585 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, it's more like 10000 lives vs. 2500 or so.The Destiny Ascension's crew are people too. And I'm not indignant in the least; humanity is a well-respected species among the Council now (more or less), the Citadel is stronger than ever, and I got to tell off Al-Jillani.

But you're saving the Council, that's the point of the choice. It's not saving some civilian transport vessel or something. You're also sending human ships in prime condition to save a ship that's down and out for the fight. You're risking not having enough firepower for Sovereign.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, it's more like 10000 lives vs. 2500 or so.The Destiny Ascension's crew are people too. And I'm not indignant in the least; humanity is a well-respected species among the Council now (more or less), the Citadel is stronger than ever, and I got to tell off Al-Jillani.

But you're saving the Council, that's the point of the choice. It's not saving some civilian transport vessel or something. You're also sending human ships in prime condition to save a ship that's down and out for the fight. You're risking not having enough firepower for Sovereign.

I had an enormous fleet, and deemed that the bunch of dropships hammering the Destiny Ascension wouldn't hurt  its chances against Sovereign much. I was correct. I am utterly at peace with my choice.

[chris025657]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

chris025657 wrote...
Renegade is not about doing the easy thing. Renegade is more Machiavellian in the sense of doing whatever is necessary in the consideration of the greater good. 

Yeah, expediency is a better word.

No, I don't think expediency is the right word either. 

For example, say your standing on a footbridge and your see an out of control trolly car. If the car continues on its current path, it will kill five workers down the tracks. However, you have the option of pushing a large man standing next to you to his death so that the trolly would be stopped, saving the lives of five people. This would be renegade as it is saving five lives at the expense of one.  

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Take ME1's final choice, for example. I, for one, do not consider three people to outweigh the survival of all life. Three lives is three lives, but it does not have more value than four, or four hundred, or a million, or billions, when those three lives are not indespensible, and taking a gamble on everyone and everything for the sake of three political figures strikes me not only as reckless, but morally repugnant.

Actually, it's more like 10000 lives vs. 2500 or so.The Destiny Ascension's crew are people too. And I'm not indignant in the least; humanity is a well-respected species among the Council now (more or less), the Citadel is stronger than ever, and I got to tell off Al-Jillani.

Those are the metagaming end-result outcomes. You were prepared to risk 10,000 lives versus10,000,000,000 human lives, and another XXX,000,000,000 alien lives.

You can be as all-pleased as you want after your gamble paid off, but the fact that you were willing to take a far, far greater to the 1/1000 life balance... and they call Renegades uncaring.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:39 .

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

I had an enormous fleet, and deemed that the bunch of dropships hammering the Destiny Ascension wouldn't hurt  its chances against Sovereign much. I was correct. I am utterly at peace with my choice.

But this is why I hate the Paragon. You take the biggest risks in the entire galaxy but guess what, it always turns out sunshine and lolipops.  A Paragon could leave a psychotic murderer alive and then he'd turn his life around and the murderer is now a clown doing kid parties!

It just doesn't work that way.

[upsettingshorts]

Because it was a false choice.

"Save the Council" - You save the Council and kill Sovereign in X amount of time.
"Concentrate on Sovereign" - You sacrifice the Council to maximize the chances of killing Sovereign. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.
"Forget the Council." - You cynically ignore the Council because hey, it's your chance to get rid of them. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.

If upsettingshorts was writing that final decision, the choice "Save the Council" would have resulted in reduced firepower available to shoot at Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down, thus dramatically increasing the collateral damage to the Citadel. Damage which could potentially have an effect on the story in some way.  Or maybe I'd go with my earlier suggestion of having "Save the Council" result in a GAME OVER message as the Alliance Fleet doesn't have enough left to finish Sovereign in time and everyone dies.  You can still have a Paragon vs. Renegade ending based on how you reconstitute the Council.

See what I'm saying about the good path being too easy?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[Homebound]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I had an enormous fleet, and deemed that the bunch of dropships hammering the Destiny Ascension wouldn't hurt  its chances against Sovereign much. I was correct. I am utterly at peace with my choice.

