195 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

The "interactive movie" part is supposed to be something that makes the improbably high success rate seem somewhat more plausible, but probably what I should have said is "it's a video game and the heroes always win there anyway, regardless of odds."

[Zulu_DFA]

Barquiel wrote...

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

The renegade decisions work out because they are obviously more pragmatic, and their price is on screen - heaps of bodies.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

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

Why would they?

Why wouldn't they?

Why should the Alien Council be expected to do anything?


An obvious answer, of course, is to help maintain their control of the Citadel Council. If they don't help other species at all, human interests will also suffer. Likewise, things that can harm alien interests can harm human interests as well: the Alliance has reason to support species having trouble with the Terminus, because doing so can help settle their own troubles in the Terminus.

It's very, very wrong to assume that an organization doesn't have an interest in defending the interests of others not apart of it.

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.

As I recall, you're latest one for continuous Paragon decision making seems to be 'pattern recognition,' then scampering away calling even that a joke.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...
"it's a video game and the heroes always win there anyway, regardless of odds."

So, how does this pertain to paragon vs. renegade desicions and their relative merit from the in-game point of view (that is Shepard's, who, supposedly, doesn't know he is an interactive movie character)?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:20 .

[Xilizhra]

Why wouldn't they?

I see no reason why they'd have any more reason than the alien Council. But I doubt they'd risk war for that.

As I recall, you're latest one for continuous Paragon decision making seems to be 'pattern recognition,' then scampering away calling even that a joke.

Fine. Redoing them.

With the rachni queen, you have her word vs. some centuries-old stories of a war that happened in part because no one could communicate with anyone else. Her story is the best, i.e. only, information you have, and she didn't participate in the war itself, making her guiltless. She's clearly not a mindless menace. There is sufficient reason to let her live.



Feros is simple enough; gas grenades and punching.



The Council... here's where we simply have to trust Shepard's judgment in that the use of the Fifth Fleet to save the Destiny Ascension will not unduly endanger the fight against Saren.

[Barquiel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

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

The renegade decisions work out because they are obviously more pragmatic, and their price is on screen - heaps of bodies.

There are more than enough non-pragmatic renegade decisions...and I am quite sure that a full renegade Shep will be able to save the galaxy, too.

[Zulu_DFA]

Barquiel wrote...

There are more than enough non-pragmatic renegade decisions

Like?

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Zorya is Zaeed's mission. Shepard is there only to provide him with fire support. He says so: "I'm all yours, Shepard, once you let me play this one as I like". But this is not important when it comes to the choice itself. Nor is important who put the "innocents" in jeopardy.

The choice is very similar in BDTS and on Zorya: save the "innocents" or take out the bad guy.

Technically it is the mission of whoever hired Zaeed, and the mission was to save the installation, not to kill Vido. Zaheed was breaking contract and obstructing his own mission. He wasn't even using sane tactics, since saving the workers or not, setting the plant on fire in and of itself didn't even slow Vido down any more or less than you and could easily have resulted in Vido getting away because the path to him was blocked by flaming rubble.

It isn't whether innocents, bystanders, or whatever you want to call them were put in jeopardy, but the fact that Zaheed was breaking the contract Cerberus agreed to help with and putting Zaheed's personal mission in jeopardy independantly of doing so.

If he wants an assassination, he should learn how to use a sniper rifle.

Also, if it was really Zaheed's mission, Zaheed shouldn't have let Shepard get away with the 'you are on *my* team rant from Shep.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why wouldn't they?

I see no reason why they'd have any more reason than the alien Council. But I doubt they'd risk war for that.

No remark as to the more solid reasons? Like needing to provide galactic leadership and protection in order to maintain control over galactic leadership and protection?

Fine. Redoing them.
With the rachni queen, you have her word vs. some centuries-old stories of a war that happened in part because no one could communicate with anyone else. Her story is the best, i.e. only, information you have, and she didn't participate in the war itself, making her guiltless. She's clearly not a mindless menace. There is sufficient reason to let her live.

You openly and freely admit you risked the galaxy to the records of rachni behavior on the grounds of a single person you had at gunpoint. A person who, if guilty, would have every reason to lie and say the exact same thing.

This bears repeating, just so you can understand what wise, reasonable, foresightful stand you're making.

