253 réponses à ce sujet

[thedoncarnage]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Collider wrote...

I just wish that more renegade decisions will end up with better results. Not necessarily that any paragon options will be bad, just would like ME3 to steer away from paragon = good, correct choice, renegade = bad, wrong choice.

I play as myself and I end up as a paragade. I don't choose paragon or renegade options because they paragon or renegade, even though I'm punished in game for it (charm/intimidate).

Oh, I definitely agree with you here. The truth is sometimes renegade will pay off even if their methods aren't desirable. Instead, Bioware seems to resort to the Kotor stand-by where Renegade=Dark Side and your only purpose is to cause misery. I would love to see them create more successful Renegade solutions than just 'everyone dies'.

I agree with you two completely. As a fellow paragade it makes me sad knowing that even though a Renegade decision may seem like a more logical choice I secretely know it will hurt my chances of an ideal outcome.

In my mind, Paragon should be like Luke Skywalker or James Bond. Renegade should be like Han Solo or Jack Bauer from 24.

Instead Renegade is more akin to Anakin or... well, I can't actually think of any jerk spies.

[Didgeridoo]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Collider wrote...

I just wish that more renegade decisions will end up with better results. Not necessarily that any paragon options will be bad, just would like ME3 to steer away from paragon = good, correct choice, renegade = bad, wrong choice.

I play as myself and I end up as a paragade. I don't choose paragon or renegade options because they paragon or renegade, even though I'm punished in game for it (charm/intimidate).

Oh, I definitely agree with you here. The truth is sometimes renegade will pay off even if their methods aren't desirable. Instead, Bioware seems to resort to the Kotor stand-by where Renegade=Dark Side and your only purpose is to cause misery. I would love to see them create more successful Renegade solutions than just 'everyone dies'.

Actually, kind of disagree with you guys on this one. renegade decisions, especially in ME2, sometimes have consequenses that are 'better' than the paragon ones. The one that springs to mind is on Ilium, on Samara's recruitment mission. At one point you encounter an asari mercenary, and you have the 'paragon' option of letting her go, and the 'renegade' option of killing her. Later, you find out that she is a cold-blooded killer. It's one of the times in the game that really show how easily a paragon Shep is taken advantage of.

And we have not seen what the ultimate consequenses of many renegade actions will be, yet. With the Rachni, it could easily turn out that paragon sheps have screwed over themselves and the entire universe. With the collector base, again paragon sheps may have blown up their only chance against the Reapers, or at the very least alienated themselves from the powerful and resourceful Cerberus.

Although I usually go paragon on most things, I do get the feeling that a few of those decisions are going to come back and bite me in the butt.

Modifié par Didgeridoo, 04 avril 2010 - 04:22 .

[Internet Kraken]

lastpawn wrote...



A good topic. Might I add another one, particularly relevant to these boards?



Choosing to sleep with Tali or not, given that the outcome could jeopardize the mission and/or kill her.

This is actually why I've always never liked that idea of the Tali romance. The thought of Tali getting very sick because of it always turned me away.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Didgeridoo wrote...

1. Actually, kind of disagree with you guys on this one. renegade decisions, especially in ME2, sometimes have consequenses that are 'better' than the paragon ones. The one that springs to mind is on Ilium, on Samara's recruitment mission. At one point you encounter an asari mercenary, and you have the 'paragon' option of letting her go, and the 'renegade' option of killing her. Later, you find out that she is a cold-blooded killer. It's one of the times in the game that really show how easily a paragon Shep is taken advantage of.

2. And we have not seen what the ultimate consequenses of many renegade actions will be, yet. With the Rachni, it could easily turn out that paragon sheps have screwed over themselves and the entire universe. With the collector base, again paragon sheps may have blown up their only chance against the Reapers, or at the very least alienated themselves from the powerful and resourceful Cerberus.

1. In this example, I agree with you, but that's exactly my issue. I wish more of these were included. On the whole they felt few and far between. Side quests in particular I have a bigger issue with. The main quest decisions at least feel like you have to think about them and their consequences. Especially in ME1, Dark side=renegade seems to be the rule for side quests such as Major Kyle if I remember correctly.

