104 réponses à ce sujet

[Anezay]

Freakaz0idx wrote...

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I usually play full on Paragon. Davian Shepard is kind, caring, understanding, merciful, charismatic. He always puts others' needs before his own, focuses on doing the right thing, the right way, not the quick way. If lives are at stake, he finds another way to do things. However, when somebody threatens the galactic peace (such as that arrogant Weyrloc Clanspeaker) he ends them. Basically, killing the Council would only cause Galactic uproar, and distrust for humanity and tensions between races would only grow, further dividing the Galaxy, which is the last thing that it needs in the wake of the approaching Reaper invasion...

but if you're roleplaying, you wouldn't know that 'letting the council die' would cause an uproar. The Alliance didn't murder the council. In the heat of the moment, we had to decide either to save the council and sacrifice our fleet which would then leave us in a horrible position of not knowing if we could stop this incredibly powerful enemy that could destroy life and we know it. OR we'd have to sacrifice the council, in turn we'd have a fresh fleet to take on this massive enemy then and there, possibly saving the galaxy. The logical choice is to abandon the council for the greater good, but in ME2 renegades come off and ass bloodthristy racist murderers.

You're forgetting something. Disreguarding the council, the Destiny Ascention that they're on is quite a ship. According to some dude you overhear on the citadel, it is roughly as powerful as the rest of the Asari fleet combined. Letting that get destroyed is losing a hell of a lot of firepower from an allied team. Like I posted above, I'm not saving the people, I'm saving the guns.

[Anezay]

Shandepared wrote...

Anezay wrote...

You're forgetting something. Disreguarding the council, the Destiny Ascention that they're on is quite a ship. According to some dude you overhear on the citadel, it is roughly as powerful as the rest of the Asari fleet combined. Letting that get destroyed is losing a hell of a lot of firepower from an allied team. Like I posted above, I'm not saving the people, I'm saving the guns.

If you fail to stop Sovereign from opening the relay those guns won't help you.

If that be the case, neither will those eight cruisers.

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

Anezay wrote...

If that be the case, neither will those eight cruisers.

I don't think you quite understand the situation. Let me explain it for you then.

If Sovereign opens the relay then the Reapers flood through and that's it. It's all over. You lose and the Reapers win.

When you stop to save the Destiny Ascension so that you can use it later you are increasing the chances that Sovereign will succeed. If Sovereign succeeds the Destiny Ascension is lost anyway, along with the rest of the galaxy.

Those eight cruisers won't make a difference if Sovereign wins, but if you throw  them at Sovereing, instead of losing them to the geth, they might make all the difference in preventing Sovereign from winning.

So what you're saying is that stopping Sovereign now only to lose later because the galaxy hates you is preferable to taking the chance that you might lose?  A chance that is fairly small, since so few ships being there is very unlikely to make that much of a difference.  Anyone not willing to try to save the Council is very narrow-sighted, solve the immediate problem only to lose down the line because you didn't do it properly.  The expedient path is not necessarily the right path, it's the difference between what is right, and what is easy.

I could understand the justification if saving the DA would have crippled your fleet, but judging from the size of the Geth fleet attacking it, it didn't make that big of a dent in the Alliance fleet.  So the whole "we need to save our strength for Sovereign" argument just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

[Kaiser Shepard]

wizardryforever wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Anezay wrote...

If that be the case, neither will those eight cruisers.

I don't think you quite understand the situation. Let me explain it for you then.

If Sovereign opens the relay then the Reapers flood through and that's it. It's all over. You lose and the Reapers win.

When you stop to save the Destiny Ascension so that you can use it later you are increasing the chances that Sovereign will succeed. If Sovereign succeeds the Destiny Ascension is lost anyway, along with the rest of the galaxy.

Those eight cruisers won't make a difference if Sovereign wins, but if you throw  them at Sovereing, instead of losing them to the geth, they might make all the difference in preventing Sovereign from winning.

So what you're saying is that stopping Sovereign now only to lose later because the galaxy hates you is preferable to taking the chance that you might lose?  A chance that is fairly small, since so few ships being there is very unlikely to make that much of a difference.  Anyone not willing to try to save the Council is very narrow-sighted, solve the immediate problem only to lose down the line because you didn't do it properly.  The expedient path is not necessarily the right path, it's the difference between what is right, and what is easy.

