650 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Zavox wrote...

Copy and paste is such a wonderful thing:

What was lacking about the intended system had it not been, you know, destroyed in the attack?

System, in this context, referring to the intended processes of dealing with, and containing, Grayson.

Yes, I can read that, and like I said; please enlighten me as to what your question is posing, for I'm feeling I've already answered it.

For your convenience: "The alarms in the station went up before the 3 turian frigates boarded so they were detected before any damage, and they could've assessed they were up against impossible odds and thus terminate Grayson."

Therefore we can assume their safety protocols or termination system was not adequate. They were detected before they boarded, both Kai Leng and the Illusive Man seperately came to the conclusion they were up against insurmountable odds, yet neither they nor the researchers could terminate Grayson before they managed to board. That means they did not account for this possibility on such high risk research. It's negligence and incompetence on Cerberus' part.

You're so close... and you're falling short.

90% solution here. Just need to take it a bit further.

[Vaenier]

DarthCaine wrote...

I'm pretty sure that you'll be able to defeat the Reapers no matter your choices in ME1/ME2

Most likely. It would seem the choices made would effect the cost of victory, not the chance of victory. They would also effect the after effects, like who get to claim what.

[Zavox]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Copy and paste is such a wonderful thing:

What was lacking about the intended system had it not been, you know, destroyed in the attack?

System, in this context, referring to the intended processes of dealing with, and containing, Grayson.

Yes, I can read that, and like I said; please enlighten me as to what your question is posing, for I'm feeling I've already answered it.

For your convenience: "The alarms in the station went up before the 3 turian frigates boarded so they were detected before any damage, and they could've assessed they were up against impossible odds and thus terminate Grayson."

Therefore we can assume their safety protocols or termination system was not adequate. They were detected before they boarded, both Kai Leng and the Illusive Man seperately came to the conclusion they were up against insurmountable odds, yet neither they nor the researchers could terminate Grayson before they managed to board. That means they did not account for this possibility on such high risk research. It's negligence and incompetence on Cerberus' part.

You're so close... and you're falling short.

90% solution here. Just need to take it a bit further.

Oh come on, don't tell me you're asking me for an effective way to terminate Grayson in such a situation?

[RiouHotaru]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Renegades refuse to acknowledge that Paragons also use logical, effective answers to problems.

Because they don't.

RiouHotaru wrote...

They think we have it easy, when thematically, we don't.  Just don't expect them to ever admit that.

Wrong. We think that you have it extremely complicated, and therefore, logically, you should fail a lot more often, that we, who prefer the easy & fool proof, if unpopular, way "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

But thanks to BioWare, you always luck out!

...Oh lordy, here we go again.  Why is it whenever this argument happens, we always come back to this?  I've mentioned, at length mind you, about how the Paragon choices are logical and reasonable.  And what happens?  You pull a VS and shut down completely.  You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that Paragon solutions are reasonable choices.  Bioware had to design it so that both decisions are reasonable, effective choices.

But I guess that isn't enough for you, is it?

[RiouHotaru]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I still don't understand why Renegades accept that they have to pick the extreme choices and still want to get a pat on the back.

Well, after the last dozen people tried explaining it to you why people might expect unpopular but logical choices to provide unpopular but more effective results, I suppose we'll just have to let you flounder around in self-admitted ignorance.

Because, Phaedon, Renegades refuse to acknowledge that Paragons also use logical, effective answers to problems.  They think we have it easy, when thematically, we don't.  Just don't expect them to ever admit that.

Exactly it, RiouHotaru. I'm glad you really see what all the disputes and disagreements over your logical arguments amounts to.

Except that the "disputes" and "disagreements" amount to you comparing Shepard's decisions to real-life situations of a similar nature and going "It doesn't work that way now, why would it ever work that way in Mass Effect?"  Completely ignoring the difference in settings and what not.

[Dean_the_Young]

Zavox wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Copy and paste is such a wonderful thing:

What was lacking about the intended system had it not been, you know, destroyed in the attack?

System, in this context, referring to the intended processes of dealing with, and containing, Grayson.

Yes, I can read that, and like I said; please enlighten me as to what your question is posing, for I'm feeling I've already answered it.

