Lemonwizard wrote...
The problem with the morality system is it's not even really a choice. You solve exactly the same problems and there's no situation where one works and the other does not. It would be much more interesting if there were actually problems that could be solved only by violence or problems that could be solved only by cooperation, but as it stands you win either way and thus it's not a choice of how far you're willing to go to get the job done (as it should be), but with what kind of style would you like to press your "I win no matter what" button.
Generally, I agree with the Paragon ideal. Cooperation against the force that's become very effient at killing organic life on a galactic scale is the kind of threat that all races should be rallied to fight. Humanity alone should not be the force against them, it's ridiclous to believe one new and inexperienced race can do this. However, in princible I agree that some consquences would be nice.
In Dragon Age: Awakening there is a moment where as the Governor/Duke of the land you have to face a crowd of uprising peasants. These peasants dislike the conditions forced upon them during the wartime against another unstoppable evil. You can appease them or violently cut them down as an example. Despite my usual Good Guy playthrough style I decided to cut the peasants down. I felt terrible about it but their demands were a little too high and a touch ridiculous in the face of utter destruction. Turns out, once I finished the game I looked up things about the game. If you appease the peasants they begin to think you're a push over and demand even more and the epilogue is worse for the country at the end of the game.
Being a nice guy causes damage to the country in the long run. This has no real impact on your playing character but you're forced to cut down the few for the many in the long run or appease the few who may die in the coming battle anyway and sacrifice the many in the long run.
It was an interesting choice and one of the few great things about the Dragon Age expansion.
Markinator_123 wrote...
Paragon choices should defintely
bite you in the *** more. For instance, realistically speaking, Zaeed
would never be loyal to you if you didn't let him kill Vido. It is
obvious that they threw paragons a bone there (I save the innocents by
the way). I really hope rewriting the heretics bites people in the ***.
It would make the story interesting and I agree sometimes paragon is
naive and idiotic.
Why would rewriting the heretics be bad? Legion can upload his information to the geth collective hub and they'll share his loyalty and admiration to Shepard. On a purely practical level the geth race owes you a favor. The Floatilla however may dislike you and be tougher to convince if they find out about you strengthening the geth. But the "true geth" will be allies. And if you blow the base up Legion tells you himself that it doesn't destroy the heretics, it was just a big base of them. ...a blow...but there are still organic hating geth roaming the universe killing and creating more of themselves.
Any downside with the quarian fleet would be worth the price of the potential loss of innocents and soldiers and ships lost in battle with more heretics.
StrawberryViking wrote...
But the real gripe for me about
it was that the paragon decision, though it did have it's consequences,
(the loss of human lives), the consequence doens't carry any
weight because it doesn't affect Shepard directly. In ME2 you
hear about how the Alliance's numbers being down, but all it is is
words, because it's not like you gain or loose anything due to the
decision, at least, not yet. Also, if you decide to let Nirali Bhatia's
body to be released, there is a news-thing-o about the public loosing
faith in the Alliance because of their failure to counter geth
technology, which I assume means less people enlisting.
I would
like to think that this might result in the loss of a good chunk of the
citadel fleet in ME3, as they are not the force they used to be without
the support of what the Alliance used to be. Alternatively,
council-killers (for lack of a better name), might loose more human
lives as a consequence of the aliens not trusting the humans, and as a
result, less aliens defending with the humans.
That bolded part can easily be said about the Renegade choice too. You kill the Council and nothing happens except you don't get a title that doesn't mean anything at all. Never mind that you were never stripped of your Spectre status anyway and on what grounds can you say they can strip you of it? Spectres do whatever nessary to get the job done. The job was save the universe not the Council, the strongest dreadnaught in the fleet, and thousands of asari lives. You did your job by the Spectre book.
So far other than different e-mails or news bulletines there has been no real negative consquence for being Paragon or Renegade. The rachni promise to be there but we know nothing about how they'll help us or if their presence is even required to defeat the Reapers. I suspect they're not required but we may lose extra lives in some way since we lack their drone shock troopers....of course mechs can easily fill that role.
Also, I just want to say...why would you want to keep the Collector Base anyway? That's just as dangerous as the rachni since when in recorded history has any one ever used Reaper tech and not been indoctinated? Even if you could give it to someone besides the Illusive Man....it has just as much potential to indoctinate and blow up in your face. And besides that point, it had no defenses and the Normandy's cannons are easily superior to the Collector weapons (since multiple strikes were used to take down one small ship when the Normandy's weapons took two shots to completely destroy a ship much larger than itself.) There is knowledge to be gained but it seems to be that it was largely a breeding facility for Reapers and/or Collectors. To make a Reaper would costs billions of lives and a Collector army could be semi-useful....if the radiation purge didn't kill all life on the station thus making that probably impossible.
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Quite honestly being ruthless isn't
the only way to get the job done as you can get the job done both ways,
its just a matter of difference in philosophy.
That's the truth. Mass Effect isn't a game series about punishing the player. It's about choices and those choices all have similar outcomes with very minor cosmetic changes to them. It's largely about role-playing either an At-All Costs type or a Hero who cannot and won't accept additional loss of life. Both options work out in both games. Both Councils end up failing you. Cerberus will likely abandon you next game too for the same reason (and because it would be a real hassel and resource draining exercise to make two different games with you either with Cerberus or against Cerberus).
Shandepared wrote...
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Quite
honestly being ruthless isn't the only way to get the job done as you
can get the job done both ways, its just a matter of difference in
philosophy.
You cannot always get the job done both
ways.
And matter the size of a human being cannot enter a planet's atmosphere and still be remotely intact. It's a game. It's meant to be entertainment and tell a story. The story has different branches but it's still the story about how Commander Shepard saved the universe against the Reapers. Different branches may tell who all lived or how certain battles went down but in the end Shepard either wins or there's no continuation for the Mass Effect franchise.
enormousmoonboots wrote...
What are the negative
consequences to Renegade actions? They're no better or worse than
Paragon ones. What, some people don't like you? Is that it?
Paragon
and Renegade are designed to be balanced. One is not supposed to be
more valid or correct than the other, and complaining that Paragon is
'not realistic' is just silly. If you don't like the action, don't
choose it. Paragon actions are correct for a Paragon player. Renegade
actions are correct for a Renegade player. Ever notice that your party
members almost always say 'You did the right thing' no matter what you
do? By making decisions, you create the galaxy you wish to create.
If
you don't think Paragon consequences are realistic, then don't choose
them. Chose the decisions you want to build the world you want to be in.
You want grimdark, you can have grimdark! You want idealism, you can
have idealism! Why do people keep insisting that one side must be
gimped?
I think I'll end this too long post with that note. It's true and needs repeating.
Modifié par Foolsfolly, 26 mai 2010 - 10:26 .
Retour en haut