2. This is true. Until ME3 comes out, we don't have full knowledge on how everything will play out. But in ME2, the Rachni do send Shepard a message explaining that the Reapers were responsible for their insanity and that they [Rachni] will give Shepard their support. So for now it looks like this one decision is paying off.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 avril 2010 - 04:31 .

[Internet Kraken]

Also on the subject of the Rachni, am I the only one who thinks it is going to end in tragedy regardless of the queen's intentions? I mean, if the Rachni are going to be capable of building a sizable force to fight the Reapers, their growth rate would have to be unimaginable. They would easily grow to be more powerful than all of the other races and begin to encroach on their territory as they expand. The Queen might not even want war but would be forced into it due to the Rachni's uncontrollable expansion. Then we're going to end up with another genophage incident.



Unless of course the Rachni are somehow capable of maintaining their ridiculous growth rate. Then this isn't an issue.

[Nightwriter]

Collider wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Are we really saying gamers will ever really be able to play without metagaming whatsoever?

...yes? It's very possible if you roleplay as some character you thought up before hand, right off the bat. Or roleplay at all. It can be harder or easier after playing the game and discovering the consequences of these actions.

I meant this much more literally. Not so much from a story, but a gameplaying perspective. For instance - have you ever experimented with your squad recruitment order because you wanted to see what bringing certain squadmates with you to certain missions did?

Did you bring Grunt to Archangel's Base because you heard he has an interesting convo with the Blood Pack leader? How could you know that? Shepard doesn't know that. That's metagaming. From a gameplaying pov.

Nightwriter wrote...

If you don't metagame whatsoever - as in, don't even pretend that this is even a game - you wouldn't make most of the paragon decisions you make.

????

Lol. What I mean is that we make certain decisions, such as giving people second chances, that we would perhaps not make outside of a videogame. In a videogame, giving someone who has done something incredibly wrong a second chance can often pay off. That person will turn their whole life around because of your decision.

Now, how often does that happen in real life? How often do people change? Does giving a criminal a second chance - like Helena Blake, for instance - turn out in a videogame the way it might in real life? Would you unleash an alien rachni queen in real life? The damage it could cause! But that's the paragon thing to do.

We do paragon things because we know there are paragon outcomes for them. Real life doesn't have pre-programmed "good" outcomes to "good" decisions, however.

[Didgeridoo]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Didgeridoo wrote...

1. Actually, kind of disagree with you guys on this one. renegade decisions, especially in ME2, sometimes have consequenses that are 'better' than the paragon ones. The one that springs to mind is on Ilium, on Samara's recruitment mission. At one point you encounter an asari mercenary, and you have the 'paragon' option of letting her go, and the 'renegade' option of killing her. Later, you find out that she is a cold-blooded killer. It's one of the times in the game that really show how easily a paragon Shep is taken advantage of.

2. And we have not seen what the ultimate consequenses of many renegade actions will be, yet. With the Rachni, it could easily turn out that paragon sheps have screwed over themselves and the entire universe. With the collector base, again paragon sheps may have blown up their only chance against the Reapers, or at the very least alienated themselves from the powerful and resourceful Cerberus.

1. In this example, I agree with you, but that's exactly my issue. I wish more of these were included. On the whole they felt few and far between.

2. This is true. Until ME3 comes out, we don't have full knowledge on how everything will play out. But in ME2, the Rachni do send Shepard a message explaining that the Reapers were responsible for their insanity and that they [Rachni] will give Shepard their support. So for now it looks like this one decision is paying off.

In regards to 1, yes it would be great if there were more examples like this in the game. There are some situations where a Renegade shep has a clear advantage over a Paragon though, with no real negative consequences- blowing up the Krogans on Mordin's loyalty mission, for instance, makes the fight much easier. Same for electrocuting that batarian on Garrus's recruitment mission.

For 2, I'm actually glad you brought up the message from the Rachni. At first, I took it as a sign that Paragon sheps had made the correct choice. However, if you dig a little deeper into the diologue wheel with that asari, there are some suggestions that she is being controlled by the Rachni. So even with that 'affirmation,' it seems like trouble could be a-brewin for a paragon shep!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Didgeridoo wrote...

