108 réponses à ce sujet

[Rasofe]

I don't see how the two are in any way interdependent. I would want a complete victory option, but my argument for it wouldn't be "but you gave us a complete fail option."

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh you mean the lovely "don't like my ending? Here is a glorified game over screen because we know better"? Ending? The obviously non canon, does not trigger an achievement, completely misunderstood what people asked for in a refuse ending, listened only to what they wanted to hear refuse ending?

I don't remember the italed happening. The pre-EC threads I saw all went the same way. Someone would propose a Refuse victory, someone else would say that while of course Refuse was a good RP option, winning that way was idiotic. And then we'd fight for ten or twelve pages. Refuse was popular, Refuse victory was not.

Of course, if someone in the thread hadn't already attacked the Refuse victory for being idiotic I would have done that myself, so naturally I remember that the idea of Refuse victory was always attacked.

If "refuse-victory" came up that often, and incited that much fighting, then one would think it was at least as popular as "refuse-trolol"

[Rasofe]

Refuse victory would only make sense if we didn't bother with the crucible in the first place. The fact that the crucible is such a commitment in the plot is really why the Marauder Shields comic can't seem to finish.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

tbh I was never supporter of the refuse ending, to change the ending the way I would have liked would have meant going back to the very start of ME3 and that was never going to happen. I would even say they would need to go back as far as ME1 to set up a proper ending.

[AlanC9]

Sure. Refuse victory wasn't universally hated. A lot of us hated it, but it had fans.

But it's hardly surprising that Bio implemented the popular option and didn't implement the controversial one.

[dreamgazer]

Refusal opened the galaxy up to the literally countless number of Reapers who have been exterminating life as it's known for eons. Expecting something other than what was delivered is folly, unless you really want to enhance the "grimdark" and fully depict total annihilation. Thankfully, the topic of a refusal victory was, indeed, very polarized and often leaned towards "it's ridiculous" and "power-trip delusion".

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. Refuse victory wasn't universally hated. A lot of us hated it, but it had fans.

But it's hardly surprising that Bio implemented the popular option and didn't implement the controversial one.

You're projecting again

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
If "refuse-victory" came up that often, and incited that much fighting, then one would think it was at least as popular as "refuse-trolol"

That depends on how you frame the question. You've framed it as if refuse-win and refuse-fail are two separate things. We didn't actually talk about it that way. First came Shepard's act of Refusal, which was popular. Then came the consequences, which were controversial.

FWIW, I think your frame is better. The one we used obscured the tidal wave of butthurt that Refuse, as implemented, unleashed.

[Br3admax]

How do we expect to go from a shaky stalemate to an all out victory with Refuse. The galaxy has lost every single battle up until this point. Brutally. This isn't some sort of Hundred Years War kind of thing, where the individual countries were spending vast amounts of their resources over centuries and where every battle counts even until the end. This is a massacre where every fallen soldier becomes another for the other side, where giant robots are completely destroying defenses, and where there is literally no chance of a conventional when. A Refuse victory would make absolutely no sense given the setting.

Modifié par Br3ad, 03 décembre 2013 - 04:14 .

[crimzontearz]

Refuse victory means a typical video game ending. Which they seem to be dead set against.. a complete reworking of their current ideas. You can't expect them to do that. For whatever reason, they're against video game endings now, and want to be different. Not sure who they're trying to impress, but they made their minds up. I wouldn't waste too much time thinking about it. Just swallow the Blue, Green, or Red turd and be done with it.

Hence why I said I wish EA dealt with this like MS dealt with Orth/Mattrick

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Refusal opened the galaxy up to the literally countless number of Reapers who have been exterminating life as it's known for eons. Expecting something other than what was delivered is folly, unless you really want to enhance the "grimdark" and fully depict total annihilation. Thankfully, the topic of a refusal victory was, indeed, very polarized and often leaned towards "it's ridiculous" and "power-trip delusion".

Only to those convinced the Reapers were indestructible, and disregard why the Reapers always capture the Citadel first in previous cycles

[Iakus]

Br3ad wrote...

