661 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

It seems that the writers do not believe that it is required, or they would assign Renegade points for killing the mercs. Obviously the creators of the game do not agree that killing those mercs is a Renegade act.

Or the writers are really bad at their job since the structure of Garrus' loyalty mission forces Paragon Shepard to break character. It's as bad as Arrival.

I would argue that Paragon Shepard is about doing what you think is right.

Renegade Shepard is about being a badass and putting foreword humanity's interests.

And ParaGade Shepard is about doing whatever you want.

If you wish to see things in another way, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. But you have brought up no counterexamples to my proposal, no incidents where the Paragon decision is clearly something Shepard feels is inherently wrong but is in accordance with the law. So perhaps in your Paragon playthroughs, you are making choices because you feel bound by the law, whereas in mine I am making choices based on what I believe is right.

My playthroughs feel logically consistent and missions like Garrus's loyalty feel completely in character. So perhaps I am more in synch with the Paragon writers' original intent. Or perhaps both I and the writers are incorrect and you are correct. That is also possible.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 avril 2011 - 08:49 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Or the writers are really bad at their job since the structure of Garrus' loyalty mission forces Paragon Shepard to break character. It's as bad as Arrival.

Arrival didn't really force Paragon Shepard to break character so much as force Paragon Shepard's hand into Renegade territory. It just didn't do as good a job at portraying that as it should have.

I agree on the Garrus mission, though, to a point. There wasn't as much effort put into making the larger mission fit with Shepard's character. There was some effort, but not quite enough.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Or the writers are really bad at their job since the structure of Garrus' loyalty mission forces Paragon Shepard to break character. It's as bad as Arrival.

Arrival didn't really force Paragon Shepard to break character so much as force Paragon Shepard's hand into Renegade territory. It just didn't do as good a job at portraying that as it should have.

I agree on the Garrus mission, though, to a point. There wasn't as much effort put into making the larger mission fit with Shepard's character. There was some effort, but not quite enough.

See, I disagree. I'm helping an old friend get closure. I'm helping a troubled man falling into darkness find the light again. While doing so, I encounter some bad guys who fire guns at me, so I return fire. I fail to see what is wrong with any of that! 

Letting Garrus kill Sidonis is bad, not just because he's doing something illegal, but because it pushes a man with the potential to be good further into a tendency toward evil.

Force forgiveness on a man, he'll forgive for one day. Teach a man forgiveness, and he may one day convince his military to help you fight the Reapers.

[Nathan Redgrave]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I would argue that Paragon Shepard is about doing what you think is right.

Renegade Shepard is about being a badass and putting foreward humanity's interests.

And ParaGade Shepard is about doing whatever you want.

Paragon is about trying to do good even if it isn't necessarily the logical thing to do, hence such decisions as letting the Rachni Queen go despite the risk of it causing harm in the future. It's putting the practical solution aside in favor of trust, which is a gamble. This does tend to transfer into respect for the law due to the belief that for the most part, the rules are there for a reason.

Renegade is about getting the job done efficiently, ruthlessly, without regard to cost or collateral damage. It's not necessarily "evil," it's more about making unpleasant decisions. It appears more "evil" than it really should because that ruthlessness often goes hand-in-hand with evil actions, hence making it often feel more natural for a Renegade to slip into Paragon territory from time to time than to actually play wholesale Renegade. This tends to translate into disrespect for the law due to "red tape" being perceived as another obstacle between you and your objective.

Unfortunately... "Paragade" characters wind up having more trouble because they often wind up locked out of important charm/intimidate options, wherein lies the system's key flaw. The system attempts to discourage black-and-white morality, but winds up encouraging it. Alas. The game really does feel more natural when you're playing (for example) a 60% Paragon, 40% Renegade character.

[Nathan Redgrave]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

See, I disagree. I'm helping an old friend get closure. I'm helping a troubled man falling into darkness find the light again. While doing so, I encounter some bad guys who fire guns at me, so I return fire. I fail to see what is wrong with any of that!

That, I'm fine with. Not giving Shepard the opportunity to do things in a more lawful fashion, on the other hand, does make things a bit less believable depending on which Paragon actions you typically choose. The suggestion that Shepard might have called C-Sec in for reinforcements (even if the only change was to the cutscene at the end of the warehouse battle) is a valid point.

Force forgiveness on a man, he'll forgive for one day. Teach a man forgiveness, and he may one day convince his military to help you fight the Reapers.

