661 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That's my problem with Paragon Shepard. She preaches about ideals she doesn't even really try to live up to. It's silly being lectured on compassion and understanding from a woman who has killed her maimed her way across the galaxy.

First off, I'd like to submit that "fighting through mercs" was not part of Garrus's plan, but simply something that happened along the way. Acting like Paragon Shepard took on the mission without caring about that is a bit of a stretch. Also, that had nothing to do with Sidonus, as the mercenaries in question were working for a criminal, not for Sidonus himself. Even Paragon Shepard should have no issues with taking down a known criminal; the only real difference there is how Shepard handles the situation.

Second point: Shepard can, quite easily in fact, simply opt to come along in the hope of changing Garrus's mind or finding out more about what kind of person Sidonis actually is before committing to Garrus's little revenge scheme. Shepard can also opt to help out on the simple basis of ensuring that Garrus is clear-headed for the mission, which is literally the only reason Renegade Shepard helps out in the first place.

Third point: you don't have to abstain from killing and brutality to preach against pointless killing and pointless brutality, you just have to abstain from pointless killing and pointless brutality. Thank you for making the distinction. Note that at least two Paragon Interrupts in the game involve Shepard either punching someone in the face or pistol-whipping them in the face.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 avril 2011 - 06:50 .

[Sajuro]

jamesp81 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Destruction of Earth in ME3 means humanity is done on the galactic scene.  Forever.

No.

Yes.  It does.  If you don't see that, then your understanding of economics, populations, and politics is flawed.

It was not, as some had thought, the end of humanity. Instead it was but the prologue to another bloody chapter in human history, because war... war never changes.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sajuro wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Destruction of Earth in ME3 means humanity is done on the galactic scene.  Forever.

No.

Yes.  It does.  If you don't see that, then your understanding of economics, populations, and politics is flawed.

It was not, as some had thought, the end of humanity. Instead it was but the prologue to another bloody chapter in human history, because war... war never changes.

Also, do you know how many books are based on the premise that something awful happend to Earth, or we lost it, or Earth is some forgotten dream, a paradise that the spacefaring community hopes to one day see again? 

A BILLION.

Heck, Wall-E was basically about earth becoming uninhabitable and humanity becoming a flotilla race like the Quarians.

There's an awesome Cerberus Daily Network chain of stories about a non-FTL cryosleep colony that has been lost for a hundred years. 300 people, sent to a garden world, knowing they'd never see earth again, not knowing there are aliens, or Mass Relays, just saying "hey, let's try to survive on a world.". If they try to limit our colonization, we'll do that kind of stuff. What's more, now we know how Mass Relays and FTL work. We'll find a nice planet a few months travel away from anywhere strategically or economically useful, and we will overrun that planet in the space of a millenium.

And then there's the galactic NAFAL colonial system of Ursula K. LeGuin's SciFi novels, connected only by ansibles. We've got this stuff covered, people. Our best SF writers have been working on "plan B" for decades.

[Zulu_DFA]

jamesp81 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Destruction of Earth in ME3 means humanity is done on the galactic scene.  Forever.

No.

Yes.  It does.  If you don't see that, then your understanding of economics, populations, and politics is flawed.

No, it's your understanding of economics and populations is flawed if you don't think that, provided the technology of the ME universe, losing those 11.4G of parasitic stomachs will be beneficial to the economy of the Systems Alliance.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 avril 2011 - 07:06 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

First off, I'd like to submit that "fighting through mercs" was not part of Garrus's plan, but simply something that happened along the way.

So when the mercs attack retreat or give up? Was Sidonis really worth killing all those people, just so you could let him go?

Mercs give up in Mass Effect all the time. I pretty much always let them go when they do. As fun as it might be to push that guy out of that window, if you don't push him, he'll just leave. And then I don't shoot him. It's a good deal for both of us. And I can assure you that if I was doing a mission and I saw a Merc with a full health bar lying on the ground, face down, hands laced behind his head... I wouldn't shoot that guy. It hasn't happened yet. I'd like to see it happen more often. It seems reasonable. "Hey, that dude with the sniper rifle just took out three of us. Time to retire."

