1042 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

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.

As dumb as I think the whole idea behind the ending is, they should've done more than just have Shepard stand around and fade to black, like show the Allied fleets and ground troops being wiped out by the Reaper forces.

[The Twilight God]

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.

On the same basis that you say AI are dead ALL technology has to be ruined. The Kid never once says anything about AI's specicifcally to the exclusion of all else. He says synthetics and when asked for clarification defines synthetics as "technology you rely on" even citing that Shepard is partly synthetic to confirm that synthetics = tech.

If you believe all synthetics (including all AI's) are dead that includes Shepard and Kasumi being dead and a lot of dead/sick Qurians. It implies a lot of things that simply are not shown to happen. Remember Shepard died. If you view the x-rays from his death he's be a quadriplegic at best considering where is spine was severed and the fact he has synthetics in place of spinal tissue. Without her grey box Kasumi is a vegetable (at best) or dead. All the Quarian suits will stop working and all their immune-nanites. So Tali and the Qurians are in trouble. Rampant disease will spread through the flotilla. All the star ships should be out of commission and dead in space. The entire fleet would be condemned to giant coffins orbiting earth. All communication device would be down. And with the worlds in rubble with no infrastructure everything falls into chaos.

So the guy has a point.

[The Twilight God]

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.

Not necessarily. It's like saying if you're playing Mass Effect and your windows restarts the computer because it got an update in the background and that stupid timer counted down, that you'd continue playing non-stop. You'd stop. Wait for the restart. Then when everything was settled you'd go back and continue playing.

I don't think Shreaperd drunk the Kool-Aid intending to continue the Harvest. Shepard is like TIM. Good intentions, but indoctrinated nonetheless. His sacrifice only bought the galaxy a short reprieve. Just based on his comments...
 
 

Eternal. Infinite. Immortal.
The man I was used these words, but only now do I truly understand them.
Through his death, I was created. Through my birth, his thoughts are freed. They guide me now, give me reason, direction.
There is power in control. There is wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy.

...it's clear he is indoctrinated and will simply fall back into Reaper norms. He sounds just like TIM and Sovereign. Would you feel confident in humanities salvation if TIM used the Control prongs?

[Iakus]

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.

Well Refuse should not have triggered by shooting the Catalyst.  That move was just plain childish on Bioware's part.  That right there was a huge "FRAK YOU!" to the anti-ending crowd.

 

Conventional victory is only nonsensical because Bioware decided that a few dozen or hundred ships weren't enough.  No, we need to be invaded by tens of thousands of  invincible space Cthulhu.  That right there was cr*p writing because up until ME3 the Reapers were ambush predators who decapitated governments and isolated its victims before harvesting.  As I have noticed in the past, they could have sent a thousand Reapers to secure the Citadel and have plenty of reserves to invade every single homeworld at once.  The game should have been over as soon as the Reapers hit Earth.

 

Cr*p.  Writing.

 

So yeah to really "fix" the endings you'd pretty much have to redo ME3.

 

So if people want to ride in and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat with good old HOOMAN SPESHULNESS  either by talking the Catalyst to death, or can-do fighting spirit, I say they should have gone for it.  It may be nonsensical, and make for a dumb ending, but it's not like it's going to make the story much worse.  And it would have appeased much of the anti-ending crowd.

 

You saw how well Citadel was received.  Tell me I'm wrong

[In Exile]

Look, you can rant a whole bunch about the set up in ME3. It's stupid for a lot of reasons. But when we get to the ME3 ending that's the set up. The solution to a stupid premise isn't to double down on the stupid, and that's what a conventional victory amounts to at that point. You can rant and rave about it -but that's what they did.

[Iakus]

Look, you can rant a whole bunch about the set up in ME3. It's stupid for a lot of reasons. But when we get to the ME3 ending that's the set up. The solution to a stupid premise isn't to double down on the stupid, and that's what a conventional victory amounts to at that point. You can rant and rave about it -but that's what they did.

When the stupid solution to the stupid premise wrecks an entire trilogy of games for me and forces the setting to CHANGE FREAKING GALAXIES I think I shall rant about it, thanks.

 

I'm not even arguing for conventional victory, I'm just saying Refusal was done in a deliberate way to slight the anti-ending crowd.  And yes, I'll rant about that too.

[In Exile]

When the stupid solution to the stupid premise wrecks an entire trilogy of games for me and forces the setting to CHANGE FREAKING GALAXIES I think I shall rant about it, thanks.

