360 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

So we're talking about Refuse specifically here?

Anybody who thinks BioWare included Refuse to troll fans is really out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Fact: There were many threads upon release asking for a Refuse option. A smaller subset of this population, but still significant, even went so far as to say they'd rather die with their morality intact than "submit".

Fact: Many people on these boards wanted a standalone "epic fail" option where the Reapers won.

BioWare's opinion: We can combine these ideas to make a new Braveheart style ending where idealism is preserved but the Reapers win (in this cycle).

There's nothing trollish about Refuse. At worst BioWare overestimated the amount of people who were actually okay with preserving their morality and losing.

Fact:  A larger subset wanted a Refuse option where the galaxy stood or fell based on EMS

Fact:  Many more people also wanted a "clear win" option where the galaxy stood united against the Reapers and prevailed with, dare I say it, a reunion?

Bioware's opinion (speculated):  Not artistic enough.  Idealism's for saps.  hey look, let's trigger the "you lose" scenerio by shooting the Catalyst.  That'll show 'em!

It is absolutely trolling to know what players wanted, dangle the possibility in front of them, only to jerk it away. 

What Bioware underestimated was the number of people who don't like to get jerked around. 

So you didn't get what you wanted. I don't doubt that.

That's not trolling.

[N7 Dynames]

Samtheman63 wrote...

N7 Dynames wrote...

On my 1st play through I choose refuse... I didn't even mean too, I wanted synthesis but only had the destroy or control options.

wow, galaxy got a lucky break there

Depends on your prespective really. I'm still debating with myself as to wether or not synthesis is a good idea or not. The lack of information would point to it being a bad idea but the inital premise is sound.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Fact:  A larger subset wanted a Refuse option where the galaxy stood or fell based on EMS

Fact:  Many more people also wanted a "clear win" option where the galaxy stood united against the Reapers and prevailed with, dare I say it, a reunion?

I have no problem with this. It's also irrelevant because pointing out a group of fans, regardless of their size, who didn't want what BioWare gave doesn't show that BioWare was trolling them. It shows that what they wanted was never an option for BioWare, so BW chose to listen to what fans were saying that they COULD implement.

The best argument you can make here is that Refuse does not represent the majority of fans' wishes. That is unrelated to Refuse being trolling.

Bioware's opinion (speculated):  Not artistic enough.  Idealism's for saps.  hey look, let's trigger the "you lose" scenerio by shooting the Catalyst.  That'll show 'em!

Yeah, no. Fans love to believe themselves the victim but in this case they don't really have an argument.

It is absolutely trolling to know what players wanted, dangle the possibility in front of them, only to jerk it away. 

What Bioware underestimated was the number of people who don't like to get jerked around. 

That is trolling. Indeed. It's also irrelevant since that's not what happened.

[KaiserShep]

I don't believe that they trolled anyone, but it sure doesn't feel very different lol

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I have no problem with this. It's also irrelevant because pointing out a group of fans, regardless of their size, who didn't want what BioWare gave doesn't show that BioWare was trolling them. It shows that what they wanted was never an option for BioWare, so BW chose to listen to what fans were saying that they COULD implement.

The best argument you can make here is that Refuse does not represent the majority of fans' wishes. That is unrelated to Refuse being trolling.

And Refuse triggering by shooting the Catalyst?  An activity that became such a perverse pleasure to many people who disliked the options we were given?

Giving a "You lose" scenerio that isn't balanced by a "you win" scenerio is at best, a highly divisive choice.  If not deliberately insulting.

Yeah, no. Fans love to believe themselves the victim but in this case they don't really have an argument.

My speculation is every bit as valid as yours.  Isn't that what Biwoare wanted in the first place?  "Lots of speculation for everybody"?

That is trolling. Indeed. It's also irrelevant since that's not what happened.

Awesome speech, followed by SO BE IT and off-screen annihilation of all races and characters without the opportunity to fight back?

Similar outcome triggered by shooting at hated character?

No positive alternative outcome to balance these out?

I I was totally catered to.  Don't know what I was thinking...

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

And Refuse triggering by shooting the Catalyst?  An activity that became such a perverse pleasure to many people who disliked the options we were given?

There is some conspiracy behind triggering the event to refuse the options given by repeating the act representative of refusing the options?

Giving a "You lose" scenerio that isn't balanced by a "you win" scenerio is at best, a highly divisive choice.  If not deliberately insulting.