For your convenience: "The alarms in the station went up before the 3 turian frigates boarded so they were detected before any damage, and they could've assessed they were up against impossible odds and thus terminate Grayson."

Therefore we can assume their safety protocols or termination system was not adequate. They were detected before they boarded, both Kai Leng and the Illusive Man seperately came to the conclusion they were up against insurmountable odds, yet neither they nor the researchers could terminate Grayson before they managed to board. That means they did not account for this possibility on such high risk research. It's negligence and incompetence on Cerberus' part.

You're so close... and you're falling short.

90% solution here. Just need to take it a bit further.

Oh come on, don't tell me you're asking me for an effective way to terminate Grayson in such a situation?

Nope.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

RiouHotaru wrote...
...Oh lordy, here we go again.  Why is it whenever this argument happens, we always come back to this?  I've mentioned, at length mind you, about how the Paragon choices are logical and reasonable.  And what happens?  You pull a VS and shut down completely.  You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that Paragon solutions are reasonable choices.  Bioware had to design it so that both decisions are reasonable, effective choices.

But I guess that isn't enough for you, is it?

I think the problem that some players (including me) is, that renegade doesn't get rewarded like paragon. If renegades choices had their own rewards, most people would be okay. But as it is now, the system is biased in favour of paragon.

[Zavox]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nope.

Then either rephrase so that it is understandable what you mean, as in why my previous explanation is not enough. Or I'm just going to chalk this up as some trolling.

[TuringPoint]

Oh, I get it. They want to imagine THEY have what it takes to be a real-life spectre. Cute.

When in reality they may not have either the imagination or the drive to amount to anything similar.

Modifié par Alocormin, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:25 .

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Except that the "disputes" and "disagreements" amount to you comparing Shepard's decisions to real-life situations of a similar nature and going "It doesn't work that way now, why would it ever work that way in Mass Effect?"  Completely ignoring the difference in settings and what not.

Mass Effect's differences are a matter of technology and a few explicit cases of culture. When the verisimilitude of the series does not contrast with real-life situations, arguing against real-life situations and accurate realities is illogical.

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Renegades refuse to acknowledge that Paragons also use logical, effective answers to problems.

Because they don't.

RiouHotaru wrote...

They think we have it easy, when thematically, we don't.  Just don't expect them to ever admit that.

Wrong. We think that you have it extremely complicated, and therefore, logically, you should fail a lot more often, that we, who prefer the easy & fool proof, if unpopular, way "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

But thanks to BioWare, you always luck out!

...Oh lordy, here we go again.  Why is it whenever this argument happens, we always come back to this?  I've mentioned, at length mind you, about how the Paragon choices are logical and reasonable.  And what happens?  You pull a VS and shut down completely.  You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that Paragon solutions are reasonable choices.  Bioware had to design it so that both decisions are reasonable, effective choices.

But I guess that isn't enough for you, is it?

I admit there are some choices where both options seem to have their pros & cons (Heretics' choice, for example), yet even they in the end split into wishful thinking & better safe than sorry. Only one exception there is: Samara vs. Morinth.

The ultimate "reason" behind the paragon choices is that it's a game, and there is a pattern of not-biting-the-paragons-in-their-arses.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:36 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

[Zavox]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I admit there are some choices where both options seem to to have there pros & cons (Heretics' choice, for example), yet even they in the end split into wishful thinking & better safe than sorry. Only one exception there is: Samara vs. Morinth.

The ultimate "reason" behind the paragon choices is that it's a game, and there is a pattern of not-biting-the-paragons-in-their-arses.

Isn't gifting the base to Cerberus a case of: Better safe than sorry & Wishful thinking ?

[TexasToast712]

My first thought when I saw Earth under attack was "Oh the Batarians are gonna LOVE this."

I hate Batarians, as does my Ruthless Colony kid Shepard.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:30 .

[Inverness Moon]

Lizardviking wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
...Oh lordy, here we go again.  Why is it whenever this argument happens, we always come back to this?  I've mentioned, at length mind you, about how the Paragon choices are logical and reasonable.  And what happens?  You pull a VS and shut down completely.  You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that Paragon solutions are reasonable choices.  Bioware had to design it so that both decisions are reasonable, effective choices.

