Refuse is nothing more than Bioware trolling unhappy fans: "Don't like our endings? Rocks fall, everyone dies!"
People were upset and said that their Shepard wouldn't take any of the choices and wanted an option to refuse even if it meant defeat. For roleplaying reasons this is a valid request.
Some other people were apparently delusional enough to think that they would get an option to bypass the ending dilemma and win anyways.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
People were upset and said that their Shepard wouldn't take any of the choices and wanted an option to refuse even if it meant defeat. For roleplaying reasons this is a valid request.
Some other people were apparently delusional enough to think that they would get an option to bypass the ending dilemma and win anyways.
It's a hilarious request though.
The Catalyst is basically saying the Harvests are obsolete. In computer terms, it's an outdated program.
Then Refuse Shep tells them "No! Please continue with this. I prefer the Harvest. Even though it's ****** stupid. And puts trillions of people through more suffering and death."
It's a hilarious request though.
The Catalyst is basically saying the Harvests are obsolete. In computer terms, it's an outdated program.
Then Refuse Shep tells them "No! Please continue with this. I prefer the Harvest. Even though it's ****** stupid. And puts trillions of people through more suffering and death."
lol If I was in Shepard's place I'd pick destroy, but not for the reasons you'd think. I wouldn't trust anything the catalyst, aka the mastermind behind the reapers, told me. All I'd know is that shooting the machinery wouldn't be good for its health. And so I sure as hell wouldn't jump into some laser or merge with some AI knowing it might be some trick. Can you imagine coming all that way only to be vaporized by jumping into a laser on the word of the reaper's puppet-master?
Shepard - "But... the catalyst spoke to me. It said if I did it all organic/synthetic life would be merged, and we'd all live in peaceful harmony."
God - "I don't know what's stupider; that you actually believed the catalyst, or that you thought this queer synthesis notion was a good idea."
Guest_ruul_*
All the endings were virtually identical except for the colors of the explosions on your screen: you died, the relays were destroyed, and the Normandy crashed. The end.
Whenever people refer to ME2's ending they refer to everything from the time you launch the suicide mission until the credits. Roughly 1 hour.
Mass Effect 3, people only refer to its ending as the final cutscene after you activate the Crucible. In ME2 terms this would be the little scene with Shepard walking past his crew, looking out into space, and seeing the Reapers descend on the Milky Way. Or the part after you choose to destroy the base or keep it could also be it.
Consider what Admiral Hackett stated. The Cerberus base is the first phase of the ending. The Earth phase is the second part. From Harbinger's beam to the Catalyst is the third part. Everything past firing the Crucible is the fourth part. The Extended Cut could be the fifth part.
If not, you can't possibly expect to have every single decision from ME1 to ME3 have huge consequences in such a short sequence. Consider the example above as "the ending", not the cutscene after you activate the Crucible. Taken as that, there is more than 16 differences.
For Mass Effect 2, getting to the base is the first part. The vent is the second part. The biotic escort is the third part. The part where you have to choose someone to escort the crew while you fight the human reaper is the fourth part. Fifth part is everything past destroying/saving the base until the credits.
And for the record, it wasn't just a different color. Earth could be saved (high EMS)/heavily damaged (mid EMS)/vaporized (low EMS). Normandy will crash, but it's engines break up (low EMS). No one survives the crash (low EMS), most do (mid EMS), everyone survives, engines are fine (high EMS).
Shepard lives (high destroy EMS), Shepard dies (everything else)
If you still don't think there's much difference, you need to think about it more.
It's a hilarious request though.
The Catalyst is basically saying the Harvests are obsolete. In computer terms, it's an outdated program.
Then Refuse Shep tells them "No! Please continue with this. I prefer the Harvest. Even though it's ****** stupid. And puts trillions of people through more suffering and death."
Well, for a Shepard who is proud enough not to sacrifice one bit of his moral ambitions/honor to achieve beating the Reapers in the other ways, this is the way to go.
Or also if a Shepard actually can be convinced by the Catalyst that the harvest is the best solution.
It's valid imo, even though I'd never pick it personally.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Well, for a Shepard who is proud enough not to sacrifice one bit of his moral ambitions/honor to achieve beating the Reapers in the other ways, this is the way to go.
Or also if a Shepard actually can be convinced by the Catalyst that the harvest is the best solution.
It's valid imo, even though I'd never pick it personally.