I could understand the justification if saving the DA would have crippled your fleet, but judging from the size of the Geth fleet attacking it, it didn't make that big of a dent in the Alliance fleet.  So the whole "we need to save our strength for Sovereign" argument just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

Then tell me what is right, and what is easy. The right thing is to destroy the entity that's only minutes away from unleashing certain death upon the entire galaxy. The easy thing would be to take the unnecessary risk that is saving the bunch of "politicians" that basically invited said certain death, so that if you go down you at least do so with a "happy happy joy joy" feeling.

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

So what you're saying is that stopping Sovereign now only to lose later because the galaxy hates you is preferable to taking the chance that you might lose?

If Sovereign wins "now" there will be no later. I'd rather take my chances with a distrustful galaxy than I would with a Reaper fleet flooding through the Citadel relay after Sovereign opens it. These two situations are in no way similar.

On top of that you are meta-gaming. There is no way to know beforehand how the galaxy will react to the Councilor's deaths or their survival.

Wizardryforever wrote...

A chance that is fairly small, since so few ships being there is very unlikely to make that much of a difference.

An assumption, and a poor one at that. 

Okay, that's just the biggest piece of BS I've ever heard.  I wonder how people will react to letting their heads of state die?  Especially when said heads of state preside over a reasonably republican society in a peaceful time.  If you're a Spectre, it's in your job description to protect the council "both our first and last line of defense."  When you don't do so, regardless of what your reasons may be, people are not going to take it kindly.  If you save them, people see the arriving human fleet as liberators, like the cavalry riding in to save the day.  If you let them die, people see the fleet as opportunistic, seizing control after the battle is over.  It's hard to argue that you're saving the galaxy when you let the heads of the government, not to mention the most powerful dreadnaught, be killed without even trying to save them.  This is not something that requires metagaming knowledge to understand.  When I first played ME, and I saw the option "Let the council die" I seriously said, "what the ****?  who would do that?  it's just messed up."  So no, I'm not relying on metagame knowledge, it just serves to reinforce my argument.

[krasnoarmeets]

Shandepared wrote...

If you don't have the stomach to be renegade then you shouldn't have ever accepted the offer to become a Spectre.

It's not like you can actually turn the offer down...

I played through with a 'renegade' character, but there were certain things that I couldn't do either. However, I let the Destiny Ascension be destroyed with a 'paragon' soldier because it seemed like the pragmatic thing to do, i.e. save the numbers and firepower for taking down Sovereign, which was the greatest threat. That was on my first playthrough. I was really peed off at the council for their attitude throughout the game, lack of support, faith etc, however, that wasn't really my motivation, because at that point I considered saving one ship secondary to saving the entire citadel. I still don't consider it a renegade choice. 10,000 crew on a military ship who signed up for the dangers of military service versus millions of civillians on the citadel whom the military is supposed to protect? The answer is relatively simple if you don't know what the outcome will be.

[Myrmedus]

Kronner wrote...

redplague wrote...

I don't agree with the makers of the game that letting the council die is a renegade act. I would happily see the 3 most senior politicians die from any government if the only way to save them was to sacrifice thousands of other people.

Not just Council.
10.000 people are on board of the Destiny Ascension.

That's not made clear AT ALL when making the decision.

[wizardryforever]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Anezay wrote...

If that be the case, neither will those eight cruisers.

I don't think you quite understand the situation. Let me explain it for you then.

If Sovereign opens the relay then the Reapers flood through and that's it. It's all over. You lose and the Reapers win.

When you stop to save the Destiny Ascension so that you can use it later you are increasing the chances that Sovereign will succeed. If Sovereign succeeds the Destiny Ascension is lost anyway, along with the rest of the galaxy.

Those eight cruisers won't make a difference if Sovereign wins, but if you throw  them at Sovereing, instead of losing them to the geth, they might make all the difference in preventing Sovereign from winning.

So what you're saying is that stopping Sovereign now only to lose later because the galaxy hates you is preferable to taking the chance that you might lose?  A chance that is fairly small, since so few ships being there is very unlikely to make that much of a difference.  Anyone not willing to try to save the Council is very narrow-sighted, solve the immediate problem only to lose down the line because you didn't do it properly.  The expedient path is not necessarily the right path, it's the difference between what is right, and what is easy.

