64 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Killing someone to save people who are about to die isn't Renegade; if it was, killing Saren would be, among many others. Your example doesn't really work.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Erm, yes it does... Balak is the most obvious example. Letting Vido go is another example.

Also, killing Saren didn't cause people to die. The above examples does or is that too hard for you to comprehend?

[Xilizhra]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Erm, yes it does... Balak is the most obvious example. Letting Vido go is another example.
Also, killing Saren didn't cause people to die. The above examples does or is that too hard for you to comprehend?

Ah, here lies the confusion. You said that you'd have to kill Balak or see 10000 people die; to be consistent with ME1, Vito, etc, killing Balak would be the thing that made 10000 people die.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Xilizhra wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Erm, yes it does... Balak is the most obvious example. Letting Vido go is another example.
Also, killing Saren didn't cause people to die. The above examples does or is that too hard for you to comprehend?

Ah, here lies the confusion. You said that you'd have to kill Balak or see 10000 people die; to be consistent with ME1, Vito, etc, killing Balak would be the thing that made 10000 people die.

*facepalms*
Sorry about that, you got me

Yeah THAT is what I meant.

You kill Balak and allow 10000 people to die
Or you let him go (AGAIN) and save the 10000 people

*goes to edit post*

Think about escalation... can you constantly live with the fact you are letting this person go who will continue to terrify people and try to do really nasty things to humans?

[Xilizhra]

I let him go based on thinking that he wouldn't be able to get away with it again after ME1. I suppose I'll make that decision when I see it in-game.

[Zulu_DFA]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Renegades who complain about the outcome of choices that they don't make are silly.

       ___ Content
O < ___ No content

Yeah, that's definitely silly.

No it gets even more silly though Zulu.

Basically from what I've read of some of these alleged 'Paragons' they basically want the chance to kill Balak only this time without any consequences (renegade shift or more to the point, innocents getting killed).

So basically, it is the Paragons who are complaining because they want the chance to kill someone without consequence. They probably want Vido and Elnora too...

"Turns out basic Police work isn't hard, you just have to leave the station!"

If Balak is back in ME3, simple, they should make you have to choose whether to kill him or save a tower block with 10,000 workers inside from dying from a bomb he has planted and will go off if he dies. Reason for escalation in numbers is because you were too weak to kill him the first time course with the former, you still get a renegade hit, but it ain't as bad as what it would have been without the alternate consequence.

Good idea, only the paragons would let Balak go again and speak about the improtance of saving the 10K "innocents", unless Balak jumps in in the epilogue and kills their Shepard in bed along with the LI. Then it would seriously make them rethink the importance of those 10K "innocents"...

Xilizhra wrote...

Then complain about you not getting content, not us getting it. I
promise you, I have no problems with Renegades getting more content for
their decisions.

I, for one, am not complaining about loosing out on content. I am complainign about the concept of "choice" (so loudly advertised and acclaimed as the best innovative idea to date) being, in fact, devaluated to a silly "wanna more content, click the blue" version of Simon Says kind of game.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 16 décembre 2010 - 01:34 .

[Xilizhra]

I, for one, am not complaining about loosing out on content. I am complainign about the concept of "choice" (so loudly advertised and acclaimed as the best innovative idea to date) being, in fact, devaluated to a silly "wanna more content, click the blue" version of Simon Says kind of game.

Then ask for more content for Renegade. The balance of choice, if it's been imbalanced in the first place, will be restored.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Don't get me wrong, am not saying what you did is wrong. I have a paragon that let him go, it's just that if I do run into him again am not expecting a free kill. Personally I can't see them adding him in, but then again they might. Just like Elnora I'll be surprised if she makes a return other than maybe a news bulletin perhaps.

Edit: Vido on the other hand, I can see them using the choice on Zaeed's mission as a means to Zaeed possibly helping Shepard again or not.

Zaeed is sort of like the Renegade to Samara's Paragon. In that if your Renegade and helped him do his mission, he'll help, if your paragon and helped her do her mission she'll help.
Failure to do missions and neither help. Be a paragon who took the paragon route and Zaeed won't help, Be a renegade and Samara won't help, in fact will probably want to kill you.

Modifié par Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, 16 décembre 2010 - 01:40 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

I, for one, am not complaining about loosing out on content. I am complainign about the concept of "choice" (so loudly advertised and acclaimed as the best innovative idea to date) being, in fact, devaluated to a silly "wanna more content, click the blue" version of Simon Says kind of game.

Then ask for more content for Renegade. The balance of choice, if it's been imbalanced in the first place, will be restored.

I don't need inconsequential content. I want consequences. Let Balak go? Fine, Kate Bowman is now safe and you get a cameo of her now working on the Presidium and being married and awaiting a baby, and providing you with a 2-minute fetch quest. But your ME2 LI was killed by Balak off screen and you ain't gettin that cameo.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 16 décembre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Xilizhra]

Honestly, why do you care about the consequences of decisions that you don't even take? Why must you rain on our parade?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, why do you care about the consequences of decisions that you don't even take? Why must you rain on our parade?

Because the perfect world seen through the blue-tinted glasses is poor game design. Bioware claims that paragon and renegade choices are neither right nor wrong, but the game design does not attest to their claims.

[Xilizhra]

Then again, ask for better content for Renegade decisions; I don't make them and I don't care what's in them. Heck, it'll make more people happier in the real world, and I'm all for that.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, why do you care about the consequences of decisions that you don't even take? Why must you rain on our parade?

Because I'm getting a lot of renegades are jerks&douchebags and there's a lot of logic in the paragon path. Which is all bullsh*t.

