148 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

The point of my analogy was that doing something incredibly stupid should have bad results.

 

And maybe the cataclyst decides that this cycle is too stupid to make a decscision because it's representative decided to d*ck around and shoot at holo-projections for no logical reason instead of doing anything useful. Seriously would you lay the future of the galxy into the hands of someone that thinks shooting at thin air will gain her/him anything?

 

Refuse Shepard is the worst kind of idiot.

 

Cataclyst: Okay instead of killing you all I give you the option to kill us instead, control us or make some sort of (space magic) peace.

RefuseShep: No F*ck you I'm gonna shoot you in your holo-projected face instead. *Bang, bang*

Cataclyst: *Facepalm* So be it. Have it your way dumb*ss. Note to self: don't make humans a cpital Reaper-ship after all, if that's the best they have to offer.

 

You're talking to someone who thinks the 'moraly just' should be able to defeat the Reapers and save everybody.

 

You know, the 'press top right to win'-kindof person.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I don't think the EC change to shooting the Catalyst was done due to BW's feelings about the ending (it wasn't even written by the same people who wrote the ending's first draft). I think it has to do with -- apart from it not making much sense for the Catalyst to just stand there and think nothing of you shooting him repeatedly -- the fact that BW writers are big AI-moralists and always have been big on the idea of respecting synthetic life, even to a rather hypocritical level. Xen is vilified for hacking and reprogramming geth (even the same ones Shepard is actively slaughtering), yet lighting organic enemies on fire or using Dominate on them isn't given a second thought. BWs gonna BW.

 

Would it be right for Shepard to vent their frustration after a bad mission by beating up EDI's platform or shooting holes in it? EDI herself says that the body is disposable. It's still an act of clear hostility, though, and the Catalyst simply treated it as such.

[Coyotebay]

There's a good article that that the refuse option isn't stupid, it's basically saying that we're not going to compromise and will sacrifice ourselves so that in the next cycle the organics can win.  That's because we succeeded in building the Crucible this time, and can leave the blueprints for the next cycle so they will have the thing all ready to go when the Reapers wake up again, will have time to reverse engineer it to give a non-compromising result (such as targeting only Reapers and not all synthetics).

 

You have to put yourself in Shepard's shoes.  There is no reason to believe what Star Brat says is true. Not that it's intentionally lying.  It could let you pick whatever you want or do nothing and not say a word, as it knows the Reapers will win this war if you do nothing.  But you still can't trust that you will get the expected result.  Who knows if you can fully control the Reapers, or if synthesis will work?  The results could be disastrous.  Even hitting the destroy switch could inadvertently destroy everything else along with the Reapers, you just don't know.  This Crucible is completely untested.  Still, I wouldn't take that chance of just doing nothing as you are guaranteeing the destruction of organic life in this cycle, there is no guarantee that the next cycle will succeed, and I think on an emotional level Shepard is going to care about saving Ashley and Liara and Garrus and whoever else he can, not about saving people who don't even exist yet millions of years from now.

[Iakus]

 I don't think the EC change to shooting the Catalyst was done due to BW's feelings about the ending (it wasn't even written by the same people who wrote the ending's first draft). I think it has to do with -- apart from it not making much sense for the Catalyst to just stand there and think nothing of you shooting him repeatedly -- the fact that BW writers are big AI-moralists and always have been big on the idea of respecting synthetic life, even to a rather hypocritical level. Xen is vilified for hacking and reprogramming geth (even the same ones Shepard is actively slaughtering), yet lighting organic enemies on fire or using Dominate on them isn't given a second thought. BWs gonna BW.

 

Would it be right for Shepard to vent their frustration after a bad mission by beating up EDI's platform or shooting holes in it? EDI herself says that the body is disposable. It's still an act of clear hostility, though, and the Catalyst simply treated it as such.

 

EDI's body, while disposable, is still subject to damage.

 

How does one damage a flashlight beam, exactly?

 

And all the endings are hypocritcial to some degree.  Too bad you get punished for calling Bioware out on it.