...Ah... that's not a very graceful version of the "teach a man to fish" proverb. Just sayin'... it rolls off the tongue like a miniature giant space porcupine.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Which would be breaking character. It's completely stupid and arbitrary that Paragon Shepard suddenly has the balls to get the job done in Arrival but still gambled with the fate of the galaxy to save the Council and blew up the Collector base.

The immediate threat of the Reapers beaming into the galaxy and killing trillions really left no options. Had Shepard not been sedated for two days, the system might have been evacuated in time. Unfortunately, the last-minute nature of the mission didn't leave much wiggle room--either you do it, or you don't, and if you don't, all hell breaks loose.

Paragon Shepard isn't necessarily unwilling to do what's necessary or make unpleasant decisions, he just looks for another way first.

Paragon or Renegade, the choice is clear. And they did a decent job of showing that Shepard was at least not in a good mood while pushing the "kill-switch," but the real failing is that beyond Shepard's conversation with Hackett post-mission and the completely arbitrary "Well, I tried to warn the colonists!" choice that never has a chance to change anything, there's not much room for the player to decide how Shepard feels about any of it.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 avril 2011 - 09:07 .

[LyndseyCousland]

It would be interesting.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I don't care much about Earth. I loved the idea of space exploration. That's got me into the series. I will be disappointed if all we see in ME3 is Earth.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 avril 2011 - 09:23 .

[Ieldra]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

If you're interested in my arguments why I think losing Earth (provided the colonies remain untouched and the Navy intact) will be an immediate gain for the Alliance, you can find them there, in my discussion with Saphra:

http://social.biowar...ndex/6865789/27

I'm afraid I must agree with Saphra here, embarrassing as that may be. There is no way Earth is *not* still the Alliance's economic powerhouse after only 30 years of colonial development. In fact, I'm wondering how Bekenstein got where it is in that very short time. Possibly it is not industry but the financial market that drives its economy there. For actual industrial output, any colony won't be able to compete with Earth for several decades to come.

So, no, losing Earth would be a net loss for a considerable length of time, even if you don't take the symbolism as humanity's homeworld into account. I wouldn't save it in preference for all of the colonies, but in economic and military terms the sum of any other ten worlds couldn't balance Earth's value. Colonial development takes, above all other things, time. At least if you don't want to throw staggering resources at it - which, btw, would also come from Earth to start with, since any other world wouldn't be exactly eager to lose population.

You can do some calculations and simulations. Results depend on assumptions of course, but most reasonable assumptions would suggest that even in the best cases, a colony wouldn't have a more significant industrial output than a single prosperous city-state on Earth after 30 years. In more average cases, they'll be able to sustain themselves but not contribute greatly to the total. Anything else is just preposterous, but then, the complete ME timeline is that.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You were in the same situation at the Battle of the Citadel. The exact same situation!

Uh, no, you weren't. Your choice was "Try to save the Council and win the battle" or "Just focus on winning the battle" (or alternately "Burn, baby, burn... oh, right, and, uh, win the battle!" although that's more of a cosmetic thing). There's a difference between taking a risk and hoping to win it all, and being faced with a do-or-die one-or-the-other situation. Either the Bahak system goes or the Reapers go on a rampage. There was no risk involved, only surefire certainty. Three hundred thousand die now, or millions die tomorrow. No two ways about it. 

The Collector base choice might as well be too. Just as much is at stake.

Slightly more complicated--it could be considered a risk to blow the base, yes, but it could also be considered risky to trust Cerberus with the Collectors' technology (even if you give them the base, the player has the option to voice those concerns in the final talk with the Illusive Man). Cerberus is, by its very nature, a do-whatever-it-takes, make-unpleasant-decisions organization, often to the extreme. If Shepard disagrees with their methods, and doesn't trust them not to abuse Collector technology, it may not seem like such a clear-cut choice to Shepard. Note that even Miranda seems to be apprehensive about handing that tech over to Cerberus... possibly because she, like myself, is having trouble seeing just how a people-processing plant might provide an advantage over an invading Reaper fleet.

You're only eager to write off the bad writing out of some misguided sense of loyalty to Bioware.

"YOU'RE A FANBOY!!!!"

...Really? That's classy.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 avril 2011 - 09:25 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm afraid I must agree with Saphra here, embarrassing as that may be. There is no way Earth is *not* still the Alliance's economic powerhouse after only 30 years of colonial development. In fact, I'm wondering how Bekenstein got where it is in that very short time. Possibly it is not industry but the financial market that drives its economy there. For actual industrial output, any colony won't be able to compete with Earth for several decades to come.