There are already 3 win options in the game. You didn't like them. Neither did I. Too bad. It doesn't follow they should put in an option that bypasses the Crucible and ends the war without further compromise.

Awesome speech, followed by SO BE IT and off-screen annihilation of all races and characters without the opportunity to fight back?

Similar outcome triggered by shooting at hated character?

No positive alternative outcome to balance these out?

I I was totally catered to.  Don't know what I was thinking...

No one is claiming that Refuse was crafted for you. Only that Refuse was *not* crafted to spite you.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 mai 2013 - 06:39 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

There is some conspiracy behind triggering the event to refuse the options given by repeating the act representative of refusing the options?

Actually, yes.  The action that became the symbol for disgust with the endings becomes the trigger for the fourth "Rocks Fall" ending.

If that isn't a passive-agressive response to ending haters, I don't know what is.

There are already 3 win options in the game. You didn't like them. Neither did I. Too bad. It doesn't follow they should put in an option that bypasses the Crucible and ends the war without further compromise.

Except that in the end, it's what many players (including, quite likely, most of those who wanted a refuse option) wanted.
To offer such an option, with no hope for success simply dangled false hope before them.

No one is claiming that Refuse was crafted for you. Only that Refuse was *not* crafted to spite you.

Not me personally, no.  But I highly suspect there was a degree of spite written into it.

Modifié par iakus, 20 mai 2013 - 06:44 .

[MegaSovereign]

So what you're saying is that Bioware spent time and resources developing the Refuse ending with the intent of hatred, despite the fact that the EC was done for the purposes of PR damage control.

[PsyrenY]

iakus wrote...

It is absolutely trolling to know what players wanted, dangle the possibility in front of them, only to jerk it away.

They didn't dangle crap. The Catalyst flat out tells you "you sure about this whole moral principle thing? Because you're going to just die, no matter how cool your speech to my hologram is." And then they give you an option to actually go back to the Crucible after running your mouth. Anyone who disregards this warning deserves what they get, just like the ones who say "Yeah, Morinth really is just a misunderstood flower and the sex would be great."

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Actually, yes.  The action that became the symbol for disgust with the endings becomes the trigger for the fourth "Rocks Fall" ending.

If that isn't a passive-agressive response to ending haters, I don't know what is.

It's quite clear that you don't know what is, given that all of your supporting points are arguments for why Refuse did not address the largest fan demand, which has nothing to do with a troll attempt. Every logical process should lead you to the conclusion that there was no intended spite in Refuse. The demand for an ending like Refuse existed. The demand for an ending like Refuse where you win also existed. The latter would be impossible with the current framework of the endings because it would render the Destroy/Control/Synthesis choice meaningless. It was never in play. So BioWare added the only ending that WAS still in play.

Refuse is not about you or anybody like you. Refuse was for people who wanted to reject the choices no matter the cost.

[Rothgar49]

erezike wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Seriously out of all the tough decisions Shepard makes, all the people he kills and the stuff he does to get there he just walks away and lets everyone die? it really makes no sense for any shepard to do that. It's pretty much the worst option. I wouldn't let people die just because I don't like the options before me. 

Players wanted to wave a finger at bioware and recievd the worst end of it... 

Agreed. Bioware took at wagging finger and told their loyal dedicated fans just where to stick it with that option

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is that Bioware spent time and resources developing the Refuse ending with the intent of hatred, despite the fact that the EC was done for the purposes of PR damage control.

"Hatred" is too strong.

Ever been forced to apologize to someone you really didn't want to?  Similar situation.  You can't tell me there was no resentment in making EC.  Including the Refuse option.

As you said, it was damage control.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

There is some conspiracy behind triggering the event to refuse the options given by repeating the act representative of refusing the options?

Actually, yes.  The action that became the symbol for disgust with the endings becomes the trigger for the fourth "Rocks Fall" ending.

If that isn't a passive-agressive response to ending haters, I don't know what is.

Or, they were tired of people repeatedly firing a gun at a child out of angst.

[CronoDragoon]

Just so I'm clear: I don't have an ulterior motive for supporting Refuse since my ideal scenario in March 2012 was that BioWare DID utterly obliterate the endings and start from scratch. But whatever my wishes for the structure of the endings, they don't relate to suppositions about malicious intent on BW's part.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is that Bioware spent time and resources developing the Refuse ending with the intent of hatred, despite the fact that the EC was done for the purposes of PR damage control.

