148 réponses à ce sujet

[Serena Firewing]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

If we were dealing with someone who didn't have the traits that Kelham has, I'd agree with you. However, like I said, Kelham appears to be your caniving snake character and Shepard is a rather public figure. If your Shepard spent a lot of time in the Mass Effect side quests arresting characters, it is going to paint a different picture than if your Shepard spent a lot of time getting involved with criminals who were killed in the process of his involvement in the case.

Basically, to sum up my argument, your threats only mean something if the person at the barrel of the gun believes you are actually going to pull the trigger. BioWare should have offered you the chance to bluff and it should have been based upon how you've made decisions with smaller side quests from the first game. That or at least should have been based upon your Paragon/Renegade values (I dislike this option however). I play a character who never has the first digit of Paragon full and even Kelham called my bluff until I told him that I was a Spectre. He probably connected the dots as to who I was after that and decided it was in his best interest not to toy with me. That seems rather realistic to me.

If he hadn't folded under Sheppards threat he would have simply shot Kelham in the leg to prove his point, like I said my Sheppards are not saints but they are not demons either. I get roughly 60% paragon, 30% renegade and 10% neutral when I play the game with all choices unlocked so if criminals and other people Sheppard goes up against knows his reputation they know he will be more then willing to pull the trigger if the situation demands it.

[DarkSeraphym]

tonnactus wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...




Actions speak louder than words. If Shepard is such a public figure

Fact is,he/she isnt. Kelham not even knows that shepardt is a spectre(or was one) and not even know what rights spectres have. In all recruiting missions only thane knows who shepardt is.(aside from the tali and garrus of course)
Shepardt is all but a public figure in Mass Effect 2.

That seems a little strange to me given the fact that two Asari I hadn't even met before recognized me from a distance and called me out on sacrificing the Council. Also, Mouse himself points out who you are by sight and he is part
of the Thane loyalty mission too so the idea that no one knows who you
are seems rather ridiculous to me.

Anyway, did you select the Intimidate option? Shepard says "My name is Shepard, I'm a Spectre", Kelham says "Prove It", and Shepard pulls the gun on him and says "I don't have to prove anything. Spectre's are above the law, we clear?", to which Kelham says "Crystal." The fact that Kelham told him to prove he was a Spectre tells me that Kelham understands all to well what a Spectre is capable of by reputation. Likewise, his reaction hinted to me that he knew who Shepard was but wanted to see if Shepard would actually prove it. You are free to interpret that as you will, but that is how I took it. At the very least, Kelham knew exactly what a Spectre was capable of when he said "Prove it."

[DarkSeraphym]

Serena Firewing wrote...

If he hadn't folded under Sheppards threat he would have simply shot Kelham in the leg to prove his point, like I said my Sheppards are not saints but they are not demons either. I get roughly 60% paragon, 30% renegade and 10% neutral when I play the game with all choices unlocked so if criminals and other people Sheppard goes up against knows his reputation they know he will be more then willing to pull the trigger if the situation demands it.

Here is where you've pointed out what I think the real flaw of the Paragon/Renegade system is: the fact that shooting someone in the leg to get information that you want makes Shepard Renegade anyway by their very definition. For me, the idea that you can have 60% Paragon and 40% Renegade, without being neutral as a result with more leaning to the Paragon scale, seems rather silly. I can understand that they really didn't want to shoehorn you into either one, but how is shooting someone in the leg because you want information out of them not going to effect your Paragon status?

I think they could have avoided a lot of these conflicts between the two had they just done the sliding scale they have done in other games, especially similar to the way in which they did the Way of the Open Palm/Closed Fist in Jade Empire. It seems to me like a lot of these conflicts stem from the fact that your reputation in one area has no impact upon your reputation in another. It certainly appears like that is what they were going for anyway in ME2 when you had to have essentially max Paragon or Renegade to do a lot of things in the game.

Are you sure you don't have more leanings to Renegade? I can tell you prefer the Paragon options, but your actions and the way you go about them as an "the end justify the means" appears to be more Renegade to me than anything else. I'm a little surprised that you have no problem inflicting physical bodily harm on someone to get information, which is the definition of torture. Are you sure you don't want to join the Renegade club? 

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 16 mars 2011 - 12:13 .