But this is why I hate the Paragon. You take the biggest risks in the entire galaxy but guess what, it always turns out sunshine and lolipops.  A Paragon could leave a psychotic murderer alive and then he'd turn his life around and the murderer is now a clown doing kid parties!

It just doesn't work that way.

You forget about that Asari Eclipse Merc in Samara's recruitment. The Paragon way is to let her go. Then you find out she killed that Volus. The Renegade way is to shoot her.

[Xilizhra]

Those are the metagaming end-result outcomes. You were prepared to risk 10,000 lives versus 10,000,000,000 human lives, and likely XXX,000,000,000 alien lives.



You can be as all-pleased as you want after your gamble paid off, but the fact that you were willing to take a far, far greater to the 1/1000 life risk... and they call Renegades uncaring.

If I didn't think the Fifth Fleet could save the Destiny Ascension and stop Sovereign, I wouldn't have told them to do so. Notably Joker, the one who's actually with the fleet and probably knows something about how fleet strength works, in addition to having seen Sovereign in action before, is the one who makes the suggestion in the first place.

[Dave of Canada]

Just_mike wrote...

You forget about that Asari Eclipse Merc in Samara's recruitment. The Paragon way is to let her go. Then you find out she killed that Volus. The Renegade way is to shoot her.

One time out of a thousand. And the cops are tracking her down.

[The Big Nothing]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because it was a false choice.

"Save the Council" - You save the Council and kill Sovereign in X amount of time.
"Concentrate on Sovereign" - You sacrifice the Council to maximize the chances of killing Sovereign. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.
"Forget the Council." - You cynically ignore the Council because hey, it's your chance to get rid of them. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.

If upsettingshorts was writing that final decision, the choice "Save the Council" would have resulted in reduced firepower available to shoot at Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down, thus dramatically increasing the collateral damage to the Citadel. Damage which could potentially have an effect on the story in some way.  Or maybe I'd go with my earlier suggestion of having "Save the Council" result in a GAME OVER message as the Alliance Fleet doesn't have enough left to finish Sovereign in time and everyone dies.  You can still have a Paragon vs. Renegade ending based on how you reconstitute the Council.

See what I'm saying about the good path being too easy?

Fascism.

[upsettingshorts]

Then refer to my "false choice" post. It's not a choice. It's "do you want your Shepard to be nice or be a jerk."

If they were being honest on the dialogue wheel for that one it woulda been translated to:

"Save the Council" -> "Have our cake and eat it too."
"Concentrate on Sovereign" -> "Hedge"
"Let the Council Die" -> "Be a total jerk"

The Big Nothing wrote...

Fascism.

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie] Now you're just trollin'.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:46 .

[Xilizhra]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because it was a false choice.

"Save the Council" - You save the Council and kill Sovereign in X amount of time.
"Concentrate on Sovereign" - You sacrifice the Council to maximize the chances of killing Sovereign. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.
"Forget the Council." - You cynically ignore the Council because hey, it's your chance to get rid of them. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.

If upsettingshorts was writing that final decision, the choice "Save the Council" would have resulted in reduced firepower available to shoot at Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down, thus dramatically increasing the collateral damage to the Citadel. Damage which could potentially have an effect on the story in some way.  Or maybe I'd go with my earlier suggestion of having "Save the Council" result in a GAME OVER message as the Alliance Fleet doesn't have enough left to finish Sovereign in time and everyone dies.  You can still have a Paragon vs. Renegade ending based on how you reconstitute the Council.

See what I'm saying about the good path being too easy?

I have no objection to the first suggestion, but having a dialogue wheel suggestion kill you (unless it's something both blatant and at a noncritical time, like Morinth's proposition) is a terrible idea.

