290 réponses à ce sujet

[Koen Casier]

Shandepared wrote...

I do. When it is overused it makes for a cheaper narrative.

Can't agree with you more deus ex machina and it's ilk are far to overused but "bad luck" can be equally be overused, I believe that you should work for your good ending a bit like the collector base at end of Me2: Those that selected random teammates for the tasks, didn't bother to upgrade the ship and left loyalty missions unfinished (in other word that blindly relied on luck or an deus ex machina intervention) where burned those that put some work in it where rewarded.

It should be similar with this: for example the rachni question those that spared the rachni should have to put extra effort into it by doing a mission (or missions) to prevent the reapers to send out a "sour yellow note" that would turning them to be reaper minions. But similarly those that didn't spare them should have to put extra effort into other missions since they would not have the rachni backup that those that spared them (and worked for it) have gotten.

[Pacifien]

Shandepared wrote...
Explain.

Because I think your tactics are geared toward winning a debate by attrition versus the exchange and understanding of varying ideas. One debate is conducive to a forum environment, while the other is not.

Shandepared wrote...
I didn't say I was speaking to you directly. In fact, I didn't give you a cleare answer. I was hoping you'd respond with "Which?"

I really have no desire to treat people as being deliberately obtuse.

Shandepared wrote...
I do. When it is overused it makes for a cheaper narrative.

Mass Effect could be torn apart easily for being a cheap narrative. While tearing apart cheap narratives has always been a fun pasttime for me, I didn't take that to be the intent of the thread. And usually it's less hostile.

I'm not really adding much to the topic now anyway.

[Koen Casier]

Shandepared wrote...

I agree with you in principal but Suicide Mission was very easy to complete without losing anyone. Honestly it takes MORE work and planning to get people killed than it does to have them survive. I got everyone through on my first try despite not knowing anything about the mission beforehand.

Well I concede that the example was pretty weak; but it is rare that a game tries to implement something like this at all, in most of the games you can really have a "hey lets do it and the deus ex will handle the rest" attitude.

Also while I got everyone through the first time, just after launch there where people that could even mess that up (Attest both the Steam and Gamespot boards), like sending Samara through the pipes or not knowing about ship upgrades.

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Shandepared wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

Also while I got everyone through the first time, just after launch there where people that could even mess that up (Attest both the Steam and Gamespot boards), like sending Samara through the pipes or not knowing about ship upgrades.

The need to cater to the lowest common denominator will be the death of us all.

or at the very least - the death of those poor poor 12 squadmates. >.<'

[Bill569]

Shandepared wrote...

Bill569 wrote...

Anyway, if you lose your values on the way, then you become like the reapers (morally).

No, you do not. You survive and have the time to reflect back on what you did to get there. We're talking about the survival of the species here. It is all or nothing. Either we survive and then write angsty poetry about all the evil things we had to do to save the lives of our people or we die. I can guarantee you that the Reapers will write no such poetry.

Life has no value beyond being alive. God, Heaven, Hell, Judgement, none of that exists as far I'm concerned. Either we save the species or we don't save it.

Bill569 wrote...

Many people throughout human history have fought and died for their ideals.

Yes, they have, and they won because more rational people made compromises. They censored free speech, they let war criminals avoid justice, and they dropped atomic bombs on cities of little military significance. They did it because unlike you they understood that victory was what mattered. If you died then your ideals died with you.

It is better to live in contradiction than to decay righteously.

After all, it is the winner who writes the history, not the loser.

Well, if it is a life/death decision for the whole of humanity or the galaxy, then I guess that the ends do justify the means. But that would mean that the person who committed the immoral action (such as brainwashing the geth, on condition that he considers them alive) would have been "sacrificed". Only he would take the burden of the consequences of his actions, noone else.

Modifié par Bill569, 26 avril 2010 - 08:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

And what on earth is wrong with that? Let them hate, so long as they live.



Besides the trite messiah complex it often brings about, of course.

