195 réponses à ce sujet

[Chuvvy]

Nightwriter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand...

Is the OP asking if things would be different if the paragon and renegade choices were arranged differently on the dialogue wheel, or if things would be different if they didn't morally polarize paragon and renegade so much?

'Splain. 'Splain to me.

Both.

[NanQuan]

I don't know if I agree there would be more full-blown renegades, but I do think more renegade choices would be taken by players. Namely, we wouldn't have full paragons most of the time. For example, on my first play-through of ME1 I didn't catch on about the placement of choices until about the end. So throughout that run I picked solely based on preference. This resulted in a mostly paragon character, but I didn't have enough paragon points to skip the first part of Saren's bossfight. I have also tried to play full renegade and failed because certain choices were just too repulsive to me to pick. So I doubt we'd have more full renegades.

[tommyt_1994]

Nightwriter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand...

Is the OP asking if things would be different if the paragon and renegade choices were arranged differently on the dialogue wheel, or if things would be different if they didn't morally polarize paragon and renegade so much?

'Splain. 'Splain to me.

What I'm trying to get across Nightwriter is that I think more people would make the renegade big choices (rachni, council, collector base, etc) if renegade wasn't associated with the 'bad' choice and being a douche and if paragon choices weren't always the 'right' and 'good' ones.

[Xilizhra]

So, effectively if Paragon and Renegade were no longer Paragon or Renegade?

[tommyt_1994]

Xilizhra wrote...

So, effectively if Paragon and Renegade were no longer Paragon or Renegade?

No. If paragon no longer equaled the right choice (24/7) and renegade no longer equaled the wrong one.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 06 novembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[Xilizhra]

Well, Zulu and some others think that killing the Council is better, because they believe that humans deserve to own the galaxy... it's still subjective.

[Undertone]

Xilizhra wrote...

Either way, however, I've saved and improved lives by my actions, along with saving the galaxy. I'm very happy with them and with my moral compass.

Just another self-righteous pretencious type. You sir obviously lack any logic. Any of the major decisions in the game are obviously more logical, rational and practical from renegade perspective. The only reason why they are actually not is because Bioware intends to continue punish the Renegade and reward the so called "Righteous idealists". 

Saving the Rachni - you have not a single valid or rational reason to believe the Queen in her intents or her words. Taking such a risk in a state where war is inevitable and the odds are low is so retarded. 

Releasing every criminal and hope that they suddenly become goody-goody two shoes guys is also beyond logical. If this game is based on any realism then you can clearly guess what the outcome is.

Letting Balak go - trade the lifes of a few people you don't even know for the lifes of thousands, millions more.

Zaeed - same thing as Balak. How/when/who doesn't matter. What matters is you can take out the person handling one of the biggest crime organizations and thus saving again a lot more lifes. This one is more possible for speculation, that is something I agree but still it makes much more sense for the above mentioned to occur again.

Destroying the Collector base - I am not even going to debate that. Destroying the only existing source of information about the technology, intents etc. of the Reapers is plain retarded again.

Saving the council - have you ever heard of political change? While this is again much more debatable look at what happened in ME2 if you save them - the same ****. Lack of any wisdom, forsight. This is perhaps the only time I was happy with Bioware. Still though as usual Renegades are punished more.

Working for Cerberus - "Uuu Cerberus is evil, don't want to work with them blabla" Cerberus are the only ones doing something actually, breaking links with them at the end of the game after all that is again plain retarded. Who are you going to go to? The Council? Please.

It's obvious that Renegade Shepard makes the galaxy much organized, predictable and safe place. Paragon Shepard makes it full with choices able to blow up in your face so much you wouldn't know where you got hit from (technically you would but I am illustrating a point ).

Of course though none of your decisions will blow up in your face because Bioware will never dare to punish "the righteous" ops Paragon players since they will come and cry endlessly about how evil and unfair (in fact realistic) Bioware is.

Modifié par Undertone, 06 novembre 2010 - 06:40 .

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, Zulu and some others think that killing the Council is better, because they believe that humans deserve to own the galaxy... it's still subjective.

