585 réponses à ce sujet

[Katya Nadanova]

Dave of Canada wrote...

BristowJ wrote...

I know that was metagaming, that's why there was the bit afterwards that wasn't metagaming.  The whole genocide bit, isn't really something a paragon would do unless they think the rachni would be a greater threat in the future.  Genocide isn't something that would get celebrated, is it?

But neither should risking the galaxy by unleashing a species that very nearly wiped it out, yet it just so happens everybody's a-okay with it.

And?  Just because the asari said it doesn't mean it will happen.  It could be a plot twist.

That would be one lame plottwist, especially since she's promised that she'll help you fight.

Have you forgotten what the Collector base does?  Is their a reason they be should be happy you kept it?

When they are the ones who suggested it in the first place, they shouldn't be the ones disapproving. What's wrong with having people disapprove of taking it and blowing it up? Can't have conflicting reports, Paragons must always be praised?

The companion dialogue at that situation is like in the first game where one of your squad mates say:  "Save the council!"  While the other says:  "What have they done for you lately?".

Doesn't work that way in ME2. Companions have one opinion and stay with it. Grunt and Legion's conversation would be like...

"I say keep the base."
"I agree."

They only change their opinion once you get onboard the Normandy where Legion facepalms and Grunt calls you weak.

The asari on Illium says that the rachni are not inherently hostile.  The rachni were indoctrinated to fight.  You don't know that in the first game, but the choice is commit genocide or trust her and give them a second chance.  Who is everyone?  Not that many people in game seem to know anything about it.

Would it?  Or would it be a moment when a paragon choice doesn't turn out as intended.

When they are the ones who suggested it in the first place, they shouldn't be the ones disapproving. What's wrong with having people disapprove of taking it and blowing it up? Can't have conflicting reports, Paragons must always be praised?

What are you trying to say here?

Apparently it does work that way in ME 2.

[Dave of Canada]

Last post of the day, I'm tired and can't see straight.

... also waking up in 2 hours to go to class and then work.

BristowJ wrote...

The asari on Illium says that the rachni are not inherently hostile.  The rachni were indoctrinated to fight.  You don't know that in the first game, but the choice is commit genocide or trust her and give them a second chance.

And that choice could've backfired. Heavily. It's a ridiculously large risk that Renegades didn't take and because of it, we've lost an ally in the Rachni and it's never mentioned in the game at all. Binary Helix isn't mentioned, Noveria's entire Rachni chapter is never mentioned. If you killed the Rachni Queen, you're punished by getting nothing. You could play the Default Shepard and have equally as much content for this decision.

Would it?  Or would it be a moment when a paragon choice doesn't turn out as intended.

When they heavily suggest something, including having the Queen say it, then suddenly change it around 180 degrees. It's rather lame, yes.

What are you trying to say here?

Apparently it does work that way in ME 2.

A Paragon takes Grunt and Legion to the Reaper-Terminator, they destroy it. Grunt and Legion both go "Alright, take the base." but you blow it up instead. The Paragon gets praise from everybody on the Normandy, including those who supported keeping the base itself.

A Renegade on the other hand blows the base up, everybody scolds you and such. Says it was a bad move, you're weak and such.

Why must the game pretty much give the Paragon a pat on the back? It's essentially saying "Good job!" to you while being a Renegade makes even those who support the base angry at you. Why does the game immediately have to make the Paragon Shepard idolized and worshipped by everybody? Couldn't they have kept everybody's respective opinion? Couldn't Legion / Grunt have been disappointed if you blew it up?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 07:36 .

[DukeOfNukes]

As a side note...I actually like the idea of not being given the opportunity to make many choices in ME3, and instead having to deal with the consequences of your past actions. It seems like we've drawn our lines and armed our troops, and now all there is left is to resist the coming onslaught. Sure, you can make SOME decisions in the meantime, but the major ones have been made...and you either have the help of the rachni/quarians/geth, or you don't. The council has turned their blind eye, or perished at the hands of Sovereign.

