585 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

I can buy that one - the crew and Chakwas - as a moral choice. The others though?

Edit: My Paragade sends back the Tech Specialist.  They did their job in a really hot tube and came through.  Furthermore, as the CO of the Normandy I am responsible for the crew, so I try to get them out.  But I don't do pure Paragon/Renegade.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 septembre 2010 - 03:49 .

[jbblue05]

BristowJ wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

BristowJ wrote...




Yes, I did read it.  And it seemed you quite clearly believed that the rachni would attack the krogan.  

Yes, the rachni did attack first because of the indoctrination from the reapers.  The asari on Illium says that the rachni are not inherently hostile.  The rachni were manipulated by the reapers to start the war in the first place.

Yeah they should attack the Krogan when they are self-sufficient which they are not they are still rebuilding starting a war with the Krogan while the Rachni are in their current state is counterproductive.

Wow you are so trusting and naive about the Rachni of course the Queen is going to want you to believe you made the right choice and that all Rachni are paragons

She's not going to say yeah we started it and thanks to you we are going to finish it on our terms death to all Krogan! the Rachni have risen from the ashes and will spread across the galaxy in a sea of blood(Evil Laugh)

The only person who knows the truth is Sovereign
You could be right
I could be right
or their is a lot more to the story
Who knows? 

From what I remember of what Tartakovsky said in the first game, the rachni can build up their number quickly.  Besides one of the news things you hear is that rachni scout ships were spotted by some random ship.  Why do you assume they are still rebuilding?  

Why should they attack the krogan?  What are you not understanding?  The rachni were brain washed by the reapers into attacking.  Do you assume everyone who you speak with in the game is lying to you?  That everyone in the game is manipulating you into helping them? 

Yeah they can replinish their numbers fast but rebuilding your whole civilization,culture and infrastructure FROM SCRATCH isn't something you can do in 2 years.  If Bioware writes the story that way its complete BS and is just rewarding Paragons even more. They have scout ships nothing said they had fighter frigates cruisers dreadnoughts or space stations. If they did that in 2 years their is no way they could be beaten by any species.  Its going to take decades for the Rachni to rebuild everything they lossed.

What are you not understanding I'm not going to trust a huge bug's word after a 2 minute conversation.
I don't to trust just anyone just by their word.  I'm going to apply logic and look for multiple sources to confirm a story.  I would only trust people who have earned my trust.
Look at what happened with Vasir Bioware forced you to trust her while the whole time I knew it was too convienent for her to show up     Why would a Spectre take an interest in a random shooting?

Modifié par jbblue05, 13 septembre 2010 - 03:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

Referring to the discussion of getting teammates killed in the suicide mission. Is there a moral decision that could lead to a squadmate getting killed? Is it metagaming? Or based on failing/skipping Loyalty missions?



My point was that - aside from the example you posted above - getting out of the CB with your team alive isn't the result of a moral choice but competing the game and choosing the right personnel for the right job.

[Nightwriter]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

There were a lot of people who just happened to get the "no one left behind" achievement on their first try. I don't think these people should go back and kill off squadmates for the sake of drama.

Personally, I play games to do things I can't do normally, like become a hero and save everybody.

I play games so I can hate myself in multiple worlds.

Indeed, it has always seemed to me that this is a lot of people's motivation for playing.

[Katya Nadanova]

jbblue05 wrote...

Yeah they can replinish their numbers fast but rebuilding your whole civilization,culture and infrastructure FROM SCRATCH isn't something you can do in 2 years.  If Bioware writes the story that way its complete BS and is just rewarding Paragons even more. They have scout ships nothing said they had fighter frigates cruisers dreadnoughts or space stations. If they did that in 2 years their is no way they could be beaten by any species.  Its going to take decades for the Rachni to rebuild everything they lossed.

What are you not understanding I'm not going to trust a huge bug's word after a 2 minute conversation.
I don't to trust just anyone just by their word.  I'm going to apply logic and look for multiple sources to confirm a story.  I would only trust people who have earned my trust.
Look at what happened with Vasir Bioware forced you to trust her while the whole time I knew it was too convienent for her to show up     Why would a Spectre take an interest in a random shooting?

We know next to nothing about the rachni.  Why is it impossible?  Because you say it is?  And to say BioWare is rewarding paragons is absurd.  You are the one who makes the decisions.  If your don't choose to save them that is your fault.  And why do you assume saving the rachni is a long term paragon choice? Sure you get paragon points right away but it could prove to be detrimental to your cause.  We don't, and won't know until ME 3.

How is she suppose to earn your trust if out do not give her an opportunity to do so?  Assuming the worst from someone is not always the best way to make decisions.  Have you never heard of taking a leap of faith?  Besides Tartakovsky clearly states that the rachni are an intelligent species and if you kill her you are committing genocide.

[Nightwriter]

BristowJ wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

There were a lot of people who just happened to get the "no one left behind" achievement on their first try. I don't think these people should go back and kill off squadmates for the sake of drama.

Personally, I play games to do things I can't do normally, like become a hero and save everybody.

I agree. That said, I didn't get the "No One Left Behind" achievement until my third playthrough. But my main Shep saved everyone and that's all that matters to me.

I didn't get the achievement in my first playthrough either. But I'm still sticking with the playthrough where everyone lived.

I just really liked all the characters and it seems so pointless to kill them off out of a need to make the story grimmer or grizzlier.

[Dave of Canada]

Nightwriter wrote...

I just really liked all the characters and it seems so pointless to kill them off out of a need to make the story grimmer or grizzlier.

But when you lose people on the suicide mission and talk with Liara on the Normandy, it's brought up and makes the scene sadder.

[Nightwriter]

Really? What does she say?