[Xilizhra]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, why do you care about the consequences of decisions that you don't even take? Why must you rain on our parade?

Because I'm getting a lot of renegades are jerks&douchebags and there's a lot of logic in the paragon path. Which is all bullsh*t.

In your opinion. Enjoy it.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Then again, ask for better content for Renegade decisions; I don't make them and I don't care what's in them. Heck, it'll make more people happier in the real world, and I'm all for that.

No it won't. It makes happier those who want just an interactive move (and are OK with the role of a passive viewer of what their Shepard would do "this time"), but it makes unhappier those who are for the innovative GAMEplay (and want to assume the role of an active in-universe character, who makes responsible choices based on incomplete information).

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, why do you care about the consequences of decisions that you don't even take? Why must you rain on our parade?

Because I'm getting a lot of renegades are jerks&douchebags and there's a lot of logic in the paragon path. Which is all bullsh*t.

In your opinion. Enjoy it.

In your opinion.

[Xilizhra]

Personally, I'm very happy to assume the role of an active in-universe character who makes responsible choices based on incomplete information, and feel that I'm quite able to do this. I also feel that you're able to do this too as a Renegade, and the lack of additional content for Renegades (which basically amounts to a lack of a few cameos) does not hinder the actual gameplay.

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
the lack of additional content for Renegades (which basically amounts
to a lack of a few cameos) does not hinder the actual gameplay.[/quote]

Yes.

But the lack of negative consequences does. If both choices are OK, plus sometimes there is a persuasion cop-out to get the benefits from both option, the choice mechanic is pointless.[/quote]


[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
Personally, I'm very happy to assume the role of an active in-universe character who makes responsible choices based on incomplete information, and feel that I'm quite able to do this.
[/quote]
No you don't, and that's adamant. You base your choices on some abstract moral dogma, and "the pattern" of them never coming back to haunt you removes the idea of responsibilty from the game.


[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
I also feel that you're able to do this too as a Renegade
[/quote]
It just so happens that "the ends justify the means" approach is considered douchebaggy and jerkish, so I earn a lot more renegade points even though I don't punch reporters and when I talk to people instead if killing them, I tend to do it nice.

And I am punished by the idiotic scars, which I have to spend 50K of platinum to get rid of.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 16 décembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[Xilizhra]

But the lack of negative consequences does. If both choices are OK, plus sometimes there is a persuasion cop-out to get the benefits from both option, the choice mechanic is pointless.

Only if the roleplaying isn't enough for you to gain satisfaction from, and there must be a specific material reward.

No you don't, and that's adamant. You base your choices on some abstract moral dogma, and "the pattern" of them never coming back to haunt you removes the idea of responsibilty from the game.

I respect your opinion, but disagree.

It just so happens that "the ends justify the means" approach is considered douchebaggy and jerkish, so I earn a lot more renegade points even though I don't punch reporters and when I talk to people instead if killing them, I tend to do it nice.

Good for you, but personality traits like that aren't as important as actual actions.

And I am punished by the idiotic scars, which I have to spend 50K of platinum to get rid of.

In other words, you make an optional choice to change your appearance. Congratulations.

[Aurica]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
If Balak is back in ME3, simple, they should make you have to choose whether to kill him letting a tower block with 10,000 workers inside die from a bomb he has set to go off if he dies or save them at the expense of Balak escaping again. Reason for escalation in numbers is because you were too weak to kill him the first time course with the former, you still get a renegade hit, but it ain't as bad as what it would have been without the alternate consequence.
Edit:
Renegades who killed balak still can get this mission but as there is no Balak, there is no bomb and the terrorists he was with are easily subdued in comparison.
Default ME2-ME3 Sheps and PS3 Sheps have to deal with Balak, but they basically get the option to kill him at expense of the 10,000 or save them at the expense of Balak escaping.

Even though my canon Shepard is Paragon and she let Balak go just to save a few hostages.  I like this idea, because it reflects the consequences of my actions in ME1 in a much more severe way that will hit home.   Letting him go and being able to kill him again in ME3 with little to no consequences just cheapens the entire experience in ME1.

[TexasToast712]

Iam Paragade and I let him go although I will not let him go a second time. NO MATTER WHAT THE COST!

[knightnblu]

I would dearly love to end that sob in ME3. I'm thinking an intel tip off followed shortly by a head shot with the sniper rifle and the pleasure of watching his head explode through the scope would be nice.

[Jzadek72]

To all who want an easy kill:

Simply put, I play paragon, and do not want this. That was part of the decision - let Balak walk, or definitely condemn four people to death. By being unwilling to sacrifice lives, we need to accept that Balak is not going to be an easy kill.

That's not to say we shouldn't get the chance to take him out. It just shouldn't be easy. Or our previous actions should have consequences - perhaps we'll find out where he is and take him down without him expecting us, but the only reason we found out is because he just blew up a major civilian transport.

@ZuluDFA - I totally agree with you about paragons needing consequences. I roleplay a paragade Shepard, but tend to take paragon for major decisions. She refused to keep the base because of her hatred of Cerberus and distrust of TIM, and that should mean heavier casulaties against the Reapers, maybe even a Virmire situation that renegades don't have to suffer. There should be a price for morality, and I'll be pissed off if all goes happily because I took ends-don't-justify-the-means route. The real world doesn't work like that, neither should the game.

/rant.

[Angel-Shinkiro]

The stupid thing about the paragon decision is that we can't tell Joker to blow Balak out of the sky. I mean, does the Normandy even have weapons. I thought they said it was a warship with sleath capabilities not a flying rock.

End rant.