[Katya Nadanova]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Last post of the day, I'm tired and can't see straight.

... also waking up in 2 hours to go to class and then work.

BristowJ wrote...

The asari on Illium says that the rachni are not inherently hostile.  The rachni were indoctrinated to fight.  You don't know that in the first game, but the choice is commit genocide or trust her and give them a second chance.

And that choice could've backfired. Heavily. It's a ridiculously large risk that Renegades didn't take and because of it, we've lost an ally in the Rachni and it's never mentioned in the game at all. Binary Helix isn't mentioned, Noveria's entire Rachni chapter is never mentioned. If you killed the Rachni Queen, you're punished by getting nothing. You could play the Default Shepard and have equally as much content for this decision.

Would it?  Or would it be a moment when a paragon choice doesn't turn out as intended.

When they heavily suggest something, including having the Queen say it, then suddenly change it around 180 degrees. It's rather lame, yes.

What are you trying to say here?

Apparently it does work that way in ME 2.

A Paragon takes Grunt and Legion to the Reaper-Terminator, they destroy it. Grunt and Legion both go "Alright, take the base." but you blow it up instead. The Paragon gets praise from everybody on the Normandy, including those who supported keeping the base itself.

A Renegade on the other hand blows the base up, everybody scolds you and such. Says it was a bad move, you're weak and such.

Why must the game pretty much give the Paragon a pat on the back? It's essentially saying "Good job!" to you while being a Renegade makes even those who support the base angry at you. Why does the game immediately have to make the Paragon Shepard idolized and worshipped by everybody? Couldn't they have kept everybody's respective opinion? Couldn't Legion / Grunt have been disappointed if you blew it up?

Well, actually it is mentioned, in one news cast on Omega, and the Citadel I think.  Why should it be mentioned if you took the renegade?  The situation is over there is no need to continue talking about it, especially after two years have passed.  What more content do you want, "Hey Ash remember when we killed the rachni two years ago?  Good times."  

I don't think it would be lame, the rachni threatened the galaxy and you have the option to save them.  Just because you get paragon points for saving them, doesn't mean it is a long term paragon decision.  It could still backfire.  Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

From what I remember/understand Legion, Grunt, etc. only say keep the base if your leaning towards destroying it.  If you outright say destroy it, from what I remember, they don't say anything.   They don't support or reject the idea.  Although, I could be wrong on this bit.  

Anyway, do I think companions who supported saving the base should continue to do so?  Yes.  It's slightly odd how they just change their minds.  But you can understand why they say you are weak, it was a bad decision etc.  Yes?  You are relying on someone else's technology to defeat them, which may or may not work, instead of looking for another option.  That can be considered weak.  It's also understandable why they say it was a bad decision too, from knowing what that base is capable of.

[GnusmasTHX]

The Collector base will be used to fight the Reapers. You must be daft if you think using it to secure Human dominance over the common galactic species precludes using the Collector base to fight the Reapers.



Learn to prioritize... Or at least multitask.

[LuxDragon]

It's kinda actually like, "What happens AFTER the Reapers?"

Who will be in control of the Collector Base and all the tech within (Thus, learning about Reaper tech before everyone else?)

If we win the war against the Reapers, their tech will be spread all around the galaxy. All the species will scoop them up and use it for themselves. They poke/prod/study everything about them and make whatever (Weapons most likely).

Since humans have been studying the Collector Base (And therefore, the Reapers) we have an advantage. It's just making sure we get first strike... or something.

My point is: people are also looking at the aftermath, not just the coming war itself.

[Bebbe777]

fongiel24 wrote...

PWENER wrote...

This is exactly the kind of post I was looking for (I still want human dominance though).

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).

If by "we" you mean Shepard, Anderson, and Cerberus, then you're right. If by "we" you mean humanity, then there's a problem. There's no evidence that the Alliance is acknowledging and preparing for the Reapers any more than the other Council races are.

