210 réponses à ce sujet

[Mendelevosa]

 I honestly do not see the point of this ending option being added into the game. By refusing to do what the Catalyst wants, Shepard essentially throws away the efforts of building the Crucible and dooms the sentient races of the galaxy into extinction. Sure people did not exactly agree with the different "choices" the Catalyst offered, though I'm sure people would not screw everyone over just to ****** off the brat.

It's as if Bioware's response to the raging outcry regarding the endings was "So you don't like our endings? Okay then, @%&# YOU!! The end."

Regardless of how Bioware intended Refusal to be interpreted, I think it was uncalled for to add galactic suicide as a non-colorful ending option.

Modifié par Mendelevosa, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:41 .

[DirtySHISN0]

And yet refusers seem to think its amazing.

I'll say what i always say.

Principles don't absolve responsibility;- its called refuse for a reason, not resist.

[Epique Phael767]

Refusal was a middle finger. It's like being punished for doing something your shepard would actually do instead of being gullibly passive.


Edit: it was like Bioware saying: "Oh, our endings are no good? Well here, the ending you wanted is worse."

Modifié par Epique Phael767, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:40 .

[David7204]

People do very foolish things out of spite.

[dreamgazer]

I honestly don't. Fans wanted it, and they got a speech that easily bests the prep speech at the firebase.

[MuhidinSaid]

refusal is just biower's way of shattering the illusion of choice.

Which is odd because me3 on its own does that quite well.

I guess they felt the need to clarify.

Still, preferable to synthesis and control, IMO.

Modifié par MuhidinSaid, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:42 .

[xsdob]

People forget fans demanded to refuse the catalyst, even if it resulted in their losing the game.

I can find the post after post to prove it to, if you'd like.

Modifié par xsdob, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:43 .

[xsdob]

David7204 wrote...

People do very foolish things out of spite.

........*opens mouth to reply*....nay, not worth it.

You guys have fun in your pity party.

[adam32867]

the middle finger is that the next cycle uses the crucible anyway. which means you might as well chose something. though i think a conventional victory could have been weighted to not seem better or worse than the others ie higher casualty rate over destruction but each species survives instead of one being wiped out (geth).

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

The game beats it into your head time after time that the Reapers cannot be beaten w/o the Crucible. But all of a sudden you're going to throw away your one shot at beating them because you're afraid to make the hard choice?

[David7204]

xsdob wrote...

David7204 wrote...

People do very foolish things out of spite.

........*opens mouth to reply*....nay, not worth it.

You guys have fun in your pity party.

I was reponding to the guy above me, and refering to players, not to the developers for making the option. Perhaps I should have used a quote.

[capn233]

I think refusal is pretty funny. I don't know why people expected to be able to win with it.

And I say this as someone that didn't like the original endings, and thought EC was only a marginal improvement. But to its credit, refusal seems like the most realistic of the endings.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

xsdob wrote...

David7204 wrote...

People do very foolish things out of spite.

........*opens mouth to reply*....nay, not worth it.

You guys have fun in your pity party.

He was referring to Refusers, I believe.

[Yate]

YOU ASKED FOR IT, PEOPLE

ARE YOU HAPPY NOW

[AlexMBrennan]

People forget fans demanded to refuse the catalyst, even if it resulted in their losing the game.

Getting the same happily ever after nonsense doesn't look like losing to me. In particular, the ending is "if you don't want to use the crucible, the next cycle will and will win. Have a nice death" thanks to twitter word of god.

Personally, I'm quite happy to believe that Bioware is just so out of touch with consumers that they didn't realise that it would be taken as an insult; regardless of intent, they should have considered that it would likely be seen as an insult.

[xsdob]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

xsdob wrote...

David7204 wrote...

People do very foolish things out of spite.

........*opens mouth to reply*....nay, not worth it.

You guys have fun in your pity party.

He was referring to Refusers, I believe.

I thought he made a double entendre tbh.