So to answer your question: yes, when mercs give up, we let them go. When they fire at us, we return fire. 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 avril 2011 - 07:15 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

First off, I'd like to submit that "fighting through mercs" was not part of Garrus's plan, but simply something that happened along the way.

So when the mercs attack retreat or give up? Was Sidonis really worth killing all those people, just so you could let him go?

Yes, let's just walk away from the criminal network that makes it easier for other murderers and cutthroats to be murderers and cutthroats.

Paragon Shepard may be an idealist, but s/he is not a moron.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 avril 2011 - 07:17 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Let C-Sec deal with the Fade. What right do you have to charge in their guns blazing and kill all those people?

If you run with a "just let the cops handle the criminals" frame of mind, you're not exactly Paragon, yourself.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 avril 2011 - 07:22 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I think it was you, Zulu, who said Empires were either in expansion or decline.

Yes. And Earth is limiting the Alliance's expansion to an extent. You've got a valid point that Earth produces colonists bodies. But nothing says that resource can't be replaced by even more efficient use of the existing colonists. Who can breed too, BTW. Which will be only easier for them once they stop working for the earthworms' rent.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 avril 2011 - 07:25 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

If you run with a "just let the cops handle the criminals" frame of mind, you're not exactly Paragon, yourself.

How exactly? The cops are sworn to protect the civil liberties of the accused. A Spectre is not.

A real Paragon would be loathe to use that authority assuming they even accepted it.

A real Paragon would not even bother with Garrus' loyalty mission because he admitted at the very start that his plan was to kill Sidonis.

A real Paragon would also not look at the bloodthirsty horde or mercenaries covering the escape of a dangerous criminal and say, "Oh, derpa-derp, better turn 'round, wouldn't want to kill bloodthirsty mercenaries to stop more crime and killing, OH did that merc just try to shoot me, well, that's okay, because I'm a Paragon, so I'm going to turn around and leave now, better luck next time, Garrus."

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You're right, Paragons reserve that mentality for far more dangerous world-killing terrorists.

No, for their hostages.

Fade did not have hostages.

So... NO HOLDS BARRED! *muahahahahaha*

Not that Paragons don't respect justice systems and the like moreso than Renegades. On multiple occasions the Paragon option is to turn someone over to C-Sec or the Alliance rather than making a judgement call on your own. I'm just saying there's no reason to say fighting through those mercenaries to reach Fade goes against any kind of Paragon mentality.

[That One Display Name]

omgodzilla wrote...

Lets assume that ME3 has two discs. The end of disc one would probably include a major story mission similiar to Horizon. In ME3, that mission could be an attempt to take back Earth with the help of all the forces you gathered. It could be a 2 hour long mission that takes you all over Earth but your assault ends up going horribly wrong. The fleet that you gathered ends up getting its ass kicked. In the end, you are forced to retreat and the Reapers go back to their extermination of Earth or whatever.

Then in disc 2, you try and find another way to take them all out. Your fleet took heavy losses but is still quite large. Things get extremely tense as you struggle on your mission. Then near the end of the game we get hit with the news that the Reapers have wiped out all of the 11 billion people that were on Earth. This is where everything gets super depressing and everyone ****s their pants. Along with Earth, several human colonies begin to get wiped out as well.

It doesn't have to go like this but what if Earth dies no matter what you do? Would it ruin the game for you or make things more interesting? Personally, I would love this. Mass Effect has a knack for making humans look like the top dogs in everything, I would love it if humans get their asses kicked to the point where they become the most pathetic species in existence or atleast somewhere close to that.

Heck yes!
I want massive destruction regardless of what you do! Not just humanity. I think all the council races need to get slaughtered for at least the first half of the game. That would be epic, but i doubt bioware will do it.. especially with how lame arrival was...

