113 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

most of the "interesting" choices are on the right side of the wheel...

[Dave of Canada]

wizardryforever wrote...

Here's why:  If you send part of your fleet to save the Council, you do risk Sovereign succeeding.  If you don't save the Council, society is disrupted greatly by the loss.  It's more complicated than that, but this is what it all boils down to.  You either risk destruction now by attempting to preserve your chances later, or you throw all of your eggs into one basket and win now only to cripple your chances later.  Given the fact that the Reapers are coming regardless of whether you stop Sovereign or not, saving the Council is the logical choice.

Personally, I'd rather focus on the now than the later. If Sovereign wins, the Council being saved means nothing. That and when Sovereign is ontop of the Citadel summoning forth the Reapers, the last thing I think about is galatic stability.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 septembre 2010 - 05:34 .

[wizardryforever]

wizardryforever wrote...

So it comes down to risk destruction at Sovereign's hand (tentacle?) but save your chances later, or focus only on the immediate threat and beat it, only to lose later when the Reapers come anyway.  True, that is also a risk, letting the galaxy be divided when the Reapers arrive in exchange for the short lived victory of stopping Sovereign.  The galaxy may pull through despite the chaos and distrust, but that is a far greater risk in my opinion than sending out some cruisers to save the Ascension.

Just reposting this as you apparently missed it.  My whole point is that you are risking the fate of the galaxy either way, the only difference is you're risking it either immediately or down the line.  I just think a few ships are less risky than having the most powerful races in the galaxy unwilling to cooperate.

[Rockworm503]

I roleplay my character. I ask what would he/she do in this situation.

My first character is strictly paragon but only because i decided early on that she was going to do what is right no matter what.

And before renegade fanboys call me selfish or whatever I've done a few renegade choices because it seemed right at the time.

For example when a boss is talking my ear off I don't see any point in not doing the renegade interrupt... Its not the right thing to do to sit there and take those threats lol.

my second playthrough is mostly renegade. Oh he'll help people no problem but the second someone gets in his way he won't hesitate to put them down.

[Dave of Canada]

Rockworm503 wrote...

my second playthrough is mostly renegade. Oh he'll help people no problem but the second someone gets in his way he won't hesitate to put them down.

That's pretty much how I play it. I'm nice to my party members and I won't say "THERE'S NO TIME TO HELP YOU." and stuff, yet when I'm off the Normandy there's nothing that I don't do.

[Dave of Canada]

Shandepared wrote...

If you're just roleplaying your character then I got no beef with ya'. It's when people try to defend Paragon on the forums as though it is at all practical or rational that the vein in my forehead starts pulsating.

I BLEW UP THE COLLECTOR BASE.
"Why?"
BECAUSE WE DONT NEED IT TO FIGHT THE REAPERS, SHEPARD CAN WIN WITHOUT IT. HE'LL FIND A WAY.

[Rockworm503]

Shandepared wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

I roleplay my character. I ask what would he/she do in this situation.
My first character is strictly paragon but only because i decided early on that she was going to do what is right no matter what.
And before renegade fanboys call me selfish or whatever I've done a few renegade choices because it seemed right at the time.

If you're just roleplaying your character then I got no beef with ya'. It's when people try to defend Paragon on the forums as though it is at all practical or rational that the vein in my forehead starts pulsating.

you do realize how hypocritcal that sounds right?

[Alienoudamour]

You know there are actually paragon people who fully respect renegade choices huh?

I'm mostly paragon 'cause I feel I would have act like this in real life, but to me, it's just perspective...

[GodWood]

Shandepared wrote...

When it comes to Shiala I spare her for two reasons:

1.) I really like her cameo in ME2, most especially a certain piece of dialog you can get from her

Which dialogue?

[AdamNW]

I will still never understand how rewriting the Geth is paragon.

My list of Renegade actions (Assume everything else is Paragon as can be):

-Kill the Rachni
-Killed Maelon
-Left Ronald Taylor to rot
-Beat up Elias
-Killed Balak

May be others but I forgot.

Modifié par AdamNW, 11 septembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[GodWood]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Shandepared wrote...
If you're just roleplaying your character then I got no beef with ya'. It's when people try to defend Paragon on the forums as though it is at all practical or rational that the vein in my forehead starts pulsating.

