268 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Why am I not surprised it is left entirely up to me to provide rational alternatives?

Egotism.

Shandepared wrote...

Killed Shiala? You meet Elyzabeth Beynam.

Killed Gianna? You meet Miss Matsuo.

Killed the rachni queen? Maybe you get interviewed about the Peak 15 incident since with the rachni queen dead the Council opted to make what happened their public, to punish Binary-Helix? Or maybe with word of this getting back to Tuchanka resulting in extra brownie points?

Killed the Council? MEET THE NEW COUNCIL.

Killed Balak? You get an email from Simon Atwell. (alternative or perhaps in addition to this if you let Balak go then you get a message from him on Franklin and the colony of Watson is a total loss because there are NO kill codes available for the missiles)

Killed Helena Blake? At least a news report on the curtailing of smuggling would be nice, something that acknowledges that you completed that quest.

If you killed Fist then that should be brought up somewhere, perhaps with Miss Al'Jilani who uses it as an example of Shepard abusing his power (you weren't a Spectre at that point). Dialog would change a bit if Wrex was actually the one who killed him.

Not sure what to do about Rana Thanoptis. So I'm drawing a blank on that one.

Okay, here's my little list.

Killed Shiala? You acted like a dick, why should that be rewarded.

Killed Gianna? You acted like a dick, why should that be rewarded.

Killed the rachni queen? I agree, your alternative is good.

Killed the Council? It's unrealistic to expect for them to have you meet a new one. Be developer-savvy.

Killed Balak? I agree with your alternatives. I don't get enough good outcomes for killing him.

Killed Helena Blake? She's a ridiculously minor character, don't see why you'd expect anything.

Killed Fist? I did kill Fist. I'm not upset. I forgot he existed after I killed him. Strike that, slightly before I killed him.

Rana? Why bother?

Modifié par Nightwriter, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:22 .

[Barquiel]

Nightwriter wrote...

Rana? Why bother?

Now that's rude!

[mosor]

A couple things about Udina.



1. A fought hard to have a human spectre. He and Hackett recommend you.



2. He fought hard to help you expose Saren. Without his pressure, the council may never had suggested in making you a spectre as a compromise (Instead of sending the council fleet)



3. Fights hard for human interests and makes that a priority. Sure locking you out of the Normandy sucked. Sure the consequences of that decision could have been disastrous. Objectively though? Does Udina work with the council with their operations, and bring humanity one step closer to a council seat or does he appease Shepard?

[Nightwriter]

Barquiel wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Rana? Why bother?

Now that's rude!

Why bother rewarding the player for her death, not why bother with her at all.

Part of me feels like, if you're killing a character, you're demonstrating your disinterest in the value of that character. Therefore, it seems that you shouldn't then be able to object to not seeing more content for or about that character.

[AntiChri5]

Seriously Shand, you refuse to trust Anderson with power because you think he is "corrupt" because he uses that power to help you fight the Reapers.

Yet you shrug off Cerberus's many crimes and TIM's corruption because he is fighting the Reapers.

Why is it that what damns Anderson saves TIM?

[Nightwriter]

Nice.

[Casuist]

Objectively though? Does Udina work with the council with their operations, and bring humanity one step closer to a council seat or does he appease Shepard?

Empowers himself, destroys universe later...



again, there's no particular sign humanity's standing is in imminent danger,so sign humanity humanity at large is benefitting much from the grounding, and a few signs that say he's got way too many of his own interests in mind.

[Barquiel]

Nightwriter wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Rana? Why bother?

Now that's rude!

Why bother rewarding the player for her death, not why bother with her at all.

Ah, okay...I fully agree with you about that (and Shiala/Gianna too)

Modifié par Barquiel, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:35 .

[Casuist]

Nightwriter wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Rana? Why bother?

Now that's rude!

Why bother rewarding the player for her death, not why bother with her at all.

Part of me feels like, if you're killing a character, you're demonstrating your disinterest in the value of that character. Therefore, it seems that you shouldn't then be able to object to not seeing more content for or about that character.

The universe is going to be a whole lot emptier when we're all done...

[Count Viceroy]

Nightwriter wrote...

Why bother rewarding the player for her death, not why bother with her at all.

Part of me feels like, if you're killing a character, you're demonstrating your disinterest in the value of that character. Therefore, it seems that you shouldn't then be able to object to not seeing more content for or about that character.

If only paragons get to see proper end results results then why allow npcs to be killed off at all, they're essentially giving the player a choice of save this guy and get the full experience or you can play renegade and get 1/3 less content. Only they don't tell you this until the next game when you realise all those npcs you had the option of killing has cameos...

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:38 .

[kraidy1117]

Does not matter who you pick. Anderson resigns anyways.

[AntiChri5]

If only paragons get to see proper end results results then why allow npcs to be killed off at all, they're essentially giving the player a choice of save this guy and get the full experience or you can play renegade and get 1/3 less content. Only they don't tell you this until the next game when you realise all those npcs you had the option of killing has cameos...

Renegades already got resolution.

[mosor]

Casuist wrote...

Objectively though? Does Udina work with the council with their operations, and bring humanity one step closer to a council seat or does he appease Shepard?

Empowers himself, destroys universe later...

again, there's no particular sign humanity's standing is in imminent danger,so sign humanity humanity at large is benefitting much from the grounding, and a few signs that say he's got way too many of his own interests in mind.