 

There's a good article that that the refuse option isn't stupid, it's basically saying that we're not going to compromise and will sacrifice ourselves so that in the next cycle the organics can win.  That's because we succeeded in building the Crucible this time, and can leave the blueprints for the next cycle so they will have the thing all ready to go when the Reapers wake up again, will have time to reverse engineer it to give a non-compromising result (such as targeting only Reapers and not all synthetics).

 

You have to put yourself in Shepard's shoes.  There is no reason to believe what Star Brat says is true. Not that it's intentionally lying.  It could let you pick whatever you want or do nothing and not say a word, as it knows the Reapers will win this war if you do nothing.  But you still can't trust that you will get the expected result.  Who knows if you can fully control the Reapers, or if synthesis will work?  The results could be disastrous.  Even hitting the destroy switch could inadvertently destroy everything else along with the Reapers, you just don't know.  This Crucible is completely untested.  Still, I wouldn't take that chance of just doing nothing as you are guaranteeing the destruction of organic life in this cycle, there is no guarantee that the next cycle will succeed, and I think on an emotional level Shepard is going to care about saving Ashley and Liara and Garrus and whoever else he can, not about saving people who don't even exist yet millions of years from now.

 

Except they're using the exact same device, with presumably the same functions.  All it does is kick the can further down the road before a decision (Synthesis) gets made.

[Coyotebay]

 

Except they're using the exact same device, with presumably the same functions.  All it does is kick the can further down the road before a decision (Synthesis) gets made.

Well not exactly.  In this cycle, Shepard and his pals had to scramble all over the galaxy to gather the information they needed to build the Crucible.  Liara has been assembling all this information into one place, so that in the next cycle there would be no scrambling, the blueprints would be all laid out for them thanks to us, and they would have time to build a better Crucible that could provide more options for dealing with the Reapers.  Still, I'm not endorsing this plan.  I don't think there's any way after all they had been through to get this far for Shepard to say, "okay, let's pack it in and leave our notes for the next group."  He's going to roll the dice.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

EDI's body, while disposable, is still subject to damage.

 

How does one damage a flashlight beam, exactly?

 

And all the endings are hypocritcial to some degree.  Too bad you get punished for calling Bioware out on it.

 

And yet, EDI takes no more trauma from it than the Catalyst would. If we're being pedantic, is it okay to shoot EDI's sex-toy holograph?

 

 

You don't get punished for making a decision that BioWare can't tell is some sort of angry fan protest apart from me playing Fail!Shep. You get punished for choosing inaction in favor of arguing, over an issue that will not be solved with words in the first place.

[fhs33721]

There's a good article that that the refuse option isn't stupid, it's basically saying that we're not going to compromise and will sacrifice ourselves so that in the next cycle the organics can win.  That's because we succeeded in building the Crucible this time, and can leave the blueprints for the next cycle so they will have the thing all ready to go when the Reapers wake up again, will have time to reverse engineer it to give a non-compromising result (such as targeting only Reapers and not all synthetics).

 

You have to put yourself in Shepard's shoes.  There is no reason to believe what Star Brat says is true. Not that it's intentionally lying.  It could let you pick whatever you want or do nothing and not say a word, as it knows the Reapers will win this war if you do nothing.  But you still can't trust that you will get the expected result.  Who knows if you can fully control the Reapers, or if synthesis will work?  The results could be disastrous.  Even hitting the destroy switch could inadvertently destroy everything else along with the Reapers, you just don't know.  This Crucible is completely untested.  Still, I wouldn't take that chance of just doing nothing as you are guaranteeing the destruction of organic life in this cycle, there is no guarantee that the next cycle will succeed, and I think on an emotional level Shepard is going to care about saving Ashley and Liara and Garrus and whoever else he can, not about saving people who don't even exist yet millions of years from now.

Point is: If you don't do anything everyone you love and everyone that put their  trust in you will die for sure. And all those parents who see their chirldren impaled on metal spikes and turned into shambling corpses will sure be glad that you didn't compromise. Yeah definitely.

If you chose one of the three options (even without knowing the consequences) there is at least some chance to avert the bleak future of everyone dying.