I picked it out of the curiosity once... but all it did is leave me scratching my head.
I don't know. Maybe I just don't understand that level of morality. Because a player doesn't want to kill EDI/Geth, they'll drag the whole ship down instead? And just kill EDI/Geth plus trillions?
Like I said... leaves me scratching my head.
People were upset and said that their Shepard wouldn't take any of the choices and wanted an option to refuse even if it meant defeat. For roleplaying reasons this is a valid request.
Some other people were apparently delusional enough to think that they would get an option to bypass the ending dilemma and win anyways.
The ending is still a trainwreck but adding refuse was a valid roleplaying option, especially as it's a very understandable view that you can't trust a word the brat is saying or any of the options to commit suicide it suggests.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
The ending is still a trainwreck but adding refuse was a valid roleplaying option, especially as it's a very understandable view that you can't trust a word the brat is saying or any of the options to commit suicide it suggests.
Your distrust is never rewarded though --- you're never proven right for it - the fact is complete disaster and annihilation will happen.
edit: I guess I'll agree it's valid roleplaying though. It's just a terrible gamble.
Well, for a Shepard who is proud enough not to sacrifice one bit of his moral ambitions/honor to achieve beating the Reapers in the other ways, this is the way to go.
Or also if a Shepard actually can be convinced by the Catalyst that the harvest is the best solution.
It's valid imo, even though I'd never pick it personally.
maybe that's the point. remember it's a role playing game so what would YOU choose? Yes it's a game about Shepard and co, but ultimately you are role playing. Take Shepard, the reapers et al out the equation. What path would you choose, based on a blatant lie coming from the mouth of an entity who wants to confuse you into making the wrong decision?
Which choice are you happy with?
maybe that's the point. remember it's a role playing game so what would YOU choose? Yes it's a game about Shepard and co, but ultimately you are role playing. Take Shepard, the reapers et al out the equation. What path would you choose, based on a blatant lie coming from the mouth of an entity who wants to confuse you into making the wrong decision?
Which choice are you happy with?
What do you mean by "blatant lie"? You think the Catalyst is lying with what it's telling us?
And yes, my point is that every choice is valid, each player will and can justify it for him/herself. Personally I liked Destroy best.
Heck even people I've talked to who do like the endings admit Bioware handled that very poorly, and understand why people are upset.
To like something doesn't mean to understand something. They "admit" that Bioware handled the ending poorly because they don't understand the relation between the structure and the content. These people who like the endings, who are they to admit that Bioware etc...? Are they professional critics? Are they writers? Are they literature teacher?
Why Bioware never admited that (and for Ray Myzuka, Mass Effect 3 is their best game)? Why is there some people who defend the ending?
We do understand why people are upset but it doesn't mean they are right. You should really ask to a literature teacher what he thinks about the level of reading, now.
People were upset and said that their Shepard wouldn't take any of the choices and wanted an option to refuse even if it meant defeat. For roleplaying reasons this is a valid request.
Some other people were apparently delusional enough to think that they would get an option to bypass the ending dilemma and win anyways.
Some people did want an option to refuse and die in a blaze of glory (too bad that didn't happen. Shepard simply refuses then stands around waiting to die).
But what more people wanted was more options. Because the "ending dilemma" was effing stupid.
It's a hilarious request though.
The Catalyst is basically saying the Harvests are obsolete. In computer terms, it's an outdated program.
Then Refuse Shep tells them "No! Please continue with this. I prefer the Harvest. Even though it's ****** stupid. And puts trillions of people through more suffering and death."
Even funnier given the Catalyst is this super-advanced AI, claiming to be so superior that other AIs are akin to animals in comparison, is incapable of growing and changing. It doesn't try to seek out new solutions or ideas. It gives you "choices " on its terms, and if you don' t like them, it kills everybody.
Catalyst=Imshael.
To like something doesn't mean to understand something. They "admit" that Bioware handled the ending poorly because they don't understand the relation between the structure and the content. These people who like the endings, who are they to admit that Bioware etc...? Are they professional critics? Are they writers? Are they literature teacher?
Why Bioware never admited that (and for Ray Myzuka, Mass Effect 3 is their best game)? Why is there some people who defend the ending?
We do understand why people are upset but it doesn't mean they are right. You should really ask to a literature teacher what he thinks about the level of reading, now.