As for uniting to crush humanity... they don't really need to unite to beat us. The turian fleet alone outnumbers the human fleet 4-to-1 in dreadnoughts and probably has a similar advantage in smaller vessels and troops. Humanity is acknowledged as a sleeping giant, but if one of the stronger Council races realizes humanity plans to attempt galactic domination and strikes first, there's no guarantee that "sleeping giant" will be able to wake up in time to defend itself.

I think I read that know that humanity is in the Council, we can have more dreadnoughts and we will also take over some of the Turians patrols. Meaning we can now expand our military thanks to more support from the Council. However, it will take some time to build a couple of dreadnoughts and many cruisers/frigates.

[AresXX7]

As for the Rachni, I was able to pick up on the hints in the game. They weren't really that subtle.

When I heard her say the  'sour yellow note', and  "a tone from space that hushed one voice after another" lines, it became fairly obvious.
There was no meta-gaming involved for me on this.

Dave of Canada wrote...

The thing about Cerberus failures is a little bit irritating. The Illusive Man only calls in Shepard to deal with the mess when something goes wrong, he doesn't message Shepard saying "Quickly, go the Tyrloda VII! We've found a virus that deletes enemy AI! We're all happy :D".

We've been called in how many times to fix the Alliance and it's problems? Roughly the same if not more but I don't see people insulting the Alliance as incompetent.

I can't even begin to count how many times I was swearing at the screen everytime a message from Hackett came up. I only wish there were more than just one time when Joker said "Big suprise, the Alliance needs you again...".

As for the renegade actions, there are times I think content related to the choice(s) should have been put in the game. Just like I agree some of the paragon choices should have had more consequences. 

Hopefully Bioware will stay true to their word that some of the key decisions, left out of ME2, will be included in ME3, for both sides.

Modifié par AriesXX7, 13 septembre 2010 - 10:04 .

[AresXX7]

Shandepared wrote...

BristowJ wrote...

Well, actually it is mentioned, in one news cast on Omega, and the Citadel I think.  Why should it be mentioned if you took the renegade?  The situation is over there is no need to continue talking about it, especially after two years have passed.  What more content do you want, "Hey Ash remember when we killed the rachni two years ago?  Good times."

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. I suggested that Miss Al'Jilani should bring this up if you killed the rachni queen. With the queen dead the Council felt safe in declassifying what happened there. They did this to get back at Binary Heelix which was participating in the experiment of sentient beings and building an army behind their back. This is revenge.

Al'Jilani of-course presses Shepard on this and tries to paint him as a murderous monster (which he is, in some people's eyes). The bonus of this is a longer interview with her if you killed the rachni queen (and decide not to punch her out).

In addition to that, Wreave/Wrex might bring this up again on Tuchanka too just for a little extra dialog.

Just as Shand said, it's a missed opportunity for the writers, and gamers, to acknowledge the fact that their choice(s) had any real effect on the game.

Basically, from what I gathered, in the discussions, just because a stituation has been dealt with in a more immediate fashion, doesn't mean it can't have any less of a ripple effect, it could just cause a different one.
That's what true role-playing should be.

Modifié par AriesXX7, 13 septembre 2010 - 10:02 .

[wizardryforever]

I fully expect some Paragon decisions to have negative consequences, though I would bet that most of them only occur after the Reapers are defeated.  For instance, the Rachni help you against the Reapers, but afterward, the Council (old or new) decides that they are too big of a threat to keep around, and launch a bloody war against them that lasts decades.  This would be especially likely if the Krogan are given a cure for the genophage (another Paragon decision).  I don't think that short-term consequences are the only ones that matter.  It's people who complain that certain choices didn't have any real effect on ME2 that irk me.  There's no reason for every decision you made to be important to the story of the second game, or even the third.  The aftermath is something that Bioware has always done an excellent job creating, especially in games like Dragon Age and Throne of Bhaal.

[jbblue05]

Bebbe777 wrote...

fongiel24 wrote...

PWENER wrote...

