228 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

 

Dear god....



I thought that said my name for a moment.

[RiouHotaru]

 Okay, seriously, the use of Balak as an argument against Paragons needs to stop.  This was explained before, Paragons have perfectly logical, acceptable reasons for letting him go to save the hostages:

He can't attack anyone else.

NOT because he's repentant, but BECAUSE he has no more credibility, and lost ALL element of surprise.  Shepard says it him/herself: His name and face will get out to Alliance patrols, colonies will know to watch out for him.  In essence, Shepard has effectively neutered his ability to take action.  Sure, the Batarian governing body might find someone else, but it WON'T be Balak.  He's not longer useful to them anymore.  Also, him saying the Hegemony funded him doesn't prove anything.  Shepard is shooting and interrogating him, he'd say ANYTHING to make it stop.

Honestly, I want concrete examples BESIDES Balak and the Rachni queen where Paragons get off on nothing but "blind faith".  I mean seriously, prove it.

[RiouHotaru]

Life isn't black and white. The results of monochrome morality shouldn't always be positive. The worst ending that ME3 could have (in my opinion) is that, for Paragons, everything works out great for everyone .. and for Renegades, everything works out great for humanity. If we can't make bad choices, then do we really have a choice at all?

Except this isn't life, this is a video game, and not only that, it's a space opera, heroics are to be expected.  If you want a game that emulates endless shades of gray, play Dragon Age.  The thing about making 'bad' choices in a video game, they should only be made when a player has full knowledge of the consequences.  Nothing stings a player and causes reloads and poor reception like making a choice you didn't know was bad until AFTER the fact.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Honestly, I want concrete examples BESIDES Balak and the Rachni queen where Paragons get off on nothing but "blind faith".  I mean seriously, prove it.

Helena Blake straightens up. The fact that Sovereign is still defeated even when Alliance ships are sacrificed to save the council. The Quarians on Freedom's Progress give you all the necessary data without taking Veetor. You can still gain Zaeed's loyalty even though you totally screw him over (not really a faith thing but you get off). Legion doesn't turn on you when you activate him (even though all the other Geth you ever run into are hostile). Looking to the future, I'm sure you guys will be fine even though you destroy the Collector Base and waste all the technological advances that could be had.

[RiouHotaru]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Honestly, I want concrete examples BESIDES Balak and the Rachni queen where Paragons get off on nothing but "blind faith".  I mean seriously, prove it.

Helena Blake straightens up. The fact that Sovereign is still defeated even when Alliance ships are sacrificed to save the council. The Quarians on Freedom's Progress give you all the necessary data without taking Veetor. You can still gain Zaeed's loyalty even though you totally screw him over (not really a faith thing but you get off). Legion doesn't turn on you when you activate him (even though all the other Geth you ever run into are hostile). Looking to the future, I'm sure you guys will be fine even though you destroy the Collector Base and waste all the technological advances that could be had.

Helena Blake: She straightens up if a Renegade intimidates her into disbanding too, so that doesn't work.

Sovereign: This has been explained before, unavoidable plot element, and there's consequences as a result of Sovereign's defeat anyhow.

Quarians on Freedom's Progress: Well duh, TALI IS WITH THEM.  Why WOULDNT she give you the data in exchange for letting them have Veetor?

Zaeed's Loyalty: Really?  You basically beat it into his head that if he's on a team, he has to act like part of team, something he's NEVER done before.  Why do you think all his previous exploits ended with most of his compatriots killed?

Legion: Doesn't turn on you because it's behind a force-field and oh yeah, ITS NOT PART OF THE GETH THAT TRIED TO KILL YOU.

Collector Base: Of course, again Bioware cannot, I repeat CANNOT make the game unwinnable by design.  Paragons AND Renegades have to be able to defeat the Reapers.

[Epic777]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Honestly, I want concrete examples BESIDES Balak and the Rachni queen where Paragons get off on nothing but "blind faith".  I mean seriously, prove it.

Helena Blake straightens up. The fact that Sovereign is still defeated even when Alliance ships are sacrificed to save the council. The Quarians on Freedom's Progress give you all the necessary data without taking Veetor. You can still gain Zaeed's loyalty even though you totally screw him over (not really a faith thing but you get off). Legion doesn't turn on you when you activate him (even though all the other Geth you ever run into are hostile). Looking to the future, I'm sure you guys will be fine even though you destroy the Collector Base and waste all the technological advances that could be had.