I'm not even arguing for conventional victory, I'm just saying Refusal was done in a deliberate way to slight the anti-ending crowd. And yes, I'll rant about that too.

There was no way to avoid the galaxy change. Sure, RBG makes it worse, but even if you get rid of the "G" you still have a world state that's completely unusable - a genophage cured or not, living quarians and geth, the proliferation of Reaper technology or not, a separate Council, etc. We already saw that ME2 and ME3 couldn't handle the scope of choice in ME1 and ME2 without retcon and contrived handwave. The setting was dead as a result of the decisions they made and the choices they gave to the players. The setting is DOA independent of the ending choice.

As for refuse, I just don't see it. It was done literally in the way many on the forum asked - with a speech and a chance to flip off the catalyst. No, the trolling came on twitter after the fact, when Bioware says the next cycle wins because they used the Crucible. That's Bioware telling fans to suck a fat one.

[Steelcan]

There was no way to avoid the galaxy change. Sure, RBG makes it worse, but even if you get rid of the "G" you still have a world state that's completely unusable - a genophage cured or not, living quarians and geth, the proliferation of Reaper technology or not, a separate Council, etc. We already saw that ME2 and ME3 couldn't handle the scope of choice in ME1 and ME2 without retcon and contrived handwave. The setting was dead as a result of the decisions they made and the choices they gave to the players. The setting is DOA independent of the ending choice.

As for refuse, I just don't see it. It was done literally in the way many on the forum asked - with a speech and a chance to flip off the catalyst. No, the trolling came on twitter after the fact, when Bioware says the next cycle wins because they used the Crucible. That's Bioware telling fans to suck a fat one.

well I'd say the setting is dead for installments set after Shepard in the Milky Way, at least not without some major handwaving and retcons but lets not pretend BioWare is above that, however there is nothing to preclude a prequel or concurrent series.

[Iakus]

There was no way to avoid the galaxy change. Sure, RBG makes it worse, but even if you get rid of the "G" you still have a world state that's completely unusable - a genophage cured or not, living quarians and geth, the proliferation of Reaper technology or not, a separate Council, etc. We already saw that ME2 and ME3 couldn't handle the scope of choice in ME1 and ME2 without retcon and contrived handwave. The setting was dead as a result of the decisions they made and the choices they gave to the players. The setting is DOA independent of the ending choice.

Difficult, but not impossible.  At least without RGB it would still be theoretically possible to explore the far reaches of the relay network, and perhaps beyond.

 

But as Steelcan said, it's not like Bioware's above retconning away inconvenient details anyway.

 

 

As for refuse, I just don't see it. It was done literally in the way many on the forum asked - with a speech and a chance to flip off the catalyst. No, the trolling came on twitter after the fact, when Bioware says the next cycle wins because they used the Crucible. That's Bioware telling fans to suck a fat one.

I admit that only added fuel to the fire of the situation.

 

But you will never convince me that "SO BE IT" was anything less than a "SCREW YOU BACK" after Shepard's own "screw you" speech.  

Or even more so, after shooting the Catalyst.

[RoboticWater]

Difficult, but not impossible.  At least without RGB it would still be theoretically possible to explore the far reaches of the relay network, and perhaps beyond.

*cough*Mass Effect: Andromeda*cough*

[In Exile]

Difficult, but not impossible. At least without RGB it would still be theoretically possible to explore the far reaches of the relay network, and perhaps beyond.

But as Steelcan said, it's not like Bioware's above retconning away inconvenient details anyway.

I admit that only added fuel to the fire of the situation.

But you will never convince me that "SO BE IT" was anything less than a "SCREW YOU BACK" after Shepard's own "screw you" speech.
Or even more so, after shooting the Catalyst.

To your first point, as RW points out, that sounds like MEA. Except instead of it being total isolation from the MW in the Helios Cluster of Andromeda, it's total isolation from the MW in the Relios Cluster of the MW. How is that different or better? The result is the same.

To your second point, sure. It is a petulant screw you. But that's the character of the catalyst for the purpose of refuse, isn't it? That it will just kill everyone horribly if you don't go along with RBG.

[Iakus]

To your first point, as RW points out, that sounds like MEA. Except instead of it being total isolation from the MW in the Helios Cluster of Andromeda, it's total isolation from the MW in the Relios Cluster of the MW. How is that different or better? The result is the same.
 

