864 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Elite Midget wrote...

Il'l make it easy for you.

Paragon Choice = Right Choice. Always.
Renegade Choice = You get shafted in favor of the Paragon Choice. Always.

I don't remember Renegade ever getting punished.

Modifié par Mesina2, 14 avril 2011 - 06:30 .

[Seboist]

Mesina2 wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Il'l make it easy for you.

Paragon Choice = Right Choice. Always.
Renegade Choice = You get shafted in favor of the Paragon Choice. Always.

I don't remember Renegade ever getting punished.

Renegades are deprived of cameos, aliens hate Shep if he sacrifices council(but humans don't hate him for sacrificing alliance ships), criminals that are let go are always reformed, Rachni queen turns out good and every squadmate who favored keeping the Collector Base has a total mind crush afterwords and say it was a mistake.That's just a few examples off the top of my head.

Granted it's not a substantial "punishment" but still....

[Mr. Gogeta34]

On the flip side though, Humanity sees you as a hero.

Paragon Shepards are seen as more of a traitor/sellout to humanity.

[aimlessgun]

Renegades get punished a little, but I get more upset at Paragons being rewarded. Like giving Veetor to Tali: the Paragon choice is unquestionably better in every single way. Same for Zaeed's loyalty mission: it's bull**** that you can save the workers and get his loyalty: it should be an actual choice, but Paragons can have their cake and eat it too.

[Elite Midget]

Not really. No Human ever told me that I was a sell out for saving the Council yet a bunch of angry Aliens hated me when I killed the Council. Funny how that works right?

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Hey, until Mass Effect gives support for calling them terrorists, as opposed to a smear...

By all our current knowledge, Cerberus doesn't qualify as a terrorist group. It's too not-public, and doesn't aim for or work through fear. It's really more of a cabal.

That still doesn't justify even half the stuff they're doing for that incredibly lame "cause" of theirs. They're delusional clowns with too much money and manpower they got from the Alliance rejection list at best.

And I never said it did. You can take all the issue you want with Cerberus... but terrorism really isn't one of them.

And if people on Omega knows about Cerberus, I'd say it's pretty common knowledge that they're a bunch of idiotic terrorists.

You'd say wrong, then. There's a large difference between knowing the existence of something and knowing much about it, and the presumption of idiocy is a fan-creation at odds with Cerberus's in-universe treatment (which is the opposite).

The Migrant Fleet knows about Cerberus too. And don't tell me 17 million quarians doesn't count as some form of public.

Sure. But then, they're a insular society that only know Cerberus because of a single operation that wasn't even aimed at the Quarians in particular. It was a culture shock to the Quarians, but the operation was never aimed towards that end or for using that shock to achieve their goals. The Quarians and their feelings weren't the target, the intent, or even the basis for the infiltration of the Migrant Fleet: recovering Gillian Grayson, who a captain was harboring, was.

That's horrific collateral for a criminal cabal's operation, but it isn't terrorism.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 14 avril 2011 - 06:44 .

[Turran]

I doubt it is "You Renegade players are pure evil! Time for you to be punished!" It is more.. "Let us have some diversity in the game where your choice actually matters in the next game and the players will be able to tell a noticable difference!" approach...

Edit: Also people complaining about Renegade Shepard being hated by a lot of Aliens is probably the same as real life? If there was a guy that went around where you worked/lived, punching random people, yelling at them and making threats, would he be loved by the community?

Modifié par Turran, 14 avril 2011 - 06:46 .

[didymos1120]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Paragon Shepards are seen as more of a traitor/sellout to humanity.

By who exactly?  Al-Jilani? Some Cerberus people?

[Elite Midget]

Turran wrote...

I doubt it is "You Renegade players are pure evil! Time for you to be punished!" It is more.. "Let us have some diversity in the game where your choice actually matters in the next game and the players will be able to tell a noticable difference!" approach...

By choice they mean "Paragons get the cameo's/more allies/the such while Renegades get... Humanity. That Paragons get too."

[CroGamer002]

Seboist wrote...

Renegades are deprived of cameos,

Really? Dead people don't come back for cameo?
Also just stop auto-selecting bottom right choice.
You can still be Renegade and not kill most NPC's.

aliens hate Shep if he sacrifices council(but humans don't hate him for sacrificing alliance ships),

Shouldn't Renegade don't give a sh*t what other think about him/her?
And not all aliens hate you, just most Turians.