You'd let free a historic menace on the word of a total stranger who would have every reason to lie to you.

Feros is simple enough; gas grenades and punching.

If you punch them, they die.

The Council... here's where we simply have to trust Shepard's judgment in that the use of the Fifth Fleet to save the Destiny Ascension will not unduly endanger the fight against Saren.

Shepard's judgement is your judgement, as you are the one making the judgement.

It is quite possible for the judgement of the player to suck.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I'd say, that I don't take the risk at all, since the negative outcome of my decision (death of the hostages) occurs immediately and in over even before the positive outcome comes to fruition (-1 bad guy in the Galaxy).

While you take the risk indeed, by reaping the benefits of saving the hostages and defusing the situation at hand, but letting the bad guy go loose, and do alot more bad stuff you may or may not hear about in the future (which is up to BioWare, in whom you apparently have faith, that they won't punish the righteous...).

With BStS, the only reason for not saving the hostages is metagaming. When you choose to save the hostages, you have no way of knowing that said bad guy would be able to magicly teleport away. It should have taken him time to get to the surface or docking port or whereever, and even if he did, there was no ship reported as being there. Even if there was a ship, the Normandy was there to take it down.

There was no reasonable way to expect he would magically get away rather than you being able to take him down after securing the hostages.

[Barquiel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Barquiel wrote...
There are more than enough non-pragmatic renegade decisions

Like?

punch a reporter;)

But seriously: sacrifice some alliance ships to
a) save 10000 lives
destroy the geth fleet (they worship Sovereign...5th fleet is going to attack Sovereign)
c) ensure political stability
...seems pragmatic to me.

Modifié par Barquiel, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:31 .

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra 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.

Video game heroes in general have improbably high success rates.

So why give us a choice in the first place if the "obviously right" choices always work out? To prove that players can be jerks? Sorry, but if choices mean anything then it makes no sense have one side always reaping the bad consequences while the other always gets the good stuff.

[Xilizhra]

No remark as to the more solid reasons? Like needing to provide galactic leadership and protection in order to maintain control over galactic leadership and protection?

I don't see why they'd do it any more than the alien Council would.

You openly and freely admit you risked the galaxy to the records of rachni behavior on the grounds of a single person you had at gunpoint. A person who, if guilty, would have every reason to lie and say the exact same thing.



This bears repeating, just so you can understand what wise, reasonable, foresightful stand you're making.



You'd let free a historic menace on the word of a total stranger who would have every reason to lie to you.

Well, it's that or destroy an entire race that might not be malicious at all. I felt that the risk taken there was too large.

If you punch them, they die.

How strange. My aim with the grenades is terrible, so I generally punch them and they live.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fine. Redoing them.
With the rachni queen, you have her word vs. some centuries-old stories of a war that happened in part because no one could communicate with anyone else. Her story is the best, i.e. only, information you have, and she didn't participate in the war itself, making her guiltless. She's clearly not a mindless menace. There is sufficient reason to let her live.

Her story is the best?

Her own life and the future of her species is at stake. Her version of the story might be twisted to put her and the Rachni in a positive light.

As for the other decisions: I take the paragon decisions there. It can't hurt to try and save the colonist and saving the council is also the smarter decision from a tactical standpoint.

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra 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.

Video game heroes in general have improbably high success rates.

So why give us a choice in the first place if the "obviously right" choices always work out? To prove that players can be jerks? Sorry, but if choices mean anything then it makes no sense have one side always reaping the bad consequences while the other always gets the good stuff.

Because some people like being jerks, racists, and/or both.

[Moiaussi]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fine. Redoing them.
With the rachni queen, you have her word vs. some centuries-old stories of a war that happened in part because no one could communicate with anyone else. Her story is the best, i.e. only, information you have, and she didn't participate in the war itself, making her guiltless. She's clearly not a mindless menace. There is sufficient reason to let her live.

Feros is simple enough; gas grenades and punching.

The Council... here's where we simply have to trust Shepard's judgment in that the use of the Fifth Fleet to save the Destiny Ascension will not unduly endanger the fight against Saren.

The Queen is purely a judgement call. There are valid arguements supporting both options. Even so, the Rachni might end up indoctrinated again. It is too early to call that one safe paragon. I am hoping that even if they are, that there will be some way to help the Rachni counter it.