I could understand the justification if saving the DA would have crippled your fleet, but judging from the size of the Geth fleet attacking it, it didn't make that big of a dent in the Alliance fleet.  So the whole "we need to save our strength for Sovereign" argument just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

Then tell me what is right, and what is easy. The right thing is to destroy the entity that's only minutes away from unleashing certain death upon the entire galaxy. The easy thing would be to take the unnecessary risk that is saving the bunch of "politicians" that basically invited said certain death, so that if you go down you at least do so with a "happy happy joy joy" feeling.

No I think it would be easier to let someone die than try to save them, yes?  I'm not saying you should ignore Sovereign to save the Council at all costs, that would just be idiotic.  I'm saying that you should try to save the council if at all possible, since letting the heads of a peaceful government (that you're sworn to protect) is the right thing to do.  We don't know how strong Sovereign is, specifically.  For all we know at the time of the choice, we may be able to destroy it fairly easily with our fleet.  It's strong yes, but it's still just one ship.  There's a lot of unknowns, it just seems that some people are willing to sacrifice things much earlier than is strictly necessary.  When it is in vain, it is not sacrifice, it is a waste.

[Myrmedus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

So what you're saying is that stopping Sovereign now only to lose later because the galaxy hates you is preferable to taking the chance that you might lose?

If Sovereign wins "now" there will be no later. I'd rather take my chances with a distrustful galaxy than I would with a Reaper fleet flooding through the Citadel relay after Sovereign opens it. These two situations are in no way similar.

On top of that you are meta-gaming. There is no way to know beforehand how the galaxy will react to the Councilor's deaths or their survival.

Wizardryforever wrote...

A chance that is fairly small, since so few ships being there is very unlikely to make that much of a difference.

An assumption, and a poor one at that. 

Okay, that's just the biggest piece of BS I've ever heard.  I wonder how people will react to letting their heads of state die?  Especially when said heads of state preside over a reasonably republican society in a peaceful time.  If you're a Spectre, it's in your job description to protect the council "both our first and last line of defense."  When you don't do so, regardless of what your reasons may be, people are not going to take it kindly.  If you save them, people see the arriving human fleet as liberators, like the cavalry riding in to save the day.  If you let them die, people see the fleet as opportunistic, seizing control after the battle is over.  It's hard to argue that you're saving the galaxy when you let the heads of the government, not to mention the most powerful dreadnaught, be killed without even trying to save them.  This is not something that requires metagaming knowledge to understand.  When I first played ME, and I saw the option "Let the council die" I seriously said, "what the ****?  who would do that?  it's just messed up."  So no, I'm not relying on metagame knowledge, it just serves to reinforce my argument.

Sorry but I agree with him (Shandepared that is)

The thing that makes me feel guilty about making the renegade decision at the end of ME1 is the other 9997 people on board, not the Council. The Council are just 3 individuals and ones who signed up for a potentially dangerous position at that (any high-level political position is). You don't prioritise 3 people over thousands, no matter who they are. If you do I view that as more renegade than to let them die as it's tantamount to saying that if you have a good job you're worth more than thousands of regular people.

All people are equal so it does essentially come down to a numbers game.

It's also true that some people play this as a video-game story (ie. they know they'll win because the good guys always do) so when they make choices they always choose from the most naive standpoint as they never consider the possibility they'll lose. If you play it like it's real - which is the best way IMO - and in reality there's no guarantee of success so you take any boon you can get.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 05 août 2010 - 01:30 .

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

So no, I'm not relying on metagame knowledge, it just serves to reinforce my argument.

Right. Using meta-game knowledge isn't using meta-game knowledge.

If saving the Destiny Ascension treated you to a cutscene at the end of the game where the Alliance fleet is defeated by Sovereign and the Reapers pour through the relay would you still defend your decision?

See the word "relying" which implies that my argument is invalid without said knowledge.  It isn't, meta-game knowledge is a superfluous support.

I'd probably be one of those people who came onto the forums to complain about a valid choice being punished unfairly by the game.  Any game that punishes you with a game over for trying to do the right thing is just a crappy game, which might even push me into the camp of the "bash Mass Effect" crowd.  Crazy as said crowd is.