Actually, he takes the path that so many of you willy nilly paragons espouse. Work with the council for the greater good. The council are the people who didn't want Shepard going to Ilos. The council offers humanity to engage in some joint species venture. Participating in operations like that is what would have gotten humanity
a council seat if the battle of the citadel didn't happen.  Udina thought working with Council will be better for humanity, than appeasing one officer.

Shepard goes to show, that being a good renegade, and going off on your own is what's gonna save the galaxy

Modifié par mosor, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:44 .

[Nightwriter]

Count Viceroy wrote...

If only paragons get to see proper end results results then why allow npcs to be killed off at all, they're essentially giving the player a choice of save this guy and get the full experience or you can play renegade and get 1/3 less content. Only they don't tell you this until the next game when you realise all those npcs you had the option of killing has cameos...

Understand my argument isn't in the least bit logical.

It's more like, if you're a douche, why should I pay attention to what's written on your picket signs?

However, it's extremely important to acknowledge that renegade decisions =/= douchery. Only some of them do. Many don't. Killing the rachni queen, killing Balak, these are examples of instances in which you should have been rewarded equally for your decison, but weren't. I do sympathize.

[Casuist]

Count Viceroy wrote...

If only paragons get to see proper end results results then why allow npcs to be killed off at all,

Characters not appearing tends to be a predictable and proper end result of killing them. 

they're essentially giving the player a choice of save this guy and get the full experience or you can play renegade and get 1/3 less content. 

1/3? 5 minutes of dialogue in a 40 hour game?

[Count Viceroy]

AntiChri5 wrote...

If only paragons get to see proper end results results then why allow npcs to be killed off at all, they're essentially giving the player a choice of save this guy and get the full experience or you can play renegade and get 1/3 less content. Only they don't tell you this until the next game when you realise all those npcs you had the option of killing has cameos...

Renegades already got resolution.

Paragons get extra content in form of cameos, renegades get nothing, that's not fair. Both alignments should be equally supported.

Give renegades new cameos from other related characters or just an update that aknowledges their choice. It's not a hard concept. At the moment though paragon choices are rewarded with a lot of developtment and voice acting while renegade actions and the supposed outcome of these is ignored. I want to know what happend because I killed off the rachni, I'd like to meet the new council etc.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:50 .

[Count Viceroy]

Casuist wrote...

Characters not appearing tends to be a predictable and proper end result of killing them. 

yes, but the consequences of killing them off should still be there no?

[Casuist]

mosor wrote...

Actually, he takes the path that so many of you willy nilly paragons espouse. Work with the council for the greater good. The council are the people who didn't want Shepard going to Ilos. The council offers humanity to engage in some joint species venture. 

Now you are making things up.

Udina thought working with Council will be better for humanity, than appeasing one officer.

...which, even if it were Udina's only motivation (and evidence would suggest it isn't), would lead us to question his judgment (since there's ample evidence to demonstrate the nature of the threat and the risk they are running by ignoring it). 

[AntiChri5]

Paragons get extra content in form of cameos, renegades get nothing, that's not fair. Both alignments should be equally supported.

Give renegades new cameos from other related characters or just an update that aknowledges their choice. It's not a hard concept. At the moment though paragon choices are rewarded with a lot of developtment and voice acting while renegade actions and the supposed outcome of these is ignored. I want to know what happend because I killed off the rachni, I'd like to meet the new council etc.

Decisions do not need to be validated by future content. Bumping into Rana and having her spout two pointless sentences is not a reward.

Although i would be happy for as many renegade choices to have content as paragons (preferrably different choices as the paragon ones to keep from feeling gimmicky).

[Nightwriter]

Paragon =/= go with the Council always.

[Count Viceroy]

AntiChri5 wrote...
Decisions do not need to be validated by future content. Bumping into Rana and having her spout two pointless sentences is not a reward.
.

When such a big part of the game is based on importing your shepard and the story bending around your choices I would disagree.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:58 .

[Casuist]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Casuist wrote...

Characters not appearing tends to be a predictable and proper end result of killing them. 

yes, but the consequences of killing them off should still be there no?

In many cases, there are. Council killers have a different set of dialogue encounters on the citadel. Shiala characters get a different encounter. Should there be a BDtS e-mail either way? sure, but one e-mail among the many is hardly a significant penalty. Should something be mentioned concerning the Rachni? Sure, but a few bits of dialoogue here and there are not equivalent to somehow penalizing, in gameplay, any of the key decisions of the game (i.e. too often when this subject comes up, the proposed cost is to make renegade the "right" decision from a pragmatic standpoint). A 0.2% content volume difference that is erased if you do playthroughs roleplaying different perspectives or look videos up on youtube is not some massive imposition on people who are more inclined towards renegade play. 

[Julie the bogan]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Does not matter who you pick. Anderson resigns anyways.

Eh, when?
I didn't see this..

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Seriously Shand, you refuse to trust Anderson with power because you think he is "corrupt" because he uses that power to help you fight the Reapers.

I never said I didn't trust him, I just don't think he's a good Councilor. I pointed out his corruption to put Udina in a better light. People hate Udina for petty reasons.

You support Cerberus because the Reaper threat is all that matters.

By this logic you should support Anderson. Why did you not pick him?