 

On another matter: Waa it confirmed somewhere that it was actually the next cycle that defeated the Repaers in Refuse? For all I know it could be a trillion years and hundreds of cycles later that some cycle finally managed to defeat them. If that was the case: Congratulations RefuseShep you made sure that even more species have to go through the horror of a Harvest.

[Farangbaa]

In before 'Bioware forces me to be a war criminal'

[Coyotebay]

 

On another matter: Waa it confirmed somewhere that it was actually the next cycle that defeated the Repaers in Refuse? For all I know it could be a trillion years and hundreds of cycles later that some cycle finally managed to defeat them. If that was the case: Congratulations RefuseShep you made sure that even more species have to go through the horror of a Harvest.

Yes I believe you get the stargazer epilogue still.

[fhs33721]

Yes I believe you get the stargazer epilogue still.

As far as I remember nothing in the Stargazer epilogue clearly indicates that is was the following cycle that defeated the Reapers just that it was a following cycle.

[Iakus]

And yet, EDI takes no more trauma from it than the Catalyst would. If we're being pedantic, is it okay to shoot EDI's sex-toy holograph?

 

Yes.

 

 

You don't get punished for making a decision that BioWare can't tell is some sort of angry fan protest apart from me playing Fail!Shep. You get punished for choosing inaction in favor of arguing, over an issue that will not be solved with words in the first place.

If Bioware couldn't tell that was angry fan protest, then they really weren't listening when they claimed they were.

 

You get punished for not subscribing to Bioware's/The Catalyst's Insane Troll Logic.  You get punished for protesting the insanity of the situation.  You get punished for believing that the Galaxy can live in peace if left to its own devices, without Shepard playing The Shepard to the galaxy.

 

Try to make that arugment, and you get "SO BE IT!!!" and the table gets flipped.

[Vazgen]

Yes.

 

If Bioware couldn't tell that was angry fan protest, then they really weren't listening when they claimed they were.

 

You get punished for not subscribing to Bioware's/The Catalyst's Insane Troll Logic.  You get punished for protesting the insanity of the situation.  You get punished for believing that the Galaxy can live in peace if left to its own devices, without Shepard playing The Shepard to the galaxy.

 

Try to make that arugment, and you get "SO BE IT!!!" and the table gets flipped.

You get punished for choosing to fight the Reapers conventionally, something that is stated as impossible in all three games. You get punished because you throw the events of the whole game into trash by not activating the Crucible. You get punished because you act as a spoiled child and not as one who got all the galaxy working together. 

The refuse option is a completely unnecessary addition, it's thrown there to appease the fans who refused the idea of Crucible being the only way to defeat the Reapers, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 

[Iakus]

You get punished for choosing to fight the Reapers conventionally, something that is stated as impossible in all three games. You get punished because you throw the events of the whole game into trash by not activating the Crucible. You get punished because you act as a spoiled child and not as one who got all the galaxy working together. 

The refuse option is a completely unnecessary addition, it's thrown there to appease the fans who refused the idea of Crucible being the only way to defeat the Reapers, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 

 

I'm being punished for trying to fight the Reapers conventionally?

 

More like I'm punished for refusing to go along with the space-magic that is the Crucible and its borderline offensive assessment about organic and synthetic life.

 

I threw the events of the game into the trash by not activating the Crucible?

 

 

the entire purpose of that space-magic filled MacGuffin threw the entire freaking trilogy into the trash!

 

I'm a spoiled child rather than one who got the whole galaxy working together?

 

 

Yeah, I did get the whole galaxy to work together, and where did it get me?

 

Slaughter your own allies, set up Big Brother to rule the Galaxy, or forcibly "uplift" everyone to "the final evolution of life" will they or  nil they.  No matter how much of a difference I made, it made no difference.  I'm hardly the childish one here.  I didn't go "SO BE IT!" and flipped the table when called on this fecal matter.

 

The Refuse option was trolling the naysayers.  Those who dared declare the emperor had no clothes.

[Vazgen]

Bioware did more than any other developer would've done. They released a free DLC that expanded on the ending. You don't like Crucible space magic, fine, they give you an option to not to use it. Based on the setting established in all three games that results in Reapers succeeding. Now you say that it is trolling? 