Feros seems an easier paragon decision, but I still wouldn't mind seeing that bite paragons by way of a Thorian rebirth storyline. There are hints of it in the dialogue with the Feros survivor in ME2.

Saving the DA there are also valid arguements on both sides. That one though I think paragons are pretty clearly right and that those who let it die should have a tougher time in ME3. Again, that was not known until ME2 though and not for certain either way til ME3.

I wouldn't mind seeing more situations where renegade proved right... but I do worry about it swinging too far the other way.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:38 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

No remark as to the more solid reasons? Like needing to provide galactic leadership and protection in order to maintain control over galactic leadership and protection?

I don't see why they'd do it any more than the alien Council would.

The Human council's grip on galactic leadership is less established and secure than the old Council's. The Old Council, between the three of them, could outweigh the rest of the galaxy combined and force everyone in line. The Human Council can't. It needs to be responsive to the concerns of other species lest it lose its own power.

If the Alien Council refuses to act and no one else supports the Council, they remain the four most powerful species in the galaxy and retain control of the Citadel. If the Alliance refuses to act and no one accepts the Council, they can lose that control.

Well, it's that or destroy an entire race that might not be malicious at all. I felt that the risk taken there was too large.

First, you're killing a single person with the Rachni queen choice... unless you want to take into account unborn children, in which case you really should be adamantly opposed to the Salarians, the Turians, and the Genophage.

Second, the risk of the Rachni staying dead is... what, at the time? You don't know that the Rachni Queen will be a a future ally against the Reapers. You don't even know what the Reapers are at that point. You don't even truly know about indoctrination at that point, except by testimony of people who also have cause to save their own skins.

If you punch them, they die.

How strange. My aim with the grenades is terrible, so I generally punch them and they live.

Very sad, but true. Maybe it has to do if you have combat exoskeleton equipped.

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

Zorya is Zaeed's mission. Shepard is there only to provide him with fire support. He says so: "I'm all yours, Shepard, once you let me play this one as I like". But this is not important when it comes to the choice itself. Nor is important who put the "innocents" in jeopardy.

The choice is very similar in BDTS and on Zorya: save the "innocents" or take out the bad guy.[/quote]

Technically it is the mission of whoever hired Zaeed,
[/quote]
So it's between that entity and Zaeed.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
and the mission was to save the installation, not to kill Vido.[/quote]
You don't know that. You never see the contract, only listen to Zaeed. He may have been BS-ing you from the start.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Zaheed
[/quote]
Zaeed.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
was breaking contract
[/quote]
You don't know that. You never see the contract, only listen to Zaeed. He may have been BS-ing you from the start.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
and obstructing his own mission.
[/quote]
So it's his mission after all?


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
He wasn't even using sane tactics,
[/quote] 
He was using a tactic that worked.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
since saving the workers or not, setting the plant on fire in and of itself didn't even slow Vido down any more or less than you and could easily have resulted in Vido getting away because the path to him was blocked by flaming rubble.
[/quote]
Actually, Zaeed's blowing up the fuel got a few Blue Suns killed instantly, cleared the entrance, and a few Blue Suns got caught in the fire later as you proceeded into the factory.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
It isn't whether innocents, bystanders, or whatever you want to call them were put in jeopardy, but the fact that Zaheed
[/quote]
Zaeed.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote... 
was breaking the contract Cerberus agreed to help with
[/quote] 
Cerberus even forgot to mention about it. Besides, if you play it after Purgatory, you have all the reason to believe that TIM would prefer to put Vido down, than save the factory.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote... 
and putting Zaheed's
[/quote]
Zaeed's.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote... 
personal mission in jeopardy independantly of doing so.
[/quote]
If he doesn't care about his mission, why should you? It's not like you doing him a favor.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote... 
If he wants an assassination, he should learn how to use a sniper rifle.
[/quote]
He prefers setting his enemies on fire.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote... 
Also, if it was really Zaheed's
[/quote]
Zaeed's.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote... 
mission, Zaheed
[/quote]
Zaeed.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote... 
shouldn't have let Shepard get away with the 'you are on *my* team rant from Shep.[/quote]
He says: "This is my mission, Shepard. I'm all yours as soon as Vido dies."

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:47 .