[Serena Firewing]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Here is where you've pointed out what I think the real flaw of the Paragon/Renegade system is: the fact that shooting someone in the leg to get information that you want makes Shepard Renegade anyway by their very definition. For me, the idea that you can have 60% Paragon and 40% Renegade, without being neutral as a result with more leaning to the Paragon scale, seems rather silly. I can understand that they really didn't want to shoehorn you into either one, but how is shooting someone in the leg because you want information out of them not going to effect your Paragon status?

I think they could have avoided a lot of these conflicts between the two had they just done the sliding scale they have done in other games, especially similar to the way in which they did the Way of the Open Palm/Closed Fist in Jade Empire. It seems to me like a lot of these conflicts stem from the fact that your reputation in one area has no impact upon your reputation in another. It certainly appears like that is what they were going for anyway in ME2 when you had to have essentially max Paragon or Renegade to do a lot of things in the game.

Are you sure you don't have more leanings to Renegade? I can tell you prefer the Paragon options, but your actions and the way you go about them as an "the end justify the means" appears to be more Renegade to me than anything else. I'm a little surprised that you have no problem inflicting physical bodily harm on someone to get information, which is the definition of torture. Are you sure you don't want to join the Renegade club? 

I have no problems with the renegade options, they are often the best choices I just don't like how they are portrayed in the game. How they are said or how Sheppard acts is a little to "evil" for my tastes sometimes.
I guess I'm more of a Paragade or Renagon then a true follower of either path but as my first playthrough are without any modifications at all I tend to take the paragon route even though I think some choices are stupid.

I just thinks that the options should be open to take no matter which route you usually goes and that the renegade and paragon choices should be less good/evil then they can sometimes get. Not without consequenses mind you, if you go Paragon all the way then pull a gun and threaten a knowledgable criminal he should call you out on it.

[DarkSeraphym]

Serena Firewing wrote...

I have no problems with the renegade options, they are often the best choices I just don't like how they are portrayed in the game. How they are said or how Sheppard acts is a little to "evil" for my tastes sometimes.
I guess I'm more of a Paragade or Renagon then a true follower of either path but as my first playthrough are without any modifications at all I tend to take the paragon route even though I think some choices are stupid.

I just thinks that the options should be open to take no matter which route you usually goes and that the renegade and paragon choices should be less good/evil then they can sometimes get. Not without consequenses mind you, if you go Paragon all the way then pull a gun and threaten a knowledgable criminal he should call you out on it.

This is my biggest complaint with the Paragon and Renegade system. The fact that you go home to Ashley or Liara and ask them "How was your day?" but shot and/or tortured a couple of criminals for the "good of the galaxy" equates to 60% Paragon and 40% Renegade is absolutely ridiculous. Actions should always speak louder than words and if your Shepard cares enough about his crew to help fix their problems but is ruthless enough to shoot Elias Kelham simply because you want information out of him, I already fail to see how you aren't mostly Renegade anyway given their definition of Paragon and Renegade.

Anyway, at the very least I like how the Paragon and Renegade system is consistent in this game and consistency is something that is important in character design. This is why I think it makes sense for only Renegade Shepard to be able to pull a gun on Elias Kelham and actually make it work, as Elias Kelham is going to expect consistency in your character and bluffing is only going to work if he thinks you have the nerve to shoot him. It appears to me that the essence of Paragon Shepard is he would rather be loved, while Renegade Shepard would rather be feared. Thus, it makes sense to me that having a higher Paragon should eliminate the possibility of successfully pulling a gun on Kelham.

Let's be realistic here. How often do you find someone who is against the death penalty on the grounds that it is "cruel and unusual", yet is also violent enough at the sametime to pull a gun on someone and possibly shoot them in the leg because they want information?

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 16 mars 2011 - 12:49 .

[EternalPink]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Serena Firewing wrote...

I have no problems with the renegade options, they are often the best choices I just don't like how they are portrayed in the game. How they are said or how Sheppard acts is a little to "evil" for my tastes sometimes.
I guess I'm more of a Paragade or Renagon then a true follower of either path but as my first playthrough are without any modifications at all I tend to take the paragon route even though I think some choices are stupid.

I just thinks that the options should be open to take no matter which route you usually goes and that the renegade and paragon choices should be less good/evil then they can sometimes get. Not without consequenses mind you, if you go Paragon all the way then pull a gun and threaten a knowledgable criminal he should call you out on it.