[Zulu_DFA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Yes. And Earth is limiting the Alliance's expansion to an extent.

Right, by enabling Alliance expansion the Earth is limiting Alliance expansion. By providing a huge market for them to sell their goods to the Earth is an economic burden. It makes perfect.

We've been through this. Until you stop thinking that money gain their value from the air, I'm not going to discuss this with you.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Not that Paragons don't respect justice systems and the like moreso than Renegades.

If that were true they wouldn't do Garrus' loyalty mission or any missions inside Citadel Space.

Yes, because "moreso" instantaneously means "unswervingly, one hundred and twenty percent!"

[Ieldra]

omgodzilla wrote...
It doesn't have to go like this but what if Earth dies no matter what you do? Would it ruin the game for you or make things more interesting? Personally, I would love this. Mass Effect has a knack for making humans look like the top dogs in everything, I would love it if humans get their asses kicked to the point where they become the most pathetic species in existence or atleast somewhere close to that.

Losing Earth is an ending I would prefer to the expected "Almost everyone lives and all are happy" ending. I would, however, prefer humanity to be seen as having made a heroic sacrifice instead of as "pathetic". So we end up being the heroes who saved the galaxy, only we can't buy a lot with that fame - our homeworld is lost, our economy wrecked, 60% of the total population dead. And Shepard, in the end, looks down on what's left of Earth, saying "Maybe it was inevitable. Maybe it was all worth it. The Reapers are gone and that should count for something. But I still feel like sh*t."

My personal preference would be somewhere in the middle. I don't like downer endings. I also very much dislike the "humans are special" trope. So....make the Reapers ravage Earth. Make billions die. But make it so that humanity can, in time, recover from the damage. Or, if Earth is really destroyed, make up for it by telling us of a prospect of humanity spreading out through the galaxy, unhindered by being chained to their homeworld, adapting themselves to different environments to become something different from what it had been before. Make the loss trigger a different kind of good future.

Edit:
I see I'm not the only one who thinks that Earth also imposes limits on the future of humanity. Though I mean it in a different way than you, Zulu. Losing Earth would also be a net loss for a considerable length of time.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 avril 2011 - 07:57 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Yes, because "moreso" instantaneously means "unswervingly, one hundred and twenty percent!"

Either you respect the law your don't. If its the latter you should just drop the charade and be a renegade. It's fun, you'll enjoy it and you'll have the satisfcation of knowing you aren't a hypocrite Paragon anymore.

Ok, Pen and Paper analogy time, kids!

Paragon Shep tends toward Neutral Good. (also known as "true good.") This means she takes whatever path she considers will maximize future... well... goodness. It's a common misconception that Paragon shepard is Lawful Good. I would disagree, and cite an example: stealing the Normandy at the end of ME1 is not an action a lawful good character would undertake. Samara is a version of Lawful Good - she has a code and will not break it, even when following the code is inadvisable. Shep clearly is not Lawful Good, because she will compromise, and break the law when it is against what she considers to be the greater good.

I like the Paragon and Renegade system because they are not pure Light Side = Lawful Good, Dark Side = Evil moral choices. I have always been very, very put off by Lawful Good characters. I prefer neutral good, which Paragon Shepard is. That way I am not bound by an inflexible code: I simply make the choice I consider the most good.

Renegade Shep is closer to true neutral, with "chaotic selfish" tendencies. Someties he does stuff to put foreward the cause of good, sometimes he does it on a whim, sometimes he does it to glorify an institution he likes, sometimes he does it because he's in a bad mood, sometimes he does it because he is a racist. There are more ways you can play Renegade Shep, but it's difficult to play him as Neutral Good or even Chaotic Good without ending up in ParaGade territory.

Paragade Shep is usually Chaotic Good, sometimes Chaotic Neutral.

But the point is this: Paragon Shepard is not Lawful Good. She is Neutral Good. That means that she has some level of respect for the law, but will defy the law when following it will interfere with the pursuit of good.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 avril 2011 - 07:59 .