105 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Mesina2 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...


To illustrate:
Sparing the Rachni
- Renegade
Gain - Eliminate potential threat
Cost - Miss out on POSSIBLE future ally
- Paragon
Gain - POSSIBLE Future ally
Cost - Nothing if not a threat, Council races and especially Krogans won't be very welcomed about Rachni return

Saving the Council
- Renegade
Gain - Face Sovereign at full strength
Cost - inter-species tension
- Paragon
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - Nothing Alliance fleet still didn't recover from Sovereign

The Krogans will love the idea of the Rachni returning.

[Ieldra]

BurnedToast wrote...
Except renegade shep DOES want human dominance (regardless of why YOU picked it). You pick renegade choices, you end up with an all human council, little galactic opposition to humanity, a base full of powerful technology in the hands of a radical pro-human terrorist group, and a shep who argues for humanity and against aliens at practically every dialog wheel.

Don't try and make the game into something it's not. It's not about gambling at all - you will win (or have the option to win) ME3 no matter what. There's no right choices or wrong choices.

You're wrong in that. I can roleplay my Shepard's motivations as I see fit. Or why has there been a neutral choice "concentrate on the Sovereign" at the end of ME1?
My Renegades acccept human dominance as a possible side effect of their decisions, but they do not work towards it. They work towards defeating the Reapers just as Paragons do.

The most annoying aspect of the Collector Base decision is that it's interpreted by some people to be intrinsically pro-Cerberus. No. It's definitely not that. It was a strategic decision and giving Cerberus power is an undesirable side effect. It is a cost, not a benefit. It cannot be interpreted as such without making Renegade evil. I accept those side effects as costs, but only if it was worth it, if there was some significant advantage to be gained from that decision. If the game consistently denies me those advantages, there is no point to playing Renegade unless you want to play evil.

I was under the impression that ME isn't that kind of story.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2011 - 12:33 .

[AkiKishi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're wrong in that. I can roleplay my Shepard's motivations as I see fit. Or why has there been a neutral choice "concentrate on the Sovereign" at the end of ME1?
My Renegades acccept human dominance as a possible side effect of their decisions, but they do not work towards it. They work towards defeating the Reapers just as Paragons do.

The most annoying aspect of the Collector Base decision is that it's interpreted by some people to be intrinsically pro-Cerberus. No. It's definitely not that. It was a strategic decision and giving Cerberus power is an undesirable side effect. It is a cost, not a benefit. It cannot be interpreted as such without making Renegade evil. I accept those side effects as costs, but only if it was worth it, if there was some significant advantage to be gained from that decision. If the game consistently denies me those advantages, there is no point to playing Renegade unless you want to play evil.

He's not wholly wrong. Shepard is indeed a pre-generated character that you get to choose a path for. But it's still the pre-determined path.
Renegade Shepard is pro-human, no escaping that his actions are pro-human actions.
You can mix and match, but untimately you get pushed down one or the other path in most dialogue choices.

For my Renegade , the motivation for blowing up the base was simply that TIM had jerked me around and I wanted to give him a "kick in the nads" and that was the best way. The game of course does not reflect my motivation, only the outcome.

It's best to think of Shepard as a puppet on elastic. It's less restrictive than string, but if you try to go to far you will get sprung back to the intended path.

[CroGamer002]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...


To illustrate:
Sparing the Rachni
- Renegade
Gain - Eliminate potential threat
Cost - Miss out on POSSIBLE future ally
- Paragon
Gain - POSSIBLE Future ally
Cost - Nothing if not a threat, Council races and especially Krogans won't be very welcomed about Rachni return

Saving the Council
- Renegade
Gain - Face Sovereign at full strength
Cost - inter-species tension
- Paragon
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - Nothing Alliance fleet still didn't recover from Sovereign

The Krogans will love the idea of the Rachni returning.

But to be allied with them?

[Asheer_Khan]

Mesina2 wrote...
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - Nothing Alliance fleet still didn't recover from Sovereign

Did Alliance shipyards workers would went on 2 years permanent strike so they wouldn't be able to build 8 new cruisers lost during Citadel battle?

