234 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Kel Riever wrote...

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.

It's a choice certainly. If you're roleplaying the EC then your Shepard doesn't know about the ending fiasco or your own personal opinions. He/she must make the choice based on their character.

If you are playing the character as an avatar (or, more crudely labeled a "self-insert") or are metagaming, then no it probably doesn't do any good to take Refuse seriously. In the sense that I don't think an out of character argument over the relative merits of Refuse is remotely worthwhile.

So if we're going to talk about why a particular Commander Shepard might choose Refuse, that's perfectly valid.

But if we're going to talk about how Refuse is a good or bad choice, as posters on a forum engaging in typical fandom wankery, then it's probably a waste of time for reasons you mention.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[Kel Riever]

Steelcan wrote...

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?  

The Watchmen, overrated.

Not bad as a piece of comic book literature, or a movie, but honestly, if you live in the world that Ozymandius creates, the joke is on you.

[Kel Riever]

@Upsettingshorts: Probably you nailed it. I have a hard time understanding how you can immerse yourself in a character when the endings are just so badly done. Actually, better said, I am pretty damn shocked how much you can be yanked out of your immersive experience by the such god awful work that is called the ending of Mass Effect 3. That's why I never bother with these speculation threads like IT, or Puzzle theory, or (let's make one up) Cartman Theory (Successful refuse!) or what have you.

[3DandBeyond]

77boy84 wrote...

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."

I don't believe anything the kid says, but it wouldn't matter if he was considered to be lying or just stupid.  He explains the choices and doesn't explain them enough.  But, he could never explain them enough.  From the moment he says he controls the reapers, there is not one thing he could say that would make me want to do anything he wants me to do.

And he contradicts himself.  He also says his solution no longer works.  Well, it definitely makes no sense to keep doing something that is not working.  Also, he's consistently been obsessed with Shepard and he does see Shepard as a threat, but says s/he can enact a solution by making a choice.  As you say, however the choices will kill you.  Ok, so it makes compete sense that during a war the most valuable asset should commit suicide based upon what the enemy says?  Good idea.

[3DandBeyond]

Kel Riever wrote...

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....

snipped 

Good points.  Thing is I personally don't believe they are above doing the latter.  I'd say Destroy is part of the same insult.  What did BW say they understood players wanted: closure.  What is Destroy?  Ambiguity.  That is the opposite of the definition of closure.  And one of the most important things people wanted to know about or wanted "clarified" was this gasp in rubble.  They also wanted and repeatedly asked for a possible way for Shepard to survive.  So, they again got the gasp. 

Then, prior to the EC release, a BW employee on twitter said that there would be a reunion in the EC.  When there wasn't one that same person said there was because it was implied-only a person who lives under a rock would think that's what people wanted.  Even if she did not want to spoil anything all she had to say was that she could not discuss it.  Instead, she lied or at best, misled.  But then BW also said they couldn't make such an ending (some minor reunion scene) because they'd have to customize it for everyone. Uh, ok, I guess they couldn't do it, but MEHEM could.  And they acted like it was somehow funny to say Shepard died, Shepard lived, it's up to players.  And then they said (in one thread a BW employee said) that the gasp ending was closure.

It's like this is funny to them.  I'm obviously one interested in a Shepard lives ending, but not as THE only ending.  The example here is just to the point that you'd think they have better things to do then to act this way with people.  Destroy as it is with an ambiguously framed fate of Torso Shepard is very much like refuse/reject.  Some wanted more and they wanted something better, but they were given the middle finger.

[Tigerman123]

It doesn't make any sense not to deploy the crucible, in abdicating your responsibility to use it you condemn countless billions to continued suffering and ultimately to death or a horrific process of physiological, psychological and anatomical change, leading to a life as an automaton in service to the catalyst. How can you justify allowing your loved ones being subjugated to a process which will pervert their ethical beliefs and free will and leave them worse than dead?

There isn't any reason to think that the catalyst is attempting some sleight of hand, if crucible had failed, the catalyst would have free reign to impose its will through the Reapers, there's no reason for it to go through with a charade of pretending to explain the operation and purpose of the device. In any case no action resulting from it's deployment would be worse than the complete extirpation of advanced sentient life in the galaxy. I really don't see the ethical imperative which forces you to pick refusal over destroy, the other choice which rejects the catalysts ideology , the fact that the Geth are eliminated in destroy is a reason to pick synthesis or control, there's no dichotomy between sparing the Geth or killing them incidentally so that others might live, if you don't deploy the crucible everyone dies

Modifié par Tigerman123, 10 décembre 2012 - 04:29 .

[Islandrockzor]

Steelcan wrote...

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?  

What made me resort to the metaphor is that the Catalyst, like Ozymandias, offers the protagonist a way to get a "happy ending", but only as long as the protagonist is willing to make a decision on behalf of all other living beings (or in Oz' case, as long as the other Watchmen took part in decieving the world "for their own good").