[Ieldra]

Barquiel wrote...
But seriously: sacrifice some alliance ships to
a) save 10000 lives
destroy the geth fleet (they worship Sovereign...5th fleet is going to attack Sovereign)
c) ensure political stability
...seems pragmatic to me.

It is, but only as long as you can reasonably expect to beat the main enemy (Sovereign) without those ships. That's the one who rammed the frigates out of the way as if they didn't exist, you know. This is not about the additional sacrifice. It's about the risk of losing the battle altogether by giving Sovereign enough time to activate the relay switch. Since all other outcomes are contingent on beating Sovereign, you'd want to sent as many ships against Sovereign as can fire on it at the same time. Granted, the situation is not as clear-cut as at the Collector base, but clearly, the Paragon decision is significantly riskier than the Renegade one.

BTW, it's the same reasoning for the Collector base: all other outcomes are contingent on beating the Reapers, so unless you can reasonably expect to beat them with what you have, any resources that might give you an advantage must not be destroyed. At least, not before thoroughly searching them. 

These two situations are different from all others, because if you do them wrong, it could basically mean "game over" for everyone. That they both work we only know through metagaming.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:46 .

[Xilizhra]

The Human council's grip on galactic leadership is less established and secure than the old Council's. The Old Council, between the three of them, could outweigh the rest of the galaxy combined and force everyone in line. The Human Council can't. It needs to be responsive to the concerns of other species lest it lose its own power.

It's worth taking into consideration, but isn't enough to make me want it around. I don't think that this spate of enlightened self-interest would last, especially not with CCerberus manipulations going on.

First, you're killing a single person with the Rachni queen choice... unless you want to take into account unborn children, in which case you really should be adamantly opposed to the Salarians, the Turians, and the Genophage.



Second, the risk of the Rachni staying dead is... what, at the time? You don't know that the Rachni Queen will be a a future ally against the Reapers. You don't even know what the Reapers are at that point. You don't even truly know about indoctrination at that point, except by testimony of people who also have cause to save their own skins.

It is still an entire race... plus, Benezia tells you about indoctrination right before the rachni queen starts talking, and she wants you to kill her.

Very sad, but true. Maybe it has to do if you have combat exoskeleton equipped.

Why is this sad?

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Very sad, but true. Maybe it has to do if you have combat exoskeleton equipped.

Why is this sad?

Because it makes a non-issue of the decision. If you can save everyone without any additional resources, the only reason why you may not is that you don't want to.

[Xilizhra]

Well, it does require you to let others repeatedly shoot you in the face. Shooting them is decidedly less risky.

[Manic Sheep]

Barquiel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Barquiel wrote...
There are more than enough non-pragmatic renegade decisions

Like?

punch a reporter;)

But seriously: sacrifice some alliance ships to
a) save 10000 lives
destroy the geth fleet (they worship Sovereign...5th fleet is going to attack Sovereign)
c) ensure political stability
...seems pragmatic to me.

Except for the fact that if you don't stop sovereign in time he/it will take control of the station and let the rest of the reaper fleet in which would pretty much result in an instant loss and the reapers would the precede to wipe out all advance sapient life in the galaxy.

Saving the council and the ascension is unquestionably better for long term stability and in pretty much any other situation would be a good decision  but given the situation long term stability is not what you should be concerned with. It’s more sensible to let them die so you have more of a chance to take out sovereign.
Although I don’t agree with your example the renegade options are not necessarily pragmatic ones (tho they sometimes are) even with the council the option to “concentrate on sovereign” is not renegade, it is neutral. You get both para and ren points for taking it. The renegade option while exactly the same in consequences (as it should be IMO) is made suggesting different reasons. Intentionally letting the council die so humanity can seize power

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:51 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Barquiel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Barquiel wrote...
There are more than enough non-pragmatic renegade decisions

Like?

punch a reporter;)

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Barquiel wrote...
But seriously: sacrifice some alliance ships to
a) save 10000 lives
destroy the geth fleet (they worship Sovereign...5th fleet is going to attack Sovereign)
c) ensure political stability
...seems pragmatic to me.

It's
a) Tactically retarded.
Tactically retarded.
c) Tactically retarded and strategiacally short-sighted (Progress & Competition > Stability & Stagnation)

Zulu_DFA wrote...

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.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:55 .

[Xilizhra]

Quite frankly, I think the Reaper attack will break up some of the stagnation.