[scotchtape622]

I have some playthroughs with deaths, and some with none. My main Shepard got everyone out alive, but I may change that

[Dave of Canada]

Nightwriter wrote...

Really? What does she say?

Shepard said that he felt like he failed them or something like that, I didn't sleep in a bajillion years and can't remember exactly. (this is on my everybody-is-dead-but-two-people playthrough)

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 04:26 .

[Katya Nadanova]

Nightwriter wrote...

BristowJ wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

There were a lot of people who just happened to get the "no one left behind" achievement on their first try. I don't think these people should go back and kill off squadmates for the sake of drama.

Personally, I play games to do things I can't do normally, like become a hero and save everybody.

I agree. That said, I didn't get the "No One Left Behind" achievement until my third playthrough. But my main Shep saved everyone and that's all that matters to me.

I didn't get the achievement in my first playthrough either. But I'm still sticking with the playthrough where everyone lived.

I just really liked all the characters and it seems so pointless to kill them off out of a need to make the story grimmer or grizzlier.

Same for me.  I don't understand why people feel the need to make the story more dramatic by killing off characters.  I like saving everyone, it makes me feel like a hero.

[Nightwriter]

Exactly, I just feel like life is about not being able to control bad things. Games are about being able to control bad things. And you let bad things happen anyway? I just don't understand.

[Nightwriter]

You are not logical. You fancy yourself as logical, but you are not. Gameplay is nothing but preference, and there is no right preference. It is no more logical for you to deliberately kill someone you know you can save than it is for me to keep that person alive. Your way is darker by choice, just as my way is lighter by choice. But make no mistake - it is only choice.

[jbblue05]

BristowJ wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Yeah they can replinish their numbers fast but rebuilding your whole civilization,culture and infrastructure FROM SCRATCH isn't something you can do in 2 years.  If Bioware writes the story that way its complete BS and is just rewarding Paragons even more. They have scout ships nothing said they had fighter frigates cruisers dreadnoughts or space stations. If they did that in 2 years their is no way they could be beaten by any species.  Its going to take decades for the Rachni to rebuild everything they lossed.

What are you not understanding I'm not going to trust a huge bug's word after a 2 minute conversation.
I don't to trust just anyone just by their word.  I'm going to apply logic and look for multiple sources to confirm a story.  I would only trust people who have earned my trust.
Look at what happened with Vasir Bioware forced you to trust her while the whole time I knew it was too convienent for her to show up     Why would a Spectre take an interest in a random shooting?

We know next to nothing about the rachni.  Why is it impossible?  Because you say it is?  And to say BioWare is rewarding paragons is absurd.  You are the one who makes the decisions.  If your don't choose to save them that is your fault.  And why do you assume saving the rachni is a long term paragon choice? Sure you get paragon points right away but it could prove to be detrimental to your cause.  We don't, and won't know until ME 3.

How is she suppose to earn your trust if out do not give her an opportunity to do so?  Assuming the worst from someone is not always the best way to make decisions.  Have you never heard of taking a leap of faith?  Besides Tartakovsky clearly states that the rachni are an intelligent species and if you kill her you are committing genocide.

You really don't see how unbelievable it is for the Rachni to rebuild everything they lost in 2 years and if they could don't you see how dangerous they are.  Its been 2 years and the Council is still cleaning debris left from Sovereign.  How is it absurd that they are rewarding paragons? They specifically are making rachni a paragon species in ME2 I have been saying we don't know the complete story of the Rachni the whole time thanks for re-asserting my point.

The only way for the Queen to earn your trust is to let her go and when you do that it doesn't matter if she's benevolent or deceitful the Queen got what she wanted she doessn't have to prove anything to you anymore. Why would I take a leap on a species when all I know about them is they nearly overran the entire galaxy.  Most paragon players assume the worst from Cerberus which means no base for TIM.  The Galaxy doesn't miss the Rachni its been 1400 years and the sun rises and sets I see no problem letting them stay extinct.  Re-introducing the Rachni is huge risk  adding more chaos into in already chaotic galaxy.  I take leaps of faith I let the Council Die and I let TIM have the base.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

PWENER wrote...


There will also not be a war against humanity, that's what the base and human council are for. The other races are also too separated to unite in an all out revolution war against us (they can't even believe the Reaper threat is real, they can go to hell, they don't deserve to control the galaxy, we do. After all, we're the only ones actually doing anything to stop the Repaers).

Wow. Just wow.

[izmirtheastarach]

Since the Rachni are hinted to have been corrupted by Nazara, it's entirely possible that the Reapers could once again exert some sort of control over them once again. It's a risk one takes when playing a pure Paragon.

[Dave of Canada]

Nightwriter wrote...

Exactly, I just feel like life is about not being able to control bad things. Games are about being able to control bad things. And you let bad things happen anyway? I just don't understand.

I view the Mass Effect world as a parallel of ours (but set in the future ), same consequences and such apply. When I approach a situation like say... the Suicide Mission without any deaths, the entire event loses it's drama and the mission that everybody feared is nothing more than a simple mission with more dialogue. When I put myself in the shoes of Commander Shepard, the death of a companion makes me feel like I failed them and the mission becomes a lot more personal for me.

I've talked over a lot of friends who literally wept when Tali died, they refused to allow it and reloaded the mission to make sure she survived. When something like that happens to me, I'd rather view it as a consequence rather than a something that a reload would fix.

Fortunately I never had anybody die due to my mistake though, anytime somebody died in the Suicide Mission was because I willed it to be. Tali eats a rocket in the face the majority of the time when I kill somebody off.

EDIT: I hope that made sense, I'm drifting in and out of coherence.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 04:52 .

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

You are not logical. You fancy yourself as logical, but you are not.

Explain, please.

I just did.

You always seem to choose the path that will make you the most able to condescend paragons for choosing an alternate path.

How is this logic.