It doesn't take as many lore contortions to explore the MW (you know, how we get to Andromeda is this big secret for some reason).  Not to mention the possibility of perhaps seeing familiar locations again someday.

 

That's how it's better

 

To your second point, sure. It is a petulant screw you. But that's the character of the catalyst for the purpose of refuse, isn't it? That it will just kill everyone horribly if you don't go along with RBG.

The character of the Catalyst shouldn't change based on the choice we make.  It shouldn't turn into a petulant child stamping it's feet and throwing blocks because we're not buying its lies.

[Steelcan]

That's how it's better

The character of the Catalyst shouldn't change based on the choice we make.  It shouldn't turn into a petulant child stamping it's feet and throwing blocks because we're not buying its lies.

if you don't want to buy its lies, or damn the entire galaxy, pick Destroy

[RoboticWater]

It doesn't take as many lore contortions to explore the MW (you know, how we get to Andromeda is this big secret for some reason).  Not to mention the possibility of perhaps seeing familiar locations again someday.
 
That's how it's better

But you're already using a lore contortion to get rid of Synthesis. Then add in all the handwaving you'd probably have to do for Reaper tech, each race's current disposition and feelings towards each other, and the general state of Mass Effect's politics and economy. I don't know, ME:A seems about as reasonable.

 

The character of the Catalyst shouldn't change based on the choice we make.  It shouldn't turn into a petulant child stamping it's feet and throwing blocks because we're not buying its lies.

You can't just declare that everything the Catalyst says is a lie and use that as evidence against BioWare. Clearly, we're meant to take the Catalyst at its word, as evidenced by the rest of the ending. Of course it would be mad at you for tossing away your once in a billion years chance to break the cycle. It thinks you're the petulant child.

 

I'm sorry that when BioWare tried to give you an olive branch while maintaining their original vision, they didn't do literally everything you wanted.

[In Exile]

It doesn't take as many lore contortions to explore the MW (you know, how we get to Andromeda is this big secret for some reason). Not to mention the possibility of perhaps seeing familiar locations again someday.

That's how it's better
The character of the Catalyst shouldn't change based on the choice we make. It shouldn't turn into a petulant child stamping it's feet and throwing blocks because we're not buying its lies.

To your first point, the lore contrivances are even worse. You'd need to suddenly justify the total isolation from the MW in a place where travel across the galaxy is ubiquitous and instantaneous. So you've got an even bigger issue: you're justifying a total failure of communication and travel in a galaxy where each is foundational. Now you've also got to justify how multiple technologically advanced races somehow totally escaped any kind of interaction with the MW Council races. And you've overpopulated a galaxy in a way that undercuts the Reaper premise. And that's JUST the handwave you need to even get to the Relios Cluster on the MW. That's not even getting into the usual contrivances about how anything could be set after ME3 while all the characters are totally ignorant of the events of it and the other major choices.

MEA has a single major problem: getting to Andromeda. The only other potential problem is related to timing - when do the arks leave? That requires two separate handwaves. You need way more ridiculous handwaves to make an isolated cluster in the MW work. You'd be doubling down on stupid again.

To your second point, I don't see how it's inconsistent. To the refuse crew, the Catalyst behaves the same way in all the endings - petulant child that prefers genocide to even a hint of being wrong. And to the non-refuse crowd, the Catalyst reacts appropriately to Shepard's decision to doom the galaxy to investable extinction. That multiple interpretations of the same character are possible is not per se an issue.

Now excuse me while I take a cold shower and shove my face in a vat of acid, as I cannot believe I just defended the catalyst or any part of the arble-garble that is the ME3 ending.

[Spectr61]

I don't understand. You came there to destroy the Reapers.

Yes. They are destroyed by choosing refusal, via Liara's Beacon in the next cycle. And we don't have to submit to the Starbrat to do so.

[In Exile]

Yes. They are destroyed by choosing refusal, via Liara's Beacon in the next cycle. And we don't have to submit to the Starbrat to do so.

Actually, you do. The devs confirm - and troll - that the next cycle uses the Crucible.

[straykat]

On the same basis that you say AI are dead ALL technology has to be ruined. The Kid never once says anything about AI's specicifcally to the exclusion of all else. He says synthetics and when asked for clarification defines synthetics as "technology you rely on" even citing that Shepard is partly synthetic to confirm that synthetics = tech.