AND in case that some renegades missed that part... saving DA and defeat later on Sovieregin "cost" ONLY 8 ships... NOT 80, NOT 800, NOT 8000... ONLY 8 Cruisers.<_<

But if we are talking about how real costs of Citadel battle should be allow me to drop my 2 cents.

- Renegade Focus on Soveregin/Let them die choices.
Gain- Inter-species tensions and human lead council (thanks to udina paranoiadal acting) walks on the edge of interstellar war.
Cost- Alliance fleet never recover after Geth left behind wiped out 80% of ships busy fighting Sovieregin.

off topic:
I wonder how long will pass before next "lets punish paragons" thread will pop up again despite already 100 active ones...

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 14 février 2011 - 12:55 .

[Whatever42]

BobSmith101 wrote...

He's not wholly wrong. Shepard is indeed a pre-generated character that you get to choose a path for. But it's still the pre-determined path.
Renegade Shepard is pro-human, no escaping that his actions are pro-human actions.
You can mix and match, but untimately you get pushed down one or the other path in most dialogue choices.

For my Renegade , the motivation for blowing up the base was simply that TIM had jerked me around and I wanted to give him a "kick in the nads" and that was the best way. The game of course does not reflect my motivation, only the outcome.

It's best to think of Shepard as a puppet on elastic. It's less restrictive than string, but if you try to go to far you will get sprung back to the intended path.

Well, you can play a mostly renegade Shepard that will ultimately support the galactic community. You can be all glowy eyed and scarred and let the council live and blow the base.

But I do agree with you that in the conclusion of the game, the renegade ending is an isolationist human empire versus the paragon humanity as part of a galactic community one. Although, I'm still hoping that Bioware supports some shades of grey in there. It would be nice if there was a middle ending or two, where things are still up-in-the-air.

[AkiKishi]

Mesina2 wrote...

But to be allied with them?

They won't be allies in the sense they will be under the same chain of command. With all the allies it will be a case of pointing them at things and then letting them get on with it.

[CroGamer002]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - Nothing Alliance fleet still didn't recover from Sovereign

Did Alliance shipyards workers would went on 2 years permanent strike so they wouldn't be able to build 8 new cruisers lost during Citadel battle?

AND in case that some renegades missed that part... saving DA and defeat later on Sovieregin "cost" ONLY 8 ships... NOT 80, NOT 800, NOT 8000... ONLY 8 Cruisers.<_<

But if we are talking about how real costs of Citadel battle should be allow me to drop my 2 cents.

- Renegade Focus on Soveregin/Let them die choices.
Gain- Inter-species tensions and human lead council (thanks to udina paranoiadal acting) walks on the edge of interstellar war.
Cost- Alliance fleet never recover after Geth left behind wiped out 80% of ships busy fighting Sovieregin.

off topic:
I wonder how long will pass before next "lets punish paragons" thread will pop up again despite already 100 active ones...

Do to loosing 8 ships while saving Destiny Ascension, Alliance had less ships to fight against Sovereign and he was little more prepared and destroyed much more Alliance ship then if you didn't let Council to die.

Modifié par Mesina2, 14 février 2011 - 01:03 .

[CroGamer002]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

But to be allied with them?

They won't be allies in the sense they will be under the same chain of command. With all the allies it will be a case of pointing them at things and then letting them get on with it.

They still won't like and after Reapers are gone, what will stop Krogans for attacking Rachni?
Council races won't like that.

[AkiKishi]

Mesina2 wrote...
They still won't like and after Reapers are gone, what will stop Krogans for attacking Rachni?
Council races won't like that.

The Rachni will likely just vanish. The Rachni are only there as a favour to Shepard. The Krogan may well do that once their numbers recover. But that's going to be a distant future thing, so anything could happen by then.

I don't think the Rachni will play a really big part because it was a choice rather than a plot point.

[Commander Kurt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And of course I don't know. But if we have allies in one scenario, and no allies in the other, I think it's reasonable to assume the fight will be harder in the latter scenario.