How do we expect to go from a shaky stalemate to an all out victory with Refuse. The galaxy has lost every single battle up until this point. Brutally. This isn't some sort of Hundred Years War kind of thing, where the individual countries were spending vast amounts of their resources over centuries and where every battle counts even until the end. This is a massacre where every fallen soldier becomes another for the other side, where giant robots are completely destroying defenses, and where there is literally no chance of a conventional when. A Refuse victory would make absolutely no sense given the setting.

And where Shepard manages to kill three (four including the Hades Cannon) Reapers on foot

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Refusal opened the galaxy up to the literally countless number of Reapers who have been exterminating life as it's known for eons. Expecting something other than what was delivered is folly, unless you really want to enhance the "grimdark" and fully depict total annihilation. Thankfully, the topic of a refusal victory was, indeed, very polarized and often leaned towards "it's ridiculous" and "power-trip delusion".

Only to those convinced the Reapers were indestructible, and disregard why the Reapers always capture the Citadel first in previous cycles

Indestructable? No. Near-indestructable? Yes.

How many Reapers are out there, and how many have the galaxy taken out thus far? How are you envisioning this victory?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

That depends on how you frame the question. You've framed it as if refuse-win and refuse-fail are two separate things. We didn't actually talk about it that way. First came Shepard's act of Refusal, which was popular. Then came the consequences, which were controversial.

FWIW, I think your frame is better. The one we used obscured the tidal wave of butthurt that Refuse, as implemented, unleashed.

There's no reason why they couldn't have been two separate endings.  Heck even MEHEM has a "win" and a "lose" ending now.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Indestructable? No. Near-indestructable? Yes.

How many Reapers are out there, and how many have the galaxy taken out thus far? How are you envisioning this victory?

To my mind, not so many Reapers that they don't fear a united galaxy.  Thus why they always use the strategy of capturing the relay network ad isolating each region of space, picking them off one at a time.

ME3 retconned this so they can take on the entire galaxy at once with nothing more than mild inconvenience.

So Bioware's answer to how many reapers I guess would be "Enough"  The exact number doesn't matter, there will always be more, because Bioware says so.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
That depends on how you frame the question. You've framed it as if refuse-win and refuse-fail are two separate things. We didn't actually talk about it that way. First came Shepard's act of Refusal, which was popular. Then came the consequences, which were controversial.

FWIW, I think your frame is better. The one we used obscured the tidal wave of butthurt that Refuse, as implemented, unleashed.

There's no reason why they couldn't have been two separate endings.  Heck even MEHEM has a "win" and a "lose" ending now.

Well, except for a Refuse win being silly, but I'll leave that argument to the others. I'm going to just sit back and savor  not wholly disagreeing with you this morning.

[Br3admax]

iakus wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

How do we expect to go from a shaky stalemate to an all out victory with Refuse. The galaxy has lost every single battle up until this point. Brutally. This isn't some sort of Hundred Years War kind of thing, where the individual countries were spending vast amounts of their resources over centuries and where every battle counts even until the end. This is a massacre where every fallen soldier becomes another for the other side, where giant robots are completely destroying defenses, and where there is literally no chance of a conventional when. A Refuse victory would make absolutely no sense given the setting.

And where Shepard manages to kill three (four including the Hades Cannon) Reapers on foot

Where does Shepard personally kill three? He destroyed one, and this wasn't even a capital ship. The rest, most of comparable size to said destroyed Destroyer, are all destroyed by flights, and one by a giant worm. Entire fleets. And this is three Reapers out of how many? There is no hope for any sort of conventional victory with the Reapers presented. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 03 décembre 2013 - 04:39 .

[Rasofe]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Indestructable? No. Near-indestructable? Yes.

How many Reapers are out there, and how many have the galaxy taken out thus far? How are you envisioning this victory?

To my mind, not so many Reapers that they don't fear a united galaxy.  Thus why they always use the strategy of capturing the relay network ad isolating each region of space, picking them off one at a time.

ME3 retconned this so they can take on the entire galaxy at once with nothing more than mild inconvenience.

So Bioware's answer to how many reapers I guess would be "Enough"  The exact number doesn't matter, there will always be more, because Bioware says so.

They used to do that thing you said for efficiency's sake. Now they struck the homeworlds immediately, also for efficiency's sake. Fear had nothing to do with this.