If you believe all synthetics (including all AI's) are dead that includes Shepard and Kasumi being dead and a lot of dead/sick Qurians. It implies a lot of things that simply are not shown to happen. Remember Shepard died. If you view the x-rays from his death he's be a quadriplegic at best considering where is spine was severed and the fact he has synthetics in place of spinal tissue. Without her grey box Kasumi is a vegetable (at best) or dead. All the Quarian suits will stop working and all their immune-nanites. So Tali and the Qurians are in trouble. Rampant disease will spread through the flotilla. All the star ships should be out of commission and dead in space. The entire fleet would be condemned to giant coffins orbiting earth. All communication device would be down. And with the worlds in rubble with no infrastructure everything falls into chaos.

So the guy has a point.

 

But Shepard turns out to not even be that synthetic (as if playing ME2 wasn't enough indication. Lazarus was a genetic project. At best, the synthetics involved were non-digital related. Things like sinew and tissue upgrades). It's just a ruse to create self-doubt.

 

It's kind of extension of just about everything attacking Shepard's confidence. The whole game attempts it in one way or another.

[TheJediSaint]

Actually, you do. The devs confirm - and troll - that the next cycle uses the Crucible.

Even future civilization can't escape a railroad plot.

[ModernAcademic]

On the same basis that you say AI are dead ALL technology has to be ruined. The Kid never once says anything about AI's specicifcally to the exclusion of all else. He says synthetics and when asked for clarification defines synthetics as "technology you rely on" even citing that Shepard is partly synthetic to confirm that synthetics = tech.

If you believe all synthetics (including all AI's) are dead that includes Shepard and Kasumi being dead and a lot of dead/sick Qurians. It implies a lot of things that simply are not shown to happen. Remember Shepard died. If you view the x-rays from his death he's be a quadriplegic at best considering where is spine was severed and the fact he has synthetics in place of spinal tissue. Without her grey box Kasumi is a vegetable (at best) or dead. All the Quarian suits will stop working and all their immune-nanites. So Tali and the Qurians are in trouble. Rampant disease will spread through the flotilla. All the star ships should be out of commission and dead in space. The entire fleet would be condemned to giant coffins orbiting earth. All communication device would be down. And with the worlds in rubble with no infrastructure everything falls into chaos.

So the guy has a point.

 

Precisely. This is why I never choose Destroy. The level of destruction is unmeasurable. It could literally wipe out entire civilisations over time and lead to the extinction of certain species.

 

After all the effort I went to turn the geth into a fully-evolved AI species, choosing Destroy means they'll be forever extinguished right after the war. They won't even have the chance to enjoy the gift that resulted from Legion's sacrifice. And it was a 300 year old quest to achieve their desire. 

 

Destroy is just not worth it.

[straykat]

Precisely. This is why I never choose Destroy. The level of destruction is unmeasurable. It could literally wipe out entire civilisations over time and lead to the extinction of certain species.

 

After all the effort I went to turn the geth into a fully-evolved AI species, choosing Destroy means they'll be forever extinguished right after the war. They won't even have the chance to enjoy the gift that resulted from Legion's sacrifice. And it was a 300 year old quest to achieve their desire. 

 

Destroy is just not worth it.

 

It makes sense if you saved the Geth in the first place. They kind of coincide with Control or Synthesis, I think.

 

I think Destroy is for people who didn't care.. it's Reaper code.. they put their foot down on that subject. As they would at the very end.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is people who saved the Geth and yet still want to get rid of the Reapers. Like Iakus above. 

[AlanC9]

As dumb as I think the whole idea behind the ending is, they should've done more than just have Shepard stand around and fade to black, like show the Allied fleets and ground troops being wiped out by the Reaper forces.

And watch Jack, Miranda, and so forth all meet their ends, leading up to the Normandy being blown up... yeah,that would have been fun. Not sure if that would have been a sensible use of resources, though.

[straykat]

I think that would make people want to reset or do better.. lol

 

Something about seeing other characters die (horribly) helps more than seeing your own. Or at least to me it would.

[Steelcan]

I suppose it would be harder to pick refuse if you actually had to see hoe everyone died because of it

[RoboticWater]

And watch Jack, Miranda, and so forth all meet their ends, leading up to the Normandy being blown up... yeah,that would have been fun. Not sure if that would have been a sensible use of resources, though.

BioWare had to have some death animations lying around they could have reused in a series of close-cropped death scenes. Of course, the time frame on the EC probably didn't allow for much finesse.