So, no, losing Earth would be a net loss for a considerable length of time, even if you don't take the symbolism as humanity's homeworld into account. I wouldn't save it in preference for all of the colonies, but in economic and military terms the sum of any other ten worlds couldn't balance Earth's value. Colonial development takes, above all other things, time. At least if you don't want to throw staggering resources at it - which, btw, would also come from Earth to start with, since any other world wouldn't be exactly eager to lose population.

You can do some calculations and simulations. Results depend on assumptions of course, but most reasonable assumptions would suggest that even in the best cases, a colony wouldn't have a more significant industrial output than a single prosperous city-state on Earth after 30 years. In more average cases, they'll be able to sustain themselves but not contribute greatly to the total. Anything else is just preposterous, but then, the complete ME timeline is that.

This is why I wonder if humanity's reputation with the larget galactic community might play some role in the post-game history, if they do in fact lose Earth. Having the support of other species rather than having the climb the mountain without a harness could make all the difference.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

The immediate threat of the Reapers beaming into the galaxy and killing trillions really left no options.

You were in the same situation at the Battle of the Citadel. The exact same situation!

The Collector base choice might as well be too. Just as much is at stake.

You're only eager to write off the bad writing out of some misguided sense of loyalty to Bioware.

Sweet fancy moses, I've found a door back to the thread's original topic! Ok. Here we go. Stay with me.

What if the only way to win against the Reapers is to put 5 billion humans into goo vats, and make us a couple of human reapers... ones outside of Reaper control? Would you do that? If you're truly machiavellian, truly Renegade, then the answer is YES, of course you would.

But then there's a problem: what if you could have won without making yourself a goo-reaper, but you made a goo reaper anyway? Now half of humanity is a monster, and the other half is a different kind of monster.  By going further than you have to, you lose in a different way. The key, then, is to determine exactly how far you have to go to win, and go only that far. If the only way to win is to abandon earth and nuke the site from orbit... then do that. If there's another way to win, don't nuke earth from orbit. Sometimes there is another way to be sure.

Now, determining how far to go is a moral question for the ages. It's one you'll find asked about every decision in history: could we have committed fewer atrocities and still been victorious? Often the answer is yes. Sometimes it is maybe. Occasionally, it's "probably not."

The problem is, in a galactic community, the number of obvious atrocities humanity has committed count clearly against them if they ever become weakened. So we're more likely to be OK in the long run if we can show that we tried... we always tried not to go any further than we had to. Mercenary use of morally questionable technology is good if it helps us win the war. If the Earth is doomed no matter how much Reaper tech we study, after the doom we will be in a better position to recover if the Council doesn't see us as morally suspect madmen.

If it turns out that the Collectors have some awesome bioweapon that takes fewer sentients to build than a full Reaper but does still require goo from sentient beings to build, and we use that, the other races might not want to help us.

Figuring out just how far you have to go, and not going any further, that's Paragon Shepard's genius. So far anyway.

[Nathan Redgrave]

It would be more accurate to say that Paragon Shepard's unique brand of insanity is that he's willing to take the chance that he doesn't have to go to certain lengths to get the job done, and happens to luck out a lot. There isn't much "finding out" happening there beyond trial-and-error with no reset button to save you if you screw up.

[Alienmorph]

It reminds me one of the banters between Tali and Wrex in ME1... "Let us see if they'll still be so moronic when they'll lose their planet".

But seriously... probably there are lots of colonies in the ME's galaxy... human kind would be decimated, but not in danger of extintion neither forced to travel in space for centuries looking for a new earth or so.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

If you're interested in my arguments why I think losing Earth (provided the colonies remain untouched and the Navy intact) will be an immediate gain for the Alliance, you can find them there, in my discussion with Saphra:

http://social.biowar...ndex/6865789/27

I'm afraid I must agree with Saphra here, embarrassing as that may be. There is no way Earth is *not* still the Alliance's economic powerhouse after only 30 years of colonial development. In fact, I'm wondering how Bekenstein got where it is in that very short time.

There you go. The Alliance receives plenty of Asari cash. From Earth, after the initial investment, it now receives only part of what it gives it as rent for that initial investment.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Possibly it is not industry but the financial market that drives its economy there. For actual industrial output, any colony won't be able to compete with Earth for several decades to come.