Legion was not a paragon renegade choice, same with Grunt. Hell, Grunt still follows renegade shepard despite destroying a partially developed genophage cure, nothing bad happens to shepard on the krogan homeworld as a result. Renegades can be the biggest xenophobes ... and yet all the aliens on boards still are prepared to follow him on a dangerous suicide mission on the behalf of earth colonies. ...

Nothing has really bitten paragon or renegade players in the ass yet. As I stated here http://social.biowar...03074/5#5327003

What's even the point of having decisions in a game if the game doesn't penalize (or reward) you if the end result is the same, why not just make it completely linear with some dialogue and then just let players at it if your decisions don't mean anything. - Because if the desions have an extremely uneven result, the choice gets nullified, the player will simply choose the other choice as the other choice as an extremely bad consequences. At the end of the day both the renedage and pargon paths have to be the same difficulty and the same results in the end of me3. If me2 didn't have a persuade system linked to a players paragon/renedage points, do you think anyone will let enora live? That kind of thing only happens if each decision yields an equal measure of good and bad, think DAO. Secure the anvil of the void, the dwarves get golems (1 golem is worth 10 soldiers) they can push against the darkspawn, downside branka (a psychopath )  controls it and knows its secrets which you know will end badly.

[Sajuro]

Helena Blake: Even my paragon shepard killed her.



Sovereign: It is really Shepard defeating Saren Husk that disables Sovereign. You had to have blind faith that you would be able to defeat him in the first place.



Quarians on freedom's progress: What Riou said.



Zaeed's Loyalty: Never bothered to get his loyalty back after saving the workers.



Legion: Even if he is hostile you have two people with guns ready to shoot him at a moment's notice and Shepard probably has one of those mass effect shields on his person.



Collector Base: I agree with Riou, and I know that Renegade would have a pissy fit if the base has any negative reprucussions for keeping it even if it is 'tali disapproves'

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Epic777 wrote...

Legion was not a paragon renegade choice, same with Grunt. Hell, Grunt still follows renegade shepard despite destroying a partially developed genophage cure, nothing bad happens to shepard on the krogan homeworld as a result. Renegades can be the biggest xenophobes ... and yet all the aliens on boards still are prepared to follow him on a dangerous suicide mission on the behalf of earth colonies. ...

No, Legion was a paragon renegade choice. You could choose to reactivate him or hand him over to Cerberus, and you get +15 paragon for reactivating him and +15 renegade for giving him to Cerberus. Also, I was simply addressing the challenge that paragons never get left off the hook, which they clearly do; I'm making no argument about whether renegades get let off the hook or not.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Helena Blake: She straightens up if a Renegade intimidates her into disbanding too, so that doesn't work.

Agreed.

Sovereign: This has been explained before, unavoidable plot element, and there's consequences as a result of Sovereign's defeat anyhow.

It's not unavoidable. Bioware could have had Sovereign win if you try to save the council, but we all know that would never happen. At the point of the decision, Shepard does not know how the fight will end. Trying to save the council gives Sovereign a better chance to win.

Quarians on Freedom's Progress: Well duh, TALI IS WITH THEM.  Why WOULDNT she give you the data in exchange for letting them have Veetor?

Maybe because she clearly hates Cerberus. By the time you realized she was holding back they'd be long gone.

Zaeed's Loyalty: Really?  You basically beat it into his head that if he's on a team, he has to act like part of team, something he's NEVER done before.  Why do you think all his previous exploits ended with most of his compatriots killed?

You're right. It makes sense that the man who holds a 20 year grudge against a man would forgive you instantly for ruining his chance to get eve.

Legion: Doesn't turn on you because it's behind a force-field and oh yeah, ITS NOT PART OF THE GETH THAT TRIED TO KILL YOU.

Until Legion, the Geth had always reacted with hostility towards organics (except Saren and his lackeys). I still don't believe Legion's heretic-true Geth crap. He is your only source. You would never know about heretic Geth had you not activated him.

Collector Base: Of course, again Bioware cannot, I repeat CANNOT make the game unwinnable by design.  Paragons AND Renegades have to be able to defeat the Reapers.