So only "professionals" are allowed to criticize? The rest of us are just dumb sheep who should just shut up and let ourselves be sheared? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
It doesn't try to seek out new solutions or ideas. It gives you "choices " on its terms, and if you don' t like them, it kills everybody.
It did try in the past, and the choices are only available at that point because of the Crucible.
one that prettz made... if you watch the beginning. You can almost imagine it.
So only "professionals" are allowed to criticize? The rest of us are just dumb sheep who should just shut up and let ourselves be sheared? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
That's not what I said.
So for you, someone who has studied for about 8 years literature is at the same level as someone who plays video games. Someone who has studied and write is at the same level as someone who plays video games. Someone who has studied and teach literature is at the same level as someone who plays videogames.
I never said that people who are not "professionals" has to shut up, that's what you want to understand. As usual you understand what you want to understand.
You have to understand that there are different opinion, but they are not equal. If you don't understand that, then you think that taking a look at wikipedia and studying for years are equal.
People can share their opinion. I don't have a problem with that as long as these people know that it's an opinion, not an objective truth. I do have a problem when you use some people who like the ending but think that the ending is poorly written, when you use these people to say that the ending is poorly written. It's actually those people who don't have enough knowledge (it has nothing to do with intelligence it's just about knowledge) to understand the writing. Let's an example to show that you didn't understand the writing of the entire trilogy : you didn't understand how important in the trilogy the notion of point of view is. It's here from Mass Effect 1, it's the basis of Mass Effect 2, the ending is about that and you missed it. There are many things that most people didn't see and didn't understand. But it's not important to enjoy the ending. That's why some people can like but can't defend the writing and can "admit that the ending is poorly written" but this isn't an argument to prove that the ending is "poorly written".
I'm yet to see someone who likes the endings and thinks they are poorly written.
It did try in the past, and the choices are only available at that point because of the Crucible.
It tried Synthesis in the past. But failed because it can't be 'forced" Although with Shepard here now, I guess it can be forced.
But EDI can not only try new stuff, she can alter her programming to exhibit particular traits. She can grow and change. Heck even the geth can evolve. The Catalyst, I'm more than half-convinced is nothing more than a VI. Avina on a power trip.
That's not what I said.
So for you, someone who has studied for about 8 years literature is at the same level as someone who plays video games. Someone who has studied and write is at the same level as someone who plays video games. Someone who has studied and teach literature is at the same level as someone who plays videogames.
When it comes to defining an enjoyable experience in a video game: Yes absolutely.
I never said that people who are not "professionals" has to shut up, that's what you want to understand. As usual you understand what you want to understand.
You have to understand that there are different opinion, but they are not equal. If you don't understand that, then you think that taking a look at wikipedia and studying for years are equal.
It doesn't take a certain level of education to define an enjoyable experience. We all paid money for the game.
And you have no idea what my education level is. It shouldn't matter in this discussion.
People can share their opinion. I don't have a problem with that as long as these people know that it's an opinion, not an objective truth. I do have a problem when you use some people who like the ending but think that the ending is poorly written, when you use these people to say that the ending is poorly written. It's actually those people who don't have enough knowledge (it has nothing to do with intelligence it's just about knowledge) to understand the writing. Let's an example to show that you didn't understand the writing of the entire trilogy : you didn't understand how important in the trilogy the notion of point of view is. It's here from Mass Effect 1, it's the basis of Mass Effect 2, the ending is about that and you missed it. There are many things that most people didn't see and didn't understand. But it's not important to enjoy the ending. That's why some people can like but can't defend the writing and can "admit that the ending is poorly written" but this isn't an argument to prove that the ending is "poorly written".
Umm, the Mass Effect trilogy was written pretty much by the seat of the pants. The writers had no idea how things were going to conclude even going into ME3. The writing was inconsistent at the very least.
And if you p*ss off so many people, cause this much of a backlash, you done screwed up.
Guest_ruul_*
With such harsh words, I'm not surprised they didn't take your feedback into account. Constructive feedback was considered for the Extended Cut, not the above.
Big difference between:
A. I didn't like this and that about the ending. There could have been more this and that. Here is a list of flaws I see with the ending, could you please consider it when making the content.
and
B. You guys don't have any clue what you're doing. This whole thing is your fault.
No one wants to listen to B, but they are more likely to listen to A.
To like something doesn't mean to understand something. They "admit" that Bioware handled the ending poorly because they don't understand the relation between the structure and the content. These people who like the endings, who are they to admit that Bioware etc...? Are they professional critics? Are they writers? Are they literature teacher?