[Kabraxal]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

The game beats it into your head time after time that the Reapers cannot be beaten w/o the Crucible. But all of a sudden you're going to throw away your one shot at beating them because you're afraid to make the hard choice?

Or maybe we question the starbrat's honesty, the convenient nature of the crucible, and the whole situation?  It isn't just about remianing true to the principles through most of the trilogy, but the fact many people actually question whether the three choices are actually anything good.  And of course, it's quite suspicious that the starbrat gets angry only when you choose refuse.  YOu can choose destroy and he just peacefully fades away... tell him to go screw himself and refuse HIS choices and he is suddenly not so benign.  THat should be sending of warning bells really.

[MuhidinSaid]

capn233 wrote...

I think refusal is pretty funny. I don't know why people expected to be able to win with it.

And I say this as someone that didn't like the original endings, and thought EC was only a marginal improvement. But to its credit, refusal seems like the most realistic of the endings.

The irony of refusal is that it requires you to not use the crucible, only to be harvested, and in 50,000 years, new civilizations discover liara's warning and time capsule and construct the crucible to defeat the reapers.

Which pretty much negates any logic of refusal in the first place.

As much as I loathe the crucible and the 3 main options, refuse is even worse.

Modifié par MuhidinSaid, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:53 .

[AlanC9]

Mendelevosa wrote...
Sure people did not exactly agree with the different "choices" the Catalyst offered, though I'm sure people would not screw everyone over just to ****** off the brat.

Well, that's the thing... before the EC shipped there were a lot of threads about how "my Shepard would never trust the Catalyst, " or pick any of these choices, etc. and so forth. Hell, we had one of those yesterday. Just as a matter of RP, they had a fair case. Even if Refusal is stupid, players should be allowed to be stupid.

Whether they actually meant what they were saying, I can't say. Those threads usually derailed into big fights over whether or not a conventional victory made sense, so we never got to the question of whether or not Bio should include Refuse if it meant losing.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 janvier 2013 - 03:01 .

[Red5392]

I view the refusal ending as more of a glorified game over screen

[xsdob]

Kabraxal wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

The game beats it into your head time after time that the Reapers cannot be beaten w/o the Crucible. But all of a sudden you're going to throw away your one shot at beating them because you're afraid to make the hard choice?

Or maybe we question the starbrat's honesty, the convenient nature of the crucible, and the whole situation?  It isn't just about remianing true to the principles through most of the trilogy, but the fact many people actually question whether the three choices are actually anything good.  And of course, it's quite suspicious that the starbrat gets angry only when you choose refuse.  YOu can choose destroy and he just peacefully fades away... tell him to go screw himself and refuse HIS choices and he is suddenly not so benign.  THat should be sending of warning bells really.

Well, he knows the crucibles options are better than his own, but he can't pick them and alter himself.

To me it's like someone stuck in one of those "reliving the same day over and over" situations, only someone came along who could fix that situation, and than promptly refused to do so.

EDIT: Putting a big old "This is my Opinion" warning on this post, since people are so easily offended and ready to get confrontational over interpretations on these forums.

Modifié par xsdob, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:57 .

[InvincibleHero]

They gave people what they wanted that demanded not my Shepard I would refuse its choices. Too bad the catalyst spoke truth only Shepard could intiate the choices and reverted to reap em baby default mode. So refusing makes Shepard the galactic chump only no one knows about it.

[xAmilli0n]

My only problem with refusal is that the next cycle ends up using the Crucible anyways.

Other than that, I think it worked pretty well (once you add some headcanon anways).

Modifié par xAmilli0n, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:57 .

[xsdob]

You know what's good about an open ending and refuse? You can ignore twitter and that entire tweet in your playthrough.

So in one of my playthroughs, shepard picked refuse and the crucible was never constructed, and the next cycle won by being thousands of years more prepared than our current cycle.

[kalasaurus]

It's Shepard giving the middle finger to the galaxy.