Again this is a facile argument. They could make the game unwinnable if you destroyed the Collector Base. They wouldn't because most of the player base would throw a hissy fit because they're paragon.

[Dean_the_Young]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

. It's also not especially morally reprehensible to defend yourself. As Legion put it, they chose a path that made co-existence possible.

Are you trying to say that defending yourself from a race that seeks genocide against you and their own kind is not deserving of hostile action? That is completely and utterly insane.

You quote me explicitly saying I do not find it morally reprehensible to defend yourself.

Then you ask me if I have some issue with fighting the Heretics, who are trying to kill you.


There is a serious language comprehension barrier here, and I'm not convinced it's on my side. But in case it is, I'll simplify it for you.

IT IS NOT BAD TO KILL IN DEFENCE OF YOURSELF .
THE HERETICS ARE FORCING YOU TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
KILLING/REWRITING THE HERETICS IS STILL GENOCIDE OF THE HERETICS.
THAT IS OKAY.

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

 Okay, seriously, the use of Balak as an argument against Paragons needs to stop.  This was explained before, Paragons have perfectly logical, acceptable reasons for letting him go to save the hostages:

He can't attack anyone else.

NOT because he's repentant, but BECAUSE he has no more credibility, and lost ALL element of surprise.  Shepard says it him/herself: His name and face will get out to Alliance patrols, colonies will know to watch out for him.  In essence, Shepard has effectively neutered his ability to take action.  Sure, the Batarian governing body might find someone else, but it WON'T be Balak.  He's not longer useful to them anymore. 

I couldn't have written a post with such innacuracies and logical failures if I tried, starting with the point that a failed plot does not prevent terrorists from being able or allowed to act again to the bizaar assertion that Balak even needs to hide within the Alliance and be seen himself in order to act  and extending to when those same safeguards you rest on would have done nothing in the plot he already did can be outmaneuvered in something as basic and old as a disguise and a fake identity.

I don't like using the S-word, but that's an incredibly stupid argument. No, experienced government/private backers don't demand absolute success from subordinates, and failures not deriving from incompetence are rarely grounds for never employing or using a person again. No, colonies 'being on the lookout for him' in no way nullifies him any more than the US being on the lookout for Afghan/Iraqi insurgent leaders nullified them, and the US was occupying the areas in which they were acting. The Alliance has no such equivalent into disputed Traverse/Terminus areas. No, having a face to look for does not mean wanted people are recognized immediately, nor does Balak have to be visible before he acts either: in X-57 itself we saw that the attackers were able to hijack the asteroid without any colonial authority even seeing them.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[Xilizhra]

It's not unavoidable. Bioware could have had Sovereign win if you try to save the council, but we all know that would never happen. At the point of the decision, Shepard does not know how the fight will end. Trying to save the council gives Sovereign a better chance to win.

Well... yes, they could have. They could also have had TIM blow up the Normandy if you save the base on the grounds that he doesn't need you anymore. The fact that Bioware can make terrible balance-destroying decisions doesn't mean they should. Are you seriously advocating this?

Maybe because she clearly hates Cerberus. By the time you realized she was holding back they'd be long gone.

Come on, she's an old squadmate and unlike the Virmire Survivor, she's actually seen the mission that you're on. I really don't see why she'd hold out on you, and at that point in the mission, I trust her far more than I trust Cerberus (well, I do that through the whole game).

You're right. It makes sense that the man who holds a 20 year grudge against a man would forgive you instantly for ruining his chance to get eve.

If you have meaningless sex with Jack and earn her wrath that way, she's still loyal. It's not about whether they like you or not, but how well they can function as a team on a mission. Zaeed likely doesn't forgive you, but he can keep his irritation down at least until the mission is over.

Until Legion, the Geth had always reacted with hostility towards organics (except Saren and his lackeys). I still don't believe Legion's heretic-true Geth crap. He is your only source. You would never know about heretic Geth had you not activated him.

Why would a geth working for the Reapers help you destroy a Reaper base, not to mention a space station itself full of heretic geth?

[CaptainZaysh]

RiouHotaru wrote...

 Okay, seriously, the use of Balak as an argument against Paragons needs to stop.  This was explained before, Paragons have perfectly logical, acceptable reasons for letting him go to save the hostages:

He can't attack anyone else.