This is my biggest complaint with the Paragon and Renegade system. The fact that you go home to Ashley or Liara and ask them "How was your day?" but shot and/or tortured a couple of criminals for the "good of the galaxy" equates to 60% Paragon and 40% Renegade is absolutely ridiculous. Actions should always speak louder than words and if your Shepard cares enough about his crew to help fix their problems but is ruthless enough to shoot Elias Kelham simply because you want information out of him, I already fail to see how you aren't mostly Renegade anyway given their definition of Paragon and Renegade.

Anyway, at the very least I like how the Paragon and Renegade system is consistent in this game and consistency is something that is important in character design. This is why I think it makes sense for only Renegade Shepard to be able to pull a gun on Elias Kelham and actually make it work, as Elias Kelham is going to expect consistency in your character and bluffing is only going to work if he thinks you have the nerve to shoot him. It appears to me that the essence of Paragon Shepard is he would rather be loved, while Renegade Shepard would rather be feared. Thus, it makes sense to me that having a higher Paragon should eliminate the possibility of successfully pulling a gun on Kelham.

Let's be realistic here. How often do you find someone who is against the death penalty on the grounds that it is "cruel and unusual", yet is also violent enough at the sametime to pull a gun on someone and possibly shoot them in the leg because they want information?

If i'd offered them a chance to co-operate and they had knowledge vital to saying my friends kid, i can see my morals on that issue bending especially considering its with a known criminal figure.

Perhaps it would be better to remove the P/R restrictions on options/interrupts so that the bars are only a indicator, or with the P/R options/interrupts add in a extra bit of dialogue that determines motivation.

So for example with the council the renegade option taken for the save galaxy etc would turn into paragon gain but if it was for human superiority stay renegade gain

[DarkSeraphym]

EternalPink wrote...

If i'd offered them a chance to co-operate and they had knowledge vital to saying my friends kid, i can see my morals on that issue bending especially considering its with a known criminal figure.

Perhaps it would be better to remove the P/R restrictions on options/interrupts so that the bars are only a indicator, or with the P/R options/interrupts add in a extra bit of dialogue that determines motivation.

So for example with the council the renegade option taken for the save galaxy etc would turn into paragon gain but if it was for human superiority stay renegade gain

And I'd agree that you were just. However, that would make you and I consequentialists in ethical terms and that is a feature that seems to seat itself moreso in Renegade than it does Paragon. Paragon seems to support more of a Deontology approach in that the morality of a decision is dependant upon its act and not the consequences that come out of it. This is why the Paragon option for the Collector Base is willing to destroy the base even if there is good that can come out of it, because the act itself of keeping this kind of technology is not the "right" course of action.This is why I have a bit of a problem with the Renegade/Paragon system because they appear to be a little too closely linked to both of these different ethical ideas and both of these ideas are rather hard to reconcile with one another.

I do like your idea though. Consequentalists and Deontologists can come to the same conclusions but for different reasons. I think your approach of considering a bit more upon the motivation would help to alleviate the dilemma some. My only concern is that it may not necessarily make the Renegade or Paragon less rigid because they share too many features with these different ethical approaches and usually, these approaches are extremely difficult to reconcile as they consider the opposite parts of a moral dilemma to be important.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 16 mars 2011 - 01:37 .

[Serena Firewing]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

This is my biggest complaint with the Paragon and Renegade system. The fact that you go home to Ashley or Liara and ask them "How was your day?" but shot and/or tortured a couple of criminals for the "good of the galaxy" equates to 60% Paragon and 40% Renegade is absolutely ridiculous. Actions should always speak louder than words and if your Shepard cares enough about his crew to help fix their problems but is ruthless enough to shoot Elias Kelham simply because you want information out of him, I already fail to see how you aren't mostly Renegade anyway given their definition of Paragon and Renegade.

Anyway, at the very least I like how the Paragon and Renegade system is consistent in this game and consistency is something that is important in character design. This is why I think it makes sense for only Renegade Shepard to be able to pull a gun on Elias Kelham and actually make it work, as Elias Kelham is going to expect consistency in your character and bluffing is only going to work if he thinks you have the nerve to shoot him. It appears to me that the essence of Paragon Shepard is he would rather be loved, while Renegade Shepard would rather be feared. Thus, it makes sense to me that having a higher Paragon should eliminate the possibility of successfully pulling a gun on Kelham.

Let's be realistic here. How often do you find someone who is against the death penalty on the grounds that it is "cruel and unusual", yet is also violent enough at the sametime to pull a gun on someone and possibly shoot them in the leg because they want information?