[The Big Nothing]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, it's more like 10000 lives vs. 2500 or so.The Destiny Ascension's crew are people too. And I'm not indignant in the least; humanity is a well-respected species among the Council now (more or less), the Citadel is stronger than ever, and I got to tell off Al-Jillani.

But you're saving the Council, that's the point of the choice. It's not saving some civilian transport vessel or something. You're also sending human ships in prime condition to save a ship that's down and out for the fight. You're risking not having enough firepower for Sovereign.

I kind of wish I had suffered more for saving the Destiny Ascension. All of the other choices are irrelevant, unless you really don't like the Council.

[Dean_the_Young]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because it was a false choice.

"Save the Council" - You save the Council and kill Sovereign in X amount of time.
"Concentrate on Sovereign" - You sacrifice the Council to maximize the chances of killing Sovereign. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.
"Forget the Council." - You cynically ignore the Council because hey, it's your chance to get rid of them. Sovereign still dies in X amount of time.

If upsettingshorts was writing that final decision, the choice "Save the Council" would have resulted in reduced firepower available to shoot at Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down, thus dramatically increasing the collateral damage to the Citadel. Damage which could potentially have an effect on the story in some way.  Or maybe I'd go with my earlier suggestion of having "Save the Council" result in a GAME OVER message as the Alliance Fleet doesn't have enough left to finish Sovereign in time and everyone dies.  You can still have a Paragon vs. Renegade ending based on how you reconstitute the Council.

See what I'm saying about the good path being too easy?

That is a better idea, I admit, and I'm not just saying it.

I personally like Shandepard's scenario: no matter which choice you make, the Council dies. Either it dies because you did nothing, or it dies despite you trying (and then we could throw in your increased devestation). The key, however, is how humanity is remembered from that open-broadcast decision: as a species which tried its best to help, or didn't try at all (and then seized power). Same end-result regardless, and then they wouldn't have had to dance around making the Council pretty much irrelevant in ME2 because there would have been a replacement Council regardless.

[Barquiel]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If upsettingshorts was writing that final decision, the choice "Save the Council" would have resulted in reduced firepower available to shoot at Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down, thus dramatically increasing the collateral damage to the Citadel. Damage which could potentially have an effect on the story in some way.  Or maybe I'd go with my earlier suggestion of having "Save the Council" result in a GAME OVER message as the Alliance Fleet doesn't have enough left to finish Sovereign in time and everyone dies.  You can still have a Paragon vs. Renegade ending based on how you reconstitute the Council.

See what I'm saying about the good path being too easy?

If Barquiel was writing that final decision, the choice "Concentrate on Sovereign" would have resulted in geth ships attacking Hacketts fleet while they're fighting Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down...

[izmirtheastarach]

The Big Nothing wrote...

I kind of wish I had suffered more for saving the Destiny Ascension. All of the other choices are irrelevant, unless you really don't like the Council.

This is what it all boils down to. In the end, that's all you were choosing. Even that doesn't seem to have a serious effect on the gameworld.

[Mecha Tengu]

Just_mike wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I had an enormous fleet, and deemed that the bunch of dropships hammering the Destiny Ascension wouldn't hurt  its chances against Sovereign much. I was correct. I am utterly at peace with my choice.

But this is why I hate the Paragon. You take the biggest risks in the entire galaxy but guess what, it always turns out sunshine and lolipops.  A Paragon could leave a psychotic murderer alive and then he'd turn his life around and the murderer is now a clown doing kid parties!

It just doesn't work that way.

You forget about that Asari Eclipse Merc in Samara's recruitment. The Paragon way is to let her go. Then you find out she killed that Volus. The Renegade way is to shoot her.

I think that was the only exception in the game. Most Paragon options end up successfully

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...
I have no objection to the first suggestion, but having a dialogue wheel suggestion kill you (unless it's something both blatant and at a noncritical time, like Morinth's proposition) is a terrible idea.

Yeah the first idea would fit fine.  The second idea just amuses me.  

[Xilizhra]

Shandepared wrote...