Eezo. Robo-miners. Sci-fi. Even if Earth did produce anything beyond it's own consumption needs (from the resources that flow back to it from the colonies), it would be more expensive, than producing things locally in the colonies.

Also, the Geth. Nobody invests money into them, and still they don't go bancrupt.

Ieldra2 wrote...

So, no, losing Earth would be a net loss for a considerable length of time, even if you don't take the symbolism as humanity's homeworld into account. I wouldn't save it in preference for all of the colonies, but in economic and military terms the sum of any other ten worlds couldn't balance Earth's value.

Well, even if Earth is worth more than I believe it is, it will not be that after the Reaper invasion. Therefore, sacrificing more resources so save more hungry refugees is not economically sound.

Bear in mind that with the Reapers you'll have only one shot. If you go in too early, you lose. This should be enough to overshadow any other considerations.

Of course, if you think there is nothing you could do to prepare better, you may go in immediately to save the earthworms. But something tells me that the more time you take, the better you'll be prepared and the more resources you'll be able to commit thus resulting in less losses during the showdown.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Colonial development takes, above all other things, time. At least if you don't want to throw staggering resources at it - which, btw, would also come from Earth to start with, since any other world wouldn't be exactly eager to lose population.

Without the Alliance Navy, which you're willing to sacrifice to save billions of hungry refugees, your colonial development will be immediately reversed by the Batarians, who will just go on their slave-grab and pirate raids unpunished.

Ieldra2 wrote...

You can do some calculations and simulations. Results depend on assumptions of course, but most reasonable assumptions would suggest that even in the best cases, a colony wouldn't have a more significant industrial output than a single prosperous city-state on Earth after 30 years. In more average cases, they'll be able to sustain themselves but not contribute greatly to the total. Anything else is just preposterous, but then, the complete ME timeline is that.

Oh, I see. The timeline is preposterous. All right then.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 avril 2011 - 09:52 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Not to say Earth's loss would cripple humanity, but it would doubtless be a huge blow. It wouldn't cripple humanity so much as hobble them for a while. How other races react to their weakness is the real question.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

It would be more accurate to say that Paragon Shepard's unique brand of insanity is that he's willing to take the chance that he doesn't have to go to certain lengths to get the job done, and happens to luck out a lot. There isn't much "finding out" happening there beyond trial-and-error with no reset button to save you if you screw up.

That is the "unique" brand of insanity that all sentient life shares.

If the Salarians were true Renegades, the genophage would just have been a custom virus designed to kill all Krogan. We never would have met Wrex or Grunt, and all the Krogan would be dead. It may be ridiculously stupid to let them live. We'll see.

Similarly, it's dumb that the Turians let us live. A species that learns shockingly quickly, uses Nukes, fights with guerilla warfare... humanity is dangerous. A sufficiently cautious galaxy would have wiped us out, just to be sure. Logically, with that "better safe than sorry" mentality, the rational response of any race when encountering a less developed one would be pre-emptive extermination, or possibly enslavement.

Because the council races did not go as far as they might have when dealing with us, we are alive. That may end up having been a bad decision for them. Only time will tell.

Nuke too many sites from orbit, and eventually the whole planet is radioactive. For each individual choice, the harshest, surest way may seem logical, but the effect of negative consequences for overkill is often cumulative. Fail to nuke the nest of an alien, and you're screwed, Nuke ten suspected sites, seven of which aren't actually nest sites? The fallout makes you just as screwed as you'd be if you missed nuking an alien nest. It's a delicate balance, one that both Shepards tread carefully.

[Nathan Redgrave]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

That is the "unique" brand of insanity that all sentient life shares.

It's more appropriate to say that the larger galactic society never goes entirely one way or the other, whereas a fully Paragon Shepard is committed to the point where it really should have bitten him in the ass by now.

'Sides, I was just being cute about that "genius" remark.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 avril 2011 - 10:07 .

[Ieldra]

@Zulu:
I'm not saying that sacrificing Earth could never be the best strategic choice. All I'm saying is that economic and military power of Earth in comparison to other planets humans have settled would be a major consideration against making that sacrifice lightly. If the Reapers come and sacrificing Earth would ensure victory where other scenarios wouldn't, of course one should take it.

I do maintain that ME's timeline - the part after 2148 at least - is preposterous. From system-bound species to galactic power with at least 200 colonies in 35 years, does that sound plausible to you?