[MadCat221]

Myrmedus wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

So what you're saying is that stopping Sovereign now only to lose later because the galaxy hates you is preferable to taking the chance that you might lose?

If Sovereign wins "now" there will be no later. I'd rather take my chances with a distrustful galaxy than I would with a Reaper fleet flooding through the Citadel relay after Sovereign opens it. These two situations are in no way similar.

On top of that you are meta-gaming. There is no way to know beforehand how the galaxy will react to the Councilor's deaths or their survival.

Wizardryforever wrote...

A chance that is fairly small, since so few ships being there is very unlikely to make that much of a difference.

An assumption, and a poor one at that. 

Okay, that's just the biggest piece of BS I've ever heard.  I wonder how people will react to letting their heads of state die?  Especially when said heads of state preside over a reasonably republican society in a peaceful time.  If you're a Spectre, it's in your job description to protect the council "both our first and last line of defense."  When you don't do so, regardless of what your reasons may be, people are not going to take it kindly.  If you save them, people see the arriving human fleet as liberators, like the cavalry riding in to save the day.  If you let them die, people see the fleet as opportunistic, seizing control after the battle is over.  It's hard to argue that you're saving the galaxy when you let the heads of the government, not to mention the most powerful dreadnaught, be killed without even trying to save them.  This is not something that requires metagaming knowledge to understand.  When I first played ME, and I saw the option "Let the council die" I seriously said, "what the ****?  who would do that?  it's just messed up."  So no, I'm not relying on metagame knowledge, it just serves to reinforce my argument.

Sorry but I agree with him.

The thing that makes me feel guilty about making the renegade decision at the end of ME1 is the other 9997 people on board, not the Council. The Council are just 3 individuals and ones who signed up for a potentially dangerous position at that (any high-level political position is). You don't prioritise 3 people over thousands, no matter who they are. If you do I view that as more renegade than to let them die as it's tantamount to saying that if you have a good job you're worth more than thousands of regular people.

All people are equal so it does essentially come down to a numbers game.

Did the number of Alliance servicemen lost in the battle >= 10000 if the Ascension got its fat pulled out of the fire?

[AresXX7]

I still think it's weird that if you choose the nuetral  response by going with "concentrate on Sovereign" instead of "screw the council" that you still get renegade points on it, since you are trying to make a tactical decision, not a personal one

that being said, I'm still a softy myself when it comes to sacrificing others for my target as well

for the Destiny Ascension, I hated seeing the crew members become hopeful, then find out they're being ignored
more than thinking about the fate of the council or the number of people on the ship

same goes for Virmire, when you choose Ashley/Kaiden & go to the one at the AA tower, then see the other one laying next to the nuke, alone,  before it goes off

or, on Zaeed's loyalty mission, seeing the worker begging for help if you choose to go after Vido instead

Modifié par AriesXX7, 05 août 2010 - 01:50 .

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

Take the risk or don't take the risk. That's what it's about.

Essentially, yes, this is what it all boils down to.  I personally think that the risk is not only worth taking, but necessary.  You obviously don't, and I understand your reasoning, though I don't agree with it.

Anyway, to attempt to get back on topic, I too have a difficult time picking renegade options.  In fact, the only time I was ever conflicted as to which option was the "right" one was Legion's loyalty.  That one was very well done in its vague gray morality.  Every other time though, I have no temptation to pick the renegade dialogue, though I do take some of the renegade interrupts.  I don't think this makes me a "softy," just that I care about other people in a way that is just more human.

[Bluko]

Basically...

Paragon="I care..."
Renegade="I don't care!"



I do a full Rengade playthru as well, though by the end I hate myself for it. It's not the random killing of bad guys that bothers me as much as it is being an arse to all my party members. Like some of the Renegade dialogue between party members just makes Shepard seem heartless. Also adding to that a full Renegade Shepard seems to be slightly xenophobic. Playing an evil sadistic character can be fun sometimes, but Renegade Shepard isn't really evil. I dunno Renegade Shepard just always seems bitter and pissed off. So in that case I'd much play Paragon Shepard who's generally more calm and level headed about most decisions.

I dunno guess I am softy too. I must have watched too much Barney as a toddler or something.

[thq95]

Luc0s wrote...