Some Shepards, will, like Rorshach, not be willing to parttake in that, as doing so would make them into monsters themselves (the control-endings quite literally, gotta love that<3). I'm not saying they are more right than the Shepards who choose otherwise, but their choise is no more invalid than the others.

And to those saying "You kill everyone."  - No, you don't, the Reapers do. Your Shepard just chooses not to save his cycle by making a deal with the devil. For these Shepards the price is too high to be justified.

Edit: And we've probably milked the watchmen-metaphor for what it's worth already, so I think I'll stop using it from here on, if that's allright with you lot. It's not that good.

Modifié par Islandrockzor, 10 décembre 2012 - 04:36 .

[Almostfaceman]

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

Since it doesn't affect your game in the slightest, why do you give a rats butt? They paid for their game, let them do what they want. 

And besides, every time a player picks Refuse, an angel gets its wings. :innocent:

[EagleScoutDJB]

Saren told us we had to join the Reapers or everyone would die and TIM told us we had to find a way to control the Reapers or everyone would die and we told both of them that they were crazy and that they were the ones going down the path that was going to get everyone killed, So why when faced with the 3 choices that stupid kid gives us are we now just supposed to believe that it's the truth and there is no other way out.

I said in an earlier post that all of the choices we are given can be right depending on the kind of person your Shepard is, but now that I've given it more thought I think I was wrong, Refuse is the only one that fits after all we've gone through and survived when everyone else told us it was impossible. One of the mods on HTL has a quote in his signature that I think perfectly sums up how I feel and why I think refuse is the right choice. "'Impossible' is a word humans use far too often." -Seven of Nine, Star Trek: Voyager.

[Neizd]

Let me ask you op.

Do you consider your shepard to unconditionaly believe the main AI that controls the Reapers? Ha may be lying so..,.you Shepard just tossed a coin to see if either he will doom everyone or save them, since Shepard doesn't have any proof that the catalyst is truthsworthy.

That and my Shepard also does not discriminate one species over others, he doesn't believe in synthesis, and he always wanted to destroy the reapers not control them. This leaves only one possibility for him and that's to catch the slim chance for conventional victory, since he worked very hard.

[His Name was HYR!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...

From the moment he says he controls the reapers, there is not one thing he could say that would make me want to do anything he wants me to do.

So if he tells you not to jump off a cliff, you would do it just to spite him?

[Kel Riever]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

From the moment he says he controls the reapers, there is not one thing he could say that would make me want to do anything he wants me to do.

So if he tells you not to jump off a cliff, you would do it just to spite him?

If I knew that it was just a god awfully writen story and the whole immersive experience was ruined for me by hack writing...YES!

[Steelcan]

Islandrockzor wrote...
 What made me resort to the metaphor is that the Catalyst, like Ozymandias, offers the protagonist a way to get a "happy ending", but only as long as the protagonist is willing to make a decision on behalf of all other living beings (or in Oz' case, as long as the other Watchmen took part in decieving the world "for their own good").

Some Shepards, will, like Rorshach, not be willing to parttake in that, as doing so would make them into monsters themselves (the control-endings quite literally, gotta love that<3). I'm not saying they are more right than the Shepards who choose otherwise, but their choise is no more invalid than the others.

And to those saying "You kill everyone."  - No, you don't, the Reapers do. Your Shepard just chooses not to save his cycle by making a deal with the devil. For these Shepards the price is too high to be justified.

Edit: And we've probably milked the watchmen-metaphor for what it's worth already, so I think I'll stop using it from here on, if that's allright with you lot. It's not that good.

Refuse Shepards make a moral stupid choice.  Their morality is intact, but that's not much comfort to everyone the reapers will butcher.

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

From the moment he says he controls the reapers, there is not one thing he could say that would make me want to do anything he wants me to do.

So if he tells you not to jump off a cliff, you would do it just to spite him?

. <_<  Not the point

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

@Upsettingshorts: Probably you nailed it. I have a hard time understanding how you can immerse yourself in a character when the endings are just so badly done. Actually, better said, I am pretty damn shocked how much you can be yanked out of your immersive experience by the such god awful work that is called the ending of Mass Effect 3. That's why I never bother with these speculation threads like IT, or Puzzle theory, or (let's make one up) Cartman Theory (Successful refuse!) or what have you.

I hadn't heard "Cartman Theory" before. Is that your term? It's a good one.

[Liamv2]

SO BE IT

[Kel Riever]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

@Upsettingshorts: Probably you nailed it. I have a hard time understanding how you can immerse yourself in a character when the endings are just so badly done. Actually, better said, I am pretty damn shocked how much you can be yanked out of your immersive experience by the such god awful work that is called the ending of Mass Effect 3. That's why I never bother with these speculation threads like IT, or Puzzle theory, or (let's make one up) Cartman Theory (Successful refuse!) or what have you.

I hadn't heard "Cartman Theory" before. Is that your term? It's a good one.