It's all Bioware's choice. They chose to make the Rachni allies, and that's very much OK. But for a balance, it's necessary the "Paragon bet" doesn't pay off in all main plot decisions.

All that assuming, of course, that having allies or not will be significant at all.  

Well, honestly, it probably won't. In the scenario where we have allies, humanity is weaker instead. And I agree, it is reasonable to assume that allies will be helpful.  When roleplaying, I don't think the Reapers can be defeated without galactic stability (save the DA) and all the allies I can get. Getting that is worth the risk and a weakened Alliance because I think I'll need it (well, I don't metagaming and all, but my Shep does). I'm playing Paragon for that very reason.

If you think that having allies and galactic stability is the best option for final victory then I suggest you play Paragon. You may think that elevating Cerberus and humanity will be a smarter move, and in that case Renegade is the choice for you.

And the Paragon Bet can easily pay off in all main plot decisions, while still being perfectly balanced. All it takes is that the Renegade Bet pays off as well. Which it has so far. I've paid for my choice to save the DA, humans died and my military is weaker for it, and Renegades haven't had any trouble at all overthrowing the galactic government and seizing power.

However, this is all guess work. If I could make one suggestion it would be not to get agitated about the balance in a game that hasn't even come out yet.

[CroGamer002]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
They still won't like and after Reapers are gone, what will stop Krogans for attacking Rachni?
Council races won't like that.

The Rachni will likely just vanish. The Rachni are only there as a favour to Shepard. The Krogan may well do that once their numbers recover. But that's going to be a distant future thing, so anything could happen by then.

I don't think the Rachni will play a really big part because it was a choice rather than a plot point.

But I still think it's going to be difficult and time consuming to have both Rachni and Krogans on your side. Plus if I let Council to die and have Rachni I think we'll have rough ride with Council races.

[stuboy52]

i think in terms of morality mass effect is thing with both doing the right thing in the end but the way you go about it is different one issue is paragon option is always top left or right of conversation wheel while renegade is the bottom if it wasnt as obvious like this and the player had to think harder it would be more interesting. for example the game the witcher doesnt have a obvious good or questionable badass route its choosing a side and you see both sides are in the wrong or you can just be neutral.



with all that said the ME formula for morality works fine and shouldnt be changed dont fix what aint broken

[CARL_DF90]

That can actually be a rather paradoxical view point op.

[DPSSOC]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
To illustrate:
Sparing the Rachni
- Renegade
Gain - Eliminate potential threat
Cost - Miss out on A POSSIBLE future ally
- Paragon
Gain - POSSIBLE Future ally
Cost - POTENTIAL TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS

I'd really love to give you this one, cause then the equation would be balanced and I'd be happy.  Unfortunately that's not a cost of the choice it's a risk (slightly different).  And even if we ignore the improbability that this choice will bite you in the ass (and if it does kudos to Bioware on maintaing the ruse) and it does go bad then we run into the opposite problem, cost without gain.  Like I said I'm fine with the Renegade Cost/Gain balance I just don't see a similar balance with Paragon choices.  If the Rachni turn out bad then you have the Paragons losing something without gaining anything which is just punishing them (not what I want to see).  An example of the balance for the Rachni choice could be you gain the Rachni, but lose the Krogan.  Pros and cons, give and take, etc. that's all I want

AdmiralCheez wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Saving the Council
- Renegade
Gain - Face Sovereign at full strength
Cost - inter-species tension
- Paragon
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - HUMAN LIVES

I guess I gotta give you that one.

[Wulfram]

Renegade choices should generally result in better outcomes from a Renegade point of view, and generally do.



Killing guys you don't like results in people you don't like being dead - Win

Letting those Alien bastards on the council die results in a human dominated council - Win

Killing the Rachni Queen means no threat to human dominance from the Rachni - Win

[DPSSOC]

Wulfram wrote...
Letting those Alien bastards on the council die results in a human dominated council - Win

I really wish people would stop bringing this up.  If you pay attention to the new reports, or even just the convo with Anderson, it's pretty clear that humanity may be shouting the loudest, but nobody's listening.