For 2, I'm actually glad you brought up the message from the Rachni. At first, I took it as a sign that Paragon sheps had made the correct choice. However, if you dig a little deeper into the diologue wheel with that asari, there are some suggestions that she is being controlled by the Rachni. So even with that 'affirmation,' it seems like trouble could be a-brewin for a paragon shep!

Hehe, then I guess we really will have to wait for ME3 to conclude this particular point. It should be interesting, one way or another.

[Collider]

[quote]Internet Kraken wrote...

[quote]Collider wrote...
Leader. It was just Rael and some scientists. [/quote]

What I meant was that at least one of the admirals has committed many crimes to further his agenda, and considering he was able to do so in secret, there's no guarantee the other admirals (like Xen), can't do the same.[/quote]
That's obvious though. They can do anything in secret regardless of whether you blurt the evidence out.

[quote]Evidently they don't otherwise Raels' research would have never occurred in the first place.[/quote]
That's a logical fallacy. And Rael and a few scientists do not equal the Quarians. You can also argue that the very reason why Rael took the risk in the first place was because they knew that the Geth were a tough enemy.

[quote]If he tried to do that right after the Morning War he would be called crazy.[/quote]
Very speculative. I could conceivably see him as being supported - the Quarians did not appear to have the chance to consider the Geth as "people." I thought you said that Rael was still called crazy if you reveal his research. So what's the difference here?

[quote]But now after 300 years the Quarian's have forgotten how dangerous the Geth can really be.[/quote]
Have they? If they did not think the Geth were dangerous, would they bother doing risky research so they can find a way to defeat Geth shields? Rael's research did not sound like "oh we just want an edge." It sounded like they thought it was the ONLY way to defeat the Geth and reclaim the homeworld. That sounds like they think it's plenty dangerous. [/quote]

[quote]Oh I'm sorry, I guess what I was saying there wasn't clear. I wasn;t trying to suggest that this would make them realize that the Geth are peacful. What I was saying that they will realize their fight against the Geth is foolish becuase they are far to powerful for them to conquer.[/quote]
I don't see why. Testing on geth and having them reactivate is hardly an indication of that. That is not what will happen should the war occur. The war isn't testing on apparently dormant geth parts, the war is fighting at range. Like I said, the Admiralty Board already thought that the pieces that Tali sent reanimated themselves and killed everyone. That is what they told the Quarians and why some were against Tali even before the trial started. So what is made different if Rael's research is revealed? It just shows that Tali didn't have it done on purpose.

[quote]That is one possibility. But you seem to be suggesting that hiding the evidence will somehow magically mean the admirals don't find it.[/quote]
No, I don't believe that. But if you don't want them to find the research, then why would you point to something that would likely lead them to investigate? If I tell a police officer that everyone is fine, he's not going to do anything.

If I tell him that there's something suspicious in that area or that there is evidence of a crime in x place, then he's going to check it out. Of course the police officer could find it regardless, but if I didn't want him to find it why would I tell him?

[quote]I thought that they were going to find it anyways, and that revealing the information just makes the Quarian public aware of what is going on. I thought that either way the research's results will reach the admirals.[/quote]
Highly doubtful. From Xen's email you can tell that she was the only one who bothered to check out the ship. The Admiralty board has little reason to go into the Alarei if they think everyone there is dead and all that happened was some geth reanimated and went berserk. In fact, they were about to destroy the Alarei before Tali and Shepard arrive.

[quote]Kraken wrote...
See the above. I made a stupid mistake when attempting to recall the details of the mission and hence screwed up my post. Also I want to thank both of you for offering me additional perspectives on the trial. I now see why someone would choose to hide it for reasons other than being selfish from a non-metagaming perspective.
[/quote]
You might say that revealing the evidence is rather selfish. Beyond representing Tali, why should Shepard even participate in Quarian politics. Is it his place to do so? Not revealing the evidence gives the Admiralty Board the opportunity to find it on their own and decide what to do with it rather than Shepard just blurting out to everyone what happened. It's their government - they should decide whether or not to release the information to the public. It's not like everything on the Alarei will instantly explode if you don't reveal anything.