Yeah, well, you know I have no love for the endings.  But even so, if I were Casey Hudson and completely convinced what I was doing was the right thing, I wouldn't have bothered to include refuse.  Or at least done it differently.  Just pick destroy.  And blame the catalyst for never letting you get the chance to give him a better idea.
He says he's been around for a long period of time.  I beg to differ, glow child.

"Screw you.  I'm going home!"

[Kuari999]

How I picture my Shepard.. how how to begin...

My Shepard is the guy who remembers medigel works fast (and not just as a gameplay mechanic as shown in ME2)
My Shepard is the guy who remembers the world runs on logic and question how something that defies all logic and laws of physics is even an option (synthesis... this is SCI-fi, not fantasy. Gotta make sense within the universe rather than "a wizard did it")
My Shepard remembers that the Crucible was lacking a power source and wonder how it could possibly be one as the star child says when a power source was the entire reason it attached to the Citadel in the first place.
My Shepard would question why the hell the star child looks EXACTLY like that one kid from the beginning and why it would choose that form (yeah yeah, symbolism, but come on symbolism appearing in a way that makes no sense is still bad writing).


I could go on all day with this really... point is though, the endings as they stand really ignore all sense and assume that refusal means sit on your ass and watch the world burn. I chose refusal because no one who thinks everything through could possibly think the star child is telling them the truth without ignoring everything that was told to them throughout the entire game and believing their research team was incompetent as hell.

It was just a terribly written ending that contradicted everything you learned throughout the series. Were there some good emotional moments? Oh definitely, but it was an ending that appealed only to pathos while throwing ethos to the wind and insulting logos, the extended cut moreso.

[Darth Asriel]

Refuse is very much in line with how Shepard would/should act. He has no reason to believe anything glowboy says. And assuming Shep has a high school education he should be picking apart every argument the thing makes. Synthesis uses the essence of Shepard. What is that? Even breaking Shep down to atoms there aren't enough to give 1 to every organic and synthetic species. Also glowboy makes statements about evolution and DNA that don't make any sense. Control is pointless. Glowboy has control why does he need me to do anything. Tell the Reapers to stop firing or go away. Shep doesn't need to go grab pylons for the war to be over. Plus he has no assurances that he can control the Reapers. Sovereign and Harbinger have not exactly been forthcoming or honest. How does he actually know this isn't another elaborate trap? Refusal is Shep acting like a real human being. Glowboy uses an argument from a place of authority, which never works. Shep has proved him wrong throughout the story. Plus the moment he admits that he leads the Reapers, nothing he says can be trusted. Blame BW for refusal being a giant YOU LOSE. But it is fully in character. The others are really not. Maybe destroy for the win at all cost Shep. The other 2 are horribly out of character.

[iOnlySignIn]

ChrisDV wrote...

Shepard turn out to be a barely competant mood swinging jackass. It seemed like the right fit.

[SpamBot2000]

FFS, how come it is still so hard for people to grasp the basic concept of 'the character does not know that refusing suicide surrender is an instant Game Over'? Seriously, they have a psychological test for children to see how many 5 year olds grasp that Mr. Teddy doesn't know the toy is in the drawer if he didn't see Mr. Panda put it in there. This is to determine if the child has what is called 'a theory of mind'. Many do. Did YOU just fail this test? Congrats.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:31 .

[Kel Riever]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

FFS, how come it is still so hard for people to grasp the basic concept of 'the character does not know that refusing suicide surrender is an instant Game Over'? Seriously, they have a psychological test for children to see how many 5 year olds grasp that Mr. Teddy doesn't know the toy is in the drawer if he didn't see Mr. Panda put it in there. This is to determine if the child has what is called 'a theory of mind'. Many do. Did YOU fail this test? Congrats.

U mad?

Bro?

[SpamBot2000]

Kel Riever wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

FFS, how come it is still so hard for people to grasp the basic concept of 'the character does not know that refusing suicide surrender is an instant Game Over'? Seriously, they have a psychological test for children to see how many 5 year olds grasp that Mr. Teddy doesn't know the toy is in the drawer if he didn't see Mr. Panda put it in there. This is to determine if the child has what is called 'a theory of mind'. Many do. Did YOU fail this test? Congrats.

U mad?

Bro?

You know, I think I might be...

[BD Manchild]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

FFS, how come it is still so hard for people to grasp the basic concept of 'the character does not know that refusing suicide surrender is an instant Game Over'? Seriously, they have a psychological test for children to see how many 5 year olds grasp that Mr. Teddy doesn't know the toy is in the drawer if he didn't see Mr. Panda put it in there. This is to determine if the child has what is called 'a theory of mind'. Many do. Did YOU just fail this test? Congrats.

I wouldn't even try to bring common sense into this "debate"; such a thing apparently has no place in the community.

I've gone over my reasons for what's going through my Shepard's mind when she chose Refuse and frankly I can't be arsed to repeat myself.

[jtav]

Except the character does know the Crucible is the only chance he has. It's the plot of the third game. Shoot the tube and the Reapers are gone.