What would you have instead? To have both the Crucible and the refuse ending (because removing the Crucible will be equal to rewriting the whole game).

 

Also, naysayers? So you spend the whole game collecting people to work on an unknown device that, according to the Protheans, can stop the Reapers, and when you are said that using it may result in people dying you just refuse to use it? You never know the function of the Crucible, all you know is a vague promise that it will stop the Reapers.

[Iakus]

Bioware did more than any other developer would've done. They released a free DLC that expanded on the ending. You don't like Crucible space magic, fine, they give you an option to not to use it. Based on the setting established in all three games that results in Reapers succeeding. Now you say that it is trolling? 

What would you have instead? To have both the Crucible and the refuse ending (because removing the Crucible will be equal to rewriting the whole game).

 

Google "Fallout 3" and "Broken Steel"

 

Developers have done a helluva lot more before.

 

 

Also, naysayers? So you spend the whole game collecting people to work on an unknown device that, according to the Protheans, can stop the Reapers, and when you are said that using it may result in people dying you just refuse to use it? You never know the function of the Crucible, all you know is a vague promise that it will stop the Reapers.

 

The vague promise and lack of knowing the function of the Crucible was an idiotic plot point right there.  But it's ultimate purpose is

a) Pure space magic

and Contrary to everything my Shepards have fought for, and have been encouraged to fight for over the entire trilogy.  

[Vazgen]

Google "Fallout 3" and "Broken Steel"

 

Developers have done a helluva lot more before.

 

 

The vague promise and lack of knowing the function of the Crucible was an idiotic plot point right there.  But it's ultimate purpose is

a) Pure space magic

and Contrary to everything my Shepards have fought for, and have been encouraged to fight for over the entire trilogy.  

Did Broken Steel fix the original ending? No, it remained the same, only allowing you to send someone else in your place or deal with a giant plothole of both you and Sarah Lyons surviving the chamber which is the same space magic as in case of the Crucible, even worse, because Crucible's blast can be explained. The only thing they change is 3-4 dialogue lines and 3-4 slides in the ending cutscene. Extended Cut did much more.

 

So, if this device's purpose is different from what your Shepard expected and what he thought for, he would not use it? Even if it stops the war?

Is it along the lines of "I'll not let fear sacrifice who I am" in ME2?

[Farangbaa]

It's time for Javik, again:

 

[Iakus]

Did Broken Steel fix the original ending? No, it remained the same, only allowing you to send someone else in your place or deal with a giant plothole of both you and Sarah Lyons surviving the chamber which is the same space magic as in case of the Crucible, even worse, because Crucible's blast can be explained. The only thing they change is 3-4 dialogue lines and 3-4 slides in the ending cutscene. Extended Cut did much more.

 

Umm, no.

 

It allowed you to send a radiation-proof ally The lack of such an option being a rather massive plot hole.  It also allowed the Lone Wanderer to survive the blast, which was a nice touch, given how players felt punished for taking the "good" route.

 

It also allowed players to actually see the results of their actions.  Not have hastily-made ending slides and ending speeches whitewashing the horrible action Shepard is forced to take.

 

 

 

So, if this device's purpose is different from what your Shepard expected and what he thought for, he would not use it? Even if it stops the war?

Is it along the lines of "I'll not let fear sacrifice who I am" in ME2?

 

The Crucible is more along the lines of "Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

[themikefest]

Who designed it?

You do not know them and there's not enough time to expalin it.

[Iakus]

Who designed it?

You do not know them and there's not enough time to expalin it.

Translation:  We really didn't put enough thought into this and can't be bothered to put more into it now 

[Farangbaa]

That's all fine and dandy, but not using the Crucible is the most immoral thing you can do.

[Vazgen]

 

Umm, no.

 

It allowed you to send a radiation-proof ally The lack of such an option being a rather massive plot hole.  It also allowed the Lone Wanderer to survive the blast, which was a nice touch, given how players felt punished for taking the "good" route.

 

It also allowed players to actually see the results of their actions.  Not have hastily-made ending slides and ending speeches whitewashing the horrible action Shepard is forced to take.

