1042 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

None of these. Instead,

Refuse.

Our cycle ends, but the next cycle gets Liara's Beacons to finally beat the Reaper's.

The same could be said about Control or Synthesis.

The beacon is placed before the ending. So even if Shreaperd harvests everyone or all the pacified synthesized folks willingly walk into the reaper goo blender with smiles on their faces, that beacon will still be there for the next cycle. Refuse was just a glorified game over the devs threw in as an F-you to people who complained about not having the option to beat the Reapers conventionally. Which of course was impossible and absurd. They were trolling people.

[Spectr61]

The same could be said about Control or Synthesis.The beacon is placed before the ending. So even if Shreaperd harvests everyone or all the pacified synthesized folks willingly walk into the reaper goo blender with smiles on their faces, that beacon will still be there for the next cycle. Refuse was just a glorified game over the devs threw in as an F-you to people who complained about not having the option to beat the Reapers conventionally. Which of course was impossible and absurd. They were trolling people.

Hmmm, I thought the synthesis and control endings ended the cycles. Maybe not. If so, then yes the same idea

Been quite some time since I heard the starbrat explain them.

If so, then yes, the same. Except if all are cyborgs or we control the Reaper's, why harvest everyone and start another cycle?

Plus, I personally dislike being forced into any decision, so refuse feels good.

[straykat]

Refuse is a decision too. Maybe not if you just sat there indefinitely and it ended on a cliffhanger, but there are clear consequences to it.

 

I find a little heartbreaking personally. I understand being angry about your lack of freedom, but just think from all of the characters' perspectives for a second. They put so much hope in you, and it just sputters into death for everyone. Probably agonizing death to boot.

[The Dank Warden]

No happy end for shepard anyway

[straykat]

I disagree. It's clearly Destroy

 

It's just not a happy end for Synthetics.

[The Dank Warden]

Destroy doesn't assure you a thing, you could be alive (if you have enough man power for the last push) but cripple or a vegetal or something like that (not even medigel can do a thing against that)

[Seraphim24]

That's nice to see people are being nicer now

[straykat]

Destroy doesn't assure you a thing, you could be alive (if you have enough man power for the last push) but cripple or a vegetal or something like that (not even medigel can do a thing against that)

 

Hey, I think Bioware's writing can be goofy as the next person, but this would be stretching it. There's no point in showing that, only for them to snicker off screen that you're a paraplegic. That's absurd.

 

This happens in stories all the time. It'd be cheesy if you draw out the scenes for too long. Then they end up like Peter Jackson's Extended Cut for Lord of the Rings. Like, do we really need Frodo to give a hug scene for every character?

 

Sadly, this is what MEHEM does. It's even worse than Peter Jackson. At least what little I've seen.

[Spectr61]

Refuse is a decision too. Maybe not if you just sat there indefinitely and it ended on a cliffhanger, but there are clear consequences to it.
 
I find a little heartbreaking personally. I understand being angry about your lack of freedom, but just think from all of the characters' perspectives for a second. They put so much hope in you, and it just sputters into death for everyone. Probably agonizing death to boot.

Absolutely refuse is a decision, and I misspoke; it doesn't make me feel good, just the least terrible.

The only silver lining to me is that we all are gone, none favored; and we get some measure of redemption/retribution/immortality via Liara's Beacon.

[AlanC9]

This happens in stories all the time. It'd be cheesy if you draw out the scenes for too long. Then they end up like Peter Jackson's Extended Cut for Lord of the Rings. Like, do we really need Frodo to give a hug scene for every character?
 

Right. One of the things about film -- and cinematic games-- is that everything you put in gets drawn out. Tolkien has the same farewell but gets through it in, what, a couple of paragraphs?

[Iakus]

Refuse is a decision too. Maybe not if you just sat there indefinitely and it ended on a cliffhanger, but there are clear consequences to it.

 

I find a little heartbreaking personally. I understand being angry about your lack of freedom, but just think from all of the characters' perspectives for a second. They put so much hope in you, and it just sputters into death for everyone. Probably agonizing death to boot.

Refuse is a passive-aggressive response to people not liking the ending.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Refuse is a passive-aggressive response to people not liking the ending.

Are you sure you are in the right thread, Iakus?

[jtav]

Refuse as written was something people asked for. "I want to defy the Catalyst even if it means extinction." A conventional victory makes no narrative sense and would be the equivalent of not needing the Star Maps to find the Star Forge. Refuse is a perfectly fine ending in the vein of Spartacus.

[AlanC9]

Refuse is a passive-aggressive response to people not liking the ending.

Or it was a much-demanded RP option. If there hadn't been so much intellectual dishonesty from people asking for Refuse who really wanted a conventional victory, maybe Bio wouldn't have bothered putting it in. But there was, and they did.