"Hatred" is too strong.

Ever been forced to apologize to someone you really didn't want to?  Similar situation.  You can't tell me there was no resentment in making EC.  Including the Refuse option.

As you said, it was damage control.

So you were at the studio, witnessing the production of the EC? 

[Ryzaki]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

There is some conspiracy behind triggering the event to refuse the options given by repeating the act representative of refusing the options?

Actually, yes.  The action that became the symbol for disgust with the endings becomes the trigger for the fourth "Rocks Fall" ending.

If that isn't a passive-agressive response to ending haters, I don't know what is.

Or, they were tired of people repeatedly firing a gun at a child out of angst.

Then maybe they should've thought about that before the stupidity of having a child Shep sees for about 10 minutes in the prologue be the face of the Reaper overlord.

[dreamgazer]

Ryzaki wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

There is some conspiracy behind triggering the event to refuse the options given by repeating the act representative of refusing the options?

Actually, yes.  The action that became the symbol for disgust with the endings becomes the trigger for the fourth "Rocks Fall" ending.

If that isn't a passive-agressive response to ending haters, I don't know what is.

Or, they were tired of people repeatedly firing a gun at a child out of angst.

Then maybe they should've thought about that before the stupidity of having a child Shep sees for about 10 minutes in the prologue be the face of the Reaper overlord.

They should have foreseen the knee-jerk reaction, I agree with you there.

[CronoDragoon]

I didn't shoot the kid only because my eyes glazed over while he was talking and I had to spend a few minutes remembering which way to go for which ending.

[KaiserShep]

I don't believe BW acted maliciously in creating the refusal ending at all. If anything, I appreciate the fact that it exists, even if I can't truly endorse the decision because of how it's set up. As tragic and bitter as it seems, I can't deny that it has some merit in the impact of seeing Liara's hologram. The problem is that BioWare already painted itself into a corner with the original ending. They could either attempt to add some frills and scattered retcon around their already faulty conclusion, or do a complete rewrite from the beam run onward. Something tells me that the latter is easier said than done after the fact.

That said, I would probably prefer that they take that chance and figure out a way to either omit the holo-child altogether, or change the dynamic/dialogue so that the scene works better. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 mai 2013 - 07:27 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

The Refusal option as presented is pretty lame, yes. In some sense I'm glad that they at least put it there, but they seem to jump straight from Shepard making a speech to the absolute worst-case scenario from refusing (i.e. everyone dies), whereas at least a couple of additional possibilities are ignored:

(1) What happens *after* Shepard refuses? If (s)he survives long enough to report to Hackett what just happened, I think there's a good chance that either (a) Hackett basically orders Shepard to pick one of the three options; or ( someone else boards the Citadel and activates the Crucible.

(2) A lot of us, myself included, had problems with the initial ending (and to some extent the EC endings as well) because we just don't accept the Catalyst's premise, and thought Shepard should make a more forceful case to that effect, especially if you've traveled the "peacemaker" path with the genophage, geth/quarians, and other politically-tinged decisions. Shepard's speech, while articulate, doesn't do that - it basically just tells the Catalyst to go jump in a lake.

[TheProtheans]

Solaxe wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Refuse gets too much abuse from narrow minded people.
I think I will need to start showing my support for this ending which shows the best qualities of being human, you.
Especially since all the races can survive, refuse is a happy ending where principles earn victory.
Bioware just didn't have the budget and space to expand refuse, it can be whatever you want it to be.

Everybody dies. For nothing.

So deep.

Don't be obtuse 

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

im soo goodd

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

There is some conspiracy behind triggering the event to refuse the options given by repeating the act representative of refusing the options?

Actually, yes.  The action that became the symbol for disgust with the endings becomes the trigger for the fourth "Rocks Fall" ending.

Was Bio actually aware that a lot of people were shooting the kid? When I read posts like that pre-EC I thought people were joking; shooting at a hologram is idiotic, and I didn't realize that people are OK with making their Sheps do idiotic things.

[frostajulie]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is that Bioware spent time and resources developing the Refuse ending with the intent of hatred, despite the fact that the EC was done for the purposes of PR damage control.

"Hatred" is too strong.

Ever been forced to apologize to someone you really didn't want to?  Similar situation.  You can't tell me there was no resentment in making EC.  Including the Refuse option.

As you said, it was damage control.

Now this I can believe.