The system is way to black and white. If you are one you can not be the other even when the situation calls for it. I myself is not that consistent a person and neither is anyone I have ever met.
As for your example in the end I know people like that (not pulling a gun per say since they are illegal where I live), shooting someone in the leg and right out killing a person is two extremly different things. I myself think the death penalty in the US as it is done today is very cruel and should be removed but I am not against taking to physical force to get some information that might save someone else which I care infintly more for from doing something very very very bad.
Consistency is good in an overgrasping story but real people are rarely that consistent and forcing my Sheppard in the game to be that way doesn't work for me

[DarkSeraphym]

Serena Firewing wrote...

The system is way to black and white. If you are one you can not be the other even when the situation calls for it. I myself is not that consistent a person and neither is anyone I have ever met.
As for your example in the end I know people like that (not pulling a gun per say since they are illegal where I live), shooting someone in the leg and right out killing a person is two extremly different things. I myself think the death penalty in the US as it is done today is very cruel and should be removed but I am not against taking to physical force to get some information that might save someone else which I care infintly more for from doing something very very very bad.
Consistency is good in an overgrasping story but real people are rarely that consistent and forcing my Sheppard in the game to be that way doesn't work for me

It isn't the fact that you shot someone in the leg, it is the fact that you shot them in the leg for the intent of getting information out of them. That is the definition of torture, using bodily harm to get something you want; whether it be the satisfaction of simply hurting someone or information. You have an incredibly colorful interpretation of ethics if you believe it is ok to torture someone, but it is not ok to outright kill them on the basis that it is "cruel". The very fact that you are not against using torture when the situation calls for it is consequentialism and as I pointed out in the previous post, it is something that is commonly associated with Renegade as opposed to Paragon.

The central problem with the entire system is that promotes "flexibility" in that you can go in between them as you please, when in reality the consequentalist and deontologist approaches to ethics are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It's hard to reconcile them in the same way that it is difficult to reconcile both communism, the far left, and fascism, the far right, with one another because they represent opposite ways of thinking.

You might think that a lot of people are not consistent when it comes to ethics, but what draws them to their conclusions is what is actually consistent. For a consequentialist, the ends MUST justify the means. For the deontologist, the ends are irrelevant as the means are all that matters. You might have a couple of consequentialists or deontologists that disagree on what is right or wrong based upon these interpretations, but the method of thinking that got them to those conclusions is always consistent. The problem is that the system is so rigid that as a consequentialist, you will sometimes think the Paragon options are right and side with them but your Shepard's personality will assume it is the correct course of action because he is actually a deontologist. That is where the inconsistency originates from because your motivation for choosing this course of action is actually different from what would draw Shepard in the game to those conclusions.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 16 mars 2011 - 02:00 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Nyoka wrote...

Why are you guys saying "if Shepard is this, then she can't be that"? Ever heard of paragades? You have plenty of choices throughout the game to make a complex and contradictory character. Plenty of grey areas. The game forces a minimal level of consistency, that is, you can't do everything like a boy scout from the beginning and suddenly want to make a death threat to a witness. The game shouldn't let you do that and it's right in preventing you from doing it. The rest of your character's complexity and personality is up to you.

I highlighted that for emphasis.

Anyway, sure you can be a paragade or a renegon. Tons of players do it. Only problem is that a lot of players say that they feel that the Paragon and Renegade system in the game is not very immersive. I am attempting to explain why that is the case in the realm of ethics as I believe the origin of the problem is the fact that there is a distinct personality for Paragon and Renegade Shepard that is separate from your own. This is especially obvious if you are a player who sides with the Renegade option on nearly everything, but are shoehorned into having your Shepard's personality morph into that on a xenophobe. The system sometimes does feel a little rigid for this a reason.

Regardless, I agree with you on the matter that if you are going to act like a boy scout then it makes no sense for you to suddenly threaten someone and expect it to actually work.

EDIT: To be honest, sometimes the fact that you were a nice guy that did a lot of things for the community and then suddenly did something absolutely horrible and are now treated like a monster is just is plausible. Turn on any kind of crime documentary and you will hear cases where people will discuss cases where the priest is considered to be an upstanding model for the community and then molests a child, having his entire world collapse on him in the process. The same is true of the humanitarian doctor that uses his medical expertise to cut up people he has captured in his basement. The truth is that stuff like that happens and the moment you screw up, a lot of the good things you did are not always going to be enough to make up for the bad.