Think of it like this - you are in a foreign country of which you have no ancestry, citizenship, or relatives. You are there for business only. You get sensitive information regarding WAR CRIMES. Do you blurt it out to everyone, including the public, without consulting their government privately first? In fact, you CAN tell the Admiral(s) privately about the research. You don't have to just blurt it out.

Modifié par Collider, 04 avril 2010 - 04:49 .

[Nightwriter]

lastpawn wrote...

A good topic. Might I add another one, particularly relevant to these boards?

Choosing to sleep with Tali or not, given that the outcome could jeopardize the mission and/or kill her.

It won't kill her.

How do I know this? I don't. There's no way of knowing.

But I believe foremost in Bioware's mind on this is what would happen to them if the Tali fanbase found out their LI was getting killed off.

But! We were talking about from a non-metagaming perspective, weren't we? From this pov, I'd say it really is taking a big chance. If I roleplayed it I'm not sure my morals would allow me to do it.

[Collider]

Didgeridoo wrote...
Actually, kind of disagree with you guys on this one. renegade decisions, especially in ME2, sometimes have consequenses that are 'better' than the paragon ones.

That's not a lot though. You can't say that paragon options don't have the edge thusfar.

[thedoncarnage]

JohnnyDollar wrote...
So there really is no end goal to your decision then?  Your basically just saying the the risk in near term is nearly nonexistent and lets give them a chance?  So it is more of a moral choice versus a strategic choice?  Or are you hoping on them somehow providing real help as allies against the Reapers in the near term?

It's a little of both.

Strategically, the short term risk is incredibly small. But there is also the potential for help against the Reapers. I'm not suggesting they would be capable of massing large fleets, but having a new species around could bring unconventional thinking to the battle plans that the other races might overlook. For example: The Citadel races never thought of carrier vessels until humanity brought it into the mix. Who knows what the Rachni could dream up?

Morally, since the near-term risk is negligible they do deserve the chance to live. Maybe centuries from now the galactic community will look back on my decision and curse my name. But at least they'll be alive to curse it. So no, I guess there is no true "end goal" to my decision but IMO trying to guess what will happen that far into the future is so speculative I don't think I'm in a position to base the Rachni's fate around it when I have better things to worry about -- the Reapers.

Did that make sense? Or did I just ramble?

Modifié par thedoncarnage, 04 avril 2010 - 04:50 .

[Internet Kraken]

Shandepared wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

This is actually why I've always never liked that idea of the Tali romance. The thought of Tali getting very sick because of it always turned me away.

She survived a gun-shot wound, so I wouldn't worry. Not to mention that Shepard puts her in harms way on a regular basis, so why not let her make the choice to risk her safety for something meaningful that she wants? She's a grown woman, after all.

Yeah, but personally I find the idea of having sex with somebody and risking them getting horribly ill every time ito be uncomfortable.

[Collider]

Nightwriter wrote...
I meant this much more literally. Not so much from a story, but a gameplaying perspective. For instance - have you ever experimented with your squad recruitment order because you wanted to see what bringing certain squadmates with you to certain missions did?

No, I haven't actually. I've actually done an entire playthrough without metagaming. Considering the fact that the character you are roleplaying with exists only in your imagination, it isn't a stretch not to metagame.

We do paragon things because we know there are paragon outcomes for them. Real life doesn't have pre-programmed "good" outcomes to "good" decisions, however.

Oh I don't disagree that we often metagame. Just that it's possible not to. Of course there is no measure or litmus test so basically what this amounts to is semantics.

[Didgeridoo]

Collider wrote...

Didgeridoo wrote...
Actually, kind of disagree with you guys on this one. renegade decisions, especially in ME2, sometimes have consequenses that are 'better' than the paragon ones.

That's not a lot though. You can't say that paragon options don't have the edge thusfar.

In the first game, definitely. No question!

But I think ME2 walks works the 'shades of gray' angle much, much more effectively. Most of the decisions in the game either have unknown consequences as to whether you choose paragon or renegade, or ultimately land you in the same place either way you go-  one way is just more 'forceful' than the other.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any decisions that gave paragons a clear advantage in ME2... do you have an example? My memory is failing me at the moment.