NOT because he's repentant, but BECAUSE he has no more credibility, and lost ALL element of surprise.  Shepard says it him/herself: His name and face will get out to Alliance patrols, colonies will know to watch out for him.  In essence, Shepard has effectively neutered his ability to take action.  Sure, the Batarian governing body might find someone else, but it WON'T be Balak.

Bulls**t.  Wishful thinking.

Proof?  9/11 was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's second attack on the World Trade Centre.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]It's not unavoidable. Bioware could have had Sovereign win if you try to save the council, but we all know that would never happen. At the point of the decision, Shepard does not know how the fight will end. Trying to save the council gives Sovereign a better chance to win.[/quote]
Well... yes, they could have. They could also have had TIM blow up the Normandy if you save the base on the grounds that he doesn't need you anymore. The fact that Bioware can make terrible balance-destroying decisions doesn't mean they should. Are you seriously advocating this?[/quote]I think it's obvious Ash wasn't.
[quote]
[quote]Maybe because she clearly hates Cerberus. By the time you realized she was holding back they'd be long gone.[/quote]
Come on, she's an old squadmate and unlike the Virmire Survivor, she's actually seen the mission that you're on. I really don't see why she'd hold out on you, and at that point in the mission, I trust her far more than I trust Cerberus (well, I do that through the whole game).[/quote]The Virmire Survivor saw the mission you were on: the Virmire survivor was the mission you were on, though you don't know it yet. Whether you trust her doesn't mean she must trust you, and there's plenty enough basis for her not to trust you absolutely immediately. Tali's always said in ME1, after all, that her highest obligation is to the Flotilla. Which was attacked by Cerberus. Who you are currently and unexpectedly working with.
[quote]
[quote]You're right. It makes sense that the man who holds a 20 year grudge against a man would forgive you instantly for ruining his chance to get eve.[/quote]
If you have meaningless sex with Jack and earn her wrath that way, she's still loyal. It's not about whether they like you or not, but how well they can function as a team on a mission. Zaeed likely doesn't forgive you, but he can keep his irritation down at least until the mission is over.[/quote][/quote]Why should he, though? Why shouldn't, say, Thane, or Samara, or Tali be given a 'win back loyalty after screwing their loyalty mission' option?
[quote]
[quote]Until Legion, the Geth had always reacted with hostility towards organics (except Saren and his lackeys). I still don't believe Legion's heretic-true Geth crap. He is your only source. You would never know about heretic Geth had you not activated him.[/quote]
Why would a geth working for the Reapers help you destroy a Reaper base,[/quote]A simple answer could be that the Derilect Reaper doesn't know or identiy the Geth as friendly, and so the husks are as much a threat to it as to you, and it perceives its mission as more important than killing you. At which point Shepard is temporarily saved as a diversion for the husks who would otherwise overwhelm Legion. (Which they sort of did anyway.) 

There are other examples as well, which also can't be disproven without relying on Legion's word. Which is the crux of the issue.
[quote]
not to mention a space station itself full of heretic geth?[/quote]How do you know the space station is full of heretics, as opposed to Legion being a heretic and deceiving you as a clever strategem for the Heretics to at last take control of all Geth? The only word you have about either faction is Legion's.

It could just as easily be an elaborate ruse to get in Shepard's trust: it's not like you or your party ever have an ability to verify what Legion is doing or saying is true. If, for example, there were no heretic/true geth split in the first place, only a lie concocted by the Geth, sacrificing a small, striped down station could be seen as an acceptable sacrifice of Geth in order to infiltrate Shepard's trust. If you, Shepard, blow up the station, that's annoying, but it's only strategic relevance was a fictitious virus in the first place. If you 'rewrite' the Heretics, then there's no loss in the first place (and a possible chance to see Shepard died in the transmission) and the Geth have the cover to withdraw from current operations and bide their time without raising too much suspicion.


Now, do I think that's what occured? No, I don't give Mass Effect enough credit. Could that be the reason for why things occured in the game? Yes, if you were suspicious.

[CaptainZaysh]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

It's not unavoidable. Bioware could have had Sovereign win if you try to save the council, but we all know that would never happen. At the point of the decision, Shepard does not know how the fight will end. Trying to save the council gives Sovereign a better chance to win.

