1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Shhh, if you did not like something in a game it has to be for the reasons your opponents invent and no others.

 

I do see that a lot, yeah

[Iakus]

You think a realist would accept the word of something that has just admitted to you that it controls your enemies? You think a realist, on nothing more than the word of his enemy, would kill himself because it is meant to stop the enemies?

No realist would believe "hey, if you kill yourself It'll stop me wiping everyone out."

A realist would be thinking 'where's this things blue box?'

 

I expected the Catalyst in all outcomes, after Shepard walked into the explosion, electrocuted on the rods, or disintegrated in the beam of space magic, to snicker and go "I can't believe that actually worked"

[DeinonSlayer]

Neither were the beings of Independence Day. Most villains have some kind of purpose behind their malevolence (though many for personal/emotional reasons), and for all the reasoning behind the extermination cycles, the reapers and catalyst are pretty simple.

I remember that movie. I wonder if any of them would have tried to surrender after Will Smith nuked ~95% of their population...

[MSandt]

You think a realist would accept the word of something that has just admitted to you that it controls your enemies? You think a realist, on nothing more than the word of his enemy, would kill himself because it is meant to stop the enemies?

No realist would believe "hey, if you kill yourself It'll stop me wiping everyone out."

A realist would be thinking 'where's this things blue box?'

 

A realist accepts the world for what it is, not what a fanboy would like it to be. It doesn't matter whether Shepard agrees with the starchild's logic: She's helplessly a victim of that logic and cannot change the situation. The universe functions as the starchild designed it.

 

(And of course no sane individual would believe the starchild is simply trying to deceive Shepard. If it were, why drag Shepard all the way up there? You think it gets off on it or something? And of course we did see the Crucible function exactly as expected.)

[MSandt]

You are correct, but that leads to a greater problem. Why does it bother on the first place? The reapers are winning. They will win regardless. Why not just let shep die next to Anderson?
If it's because 'reasons' then expecting some explanation shouldn't be out of the question for the player (let alone shep).

My first ever play through I ended up with refuse because I was so confused as to what the hell was going on. That is not good game design; the lack of interrogation and ability to question liea at the heart of it.

 

You going for the refuse option tells more about you (or your Shepard, if you will) than it does about the game. In fact, that the game allows individuals to reveal such things about themselves is good game design. The refuse, control and synthesis options are there precisely for those who are fundamentally selfish (or self-righteous and downright totalitarian in the case of synthesis).

 

And I don't understand what explanations (other than meaningless, nerdy details) were you missing. Shepard's presence at the Crucible radically changed whatever perceptions the starchild might have had about the constancy of the cycle.

[von uber]

So what does it say about me then, given that choosing refuse was a result of listening to each option and going 'what?!' and clicking to see if there was more than was being presented?
Your happy with it, fine. I think it lacks a lot of needed explanation to even make sense TO THE PLAYER.
Not shepard, the player.

[MSandt]

So what does it say about me then, given that choosing refuse was a result of listening to each option and going 'what?!' and clicking to see if there was more than was being presented?
Your happy with it, fine. I think it lacks a lot of needed explanation to even make sense TO THE PLAYER.
Not shepard, the player.

 

I haven't played the Extended Cut because the original ending was perfect (aside from the useless epilogue) so I don't know exactly how the refuse option was presented. You mean to say you clicked refuse as if by accident, to see if it reveals more options? (Kinda like the alternate ending in South Park.)

 

I was, as a player, more than happy with the explanations given. I did consider the starchild's logic idiotic, conservative and fascist, but that's how most gods are if you go by religious texts, but his cycle theory did make sense given his flawed logic. Thousands of people whom we'd call evil and stupid have tried to rearrange the world according to their vision of life.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Your Shepard is a moron then. A realist would accept the situation for what it is. You've got three/four choices (one of which fulfills your objective), you cannot "will" an improvement and your people are being slaughtered.

 

That's the first time I've ever heard someone called a moron for asking questions. A realist would take the opportunity to gain as much information as possible and not accept a non-answer with no clarification to anything that's happening beyond a vague telling of what is based on the perspective of this entity. It goes against logic, reason, and the scientific method not to question this entity. I can will an improvement, by gaining better context and information on what I have available to me. Information does that. People are dying. That's what they're there for. I've got questions, and I don't just have the present to worry about, I have the future to worry about. If I'm going to make a choice, I'd like to gain the best context on what I can do, and what I will do. I don't believe the Catalyst is lying to me, but I don't believe we have the same perspective on the possibilities. 

[von uber]

You mean to say you clicked refuse as if by accident, to see if it reveals more options? (Kinda like the alternate ending in South Park.).

Yes, exactly that.
I was most displeased.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

So Msandt is another rabid ending lover out to condemn anyone who doesn't share his view of the ending (including other pro-enders). It's rather distracting, and I think we all have the ideal that its rather old at this point. Seems like a Txgoldrush clone. Nobody is going to get anywhere talking with him, so I suggest no one indulges him or engages him.

[angol fear]

So Msandt is another rabid ending lover out to condemn anyone who doesn't share his view of the ending (including other pro-enders). It's rather distracting, and I think we all have the ideal that its rather old at this point. Seems like a Txgoldrush clone. Nobody is going to get anywhere talking with him, so I suggest no one indulges him or engages him.

As a pro ender, I liked what he wrote (and it's very rare to see another one who liked the original ending). His vision of the ending is very different from mine, so I suggest the opposite so that he can develop.  