Perhaps I should've explained. I believe concentrating all forces on the Sovereign is the tactical decision you would make when faced with an enemy like Sovereign, who could just ram those turian warships out of the way as if they didn't exist. A Council doing any good is contingent on the survival of the Citadel and the prevention of the Reaper relay being activated. Destroying Sovereign is *the* priority here, and since you don't know you'll have another chance, to leave the Destiny Ascension without support is the best tactical decision.

Some of you Paragons act on moral intuitions reflexively, without taking into considering that our moral intuitions aren't made to consider chains of consequences. They're a fast-track, energy-efficient shortcut for making decisions in everyday situations. Once long-term planning is needed to resolve a situation, or the situation gets too complicated to resolve on an impulse, making decisions based on intuitive morality is almost always more hindrance than help. Of course, stories will tell you differently, because stories are made to reinforce that morality we use to deal with everyday situations. But role-playing games are more than stories people tell. Here we have the chance to think about how we'd really act in those situations. I'm very convinced: if the situations in the game were real, you wouldn't be so fast to condemn Renegade decisions.     

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, Zulu and some others think that killing the Council is better, because they believe that humans deserve to own the galaxy... it's still subjective.

"Killing the Council" is better in the first place because it's the tactically sound option (at the moment of making the choice), even without the Reaper threat. If enemy infantry clashes with allied infantry, but an enemy tank advances on your HQ, you need to take out the tank first. In fact, you always need to take out the tank first.



But then, yes, the new Human led Council is definitely better. Because the old one put the Galaxy to stagnation for a thousand years, making it a fat sitting duck for the Reapers.

[Undertone]

"Some of you Paragons act on moral intuitions reflexively, without taking into considering that our moral intuitions aren't made to consider chains of consequences."

Exactly, no foresight. The only reason why Paragons continue to take those decisions is because they know they are immune thanks to the plot armor.

The Council was stagnated and weak. All agree humanity means progress and change.

Make one quest in which letting a criminal go results into losing a squadmate/love interest and you will see people more careful, becoming more renegade in a second. Or coming to cry on the Bioware forums how letting a criminal go and everything being fine is a realistic normal thing.

Modifié par Undertone, 06 novembre 2010 - 07:00 .

[Barquiel]

It would be the same...imo. 
For example, I am quite sure that most people supported Harrowmont because Bhelen was the "evil" choice...it was the wrong decision.

Well, I would still save the council (it's a poor tactical decision to ignore the geth fleet, and I don't like the renegade ending^_^)...paragon or renegade points.

Modifié par Barquiel, 06 novembre 2010 - 07:13 .

[Xilizhra]

The Council was stagnated and weak. All agree humanity means progress and change.

So, the mass race riots are an acceptable price for the total unhelpfulness of the human council, then? You do realize the only reason news reports say they do anything ever is because the colonies are human?

"Killing the Council" is better in the first place because it's the tactically sound option (at the moment of making the choice), even without the Reaper threat. If enemy infantry clashes with allied infantry, but an enemy tank advances on your HQ, you need to take out the tank first. In fact, you always need to take out the tank first.

Sort of true, but evidently Paragon Shepard decides that the risk is small enough to take. And turns out to be right. The butthurt regarding Paragon stories really is astounding and, I admit, amusing.

[GracefulChicken]

Seems my quote won't work, but replying to a post on page 3 by SimonTheFog



No **** sherlock. Of course this isn't real. Should i preface every sentence with "in the context of this video game" so it states that I'm aware of that for you? The discussion is headed towards "what makes the (obviously fake) ME universe a better (fictional) place with regards to (the obviously fake) paths of paragon vs renegade when it comes down to the (again, obviously fake) saftey of the (fake) galaxy". Thats what I'm discussing. If your argument is none of this is real so dont talk about it, then we can agree to just shut the entire forum down since none of these discussions really matter beyond the game itself (the reason we're here, I'd assume, unless youre trying to find nudey pictures of a (fake) female alien). Clear enough?

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Council was stagnated and weak. All agree humanity means progress and change.

So, the mass race riots are an acceptable price for the total unhelpfulness of the human council, then? You do realize the only reason news reports say they do anything ever is because the colonies are human?

The Human Council sends the Council Fleet into the Terminus investigation. What does the Alien Council do that's comparable?