[Rasofe]

Br3ad wrote...

iakus wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

How do we expect to go from a shaky stalemate to an all out victory with Refuse. The galaxy has lost every single battle up until this point. Brutally. This isn't some sort of Hundred Years War kind of thing, where the individual countries were spending vast amounts of their resources over centuries and where every battle counts even until the end. This is a massacre where every fallen soldier becomes another for the other side, where giant robots are completely destroying defenses, and where there is literally no chance of a conventional when. A Refuse victory would make absolutely no sense given the setting.

And where Shepard manages to kill three (four including the Hades Cannon) Reapers on foot

Where does Shepard personally kill three? He destroyed one, and this wasn't even a capital ship. The rest, most of comparable size to said destroyed Destroyer, are all destroyed by flights, and one by a giant worm. Entire fleets. And this is three Reapers out of how many? There is no hope for any sort of conventional victory with the Reapers presented. 

Marauder Shields: Hope is Alive.

Modifié par Rasofe, 03 décembre 2013 - 04:47 .

[crimzontearz]

Divide and conquer is not about efficiency really....it's about skewing the odds in your favor which, according to ME3-Bioware it should not matter because we do not pose a real threat

[Clayless]

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh you mean the lovely "don't like my ending? Here is a glorified game over screen because we know better"? Ending? The obviously non canon, does not trigger an achievement, completely misunderstood what people asked for in a refuse ending, listened only to what they wanted to hear refuse ending?

I don't remember the italed happening. The pre-EC threads I saw all went the same way. Someone would propose a Refuse victory, someone else would say that while of course Refuse was a good RP option, winning that way was idiotic. And then we'd fight for ten or twelve pages. Refuse was popular, Refuse victory was not.

Of course, if someone in the thread hadn't already attacked the Refuse victory for being idiotic I would have done that myself, so naturally I remember that the idea of Refuse victory was always attacked.

This.

I remember countless threads asking for refuse, but almost none of the people who were asking for refuse wanted a refuse victory. Those that did were shot down by how terrible their idea was.

Saying Bioware only listened to what they wanted to hear in the same breath as saying people who wanted refuse wanted it to lead to victory, is so far from the truth it's unbelievable.

[Clayless]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Indestructable? No. Near-indestructable? Yes.

How many Reapers are out there, and how many have the galaxy taken out thus far? How are you envisioning this victory?

To my mind, not so many Reapers that they don't fear a united galaxy.  Thus why they always use the strategy of capturing the relay network ad isolating each region of space, picking them off one at a time.

ME3 retconned this so they can take on the entire galaxy at once with nothing more than mild inconvenience.

So Bioware's answer to how many reapers I guess would be "Enough"  The exact number doesn't matter, there will always be more, because Bioware says so.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it was ever mentioned they picked off a region of space one at a time.

Isolated them, sure, but picking them off one at a time? Don't think so.

[Daemul]

Robosexual wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh you mean the lovely "don't like my ending? Here is a glorified game over screen because we know better"? Ending? The obviously non canon, does not trigger an achievement, completely misunderstood what people asked for in a refuse ending, listened only to what they wanted to hear refuse ending?

I don't remember the italed happening. The pre-EC threads I saw all went the same way. Someone would propose a Refuse victory, someone else would say that while of course Refuse was a good RP option, winning that way was idiotic. And then we'd fight for ten or twelve pages. Refuse was popular, Refuse victory was not.

Of course, if someone in the thread hadn't already attacked the Refuse victory for being idiotic I would have done that myself, so naturally I remember that the idea of Refuse victory was always attacked.

This.

I remember countless threads asking for refuse, but almost none of the people who were asking for refuse wanted a refuse victory. Those that did were shot down by how terrible their idea was.

Saying Bioware only listened to what they wanted to hear in the same breath as saying people who wanted refuse wanted it to lead to victory, is so far from the truth it's unbelievable.

I remember this as well. People wanted the option to tell the Catalyst to stuff it, but only a few actually wanted it to lead to some form of conventional victory. Those that did were usually shut down. 

[CronoDragoon]

Robosexual wrote...

Tali - "Wait.. Shepard?"

*Said to guy with face-covering helmet on who hasn't said anything, 2 years after Shepard died, flanked by Cerberus operatives*

Well, Shepard's customized armor is pretty iconic, at least in my playthroughs, though I headcanon he wore it in ME1 as well and not the hideous butt=ugly armors that game made you wear.