[Jonathan Shepard]

MajesticJazz wrote...

vanslyke85 wrote...

it's a good thing i get reminded of this every 4 days...i keep forgetting

Well maybe because there is some relevance to it.

People do not want this to be another "Star Wars" in terms of morality with the notion that by doing good "Paragon" you will be rewarded in the end while being bad "Renegade" would leave you with you with the harder route.

This precisely is what I (and apparently many others) are concerned about.

[Sajuro]

DPSSOC wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Letting those Alien bastards on the council die results in a human dominated council - Win

I really wish people would stop bringing this up.  If you pay attention to the new reports, or even just the convo with Anderson, it's pretty clear that humanity may be shouting the loudest, but nobody's listening.

Which is what happens when you are a jerk to everyone.

[DPSSOC]

Sajuro wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Letting those Alien bastards on the council die results in a human dominated council - Win

I really wish people would stop bringing this up.  If you pay attention to the new reports, or even just the convo with Anderson, it's pretty clear that humanity may be shouting the loudest, but nobody's listening.

Which is what happens when you are a jerk to everyone.

Fair enough but that doesn't invalidate the fact that humanity isn't dominating anybody.  They may be trying but they're doing a ****** poor job of it.  Effective domination requires force (political, economic, military, all fine choices) the Alliance isn't applying any, and near as I can tell they can't.

[Sajuro]

DPSSOC wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Letting those Alien bastards on the council die results in a human dominated council - Win

I really wish people would stop bringing this up.  If you pay attention to the new reports, or even just the convo with Anderson, it's pretty clear that humanity may be shouting the loudest, but nobody's listening.

Which is what happens when you are a jerk to everyone.

Fair enough but that doesn't invalidate the fact that humanity isn't dominating anybody.  They may be trying but they're doing a ****** poor job of it.  Effective domination requires force (political, economic, military, all fine choices) the Alliance isn't applying any, and near as I can tell they can't.

So you want Bioware to have the Alliance try and subjugate the other races, which would probably result in a war and Human colonies being glassed.... somehow I think more renegades would be on here complaining if Bioware were realistic about it.

[DPSSOC]

Sajuro wrote...
So you want Bioware to have the Alliance try and subjugate the other races, which would probably result in a war and Human colonies being glassed.... somehow I think more renegades would be on here complaining if Bioware were realistic about it.

This is why I hate text based communication.

No, what I want is for people to stop referring to the Renegade council as "human dominated" when humans clearly aren't dominating anything.

[Sajuro]

DPSSOC wrote...

Sajuro wrote...
So you want Bioware to have the Alliance try and subjugate the other races, which would probably result in a war and Human colonies being glassed.... somehow I think more renegades would be on here complaining if Bioware were realistic about it.

This is why I hate text based communication.

No, what I want is for people to stop referring to the Renegade council as "human dominated" when humans clearly aren't dominating anything.

They may dominate the council in that they have the most seats, but that doesn't mean people have to respect them, after all what are they going to do if the rest of the citadel doesn't listen to them?
somehow I am reminded of the saying that goes 'you attract more flies with honey than vinegar' which is clearly more pro-paragon propaganda.

[DPSSOC]

Sajuro wrote...
They may dominate the council in that they have the most seats, but that doesn't mean people have to respect them, after all what are they going to do if the rest of the citadel doesn't listen to them?

Exactly my point.  I have no problem with people calling it a human led council, or a human heavy council, but if it were a truly human dominated council humanity could make, and enforce, unilateral decisions regardless of the other races opinions.  That's not the case.  I just want people (real people) to stop saying things like "Well Renegades get a human dominated council."  No we don't, stop saying that, it's a lie, you're lying.

Sajuro wrote...
somehow I am reminded of the saying that goes 'you attract more flies with honey than vinegar' which is clearly more pro-paragon propaganda.

And I am reinded of the question, "Why the hell would you want to attract flies?"

[Sajuro]

But it isn't a lie, they may dominate the council but if C-sec and the fleet decide to take their orders as suggestions, the council has very little real power.