"Killing the Council" is better in the first place because it's the tactically sound option (at the moment of making the choice), even without the Reaper threat. If enemy infantry clashes with allied infantry, but an enemy tank advances on your HQ, you need to take out the tank first. In fact, you always need to take out the tank first.

Sort of true, but evidently Paragon Shepard decides that the risk is small enough to take. And turns out to be right. The butthurt regarding Paragon stories really is astounding and, I admit, amusing.

How is the risk proven small enough to take?

That the risk doesn't materialize doesn't mean taking it was smart at all.

[Xilizhra]

The Human Council sends the Council Fleet into the Terminus investigation. What does the Alien Council do that's comparable?

Nothing, because of the potential war issue. The human Council is willing to risk war for species-partisan reasons, it seems.

How is the risk proven small enough to take?

For reasons that I said earlier; it's phenomenally unlikely that Paragon choices work out only by luck. The only reasonable explanation is that Shepard assesses the situation in such a way that she realizes that the risks are worth taking.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

it's phenomenally unlikely that Paragon choices work out only by luck. The only reasonable explanation is that Shepard assesses the situation in such a way that she realizes that the risks are worth taking.

Wait a minute... It's you who takes those decisions (being put in Shepard's shoes). Can't you account for your own decision making?

[Xilizhra]

On the one hand, I have, numerous times. However, our own perspective cannot be said to be as accurate as Shepard's; we don't have truly in-universe knowledge, only seeing certain events as if watching a movie.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Human Council sends the Council Fleet into the Terminus investigation. What does the Alien Council do that's comparable?

Nothing, because of the potential war issue. The human Council is willing to risk war for species-partisan reasons, it seems.

Can you prove that the Human Council wouldn't risk war for other species?

The Alien Council won't defend against acts of war for fear for any reason. How is abandoning and ignorring the plight of the very members and subordinate species it claims to lead preferable?

How is the risk proven small enough to take?

For reasons that I said earlier; it's phenomenally unlikely that Paragon choices work out only by luck. The only reasonable explanation is that Shepard assesses the situation in such a way that she realizes that the risks are worth taking.

Or, alternatively, that Shepard took an unreasonable action and lucked out.

You constantly refer to it, but what reasonable explanation (in-universe: not mere 'it's a game, and the designers have liked to constantly and consistently reward paragon options) for constant Paragon sucessess?

[Xilizhra]

Can you prove that the Human Council wouldn't risk war for other species?

Why would they?

You constantly refer to it, but what reasonable explanation (in-universe: not mere 'it's a game, and the designers have liked to constantly and consistently reward paragon options) for constant Paragon sucessess?

I've given reasons for each individual decision before, probably on every single one we've talked about.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

However, our own perspective cannot be said to be as accurate as Shepard's; we don't have truly in-universe knowledge, only seeing certain events as if watching a movie.

In other words, you admit to metagame the whole of Mass Effect at once: "Since it's just a game, I should just relax and push the blue", right?

[Xilizhra]

I can give you my own rationale for any Paragon decision you wish that's not metagame-based.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Can you prove that the Human Council wouldn't risk war for other species?

Why would they?

You constantly refer to it, but what reasonable explanation (in-universe: not mere 'it's a game, and the designers have liked to constantly and consistently reward paragon options) for constant Paragon sucessess?

I've given reasons for each individual decision before, probably on every single one we've talked about.

That's not what this is about. Obviously, sometimes, Paragon decisions will work out. That's a simple matter of probability. The question is why do they work *all the time*? That's clearly artificial, for real life isn't like that.

[Barquiel]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's not what this is about. Obviously, sometimes, Paragon decisions will work out. That's a simple matter of probability. The question is why do they work *all the time*? That's clearly artificial, for real life isn't like that.

Because it's a game and every renegade decision works out as well?

Modifié par Barquiel, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:09 .

[Xilizhra]

That's not what this is about. Obviously, sometimes, Paragon decisions will work out. That's a simple matter of probability. The question is why do they work *all the time*? That's clearly artificial, for real life isn't like that.

Video game heroes in general have improbably high success rates.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

I can give you my own rationale for any Paragon decision you wish that's not metagame-based.

Then why did you (what made you to) bring up this notion that it's actually an interactive movie, so Shepard probalby can have more reason to do the paragon than the player?