210 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Kel Riever wrote...

You know, I sadly sometimes think that some vaporhead actually thought the Refusal ending might be some way of acquiescing to the crowd of people who hated the three choices, and giving them some of what they wanted, but still mutantly following the path of their own god awful nonsense idea of a story.

Of course, they could have maybe realized that people would receive it as a middle finger if, you know, they did things like acutally check their ideas with others. And let's not forget, this is being EXTREMELY generous with the thinking of the writers. Because in all likelyhood, it still is a giant middle finger to the fans by some ****** poor writer.

Even tho I made my peace with this...Mac should never be allowed to helm any project again

[paxxton]

Refusal might end up being the canon ending for ME3. Shepard rejects the Catalyst's terms and after the fact he learns that the Crucible was a trap and he was being deceived and indoctrinated.

Modifié par paxxton, 15 janvier 2013 - 05:04 .

[AlanC9]

RiouHotaru wrote...

For people mad that the next cycle uses the Crucible?

Why wouldn't they?

Because the Crucible is evil, because...... reasons.

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

You know, I sadly sometimes think that some vaporhead actually thought the Refusal ending might be some way of acquiescing to the crowd of people who hated the three choices, and giving them some of what they wanted, but still mutantly following the path of their own god awful nonsense idea of a story.

Pre-EC everyone was making the case that "my Shepard wouldn't trust the Catalyst," "these choices are morally unacceptable for my Shepard," and so on. It's quite obvious why; logically and rhetorically these are very strong cases. I don't think anyone seriously disagreed with these arguments. It was when people said Shepard should be able to Refuse and win that arguments started. So Bio implemented the popular option and left out the controversial one.

Was it a mistake? Maybe. I don't think anyone ever asked the question of whether an unsuccessful Refuse would hurt your feelings. It didn't occur to me back when I was arguing in favor of a non-victory Refuse that what I wanted would make the game worse for you folks.

[DirtyPhoenix]

AlanC9 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

For people mad that the next cycle uses the Crucible?

Why wouldn't they?

Because the Crucible is evil, because...... reasons.

Lol

[Kel Riever]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

You know, I sadly sometimes think that some vaporhead actually thought the Refusal ending might be some way of acquiescing to the crowd of people who hated the three choices, and giving them some of what they wanted, but still mutantly following the path of their own god awful nonsense idea of a story.

Pre-EC everyone was making the case that "my Shepard wouldn't trust the Catalyst," "these choices are morally unacceptable for my Shepard," and so on. It's quite obvious why; logically and rhetorically these are very strong cases. I don't think anyone seriously disagreed with these arguments. It was when people said Shepard should be able to Refuse and win that arguments started. So Bio implemented the popular option and left out the controversial one.

Was it a mistake? Maybe. I don't think anyone ever asked the question of whether an unsuccessful Refuse would hurt your feelings. It didn't occur to me back when I was arguing in favor of a non-victory Refuse that what I wanted would make the game worse for you folks.

Honestly, adding a Refusal ending was a non-event for me because, as you know, I think the hugest problems with the endings come long before that.  I can't really see Refusal ending and success, though.  It'd just be a giant, 'Whut? You tell me all these details and then I'm supposed to just ignore them?'  That might make someone feel better but would be an astounding waste of time.

[AlanC9]

Shouldn't have said "you" back there, I guess.

Agreed. The problem with a successful Refuse is that it's incoherent with the rest of ME3. The game could theoretically have been restructured so Refuse would work -- retcon Reaper battle strength down so their primary military asset is their mobility and lack of bases; essentially, they're fighting a guerrilla war against the galaxy's productive capability and economy and would lose a stand-up fight if they could only be made to stand up for it. In this alternative version the threat of using the Crucible forces that decisive battle. But you'd need to rewrite a fair amount of the game to get this to work.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 janvier 2013 - 06:12 .

[Epique Phael767]

crimzontearz wrote...

...Mac should never be allowed to helm any project again

This, this, this.

[Meltemph]

Honestly, I just think there are a lot of people out there that just wished that the crucible worked differently, so your forces played a part as to why you won, not how effective the beam was. I think people wanted to see their efforts have some sort of big payoff...

I think I am in somewhat of the minority, when I had 1 desire, and that is to see the ME unvierse/setting stay intact.

[Winterfly]

The ending is still bad, just more acceptable. To me it is like they thrown out the Mass Effect setting under the last part in the Citadel beam thingy for some pretentious sci-fi movie crap!

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

For people mad that the next cycle uses the Crucible?

Why wouldn't they?

Because the Crucible is evil, because...... reasons.

Maybe because the mysterious thing that no one designed but was miraculously incrementally added to over countless millenia AND that no one knew the function of... didn't work. So in what kind of opium dream does it follow that given these things, the folks the next time over are gonna go 'Yeah, the plan is still rock solid, it might work in some unexplainable way this time if we all hold hands and believe...'?

That's why they wouldn't.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 15 janvier 2013 - 08:03 .