it. Congradulations speculators. In the meantime, it is pretty clear that if you simply chalk it up as immensely bad writing, then you already have all of your explanations why it makes no sense.

Actually, this is very true.  It's kind of hard for me to envision any choice working with either paragon or renegade, so it seems to make sense for Shepard to just say WTF and not agree to anything.  The kid's explanation for each choice really lacks enough information to cause a person to just want to know more before deciding for the galaxy.

I think if anyone wants to know what thought there may have been behind any of this, they need to play the game with a paragon character on No Decisions mode.  I haven't gotten through the whole game, but more often than not it selects renegade choices and I get renegade interrupts that I've never gotten before (only ever play paragon), even at the beginning right before Mars where I always have gotten a paragon interrupt.  This makes no sense to me.  And that's true of the whole ball of wax.  I have to try to hard to twist the thing around at the end for any of it to make sense.  The choices and the kid's logic are the exact opposite of what ANY Shepard would know.