I agree that the two bar model is not really the best representation, but it still captures an aspect to morality that the Paragon/Renegade one simply cannot capture on its own.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 16 mars 2011 - 02:24 .

[Serena Firewing]

Wounding someone to save another persons life and straight out killing someone is not the same thing... they are not even close I don't understand why you keep saying they are. I firmly believe that the end can sometimes justify the means but not all the time. Hurting several people in order to get to buy a discounted laptop before they run out is not justifyable but hurting or killing a handful of people to stop terrorists from killing hundreds is.
I am not a black and white person, I see several solutions to most problems laid before me and I take different routes to solve them depending on what they are and the conditions that exist within each.

Pretty names for generalized behavior is all well and good but they mean little when put into the real world.

[DarkSeraphym]

Serena Firewing wrote...

Wounding someone to save another persons life and straight out killing someone is not the same thing... they are not even close I don't understand why you keep saying they are. I firmly believe that the end can sometimes justify the means but not all the time. Hurting several people in order to get to buy a discounted laptop before they run out is not justifyable but hurting or killing a handful of people to stop terrorists from killing hundreds is.
I am not a black and white person, I see several solutions to most problems laid before me and I take different routes to solve them depending on what they are and the conditions that exist within each.

Pretty names for generalized behavior is all well and good but they mean little when put into the real world.

You aren't talking about wounding someone to save another person's life in the same sense that you would be had we been discussing someone that was going to physically kill someone you loved right then and there. The fact of the matter is that you want information and you are wishing to get that information out of them regardless of whether or not they wish to give it. To get it, you are even willing to physically harm them for it. That is the literal defintion of torture, which is as follows:

"Torture:

the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty"

Anyway, the fact that the consequences sometimes justify the means still means you have a consequentialist interpretation of ethics. A deontologist would argue that the ends never justify the means under any circumstances. All that I am saying is that this is what causes the discrepency, in my eyes, that you are seeing behind how you want your Paragon Shepard to behave and the way he actually does in the game. It is because BioWare has assigned both of these morality statuses into these real life categories and appears to have assumed that being Paragon = deontology and Renegade = consequentialism. It is just one of the flaws of the system.

[Serena Firewing]

I never said it wasn't torture... I merely stated it is not the same as killing someone

[DarkSeraphym]

Nyoka wrote...

About immersion.

I think of the blue and red options as powers. They are skills your character has, just like incendiary ammo or pull. Only these particular skills improve with use, like in Oblivion. Some people may then want to do "power leveling" like they used to do in Oblivion, this time by picking always the renegade option, regardless of whether they feel like it's right for them or not, which I think totally kills immersion, just like power leveling kills all the fun in Oblivion. I don't do "renegade playthroughs" or "paragon playthroughs". Shepard has a personality and some values and acts accordingly. Because her values aren't exactly the same as those thought by the game for either particular alignment, sometimes she gets paragon points, sometimes it's renegade points. I welcome both. This about ME2.

In ME1, the analogy is even more direct because you actually put points in those powers the same way you put points on armor and all the others. If you don't have those powers very developed, you won't be able to use them in thougher situations, just like basic AI hacking doesn't work against more powerful geth. If using those points kills immersion, I suppose using Throw or any other power would kill it too. Nope, I don't get their point.

For some, the idea that blue and red options are powers kills immersion because it means they have to play the game a certain way in order to accomplish a certain somthing. I don't really think this is a bad thing, but its an argument I have seen a lot of people use when attacking the Paragon/Renegade system.

As I said, I was attempting to explain why I think people sometimes take issue with it because Shepard has a distinct personality of his own and the player has a personality of their own. If you side with a lot of the Paragon outcomes because you think they are best, some players get irritated because Shepard will attempt to justify them based upon his own personality. The same is true of Renegade. I do not have this problem myself as I find the xenophobic Renegade Shepard to be a very fascinating character, but some people take issue with it.

[DarkSeraphym]

Serena Firewing wrote...

I never said it wasn't torture... I merely stated it is not the same as killing someone

It's not. To a lot of people, including the founding fathers that wrote the 8th Amendment into the Constitution of the Untied States, torture is worse than simply outright killing someone. The state has the right to take your life, but it does not have the right to torture you. I was merely stating I found it a little fascinating that you were against the death penalty, but were personally in favor of torture when the situation called for it. I won't lie, that makes your morals a little colorful and rather interesting to me as this is a topic that I have had to deal a lot with in my law classes. Like I said though, it just appears to me that you have a consequentialist interpretation of ethics and the Paragon Shepard's personality supports a deontologist reasoning for why he does things. This is why it seems rather out of character to me to have a predominantly Paragon Shepard that is going to pull a gun on someone and threaten them and I was attempting to voice where I think the discrepancy is coming from.

