393 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

Disclaimer: Literary Interpretation only.

Since my first canon playthrough being obviously Destroy, and then Extended Cut choosing refuse, I have been doing a lot of thinking about which ending best fits my canon's character, my character.

I have decided to choose refuse, this is based on a few reasons of which I will try to explain.

People in the past have said that refuse is the weak way out because you're failing to act and make a choice.

However, refuse is *the* hardest choice to actually make because of the fact that you're refusing. You're saying, look I know we spent the whole game building this thing, but what you're asking,  I can't do it, I wont. You're saying that you wont compromise in your role to win this war, and that you will fight to the death for what you believe is right.

But you're not just choosing to refuse the Catalyst because you don't like it's other choices or it's outcomes. You're also choosing to fight for everybody's freedom, and that is why refuse isn't inaction. Because that is the choice, to fight for everyone, and this is why it deserves a better ending because standing up for what you believe in shouldn't be rewarded with mass nihilism.
Plus, even if it were successful, it's not like there wouldn't be any casualties at all. Therefore there could still be some consequences in choosing it, other than *everyone* dying.
Because, as it stands, that's the only part of refuse I can't stomach, is it's result (In fact, my canon romances Liara so I can't watch it at all). It really is indefensible.

Also, not only did the Rannoch arc (if you made peace) disprove the Catalyst's assertions, but in the refuse ending you're once again choosing to fight for them too, treating them as an even truer equal, when you had another chance to destroy them. And that's what I prefer about Refuse over Destroy, because you're only proving the Catalyst right if you do destroy them.

So refuse haters, please recognize that if someone says they support refuse, the chances are they are supporting the choice to fight for everybody, at least moreso than they are supporting it's result.

[dorktainian]

nice jade. refuse is my second choice btw... in fact it would be my first if destroy wernt so damn appealing. refuse the choices of something which has no right to expect you to choose from the choices you are given. The power of the individual. freedom of will.

[Steelcan]

Refuse is the epitome of honorable stupid. Just shoot the tube and be done with it.

[KwangtungTiger]

You dont even need to make peace with the geth and qurians to prove the catalyst wrong. Like I've said in previous threads, the fact that the zha'til and geth (synthetics) are/can be destroyed by organics proves the chaos doesn't favor synthetics inevitably.

Modifié par KwangtungTiger, 17 décembre 2012 - 09:28 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

[xtorma]

Everybody dies though. The end.

In the immortal words of Willie Wonka

"You lose! good day sir.

[Jadebaby]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

You dont even need to make peace with the geth and qurians to prove the catalyst wrong. Like I've said in previous threads, the fact that the zha'til and geth (synthetics) are/can be destroyed by organics proves the chaos doesn't favor synthetics inevitably.

Exactly, which is why destroy is resetting this, making it harder to achieve again.

The fact that peace was made however, gives the galaxy an opportunity to evolve along a tangen unknown to other cycles. Choosing destroy resets this, potentially dooming the galaxy to the same trite in the distant future.

[Ticonderoga117]

Steelcan wrote...

Refuse is the epitome of honorable stupid. Just shoot the tube and be done with it.

I would argue that Destroy goes to honorabl stupid too. Shepard can't resist shooting that tube point blank.

[Steelcan]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Refuse is the epitome of honorable stupid. Just shoot the tube and be done with it.

I would argue that Destroy goes to honorabl stupid too. Shepard can't resist shooting that tube point blank.

Nah, that's just stupid

[Jadebaby]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

My question would be this; Why does the cost of that principle have to be more severe than those of any other ending?

[KwangtungTiger]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

Without meta gaming you don't know that as a fact. This is the problem with most discussions on decision based gaming. 

I think refuse (even though I didnt choose it) is an enticing choice. For me other than destroy would have been the right call

[Steelcan]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

My question would be this; Why does the cost of that principle have to be more severe than those of any other ending?

Well in refuse everyone dies.  Everyone.  In Destroy the geth might die (if you didn't already kill them), and EDI kicks it.

[Dysjong]

Im cool with refuse, but i wouldnt do it.