[In Exile]

Refuse is a passive-aggressive response to people not liking the ending.

As others have pointed out, many people at the time was for an option to refuse the Catalyst even if it meant certain death. Hell, the apparent reasons given by Shepard are quite literally some of the forum reasons. As much as I think Bioware trolled people with the ending, I don't think refuse is an example of it. 

 

Neither is their backtracking on mass relays being kaput, and so on. 

[robertthebard]

despite that i didn't like that trilogy ended with Shep's death Syn ending was my fav, how is that mess? & how do u have to clean it up? they just mention it & talk about it, story wont be about that, about changing what shep did cause they don't like it, well some mite, but most will like it, cause its way to peace, but do see future where it will cause friction & factions that oppose it & so there will be civil war kind of thing or something like that, extremists who are mane villain, in mass effect 5 or 6

Because I chose the Destroy option. It's my canon ending, when I don't die to Marauder Shields, anyway. So I already don't "like it", because it doesn't conform to what I did. So it's a mess that would have to be cleaned up, and they'd have to make your choice the canon ending to run with it. No thank you, I much prefer getting away from it to slogging through what would be a really long story line to clean up all possible endings to equal what you want.

[ssanyesz]

In addition to all of the other problems due to various world states...

The Milky Way is a mess.

Billions of people killed, relays in various states of functionality, some worlds destroyed and others badly damaged, etc.

Unless you tried to fast-forward way into the future, the setting would be post-apocalyptic.

 

If destroy ending would be canon (that was whole point of playing ME, to destroy them), then it would be the perfect place to start the human supremacy over the Milky Way galaxy.

[Iakus]

Refuse as written was something people asked for. "I want to defy the Catalyst even if it means extinction." A conventional victory makes no narrative sense and would be the equivalent of not needing the Star Maps to find the Star Forge. Refuse is a perfectly fine ending in the vein of Spartacus.

Some asked for that. But some (I would argue "more" but I'm not going to pretend to have solid numbers.  It's purely anecdotal) wanted a chance to defeat the Reapers purely based on Galactic Readiness "Conventional victory" I guess some would call it.  To succeed or fail based on how you did in the game, rather than a color coded ending gifted by the Catalyst at the very end.  Given some Shepards managed to unite all the races (something no previous cycle had managed) and had absolutely mind-boggling amounts of War Assets.

 

Also, some wanted to argue with the Catalyst, point out flaws in its logic.  We got to as k a few question but only get vague, hand-wavy answers that raised as many questions as answered

 

Heck some just wanted the chance to negotiate, to talk to others who will be affected by this choice (doesn't some early concept art show the Reapers not fighting, but surrounding the Crucible, waiting for what happens next?). 

 

I therefore point out that the only concession Refuse makes is to simply create a new failure option that was asked for by a comparatively small group of ending-haters.   That option, it turns out, amounts to the Catalyst (as a surrogate for Bioware) flipping the table because Shepard called on its BS.  Made more obvious by the fact that shooting the Catalyst automatically triggers this ending.

[Iakus]

Are you sure you are in the right thread, Iakus?

The North remembers!

[In Exile]

Some asked for that. But some (I would argue "more" but I'm not going to pretend to have solid numbers. It's purely anecdotal) wanted a chance to defeat the Reapers purely based on Galactic Readiness "Conventional victory" I guess some would call it. To succeed or fail based on how you did in the game, rather than a color coded ending gifted by the Catalyst at the very end. Given some Shepards managed to unite all the races (something no previous cycle had managed) and had absolutely mind-boggling amounts of War Assets.

Also, some wanted to argue with the Catalyst, point out flaws in its logic. We got to as k a few question but only get vague, hand-wavy answers that raised as many questions as answered

Heck some just wanted the chance to negotiate, to talk to others who will be affected by this choice (doesn't some early concept art show the Reapers not fighting, but surrounding the Crucible, waiting for what happens next?).

I therefore point out that the only concession Refuse makes is to simply create a new failure option that was asked for by a comparatively small group of ending-haters. That option, it turns out, amounts to the Catalyst (as a surrogate for Bioware) flipping the table because Shepard called on its BS. Made more obvious by the fact that shooting the Catalyst automatically triggers this ending.

Sure, lots of people wanted a different ending. I don't see how Bioware maintaining its stance that it won't change the substance of their ending to be an issue.

[ssanyesz]

Well, obviously the Reapers rebuild the relay network in Control, Synthesis and Refuse. You know, it being the main ingredient in their whole galactic trap thing.