Why Bioware never admited that (and for Ray Myzuka, Mass Effect 3 is their best game)? Why is there some people who defend the ending?
We do understand why people are upset but it doesn't mean they are right. You should really ask to a literature teacher what he thinks about the level of reading, now.
Here's someone who's a professional writer that made a thread about the ending nearly 3 years ago. I agree with what she posted
I understand that gaming companies don't know which games are going to be a huge hit. That still doesn't excuse the fact that clearly no one had figured out the ultimate solution to Mass Effect before they ever began writing the first game. You can plot as if it's going to last through multiple games. We do that all the time when we create a television show or a novel series.
It was also so clear from the Tali adventure in Mass Effect 2 that dying stars and dark energy were going to be part of this finale. But all that got dropped when they brought in one of the more awkward and obvious Deus Ex Machina's ever seen in a work of fiction.
As I've pointed out in a blog post in any work of fiction you tell the readers right up front what you're going to deliver. You know Harry is going to face Voldemort, you know Frodo will have to deal with the ring. What they told us through two and three quarters games is that you will defeat the Reapers. Unity, and healing old wounds is a huge theme throughout all the games so the efforts you make in ME3 to craft this alliance are very satisfying. And then it means nothing because suddenly there is a Star Child.
I understand that players may select different endings. Please take a look at Dragon Age: Origins to see how it was handled well. You can go for self-sacrifice, you can sacrifice another -- Alistair or Loghain, you can take the deal with Morrigan. Happy endings, sad endings, ethically challenged endings, but you can craft an ending appropriate to your vision of your warden. None of that was evident in the ending of Mass Effect 3, and they failed to live up to the promise they made from the first game.
Also, you can't bring your ultimate villain onstage in the final ten pages of a book or ten minutes of a movie, or ten minutes of a game. You have to play fair with your reader/viewer/player and hint at and suggest the real villain and the ultimate solution from the beginning. When all is revealed we have to have this sense of -- "Oh, that makes sense. I saw that coming. Now I understand what that cryptic exchange meant." You can't have the players/readers/viewers reaction be "huh"? and not expect a fire storm from your disappointed consummer. And again in Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings we didn't suddenly find out it wasn't Voldemort or Sauron after all, but some character we'd never heard of before.
I went ahead, and went public in my blog rather then staying behind a handle so I'm going to do the same here. I'm Melinda Snodgrass. I'm a novelist and screenwriter. I've worked on numerous television shows, written several movies, have had many novels published. Together with George R.R. we created the Wild Card shared world book series, and I'm penning a movie based on those books for Universal Pictures.
I fell in love with gaming because of Dragon Age, and loved Mass Effect with a passion until they messed up the ending. Which is why I'm being bad, and writing my own Mass Effect ending, and aftermath in between working on my paying work.
It is a great universe with marvelous characters. It deserved a better conclusion.
Here's the thread she created
Guest_ruul_*
The Star Child didn't come out of no where. This woman clearly didn't follow the story. The solution wasn't hinted at? Control is what Illusive Man wanted. Synthesis is what Saren wanted, and destroy is what Shepard wants.
This woman doesn't know what a Deus Ex Machina is. Shepard is the one who solves the Reaper threat, not the Star Child.
Without Shepard shooting the tube, the Reapers don't get destroyed, and the threat remains unsolved. If your EMS is low enough, stand there for a minute, and wait for a game over message. The little kid said as much "I can't make this happen. If there is to be a solution, you must act". Shepard is the solution to the Reaper problem, not the boy. He always was.
Dark energy was never the intended ending, Drew said as much. The original ME3 ending (on release) was similar to what he had in mind.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
The Star Child didn't come out of no where. This woman clearly didn't follow the story. The solution wasn't hinted at? Control is what Illusive Man wanted. Synthesis is what Saren wanted, and destroy is what Shepard wants.
Dark energy was never the intended ending, Drew said as much. The original ME3 ending (on release) was similar to what he had in mind.
I don't know if it's what Shepard wants necessarily. Shepard's the avatar of destroy for me, but we all have a choice obviously. And looking back, it seems we've often had a choice. Like we could at least try to make "peace" with that hostile AI on the Citadel, or rewrite heretics, or use Reaper tech for own power (saving Collector base), etc..
I'd put Anderson as an avatar of Destroy.
Retour en haut