I BLEW UP THE COLLECTOR BASE.
"Why?"
BECAUSE WE DONT NEED IT TO FIGHT THE REAPERS, SHEPARD CAN WIN WITHOUT IT. HE'LL FIND A WAY.

Sadly, he will.

[wizardryforever]

In purely hypothetical terms:
Save council -> attempt to stop Sovereign fails -> relay opens, galaxy doomed
or
Save council -> attempt to stop Sovereign succeeds anyway -> galaxy saved, for now

Let the council die -> attempt to stop Sovereign succeeds -> galaxy saved, for now, only with deep distrust -> Reapers use that distrust to win anyway
or
Let the council die -> attempt to stop Sovereign succeeds -> galaxy saved, for now, only with deep distrust -> the galaxy somehow pulls together in spite of distrust to fend off the Reapers

Either way, the galaxy is at risk, the only difference is when.  The above assumes that it is possible to stop Sovereign, and does not include any metagame knowledge.  So the whole idea of saving the council being a risk and letting them die being the safe choice is bogus.  They're both a risk.  It is just a matter of which do you think is the more acceptable risk.

[Dave of Canada]

GodWood wrote...

Sadly, he will.

That mostly requires metagaming. You KNOW that Shepard will be able to win Collector Base or no, yet if this was the real world and the future was uncertain then blowing up the Collector Base is ridiculous. Paragons are just... so self righteous it makes me cry.

"WHAT YOU DID TO THE KROGAN IS WRONG, MORDIN" for example makes me loathe being Paragon during that loyalty quest.

[AdamNW]

GodWood wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Shandepared wrote...
If you're just roleplaying your character then I got no beef with ya'. It's when people try to defend Paragon on the forums as though it is at all practical or rational that the vein in my forehead starts pulsating.

I BLEW UP THE COLLECTOR BASE.
"Why?"
BECAUSE WE DONT NEED IT TO FIGHT THE REAPERS, SHEPARD CAN WIN WITHOUT IT. HE'LL FIND A WAY.

Sadly, he will.

And it's not like TIM was going to lose control of this technology following the reaper war.

...wait.

Modifié par AdamNW, 11 septembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[Rockworm503]

Shandepared wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

you do realize how hypocritcal that sounds right?

Enlighten me.

They can't just enjoy the way they play?  They have to be renegade or their playing it wrong?  Thats the kind of attitude I'm getting from you in this thread.  Its either renegade or you have no business in this galaxy.
I think paragon players should defend themselves against you... no wait I think they shouldn't have to.

[KLUME777]

Dave of Canada wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Here's why:  If you send part of your fleet to save the Council, you do risk Sovereign succeeding.  If you don't save the Council, society is disrupted greatly by the loss.  It's more complicated than that, but this is what it all boils down to.  You either risk destruction now by attempting to preserve your chances later, or you throw all of your eggs into one basket and win now only to cripple your chances later.  Given the fact that the Reapers are coming regardless of whether you stop Sovereign or not, saving the Council is the logical choice.

Personally, I'd rather focus on the now than the later. If Sovereign wins, the Council being saved means nothing. That and when Sovereign is ontop of the Citadel summoning forth the Reapers, the last thing I think about is galatic stability.

And also, lets not forget, i hated the council.

If the council is dead, that leaves room for more human leadership.

[Rockworm503]

Shandepared wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

They can't just enjoy the way they play?

They can, but if they're going to try and justify paragon as actually being logical then I'm going to spar with them over it. I've played paragon Shepard's myself, but I wouldn't ever defend her decisions (at least not most of them).

Ok spock every decision has to be logical.
They should've made Shepard a Vulcan... would've made you happy.

[Rockworm503]

KLUME777 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Here's why:  If you send part of your fleet to save the Council, you do risk Sovereign succeeding.  If you don't save the Council, society is disrupted greatly by the loss.  It's more complicated than that, but this is what it all boils down to.  You either risk destruction now by attempting to preserve your chances later, or you throw all of your eggs into one basket and win now only to cripple your chances later.  Given the fact that the Reapers are coming regardless of whether you stop Sovereign or not, saving the Council is the logical choice.

Personally, I'd rather focus on the now than the later. If Sovereign wins, the Council being saved means nothing. That and when Sovereign is ontop of the Citadel summoning forth the Reapers, the last thing I think about is galatic stability.

And also, lets not forget, i hated the council.

If the council is dead, that leaves room for more human leadership.

yeah and we see how wonderfully their running things