[Collider]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Also on the subject of the Rachni, am I the only one who thinks it is going to end in tragedy regardless of the queen's intentions? I mean, if the Rachni are going to be capable of building a sizable force to fight the Reapers, their growth rate would have to be unimaginable. They would easily grow to be more powerful than all of the other races and begin to encroach on their territory as they expand. The Queen might not even want war but would be forced into it due to the Rachni's uncontrollable expansion. Then we're going to end up with another genophage incident.

Unless of course the Rachni are somehow capable of maintaining their ridiculous growth rate. Then this isn't an issue.

I got the impression from reading about the Rachni Wars that within the Queen's reach, the Rachni are completely controlled. The reason why they were so bloodthirsty and disorganized on Noveria was because they weren't able to be taught by the Queen and communicate with her. Of course that raises the question as to why the Rachni were so territorial even when the Queens of the Rachni Wars were still alive. You may think that it was all defensive, but the Rachni attacked first.

[Nightwriter]

Collider wrote...

Didgeridoo wrote...
Actually, kind of disagree with you guys on this one. renegade decisions, especially in ME2, sometimes have consequenses that are 'better' than the paragon ones.

That's not a lot though. You can't say that paragon options don't have the edge thusfar.

Actually, that's the only instance I can even think of.

Not to mention I didn't really like the way it played out. To me it felt like taking the renegade option there meant shooting her unprovoked like a maniac and then finding out later your trigger happy ruthlessness was lucky.

[lastpawn]

Letting Shiala go -- Saren already knows what you're after, and since the geth have failed - and he's a Specter - he'll assume the worst (you have the cypher). What could be gained by killing her? On the other hand, she wishes to assist the colonists. This is a justified risk in my book.

Letting Rana Thanoptis go -- Hmm, a tough one. She deserves to die. However, "letting her go" is basically "letting her die." Her escape is against the odds, after all. On the other hand, she's just a minor scientist. Could go either way, but I'm leaning towards this being a bad, but inconsequential, risk.

Saving the Council -- There's no doubt in my mind that the right choice is the neutral "Concentrate on the Sovereign." The Renegade one is just childish - killing the council is not the point here - and the Paragon choice is risking the fate of the Universe to save the Council. A massive, completely inexcusable risk.

Saving the Collector Base -- I'm on the fence, leaning towards destroying the base. Humanity and the other races must chart our their path. After all, we were capable of destroying the Collectors (without an army or a fleet), so it seems unlikely that whatever technology they had would greatly aid us against the Reapers. Furthermore, indoctrination is always a danger. On the other hand, obviously, the base could be central in saving the Galaxy, even if TIM uses it to dominate the other races after the Reaper threat. I see compelling reasons both ways.

Letting the Rachni Queen live -- The queen talked to you. You're told that the Rachni did not attempt communication during the wars. This lends credence to her story. There is also the potential of her being an ally (as Shepard explains to Wrex). Besides, if a single mother of a species is capable of destroying the entire Galaxy unchecked, that Galaxy deserves to be destroyed. While I see compelling reasons both ways, I lean towards it being a large but potentially highly profitable risk.

Destroying vs. Brainwashing the Heretics -- I really dn't see this as an argument. Brainwashing is an unnecessary risk provided apparently only for the sake of there being a Paragon and a Renegade option.

Handing over evidence, Tali's trial -- I needed Tali for a mission to save the Galaxy. It seemed she might leave me if I went against her wishes. The choice seemed simple enough. Handing the evidence is an unjustifiable risk.

Sleeping with Tali -- I needed Tali for a mission to save the Galaxy. If Shepard is sleeping with her, he presumably also cares for her. Sleeping with her could kill her or cause her to perform below her abilities. Again, an unjustifiable risk.

[Collider]

Nightwriter wrote...

Collider wrote...

Didgeridoo wrote...
Actually, kind of disagree with you guys on this one. renegade decisions, especially in ME2, sometimes have consequenses that are 'better' than the paragon ones.

That's not a lot though. You can't say that paragon options don't have the edge thusfar.

Actually, that's the only instance I can even think of.

Not to mention I didn't really like the way it played out. To me it felt like taking the renegade option there meant shooting her unprovoked like a maniac and then finding out later your trigger happy ruthlessness was lucky.

She took out a gun.