However, just because you made peace between geth and quarians, then you have proven the catalyst wrong? Sorry but i think that is wrong. The catalyst is very old, it has seen countless attempts on peace between organics and synthetics but, in the end they failed, which supports the catalysts actions. I don't like the catalyst, i don't like that it gaved me that horrible truth and asked me to do something about it. But i can understand it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The part I cannot stomach about refuse is that my LI and loved ones are going to die in a horrible manner, and in an undeserved manner. That is the only part.

The ending is horrible. Period. I can no longer stomach even seeing that glowing ass hat. I can't stomach anything about the rest of the ending choices either.

The Geth Die In Destroy -- kill the Quarians.... you see a barren Rannoch. NO GETH.

Refuse is the last chance you get to see YOUR Shepard again at the end. The very last.

The Council is stupid. I'm convinced Hackett is indoctrinated. His plans have been totally idiotic. He throws you in prison for helping him. He throws you in prison for saving earth colonies. His plans have been idiotic. We've had a mole in the organization who has been giving our plans to Cerberus before we get there. Who is the only person who knows them? Hackett. Every world is playing petty politics while in the middle of the reaper war.

Refuse: Shepard is right. Not the truth the galaxy wanted to hear, but the truth it deserved.

If you have a PC the real choice is MEHEM.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 17 décembre 2012 - 09:43 .

[Reorte]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

My question would be this; Why does the cost of that principle have to be more severe than those of any other ending?

Why does sitting back and letting the Reapers kill everyone have to have a higher cost?

[dorktainian]

Reorte wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

My question would be this; Why does the cost of that principle have to be more severe than those of any other ending?

Why does sitting back and letting the Reapers kill everyone have to have a higher cost?

thats a pretty big assumption. we never see this.  Oh and as a compelling example of why this is so, liara's gear is on a planet (which we do not know) when at the time of the evacuation of sheps crew mates it was on the normandy.  they didnt die straight away.  who says they died at all?  for all we know the crew of the normandy could all be sat off camera sipping cocktails. 

[Ticonderoga117]

Steelcan wrote...
Nah, that's just stupid

Yeah...

[Steelcan]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


The Council is stupid. I'm convinced Hackett is indoctrinated. His plans have been totally idiotic. He throws you in prison for helping him. He throws you in prison for saving earth colonies. His plans have been idiotic. We've had a mole in the organization who has been giving our plans to Cerberus before we get there. Who is the only person who knows them? Hackett. Every world is playing petty politics while in the middle of the reaper war.

Refuse: Shepard is right. Not the truth the galaxy wanted to hear, but the truth it deserved.

.

Shepard in Refuse "I am too moral to save billions of lives"

and Hackett doesn't throw you in prison.  Arrival details that he is trying to keep you from being called back to Earth.

[KwangtungTiger]

In my opinion, refuse would be the perfect setting for Me4. Going through the galaxy uncovering what shepard and his companions went through (assuming you could import your previous save).

[ATiBotka]

I respect your choice, but I would never refuse.

There's a giant Reaper off switch in front of me, and I want to use it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Steelcan wrote...

Shepard in Refuse "I am too moral to save billions of lives"

"I won't let fear compromise who I am..."



"... but I will let who I am compromise everybody's life trololololo."

[AlanC9]

There's nothing wrong with choosing failure for your Shepard. RPGs should have more failure.

[AlanC9]

Steelcan wrote...

Well in refuse everyone dies.  Everyone.  In Destroy the geth might die (if you didn't already kill them), and EDI kicks it.

So in order to keep from killing the geth a Refuse Shep... lets the Reapers kill the geth.

[Reorte]

dorktainian wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Why does sitting back and letting the Reapers kill everyone have to have a higher cost?

thats a pretty big assumption. we never see this.  Oh and as a compelling example of why this is so, liara's gear is on a planet (which we do not know) when at the time of the evacuation of sheps crew mates it was on the normandy.  they didnt die straight away.  who says they died at all?  for all we know the crew of the normandy could all be sat off camera sipping cocktails. 

It's an assumption but far from a big one. Given everything we know it's massively the most likely outcome.

Liara was scattering the capsules all over the place. The Reapers aren't going to get around to killing everyone in the next five minutes. It dragged on for centuries with the Protheans for example.