This is exactly the kind of post I was looking for (I still want human dominance though).

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).

If by "we" you mean Shepard, Anderson, and Cerberus, then you're right. If by "we" you mean humanity, then there's a problem. There's no evidence that the Alliance is acknowledging and preparing for the Reapers any more than the other Council races are.

As for uniting to crush humanity... they don't really need to unite to beat us. The turian fleet alone outnumbers the human fleet 4-to-1 in dreadnoughts and probably has a similar advantage in smaller vessels and troops. Humanity is acknowledged as a sleeping giant, but if one of the stronger Council races realizes humanity plans to attempt galactic domination and strikes first, there's no guarantee that "sleeping giant" will be able to wake up in time to defend itself.

I think I read that know that humanity is in the Council, we can have more dreadnoughts and we will also take over some of the Turians patrols. Meaning we can now expand our military thanks to more support from the Council. However, it will take some time to build a couple of dreadnoughts and many cruisers/frigates.

Their is no real benefit from killing the council then letting them live.
The Alliance only lose 4 more cruisers if you save the Council
They can rebuild those cruisers in 2 years and then some

If you save the Council the Alliance is supposed to be severely crippled not have a minor setback

Killing the Council means Human have the largest fleet in Council space but I don't see how four more cruisers
is the difference from powerhouse or severely crippled.

Maybe by saving the Council the Alliance didn't lose any ships at all maybe Sovereign destroyed those cruisers

Paragons take the biggest risk and get the biggest reward

Renegades do the smart thing and everybody hates you

[wizardryforever]

jbblue05 wrote...

Their is no real benefit from killing the council then letting them live.
The Alliance only lose 4 more cruisers if you save the Council
They can rebuild those cruisers in 2 years and then some

If you save the Council the Alliance is supposed to be severely crippled not have a minor setback

Killing the Council means Human have the largest fleet in Council space but I don't see how four more cruisers
is the difference from powerhouse or severely crippled.

Maybe by saving the Council the Alliance didn't lose any ships at all maybe Sovereign destroyed those cruisers

Paragons take the biggest risk and get the biggest reward

Renegades do the smart thing and everybody hates you

Well technically, the Alliance loses eight cruisers saving the Council.  Presumably, those eight cruisers make it easier for the Alliance to maintain control over the Citadel in the aftermath if the Council is killed.  Also, if the Council dies and humans take over, the Alliance gets to drastically increase the size of their navy with no repercussions from the Council.  Because of this, the Alliance fleet is most certainly larger, perhaps much larger, if you let the Council die.  That's not really a punishment.

Granted, you've done this at the cost of galactic unity and stability, which could be crippling in the fight with the Reapers.  There's a downside to both options really.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

I blew up the base. Granted I play paragon, but not all the reasons are purely paragon:

1) Cerberus's track record in playing around with alien tech is spotty at best.

2) Given Harbringer's ability to access the Collectors via remote, there's little reason not to think he couldn't do the same with other devices at the base. Who's to say he doesn't have some sort of indoctrination device he just has to flip a switch and he ends up "assuming direct control" of whatever Cerberus team is stationed at the base?

3) Given Cerberus' past, assuming the base is useful in defeating the Reapers, who is to say that Cerberus will not turn around and become the "new Reapers"? This may in fact be what Shepard meant about "not sacrificing the soul of our species" What's the point of defeating the Reapers if we end up turning ourselves into Reapers?

4) The Reapers have deliberately left their tech lying around so we can develop along the lines they want. Having the Reaper base may take us further along that path than they anticipated, but it won't teach us anything the Reapers don't already know. I don't see the benefits outweighing the risks.

The way I see it, if you keep the base, it may give some benefits for ME 3, but will likely block you off from others aiding you (likely the Alliance or Citadel). It will also almost certainly darken the overall ending (like keeping the Anvil of the Void in DAO)

^ This.