AI Shepard's dialog is pretty much the same stuff the TIM and Sovereign were spewing. It is clearly indoctrinated. If you ever read the comic with the Arca Monolith (TIM's origin) you'll know that the blue lightning is insta-husk tech. It's what gave TIM his blue eyes when a spark of it hit him and it gives Shepard those same blue synthetics before disintegrating him. Not only that, but ALL Reapers are indoctrinated themselves. Every single worthy race that fought Reapers became the thing they were fighting. Why would it be any different for Shepard? Why would the writers inform the player that the Reapers always push for Control, have a verified indoctrinated TIM literally try to convince you 5 minutes prior, have Shepard soundly shoot it down and then immediately afterwards believe in Control to such an extent that he's willing to blindly trust a Reaper to the point of killing himself. You don't find this odd?

You can ascribe to bad writing if you wish. That's cool. But it's also akin to saying dinosaurs aren't millions of years old, but God created them as is with all that carbon. Sure, that's conceivable I guess. But seeing as it doesn't fit within the scope of a coherent understandable universe it's not really a subject worthy of scientific debate. Within the realm of science it's irrelevant as it's outside the realm of scientific scrutiny. So staying within the realm of science (i.e. lore, story, etc.), Control has to be an indoctrinated ending. It literally cannot be what the kid claims. The control area itself was already there BEFORE the Crucible even docked. It's literally hardwired into the Citadel. Why would the Reapers put a device there with the sole purpose of giving up their own power? That makes no sense at all.

But I must reiterate. If Control gives you warm fuzzies and you're willing to accept it for that reason, logic be damned, that is your prerogative. Andromeda is what it is so that you're given the choice.

 

But after choosing the controll ending, the reapers stop attacking, if it was a trap, then they would just continue killing everyone and complete the cycle anyway.
 

[Iakus]

Sure, lots of people wanted a different ending. I don't see how Bioware maintaining its stance that it won't change the substance of their ending to be an issue.

In this particular case, the issue was Refusal and its implementation

[AlanC9]

I therefore point out that the only concession Refuse makes is to simply create a new failure option that was asked for by a comparatively small group of ending-haters. That option, it turns out, amounts to the Catalyst (as a surrogate for Bioware) flipping the table because Shepard called on its BS. Made more obvious by the fact that shooting the Catalyst automatically triggers this ending.

Well, what else could a Refuse option have done? Conventional victory is as nonsensical as the Axis winning a conventional victory starting from the February 1945 situation. Talking the Catalyst into just calling everything off is worse. Does Bio therefore refrain from adding Refuse because it would hurt the feelings of people who nevertheless wanted this stuff?

Note that adding Refuse also had support from non-ending-haters, as a valid, relatively cheap, and fun RP option.

[ssanyesz]

 

You can have Shepard be in suspended animation in a secret chamber on an Ark ship maybe with Cerberus (or a group like them) and reveal that it's another clone, with only memory fragments so any references to events, various love interests, and the various squad mates of the previous games would be vague. I would not be surprised if BioWare pulls this as a post-credit sting at the end of ME:A, actually I might be surprised if they actually didn't pull a stunt like that. 

 

I just hope they don't do is a Spider-Man: Clone Saga crappy type switch where the clone is revealed to be the "real" Shepard and what we thought was the real Shepard in ME2 and ME3 was the clone and then switch them again...and ugh.  

 

Or the archive that Liara made could be found on the Ark somewhere, which describes events from the past.

[The Twilight God]

Hmmm, I thought the synthesis and control endings ended the cycles. Maybe not. If so, then yes the same idea

Been quite some time since I heard the starbrat explain them.

If so, then yes, the same. Except if all are cyborgs or we control the Reaper's, why harvest everyone and start another cycle?

Plus, I personally dislike being forced into any decision, so refuse feels good.

I don't understand. You came there to destroy the Reapers. That was the whole point.

"I've discovered plans for a Prothean device. One that could wipe out the Reapers."
"The Protheans came close to defeating the Reapers. They had plans to destroy them."
"With that data I'll rid the galaxy of those machines once and for all."
"It appears to be a weapon of some sort."
"Liara appears to be right. It's a weapon of some sort."
"The Illusive Man talked about Controlling the Reapers." -- "Dead Reapers are how we win this."
"Utilized in the right fashion, our scientists are convinced it can generate enough energy to destroy the Reapers."
"I have a better idea. We destroy you and live our lives in peace."
"You've helped uncover the key to subjugating the Reapers." -- "Or destroying them."
"Damn it, Shepard. Destroying the Reapers gains us nothing." -- "How about peace?"
"I'm finishing the Crucible, and I'm sending the Reapers back to hell."
"If we destroy the Reapers this ends today. But if you can't control them..."
"Whatever else it means that the reapers had a beginning...and now we'll provide them with an end"
"Bullsh*t. We destroy them, or they destroy us."

Now, all of a sudden you think you're being forced into it? I'm not sure I understand what choices you were expecting. It's like saying you gave up at the end of Dragon Age because you were forced to defeat the Arch Demon.