I'm not sure that would have been a good way to handle it.  I think as a rule "consequences you can live with" would be better than "game over, man!"

How about this: save the Council, Joker dies.  You get a replacement in ME2 who is not so good a pilot and, as a result, you're guaranteed a random casualty during the space phase of the Suicide Mission.

How would the Paragons feel about this?

[Xilizhra]

[quote]I think it's obvious Ash wasn't.[/quote]

Then why even bring it up?



[quote]The Virmire Survivor saw the mission you were on: the Virmire survivor was the mission you were on, though you don't know it yet. Whether you trust her doesn't mean she must trust you, and there's plenty enough basis for her not to trust you absolutely immediately. Tali's always said in ME1, after all, that her highest obligation is to the Flotilla. Which was attacked by Cerberus. Who you are currently and unexpectedly working with. [/quote]

Don't you know everything important already? You've seen the Collectors and you know about the seeker swarms. Additionally, this comes after you agree to give Veetor back, showing that you value his welfare over your immediate allegiance to Cerberus, thus demonstrating to Tali that the old Shepard is still there and not buried by Cerberus.



[quoteWhy should he, though? Why shouldn't, say, Thane, or Samara, or Tali be given a 'win back loyalty after screwing their loyalty mission' option?[/quote]

Because Vito's escape was in part Zaeed's own doing. Paragon Shepard would have had no problem chasing Vito down, but Zaeed blew up the refinery and endangered the lives of its workers, thus immediately creating a new and more important mission. If you get him to realize that, he can get over himself. And the fact that he's capable of even temporary forgiveness here may make him a better person than he seems.



[quote]It could just as easily be an elaborate ruse to get in Shepard's trust: it's not like you or your party ever have an ability to verify what Legion is doing or saying is true. If, for example, there were no heretic/true geth split in the first place, only a lie concocted by the Geth, sacrificing a small, striped down station could be seen as an acceptable sacrifice of Geth in order to infiltrate Shepard's trust. If you, Shepard, blow up the station, that's annoying, but it's only strategic relevance was a fictitious virus in the first place. If you 'rewrite' the Heretics, then there's no loss in the first place (and a possible chance to see Shepard died in the transmission) and the Geth have the cover to withdraw from current operations and bide their time without raising too much suspicion.[/quote]

It's true, it could be lying about this, but is that a chance worth taking? If Legion is telling the truth, then you could be facing an enormous loss, enough to make this risk the smaller one.

[Xilizhra]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

It's not unavoidable. Bioware could have had Sovereign win if you try to save the council, but we all know that would never happen. At the point of the decision, Shepard does not know how the fight will end. Trying to save the council gives Sovereign a better chance to win.

I'm not sure that would have been a good way to handle it.  I think as a rule "consequences you can live with" would be better than "game over, man!"

How about this: save the Council, Joker dies.  You get a replacement in ME2 who is not so good a pilot and, as a result, you're guaranteed a random casualty during the space phase of the Suicide Mission.

How would the Paragons feel about this?

It doesn't feel much less like a kick in the head. Are the story-based consequences of the Alliance's subsequent weakness not enough? If not, I suppose they could be given a greater emphasis.

[TheNexus]

My main character, who will most likely be the first character I play ME3 with, is a male soldier paragon idealist. Even though I like it when twists and turns occur in stories, I really would like it if things panned out in a relatively predictable fashion for the paragon track.

I'm not saying that everything should be predictable...but like... make sure Shepards LI is a happily ever after. Make sure he survives the game. Make sure he defeats/beats back/subdues the Reapers. That stuff.

The game is massive enough that the rest of it can be an unpredictable ride of crazy. But having just an incredibly epic battle with Shepard coming out and living happily ever after with his LI, although cheesy, just feels right for that path.

On a different note, they really should go all out for Renegades. They've been shortchanging them with content for the past 2 games. They should be thrown a bone and have an incredible and unpredictable ride from start to finish.

[RiouHotaru]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
Bulls**t.  Wishful thinking.