[jbblue05]

wizardryforever wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Their is no real benefit from killing the council then letting them live.
The Alliance only lose 4 more cruisers if you save the Council
They can rebuild those cruisers in 2 years and then some

If you save the Council the Alliance is supposed to be severely crippled not have a minor setback

Killing the Council means Human have the largest fleet in Council space but I don't see how four more cruisers
is the difference from powerhouse or severely crippled.

Maybe by saving the Council the Alliance didn't lose any ships at all maybe Sovereign destroyed those cruisers

Paragons take the biggest risk and get the biggest reward

Renegades do the smart thing and everybody hates you

Well technically, the Alliance loses eight cruisers saving the Council.  Presumably, those eight cruisers make it easier for the Alliance to maintain control over the Citadel in the aftermath if the Council is killed.  Also, if the Council dies and humans take over, the Alliance gets to drastically increase the size of their navy with no repercussions from the Council.  Because of this, the Alliance fleet is most certainly larger, perhaps much larger, if you let the Council die.  That's not really a punishment.

Granted, you've done this at the cost of galactic unity and stability, which could be crippling in the fight with the Reapers.  There's a downside to both options really.

If you watched the cutscenes Sovereign easily took out 4 Cruisers when the Alliance engages him.

Bioware needs to clarify iyou either lost 8 total cruisers in the entire battle or 8 cruisers saving the Council plus the 4 cruisers Sovereign destroyed.

Joker made it seem like saving the Council worked out just fine the battle was over before it really started.

Judging by how Sovereign's battle played out the same way if you killed or saved the council.  Its hard to tell what you've really lost.

Because Paragon Shepard said 8 cruisers were lost and in the cutscenes I've seen about 4 cruisers get destroyed by Sovereign.  I'm assuming letting the Council die nets the Alliance 4 extra cruisers.

Those 4 cruisers will come in handy but even if you saved the Council the Alliance can rebuild those 4 cruisers in a year or 2.

It doesn't matter if you killed or let the council die humans are still part of the  Council which means the Council new or old is going to significantly increase the amount of dreadnaughts for Council races to make the people feel more secure

If you let the Council die the benefit is not allowing the Turians to have more dreadnoughts then you. but the Turians still building more dreadnoughts then they are suppose to.

Dreadnoughts are not as easy to build they take a tremendous amount of resources and are time-consuming.  Each dreadnought loss is a SEVERE blow to the Navy

How is 4 more cruisers more powerful then any other species while 4 less means severely crippled and less powerful then other species.

 Their is no Galactic unity their is still Council Space Terminus Systems Flotilla and Krogan DMZ

Galactic Stability that's a good one

[Dean_the_Young]

Dave of Canada wrote...
A Paragon takes Grunt and Legion to the Reaper-Terminator, they destroy it. Grunt and Legion both go "Alright, take the base." but you blow it up instead. The Paragon gets praise from everybody on the Normandy, including those who supported keeping the base itself.

A Renegade on the other hand blows the base up, everybody scolds you and such. Says it was a bad move, you're weak and such.

Why must the game pretty much give the Paragon a pat on the back? It's essentially saying "Good job!" to you while being a Renegade makes even those who support the base angry at you. Why does the game immediately have to make the Paragon Shepard idolized and worshipped by everybody? Couldn't they have kept everybody's respective opinion? Couldn't Legion / Grunt have been disappointed if you blew it up?

Given that pretty much everyone on the Normandy needed my Shepard to resolve their family delimmas and make life choices for them, he's not exactly too impressed by their wories now.

What's that Legion? We shouldn't use Reaper technology to further ourselves? Nice time to grow a spine after I used Sovereign's data-core virus to rewrite the Heretics. I'm sorry Kasumi, you want to talk about risk? You couldn't even destroy your own lover's death secret like he asked.

About the only character I'd take lip from is Jacob, because he's actually a functioning individual who didn't need me to decide his fate for me: I was just the taxi service to get him there. Everyone else? 'Yes, that's nice, thanks for sharing you opinion. Now go back to work on this ship which houses no less than three mision-critical reaper technologies that Cerberus knows all about.'