[Bill569]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And what on earth is wrong with that? Let them hate, so long as they live.

Besides the trite messiah complex it often brings about, of course.

I never said that this is bad.

[Bill569]

Shandepared wrote...

I agree, but I'm not here to exchange ideas.

Why not? If you do not exchange ideas and stick to your own, then you do not progress, you stay to the same things. This exchanging of ideas is what makes us progress as a species. We are social creatures, not solitary ones. Of course every idea needs to be examined first before deciding whether or not to be accepted by the individual. But it is pointless to reject every idea without even considering whether you should accept it or not.

[Tzarene]

Not sure if this was pointed in full earlier somewhere but the concept of paragon/renegade is more directed at how you (as Shepherd) acts rather than consequence based. To demonstrate this, there are many instances where you see injustice or evil being commited. The paragon would seek to reason with it, find alternative solutions to violence, save as many people as possible, and only use force as a last resort or if violence was forced upon him/her. The renegade option is to cower down the opposition through force (intimidation or violence) in order to right the initial wrong. To illustrate using a simple example from ME2, Forvan the bartender tried to poison you as he had done to humans before. Obviously that's a crime, even on Omega. The renegade gave him a taste of his own medicine while the paragon exposed him. On another planet, he may have been tried/arrested/executed later but on Omega, the turian shot him. Note that while he died in both, the paragon did not "pull the trigger" him/herself.

Picking Paragon or Renegade options indicates the expression of how you (the PC) wish to solve problems and achieve goals rather than looking at the outcomes from a moral perspective, even though in many choices, morality appeared to be meter by which paragon/renegade is determined. The PC's morality is determined by paragon/renegade, not the overall morality. Both this decision and the collector base decision stem from this logic. As such the decision to "brainwash" or not, the paragon/renegade point distribution has no bearing on what your crew, the Geth, or anyone else in the galaxy thinks. It is an indicative measure of how you (the PC) thinks/behaves and then by extension, this is how you are viewed by the galaxy.

So for my opinions on the matter personally, I took a practical approach. I've played both paragon and renegade games though my renegade games are renegon imports from ME1 so I keep to the same standards. Given such, all my playthroughs have been to "brainwash" rather than destroy, seeing as how more Geth = more ally strength in ME3. I also believe in the notion (already brought up) on Shepherd resolving the Geth-Quarian conflict so he/she gains either one or both as allies.

On all the references made to genocide, threats to humanity, threats to the galaxy, and more, I'd just like to state my opinion that most of them seem to be unrelated and logically unsound to apply to this situation.
Genocide and morning war w/ Quarians? Unrelated issue on this matter. If you are letting that influence you on this decision, then you are obviously biased for the quarians and against the Geth anyways so you are inclined already to destroy them rather than "brainwash/save". If you are biased, then there is no need to discuss whether this is right/wrong, you've already made up your mind on the matter.
A splinter Geth group is a threat to humanity? Really? If Miranda/Cerberus don't think so, then you (the great Sheperd commander) obviously cannot think so either having blasted through them 90% of ME1 and parts of ME2.
Practical logic is the only prevailing one, which states that the reapers are coming.

[NightKay]

I blew them up, brainwashing them felt unenthical.

I was surprised when I received Renegade points.

[Solomen]

NightKay wrote...

I blew them up, brainwashing them felt unenthical.
I was surprised when I received Renegade points.

Surprised that you got renegade points for extermination? 

[V4nBl00d]

I don't know if it's just because of movies like Matrix or Terminator but I don't like the idea to equally coexist with the geth. I don't think a machine has much ethics but I guess they have loads of logic. Other organic species are more or less predictable but we probably can't understand the reasons of very intelligent machines which are the results of calculations even the most brilliant organic scientists can't understand.



I don't know if you can apply ethic rules on machines, but I blew those torchlights with legs up.



About the renegade/paragon points: i guess bioware thinks a paragon has to be naif. An other example is the genophage.