Proof?  9/11 was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's second attack on the World Trade Centre.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I couldn't have written a post with such innacuracies and logical failures if I tried, starting with the point that a failed plot does not prevent terrorists from being able or allowed to act again to the bizaar assertion that Balak even needs to hide within the Alliance and be seen himself in order to act  and extending to when those same safeguards you rest on would have done nothing in the plot he already did can be outmaneuvered in something as basic and old as a disguise and a fake identity.

I don't like using the S-word, but that's an incredibly stupid argument. No, experienced government/private backers don't demand absolute success from subordinates, and failures not deriving from incompetence are rarely grounds for never employing or using a person again. No, colonies 'being on the lookout for him' in no way nullifies him any more than the US being on the lookout for Afghan/Iraqi insurgent leaders nullified them, and the US was occupying the areas in which they were acting. The Alliance has no such equivalent into disputed Traverse/Terminus areas. No, having a face to look for does not mean wanted people are recognized immediately, nor does Balak have to be visible before he acts either: in X-57 itself we saw that the attackers were able to hijack the asteroid without any colonial authority even seeing them.

Not comparable.  I find it amusing that people continue to try and draw parallels to modern-day terrorists.  Level of technology and security and all that.  It likely won't be just as easy as getting a fake ID.  Balak was only able to attempt  a Colony Drop in the first place because of X-57 being there.  What could he have possibly done otherwise?  Now the Alliance will have tighter patrols and more security in at-risk colonies.  Not to mention you can't compare modern-day terrorists to the Batarians.  Mindsets and motivations are completely different.

Also note that most of his men weren't even aware of his true mission in the first place.  Once they were, most of them didn't even want to be there, evidenced by Char.  They're just looking for a quick slave grab, not a Colony Drop.  Only reason they stick around is out of fear.  Balak's going to have a hard time convincing folks to join him if people know he's not exactly upfront with mission parameters or that there's no guarantee they'll ever get paid at all.

I really find this "let's compare the futuristic society and cultures of ME to real-life and draw parallels despite them being weak at best" silly.

[-Skorpious-]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

. It's also not especially morally reprehensible to defend yourself. As Legion put it, they chose a path that made co-existence possible.

Are you trying to say that defending yourself from a race that seeks genocide against you and their own kind is not deserving of hostile action? That is completely and utterly insane.

You quote me explicitly saying I do not find it morally reprehensible to defend yourself.

Then you ask me if I have some issue with fighting the Heretics, who are trying to kill you.


There is a serious language comprehension barrier here, and I'm not convinced it's on my side. But in case it is, I'll simplify it for you.

IT IS NOT BAD TO KILL IN DEFENCE OF YOURSELF .
THE HERETICS ARE FORCING YOU TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
KILLING/REWRITING THE HERETICS IS STILL GENOCIDE OF THE HERETICS.
THAT IS OKAY.

I accidentally skipped over a word in your sentence that I, in my rush to reply to your comment, failed to initally notice. My mistake.

For future reference though - can you please be less of a **** when correcting a fellow forumite's mishap? Thanks.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:09 .

[Temaperacl]

No, Legion was a paragon renegade choice. You could choose to reactivate him or hand him over to Cerberus, and you get +15 paragon for reactivating him and +15 renegade for giving him to Cerberus. Also, I was simply addressing the challenge that paragons never get left off the hook, which they clearly do; I'm making no argument about whether renegades get let off the hook or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this between keeping Legion and handing Legion over instead of activating Legion or not? those were two seperate decisions.

[Sajuro]

TheNexus wrote...

My main character, who will most likely be the first character I play ME3 with, is a male soldier paragon idealist. Even though I like it when twists and turns occur in stories, I really would like it if things panned out in a relatively predictable fashion for the paragon track.

I'm not saying that everything should be predictable...but like... make sure Shepards LI is a happily ever after. Make sure he survives the game. Make sure he defeats/beats back/subdues the Reapers. That stuff.

The game is massive enough that the rest of it can be an unpredictable ride of crazy. But having just an incredibly epic battle with Shepard coming out and living happily ever after with his LI, although cheesy, just feels right for that path.

On a different note, they really should go all out for Renegades. They've been shortchanging them with content for the past 2 games. They should be thrown a bone and have an incredible and unpredictable ride from start to finish.