I apologize if you took my explanation to be rude. I was searching for the vocabulary needed to bring about my explanation for why you are finding the issue, but I was really trying to avoid using either of these two pieces of ethical jargon because, I have to be honest, I eally didn't want to put forth the effort into explaining either of them. I've been writing a lot within the last week and about the only thing I am in the mood to do anymore is play video games .

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 16 mars 2011 - 02:49 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Nyoka wrote...

Well, had Bioware listened to those people, the game would be worse. So we're lucky they didn't.

I agree.

I do think the system has room for improvement as I wish there was a way for them to somehow reconcile the two, but I've been pretty happy with the immersion I have personally gotten from my playthroughs of the series. As I said though, many argue there are discrepancies that they don't like within the system and I was trying to explain why I think people take issue with them.

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I whole-heartedly agree that ignoring the system and just role-playing will give any player a much more dramatic and enjoyable experience..

The much dramatic and enjoyable experience would be that shepardt,a supposed to be good leader(but okay,lets get close to finish a cruiser off"),is even  to dumb resolve "high school **** fights" like between jack and miranda...
How enjoyable...
Some people here could gloss over almost anything it seems,even obvious flaws.

Wow... you are just full of bitterness and rage, aren't you?

I agree that the system wasn't great. However, I'm a fanboy because I think that the grittier, non-hypnotic, non-Owiban "these are not the droids your looking for" is more realistic and dramatic? Hey, if you want to play the super hero, "lets talk the Reapers into committing suicide by clicking the blue text" Shepard, you have that option. It's a very easy mini-game to figure out and beat.

And, that's right, some people are so diametrically opposed that no matter how persuasive your are, you can't simply flash them a smile and a pithy line and they'll fall into order. I find roleplaying the game a much more dramtic experience then playing the silly mini-game, so sue me.

[Undertone]

Jaesun999 wrote...

Undertone wrote...

The system is flawed not only in terms of mechanics but in terms of consistency - one path (paragons) is continuously rewarded, while the other (renegades) is continuously punished. It's turned into a petty dark vs light morality choice except you don't get any benefits for choosing the dark side unlike KotoR. And renegade was supposed to be getting the mission done no matter what the odds or the situation, being professional. The first time I didn't kill the Council to put Humanity on top or anything. I did it because stopping Sovereign was a priority and the galaxy could have been destroyed. Then in ME2 everyone hates me as if I rail-roaded humanity on a power trip, when I saved the galaxy. It was then when I became a human supremacist and pro-Cerberus.
 

That was the CHOICE you chose. And in doing that, there was a consequnce for that. That's an indication the system is doing a good job.

Oh really?  Thanks for notifying me that I made a choice Captain Obvious.

Not everyone sees it (and uses it) as an oppurtunity to get rid of the Council. I know I didn't the first time I used it. Considering Shepard saved the galaxy and won the battle of the Citadel through her action it's ludicrious everyone would hate her and not allow her to explain reasoning. Not to mention any military strategist would be able to see the gravity of the situation, so the turians should understand. After all as a Spectre she is doing what she should do.

And don't pull that stupid paragon argument - "Well you could have saved them and killed Sovereign, see paragon always wins" cause there was no way for you to know what would happen the first time you did this.

The system is flawed and that is evident.

[tonnactus]

DarkSeraphym wrote...



That seems a little strange to me given the fact that two Asari I hadn't even met before recognized me from a distance and called me out on sacrificing the Council.

Im play paragon and they never recognized me,not even when i do their the quest and speaking with them...
Seems that people only remember you if you did "bad things". Thats retarded.
But actually this a now a advantage for renegade players.Things make more sense in their game...

Modifié par tonnactus, 16 mars 2011 - 10:52 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Undertone wrote...

Jaesun999 wrote...

Undertone wrote...