I find it honestly hard to play as a Renegade sometimes. I always end up Paragon. I did do an intentional Renegade run-through on both games (ME and ME2) just so I can see if it makes any difference in the end of ME3. But in those moments that you have to make big choices I never ever enjoyed picking the Renegade options (letting the Rachni go extinct, letting Wrex die, letting the council die, letting the colonists on that meteor die, giving the Collector base to TIM and more). I naturally always want to pick the Paragon option at those points!

Damn, I'm such a goody two-shoes. >_<

If you saved the council, you sacrificed a ton of human lives, how does that make you feel?

[Vhira]

Most of my playthroughs tend to be about the same as far as critical plot decisions (council, rachni, collector base). However, I've managed to get both paragon and renegade bars 75-80% full and still have a nearly pure paragon outcome with a fully loyal squad.  (If you take this route, just do Jack and Miranda's loyalty mission early - and also Samara's if you want to pass the hypnosis check.)

A lot of the intimidation "red text" options serve to avoid killing people unnecessarily while being able to shout, headbutt and project an aura of cynicism, efficiency and badassery. I enjoy hearing the renegade options from the voice actors just as much as some of the paragon dialogue. It's nice that you can play renegade (paragade, I suppose) without being the least bit xenophobic too.

However, I was disappointed when Samara said she might come after me following the suicide mission despite saving the council, rachni queen, Sidonis, genophage data and sparing just about every encounterable named NPC including the gunship mechanic. I doubt I ever broke the Code, but because the renegade bar is higher, apparently we can't be friends.

Modifié par Vhira, 05 août 2010 - 03:10 .

[Cheese Elemental]

thq95 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

I find it honestly hard to play as a Renegade sometimes. I always end up Paragon. I did do an intentional Renegade run-through on both games (ME and ME2) just so I can see if it makes any difference in the end of ME3. But in those moments that you have to make big choices I never ever enjoyed picking the Renegade options (letting the Rachni go extinct, letting Wrex die, letting the council die, letting the colonists on that meteor die, giving the Collector base to TIM and more). I naturally always want to pick the Paragon option at those points!

Damn, I'm such a goody two-shoes. >_<

If you saved the council, you sacrificed a ton of human lives, how does that make you feel?

You save 10,000 lives on the Destiny Ascension alone, as well as the Turian ships that hadn't been destroyed yet.

OP, power to you. It's just a game after all, and it doesn't have to be serious business at all.

Modifié par Cheese Elemental, 05 août 2010 - 03:18 .

[StrawberryViking]

Though the discussion seems to have shifted to end-game decisions...

In the game, for my canon Shepard, I play naturally as a renegade (I'm not a horrible person am I?), and usually play that way most of the time (and renegade shep is funnier! who doesn't love punching the reporter?) But when it comes to the big decisions (i.e. rachni queen and council and destiny ascension) I almost couldn't bring myself to do it, though MY logic told me it was the right thing to do (at the time, with the knowledge I had). The tagline for ME1 was 'extinction is one decision away', and I really took that seriously.

But I AM a big softie (not the Sten kind, mind you) when it comes to squad-mates, and I often found myself forced into romances because I don't have to heart to tell them no. Which usually led to me Virmire-ing Kaidan... but seriously, it's paragon all the way for my squad-mates, which was tough for those loyalty missions.

Like Zaeed's, where if you pick the renegade, there's that guy screaming at you in hopeless despair after you decide not to save the people in the burning refinery, and when you're running through, you can hear the people screaming in agony.... but because my shep is so eager to please, everyone gets 1 free revenge card, (Garrus used his in ME1...bummer)

Modifié par StrawberryViking, 05 août 2010 - 03:22 .

[krasnoarmeets]

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other, save or don't save - either way a lot of lives will be lost.

I think the point is whether it's worth throwing lives away trying to save an obviously bureaucratically entrenched and malfunctioning council rather than throwing everything you can to defeat an obvious menace. As I already said, the first time I made this decision with a 'paragon' character I decided to throw everything at Sovereign, choosing the neutral option, as I considered concentrating on destroying Sovereign, the greater good. I did feel guilty about the lives lost on the Ascension, but in the scheme of things it seemed the most logical choice and the Ascension is a military vessel.

I didn't know at the time that choosing either path would result in victory and I thought that if we fail to destroy Sovereign all life in the galaxy will end. That made the choice quite simple.