That's what happens when you just start killing people because it solves the problem the quickest. Killing all of the feros colonists means there is no one for you to help with the contracts in ME2. Killing Wrex means his brother takes over who like humans a whole lot less, and probably has no love for the man who killed Wrex. Not saving the council, unpopular with aliens and since you acted mean some Udina assumes that you want an all human council. And killing the Rachni Queen.... I hate to say it but you can't really get Rachni ships if the Rachni are all dead.
Dead people are dead, and if a Renegade wants to get more content then they should consider that before blowing the brains out of every NPC that crosses your path and not complain about how Bioware doesn't pat them on the head and say 'it's alright you killed all the colonists on Zhu's Hope, you can still do that quest'

[Manic Sheep]

Temaperacl wrote...

No, Legion was a paragon renegade choice. You could choose to reactivate him or hand him over to Cerberus, and you get +15 paragon for reactivating him and +15 renegade for giving him to Cerberus. Also, I was simply addressing the challenge that paragons never get left off the hook, which they clearly do; I'm making no argument about whether renegades get let off the hook or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this between keeping Legion and handing Legion over instead of activating Legion or not? those were two seperate decisions.

Yes but if you hand Legion over to over you can't activate him so what difference does this make?

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 01 décembre 2010 - 09:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think it's obvious Ash wasn't.

Then why even bring it up?

To demonstrate that there is no inherent mandate for success for an action besides the fact that the game chooses to avoid instant-fail choices. Not all games do that, and arguing that they wouldn't dare do such a thing

Don't you know everything important already? You've seen the Collectors and you know about the seeker swarms. Additionally, this comes after you agree to give Veetor back, showing that you value his welfare over your immediate allegiance to Cerberus, thus demonstrating to Tali that the old Shepard is still there and not buried by Cerberus.

Veetor outright claimed he recorded more than you say, meaning outright that what you saw isn't all that he had. Whether he recorded all he had seen and known is impossible to know without questioning Veetor: all his omnitool stores is what he recorded, whereas you need and want to know everything he knows. Knowing the seeker swarms exist doesn't mean knowing

Giving Veetor means that you're friends with Tali. I doesn't mean you aren't tied with Cerberus. It isn't even an anti-Cerberus act: Cerberus and the Migrant Fleet forge ties if you do, which can just as well mean enlightened self-interest for the sake of Cerberus.

Because Vito's escape was in part Zaeed's own doing. Paragon Shepard would have had no problem chasing Vito down, but Zaeed blew up the refinery and endangered the lives of its workers, thus immediately creating a new and more important mission. If you get him to realize that, he can get over himself. And the fact that he's capable of even temporary forgiveness here may make him a better person than he seems.

And losing sight of the Politician and abandoning his son to this path was Thane's own failing. Not finding Morinth in the club despite knowing she was there, having an obsession over this in the first place, is Samara's own failing. You can just as well argue that either of them should 'get over it' with a proper stirring, intimidating, motivational speach.

It's true, it could be lying about this, but is that a chance worth taking? If Legion is telling the truth, then you could be facing an enormous loss, enough to make this risk the smaller one.

And if Legion is lying about which side is which, acting would be facing an enormous loss.

Of course, we never hear this at all if we sell Legion, for understandable reasons we've already covered.

[Dean_the_Young]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

. It's also not especially morally reprehensible to defend yourself. As Legion put it, they chose a path that made co-existence possible.

Are you trying to say that defending yourself from a race that seeks genocide against you and their own kind is not deserving of hostile action? That is completely and utterly insane.

You quote me explicitly saying I do not find it morally reprehensible to defend yourself.

Then you ask me if I have some issue with fighting the Heretics, who are trying to kill you.


There is a serious language comprehension barrier here, and I'm not convinced it's on my side. But in case it is, I'll simplify it for you.

IT IS NOT BAD TO KILL IN DEFENCE OF YOURSELF .
THE HERETICS ARE FORCING YOU TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
KILLING/REWRITING THE HERETICS IS STILL GENOCIDE OF THE HERETICS.
THAT IS OKAY.

I accidentally skipped over a word in your sentence that I, in my rush to reply to your comment, failed to initally notice. My mistake.

For future reference though - can you please be less of a **** when correcting a fellow forumite's mishap? Thanks.

Don't repeatedly mistake or mis-state my position several times in a row, and I won't see my patience run out.