My main issue with renegades being "punished" isn't that renegade choices don't create a more peaceful universe. What annoys me is that renegade players get punished by missing out on content. Shiala is actually one of the better choices because even if you kill her you still get the quest. Sadly, you don't get as much dialog. Perhaps you should have met Elizabeth instead of Shiala if you'd killed her.

What I don't like is that if you shoot Toombs and arrest the scientist you just never hear mention of that again. (though the "true" renegade option is to shoot the scientist) If you kill the rachni queen, it's never mentioned again. A paragon meets one of the queen's agents but a renegade gets nothing. Perhaps they should have run into a surviving researcher or something, or perhaps the events on Peak 15 are exposed if the queen dies and Shepard gets some extra dialog with Al'Jalani. (the idea being that if the queen was released the Council makes damn sure the events there stay secret to avoid a panic, but if she dies they let that go public to punish Binary-Heelix)

The point is, the player shouldn't be punished for their choices. You can punish the character and still reward the player. For example say if you allowed Fist to escape when you meet him in ME2 he pretends to have vital intel on the Collectors and asks you to meet him somewhere. You go there and meet him but it's a trap and you have to fight your way out. Well obvious Shepard made the wrong choice to let him go back in ME1, but the result was that the player was rewarded with an extra gun-fight and loot.

Similarly, if you paragon Conrad Verner in ME1 you should just get an email from him in ME2. If however you renegaded him then we all know what happens. He leaves Earth and starts causing trouble. The player however is rewarded with chances at more renegade points and a discount at a shop, in addition to the cameo. (actually I've read something like this was intended but it's bugged)

I wouldn't mind this either. It could be a pleasant compromise of sorts, peraps (though again, I think it's sort of thematically appropriate that the Shepard who cares about nothing but getting the job done... gets nothing but the job done).

[upsettingshorts]

Barquiel wrote...
If Barquiel was writing that final decision, the choice "Concentrate on Sovereign" would have resulted in geth ships attacking Hacketts fleet while they're fighting Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down...

Then why bother having a choice at all? There's already a negative side effect of "Concentrate on Sovereign" - the Geth blow up the Destiny Ascension.

The whole point of this discussion is:

1) "Save the Council" - no negative side effects. None.
2) "Concentrate on Sovereign" - negative side effect, Council dies.
3) "Forget the Council" - negative side effect, Shepard is a total jerk

[Dave of Canada]

Shandepared wrote...

Similarly, if you paragon Conrad Verner in ME1 you should just get an email from him in ME2. If however you renegaded him then we all know what happens. He leaves Earth and starts causing trouble. The player however is rewarded with chances at more renegade points and a discount at a shop, in addition to the cameo. (actually I've read something like this was intended but it's bugged)

I believe there'sbugged dialogue that suggested Conrad pretended to have ran with Shepard's group instead of acting like a badass, the scene changed entirely.

[Dave of Canada]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Barquiel wrote...
If Barquiel was writing that final decision, the choice "Concentrate on Sovereign" would have resulted in geth ships attacking Hacketts fleet while they're fighting Sovereign, making it take 2X as long to bring down...

Then why bother having a choice at all? There's already a negative side effect of "Concentrate on Sovereign" - the Geth blow up the Destiny Ascension.

The whole point of this discussion is:

1) "Save the Council" - no negative side effects. None.
2) "Concentrate on Sovereign" - negative side effect, Council dies.
3) "Forget the Council" - negative side effect, Shepard is a total jerk

You also forgot to mention how 2 and 3 also resulted in everybody hating you regardless of how the Council was rebuilt. :x

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:57 .

[Barquiel]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

1) "Save the Council" - no negative side effects. None.
2) "Concentrate on Sovereign" - negative side effect, Council dies.
3) "Forget the Council" - negative side effect, Shepard is a total jerk

I had the impression that most renegades like the "concentrate on Sovereign" outcome...humans dominate the galaxy.

[Mecha Tengu]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

1) "Save the Council" - no negative side effects. None.

uh a lot of humans die