[nelly21]

I really believe Bioware will give us renegade and pargon options regardless of whether we save the base or not. Remember in ME 1, if you let the Council die, Udina was talking about human domination and you have the option to say something along the lines of, "that's not why I did it".



Same thing will be true probably for ME3.

[upsettingshorts]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Everyone else? 'Yes, that's nice, thanks for sharing you opinion. Now go back to work on this ship which houses no less than three mision-critical reaper technologies that Cerberus knows all about.'

Congrats, this post of yours finally convinced me that I'm saving the base in my canon (leaning Paragon) playthrough.  Pat yourself on the back. 

[LessThanKate]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
A Paragon takes Grunt and Legion to the Reaper-Terminator, they destroy it. Grunt and Legion both go "Alright, take the base." but you blow it up instead. The Paragon gets praise from everybody on the Normandy, including those who supported keeping the base itself.

A Renegade on the other hand blows the base up, everybody scolds you and such. Says it was a bad move, you're weak and such.

Why must the game pretty much give the Paragon a pat on the back? It's essentially saying "Good job!" to you while being a Renegade makes even those who support the base angry at you. Why does the game immediately have to make the Paragon Shepard idolized and worshipped by everybody? Couldn't they have kept everybody's respective opinion? Couldn't Legion / Grunt have been disappointed if you blew it up?

Given that pretty much everyone on the Normandy needed my Shepard to resolve their family delimmas and make life choices for them, he's not exactly too impressed by their wories now.

What's that Legion? We shouldn't use Reaper technology to further ourselves? Nice time to grow a spine after I used Sovereign's data-core virus to rewrite the Heretics. I'm sorry Kasumi, you want to talk about risk? You couldn't even destroy your own lover's death secret like he asked.

About the only character I'd take lip from is Jacob, because he's actually a functioning individual who didn't need me to decide his fate for me: I was just the taxi service to get him there. Everyone else? 'Yes, that's nice, thanks for sharing you opinion. Now go back to work on this ship which houses no less than three mision-critical reaper technologies that Cerberus knows all about.'

I was always miffed that Grunt called me weak for keeping the base. Yeah, I'm weak, taking down that Thresher Maw was a total fluke.  And nothing shows I'm all talk like headbutting Unvenk. What happened to using what you're given?

Fun as it is to tell off the Illusive Man, keeping the base seems...more practical. Destroying it represents the possibly dangerous idealism that often personifies Paragon Shepard. But as some of the squad members allude to on the base, destroying the base won't bring all those people back. Shame most of them don't stick to their guns. Pretty sure Garrus is on your side no matter what...don't know that Zaeed has any dialogue for that, but I imagine he'd approve.

[Ultai]

I really hope that's just a writer screw up regarding their 180's back on the Normandy. I know I sat at that decision for like 5 minutes or so, debating in my head the pro's and con's of each decision on my first playthrough, eventually my paragade kept and will keep the base for my canon import.



As I said before, it would be interesting to see how the conversation would be on the boards if the decision was on both sides of the neutral spokes instead of paragon and renegade.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
 'Yes, that's nice, thanks for sharing you opinion. Now go back to work on this ship which houses no less than three mision-critical reaper technologies that Cerberus knows all about.'

Thanix cannon, EDI, and... I forget the third. 

First two at least based on very limited fragments of Reaper technology mixed with a lot of non-Reaper technology, taken from a thoroughly destroyed Reaper. 


In contrast, look at what happened to the Cerberus team sent to the "dead" Reaper in what seems to have been under a month.  Don't think that there's any danger of something similar happening at the Collector home base?

[armass]

There's another thread like this discussing the keeping of the base. For now I would say it's a bad Idea to give it to tim, He has other plans over the reapers. And we can safely say you should never trust the power hungry men, I think our own race can say this clearer than any other.



Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il.. Youve seen what they have become, Imagine what TIM will become with the power none of those man never had in their hands...