[Vigilant111]

That's the first time I've ever heard someone called a moron for asking questions. A realist would take the opportunity to gain as much information as possible and not accept a non-answer with no clarification to anything that's happening beyond a vague telling of what is based on the perspective of this entity. It goes against logic, reason, and the scientific method not to question this entity. I can will an improvement, by gaining better context and information on what I have available to me. Information does that. People are dying. That's what they're there for. I've got questions, and I don't just have the present to worry about, I have the future to worry about. If I'm going to make a choice, I'd like to gain the best context on what I can do, and what I will do. I don't believe the Catalyst is lying to me, but I don't believe we have the same perspective on the possibilities. 

As much as I dislike his persona, I have to agree with his assertions about what a realist does, as the realist is often pessimistic about nature and will not invest time to investigate thoroughly.

 

Except, the question isn't what attributes the realist exhibits, but rather, whether your Shepard is a realist

[AlanC9]

You think a realist would accept the word of something that has just admitted to you that it controls your enemies? You think a realist, on nothing more than the word of his enemy, would kill himself because it is meant to stop the enemies?
No realist would believe "hey, if you kill yourself It'll stop me wiping everyone out."
A realist would be thinking 'where's this things blue box?'

Of course, even if he found the blue box and could blow it up, that doesn't offer any kind of solution. It'd conceivably make things worse since without the Catalyst the Reapers might realize that the cycles don't do anything useful for themselves.

[AlanC9]

So what does it say about me then, given that choosing refuse was a result of listening to each option and going 'what?!' and clicking to see if there was more than was being presented?

I think it says that you misread the paraphrase. It's not like Shepard's asking if there are other choices; isn't it "I refuse these choices!"?

[Iakus]

A realist accepts the world for what it is, not what a fanboy would like it to be. It doesn't matter whether Shepard agrees with the starchild's logic: She's helplessly a victim of that logic and cannot change the situation. The universe functions as the starchild designed it.

 

Poor storytelling.  Especially for a chocie-based game.

 

"No matter how much of a difference you made, it didn't make any difference"

 

 

(And of course no sane individual would believe the starchild is simply trying to deceive Shepard. If it were, why drag Shepard all the way up there? You think it gets off on it or something? And of course we did see the Crucible function exactly as expected.)

 

We saw it after the fact.

 

As to the Starchild, you do realize it's the guiding intelligence of a fleet of alien entities with mind-control powers, right?

[Iakus]

So what does it say about me then, given that choosing refuse was a result of listening to each option and going 'what?!' and clicking to see if there was more than was being presented?
Your happy with it, fine. I think it lacks a lot of needed explanation to even make sense TO THE PLAYER.
Not shepard, the player.

 

yhou dared to question the Ar...Endings, and got slapped down for it

[AlanC9]

As to the Starchild, you do realize it's the guiding intelligence of a fleet of alien entities with mind-control powers, right?

Sure. But what's the Catalyst trying to gain from lying that he can't gain from just leaving Shepard sitting there confused?

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Sure. But what's the Catalyst trying to gain from lying that he can't gain from just leaving Shepard sitting there confused?

Simple. By convincing Shepard to shoot the tube he convinces her to disable the crucible.

 

Because, you know, there is really no reason that destroying something activate it.  

[AlanC9]

OK. In some alternative scenario where the Crucible has a long warm-up time, sure. Though the Catalyst is still running a horrible risk with Control, unless the Reapers can't possibly destroy the Crucible before it fires.

Of course, Shepard can just stand there and watch the Crucible do nothing for quite a while, if he likes.

What about low-EMS states where Control is the only option? Or is Control supposed to be a lie too?

[von uber]

You are right alanc9, butvthe problem is as I see it there is no reason for shep to be even brought up.
The reapers are winning. Why jeopardise that?

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

OK. In some alternative scenario where the Crucible has a long warm-up time, sure. Though the Catalyst is still running a horrible risk with Control, unless the Reapers can't possibly destroy the Crucible before it fires.

Of course, Shepard can just stand there and watch the Crucible do nothing for quite a while, if he likes.

What about low-EMS states where Control is the only option? Or is Control supposed to be a lie too?

Well, he could've thought Shepard would wake up soon enough and activate it, so he convinced him to grab onto a power coupling. Ensuring his death. 

[AlanC9]

Best guess is that the Crucible changes the Catalyst.

I don't mean to come across as defending the clarity of the scene. I'm just pointing out that the Catalyst-lying hypothesis doesn't work on its own terms.

[AlanC9]

Well, he could've thought Shepard would wake up soon enough and activate it, so he convinced him to grab onto a power coupling. Ensuring his death.

Shepard would decide to shoot a pipe on his own. You don't actually believe that.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Shepard would decide to shoot a pipe on his own. You don't actually believe that.

The Shepard we played through 99% of the series wouldn't. But this is the one who didn't question the logic of how jumping into an energy beam(?) would activate the crucible and disseminate his "organic energy" across every living thing in the galaxy. 

To BioWare:

[Massa FX]

None of my Shepard's would do something so stupid as to shoot at an explosive tube while running full tilt toward it.

But maybe some people think this is a good thing...

Grabbing ahold of two electric bars and holding on while I fry is also not something a Shepard would willingly do.

Jumping to her death and having her flesh flayed off isn't something any of my Shepard's would do.

standing there like a bewildered fool (so be it indeed) isn't at all Shepard like.

Why? Because it's not something this character I've played since 2009 (multiple upon multiple times), would do.