The system is flawed not only in terms of mechanics but in terms of consistency - one path (paragons) is continuously rewarded, while the other (renegades) is continuously punished. It's turned into a petty dark vs light morality choice except you don't get any benefits for choosing the dark side unlike KotoR. And renegade was supposed to be getting the mission done no matter what the odds or the situation, being professional. The first time I didn't kill the Council to put Humanity on top or anything. I did it because stopping Sovereign was a priority and the galaxy could have been destroyed. Then in ME2 everyone hates me as if I rail-roaded humanity on a power trip, when I saved the galaxy. It was then when I became a human supremacist and pro-Cerberus.
 

That was the CHOICE you chose. And in doing that, there was a consequnce for that. That's an indication the system is doing a good job.

Oh really?  Thanks for notifying me that I made a choice Captain Obvious.

Not everyone sees it (and uses it) as an oppurtunity to get rid of the Council. I know I didn't the first time I used it. Considering Shepard saved the galaxy and won the battle of the Citadel through her action it's ludicrious everyone would hate her and not allow her to explain reasoning. Not to mention any military strategist would be able to see the gravity of the situation, so the turians should understand. After all as a Spectre she is doing what she should do.

And don't pull that stupid paragon argument - "Well you could have saved them and killed Sovereign, see paragon always wins" cause there was no way for you to know what would happen the first time you did this.

The system is flawed and that is evident.

Don't expect that casual Turian or Salarian will dig up stuff which pretty much after battle was sealed as ultra top secret (especially when Udina is new council chairman).
For casual non human Citadel "citizen" (if you let DA to be destroyed) Humanity are usurpers which jump on first ocassion to seize undeserved power and Shepard will be treated as main culprit and in matter of fact betrayer of the Council.

Even if Shepard would have chance to explain entire background laying behind DA destruction no one would believe and for people this would be nothing more as pretty fairy tale ("Ah Yes... reapers") to cover real reasons (aka humanity lust for power) behind a coup.

[tonnactus]

Asheer_Khan wrote...


Don't expect that casual Turian or Salarian will dig up stuff which pretty much after battle was sealed as ultra top secret (especially when Udina is new council chairman).

It doesnt matter that the facts about the reapers were sealed.There was still a big powerfull geth ship that had to be defeated...
And shepardt could choose to concentrate the firepower of the alliance to take this ship out instead of rescueing the destiny ascension.

[DarkSeraphym]

tonnactus wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...



That seems a little strange to me given the fact that two Asari I hadn't even met before recognized me from a distance and called me out on sacrificing the Council.

Im play paragon and they never recognized me,not even when i do their the quest and speaking with them...
Seems that people only remember you if you did "bad things". Thats retarded.
But actually this a now a advantage for renegade players.Things make more sense in their game...

Such is the essence of organic life. We love a villain more than we love a hero. People will always remember you for your mistakes before they will remember you for anything good you've done, especially if you are someone who has been in the limelight. Its one of the reasons why Disney scrambles when one of its child stars has a picture taken of him or her involved in underage drinking and then has to play the game of damage control to protect that stars reputation, which protects their own in the process.

It's also one of the reasons why I had to punch that reporter in the face. People were spreading rumors that Shepard sacrificed the Council for his own pro-human agenda. For them, its nevermind the fact that in doing so he destroyed Sovereign. People love a scandal. People love to complain. The fact that Shepard who saves the Council doesn't receive nearly as much praise as Shepard who sacrifices it receives "hate mail" really is not at all surprising.

@Undertone: Personally, I found that aspect much more revealing about what organics are actually like. If I were Shepard, I'd wonder whether or not these individuals were actually worth dying over. I found the fact that the reporter pushed the issue to be quite realistic. No one cares to hear Shepard's explanation for why he sacrificed the Council because they want to delegitimize humanity's claim to a human-led Council in any way that they can. It's very much similar to how you hear people in the United States claiming that Barack Obama is not a US citizen. Even when he comes onto television and says he is, even when Hawaii offered up his birth certificate, people still chose to complain that he is not a citizen because it delegitmizes his claim to the presidency.

My ReneShep explained to those two Asari why he took the actions that he did for sacrificing the Council and they still ridiculed him after doing so. The only time they stopped complaining is when Shepard directly offered to get them off the Citadel and, even then, I bet they are still convinced that he did it to get humanity its seat into power. Actions are always open to interpretation more than words and even if Shepard attempts to explain why he took those actions, those who want to complain will find a way to continue to do so. It's a classic case of confirmation bias. Even if you offer up evidence to the contrary, individuals will give more merit to any evidence that they believe supports their preconceived notions.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 16 mars 2011 - 03:43 .