 

 

The Crucible is more along the lines of "Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

I'd love to see your reaction if ME3 ending was Broken Steel-style... You fire the Crucible, Reapers die (along with yourself), you watch slides, than black screen, two weeks later you are fine and traveling around through the galaxy doing nothing (since existing ME galaxy does not have randomness and exploration capabilities of Fallout). 

That "nice touch" is a giant plothole. It's akin to ME2 beginning, only without Lazarus project, advanced technology and happening in only two weeks instead of two years.

See the results of your actions? What do you expect to see? Civilizations does not spring back to life in a day. Tuchanka will still be a radioactive ruin, Earth and Palaven will still be destroyed. The most you can hope for is some workers here and there working on something and Reaper corpses lying around.

I'll take the Extended Cut, thank you very much.

 

You still didn't answer my question. Would your Shepard not use the Crucible to stop the war if the results are not what he expected and what he fought for?

[themikefest]

I always pick destroy.

[Iakus]

I'd love to see your reaction if ME3 ending was Broken Steel-style... You fire the Crucible, Reapers die (along with yourself), you watch slides, than black screen, two weeks later you are fine and traveling around through the galaxy doing nothing (since existing ME galaxy does not have randomness and exploration capabilities of Fallout). 
That "nice touch" is a giant plothole. It's akin to ME2 beginning, only without Lazarus project, advanced technology and happening in only two weeks instead of two years.

See the results of your actions? What do you expect to see? Civilizations does not spring back to life in a day. Tuchanka will still be a radioactive ruin, Earth and Palaven will still be destroyed. The most you can hope for is some workers here and there working on something and Reaper corpses lying around.
I'll take the Extended Cut, thank you very much.
 
You still didn't answer my question. Would your Shepard not use the Crucible to stop the war if the results are not what he expected and what he fought for?

Oh please. Shepard being forced to die at the end is as contfived as anything else in the endings. It's on,y there for "feelz". To enforce some arbitrary requirement for bittersweetness.

And you seriously think being able to talk to Joker about EDI's death woulldn' be worthwhile? How about flying around seeing how people react to now having to calculate pinall day because you plugged in the Overlord? Or how everyone responds to sudey being green?

As to your question, I am a staunch MEHEM player. Without it, ME3 does not exist as far as I am concerned. If youare talking aboutsome bizarre rl hypothetical, I'd probably chicken outand shoot the tube

Though Iwould also hope to ie in the blast because I seriously doubt I could livewith myself afterwards

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Yes.

 

EDI does not like even being called "equipment," but you think there's no problem with shooting her image?

 

Well, that's fine. You can be the only person who believes that.

 

If Bioware couldn't tell that was angry fan protest, then they really weren't listening when they claimed they were.

 

What I meant was that choosing Refuse does not mean anything to BioWare since players like me can choose it and find it stupid, so it's similarly stupid to try to make a statement that way. Besides, I bet it's the least chosen option of them all. I'm fairly certain Destroy is the runaway favorite and that even Control and Sync are not as unpopular as the BSN would indicate.

 

You get punished for not subscribing to Bioware's/The Catalyst's Insane Troll Logic.  You get punished for protesting the insanity of the situation.  You get punished for believing that the Galaxy can live in peace if left to its own devices, without Shepard playing The Shepard to the galaxy.
 
Try to make that arugment, and you get "SO BE IT!!!" and the table gets flipped.

 

So, like I said, you get punished for choosing inaction in favor of arguing over an issue that cannot be solved by words.

 

 

 

Story time: I know a doctor who was fired recently for some medical mistake he got blamed for but did not make (it was one of the nurses). However, there's some clause in one of his state's laws that prevents doctors from getting fired for the mistake he got blamed for. So, he can get his job back, but good luck telling him that! He does not listen, he just says "No, I did not make any mistake, that was [blah-blah-blah]" and repeats the same old story for the umpteenth time. All he has to do is go to his employer and say: "You can't fire me for the reasons you did. I want my job back." But nobody can get that through his thick skull. Whenever you bring it up, he insists to argue the wrongfulness of his firing. He's so hung up on something that hurt his ego and is not going to change anyway that he's keeping himself from getting his position again.

 

Luckily, his wife can support the family while she works.