But I guess that isn't enough for you, is it?

I think the problem that some players (including me) is, that renegade doesn't get rewarded like paragon. If renegades choices had their own rewards, most people would be okay. But as it is now, the system is biased in favour of paragon.

I agree. BioWare doesn't seem to be trying too hard to make the paragon and renegade paths realistic and both rewarding in their own ways. Many people complained about how some renegade dialog options were just psychotic or just unnecessarily rude, etc. BioWare also hasn't done a good job of showing that both sides can have negative consequences.

Also, to Dave of Canada, I agree with prettymuch everything you've said. And holy crap your avatar is distracting.

Zavox wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I admit there are some choices where both options seem to to have there pros & cons (Heretics' choice, for example), yet even they in the end split into [color=cyan">wishful thinking &]better safe than sorry[/color]. Only one exception there is: Samara vs. Morinth.

The ultimate "reason" behind the paragon choices is that it's a game, and there is a pattern of not-biting-the-paragons-in-their-arses.

Isn't gifting the base to Cerberus a case of: [color=cyan">Better safe than sorry &]Wishful thinking[/color] ?

No, because if the base contained the only thing that could have saved the galaxy from the reapers, then you've already lost.

Keeping the base gives you the opportunity to find out for sure, destroying the base doesn't.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:33 .

[eldav]

Someone should start a hate group for us that hate batarians.

[AdamNW]

It's a fact that the reapers can lose without the collector base.



That doesn't mean that it would be an easy/flawless victory.

[TexasToast712]

eldav wrote...

Someone should start a hate group for us that hate batarians.

I support this although alot of people here prefer to mess with us colony kids and want to recruit one.

[AdamNW]

Double Post :\\

Modifié par AdamNW, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:38 .

[Zavox]

Inverness Moon wrote...

No, because if the base contained the only thing that could have saved the galaxy from the reapers, then you've already lost.

Keeping the base gives you the opportunity to find out for sure, destroying the base doesn't.

1st wish - Technology to save galaxy from the reapers
2nd wish - Cerberus please do not use this for your own benefit in the future, and please do not smirk like that whenever I tell you I will keep the base.
3rd wish - Please base, do not indoctrinate like all the other reaper tech did so far.

Kind of wishful thinking to me. Paragons destroy it as a better safe than sorry measure, obviously they have let it cross their mind there might be new technology there. Don't forget though that the technology would never be better than the technology the reapers have.

[Ryzaki]

And keeping the base carries no risk at all because we don't already know what happens when you start messing around with intact reaper tech.It's not like they were building a baby reaper capable of indoctrination in there.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:41 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Zavox wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I admit there are some choices where both options seem to have their pros & cons (Heretics' choice, for example), yet even they in the end split into wishful thinking & better safe than sorry. Only one exception there is: Samara vs. Morinth.

The ultimate "reason" behind the paragon choices is that it's a game, and there is a pattern of not-biting-the-paragons-in-their-arses.

Isn't gifting the base to Cerberus a case of: Better safe than sorry & Wishful thinking ?

Not really.

"We don't need the Base and I'll find some other way to stop the Reapers..." = wishful thinking to the max.

"TIM's a maniac, but the Reapers are assured destrcution, so go TIM!" =  risk management.

In other words, you are going to be a lot more sorry if destoying the Base is the wrong decision, than if keeping it is.

The
situation can't get worse than it is (the Reapers are coming, everyone dies), but it may get better (if the C-Base gives you a fighting chance, and at least a few may survive even if a Human Empire enslaves the aliens and blah... blah...).

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:54 .

[Bad King]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

this

[KnightofPhoenix]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

So saving this.

[Zavox]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Not really. We don't need the Base and I'll find some other way to stop the Reapers = wishful thinking to the max.

TIM's a maniac, but the Reapers are assured destrcution, so go TIM =  risk management.

Right, so you don't believe hoping for some holy grail technology is wishful thinking?

If anything the reapers can control the base from afar if need be, just like they did with Grayson. That line of thinking makes it a better safe than sorry decision for paragon. Especially if you take the possible consequences of giving it to Cerberus in mind.

Modifié par Zavox, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:51 .