Also while would humans hate you for that? Many still die and are treated as heros if you save the Council.

criminals that are let go are always reformed,

No they're not.
They just work for Aria if you keep the money.

Rachni queen turns out good

I'm sure that without Rachni Queen, Harbinger won't be able to indoctrinate some Rachni troops that I believe are going to be very tough.

and every squadmate who favored keeping the Collector Base has a total mind crush afterwords and say it was a mistake.

Because it would have been out of their character to agree with that choice.

[Dean_the_Young]

michaelrsa wrote...

Let's be honest here. Letting the Council and 10,000 asari die so that humanity has complete control of the Council is a pretty good reason to hate humans.

Since the bigger reason to letting the Council and 10,000 aliens die was to maximize the chances of the entire galaxy surviving the next five minutes, the lack of gratitude is a bit stinging for anyone who knows what was really at stake.

Really, the alien displeasure doesn't bug me. I like it, even. What annoys me is that while one group is justifiably if mistakenly upset in one route, no one at all is upset in the other. The closest we get to 'humans don't appreciate Shepard's decision' is Al-Jilani, who was reduced to a literal punching bad smear-reporter as opposed to someone who could actually challenge Shepard's decisions. There was no other response or disapproval from anyone we might actually care about.

[didymos1120]

aimlessgun wrote...

Renegades get punished a little, but I get more upset at Paragons being rewarded. Like giving Veetor to Tali: the Paragon choice is unquestionably better in every single way.

Uh, why shouldn't that one be?  Why would handing Veetor to Cerberus be at all useful?  It was made crystal clear at the time of the decision that only his data was really worth anything, that he almost certainly didn't know any more, and that he was mentally fragile.  Surprise!  He didn't know any more, and he found the experience of being poked at and interrogated by a bunch of strange humans in unfamiliar surroundings traumatizing. What. A. Shock.

Modifié par didymos1120, 14 avril 2011 - 06:49 .

[Seboist]

michaelrsa wrote...

Let's be honest here. Letting the Council and 10,000 asari die so that humanity has complete control of the Council is a pretty good reason to hate humans.

I let the council die cause the fate of all galactic civilization was at stake and Sovereign needed to be taken out ASAP not to put humanity on a power trip.

It was the same reason why I kept the Collector Base. There was an approaching race of machines who have been exterminating civilizations for millions of years and we needed all the intel and technology we could get to stop them NOT to be humans on a power trip.

Instead this game pigeon holes me into being some megalomaniacal anti-alien bigot.

[didymos1120]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The closest we get to 'humans don't appreciate Shepard's decision' is Al-Jilani, who was reduced to a literal punching ba[g] smear-reporter as opposed to someone who could actually challenge Shepard's decisions.

She wasn't "reduced".  That's what she always was.

[didymos1120]

Seboist wrote...

Instead this game pigeon holes me into being some megalomaniacal anti-alien bigot.

No, actually, it doesn't.  Alien public opinion may do that, but Shep doesn't have to have that as a motivation and can say so when it comes up.

[Someone With Mass]

Then again, most humans in Mass Effect are titanically stupid, so there's no wonder they're not hating on Renegade Shep.

[Dean_the_Young]

didymos1120 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The closest we get to 'humans don't appreciate Shepard's decision' is Al-Jilani, who was reduced to a literal punching ba[g] smear-reporter as opposed to someone who could actually challenge Shepard's decisions.

She wasn't "reduced".  That's what she always was.

I disagree. In ME1, Al-Jilani was a confrontational reporter, like many of them are, who asked pointed questions. Did she want to trip up Shepard? Sure. Most reporters with that sort of opportunity would love to.

Her number of questions were more than fair, however, and Shepard had  wide range in how to respond to them. It wasn't simply Paragon/Renegade/punch, but you could be diplomatically Paragon, bluntly Renengade, purely professional, and you could walk through or stumble. Whether you did well or did poorly in the interview was more about you than her, and you could well do a professional interview and part on perfectly good terms. Hostility was purely optional.

This is as opposed to one question, and the only way not to be smeared is to come off smelling like a rose and bullrushing her with a persuasion check. No nuance, forced hostility, and a laughable raising of any opposing opinion regardless of any choices made.

[aimlessgun]

didymos1120 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

Renegades get punished a little, but I get more upset at Paragons being rewarded. Like giving Veetor to Tali: the Paragon choice is unquestionably better in every single way.

Uh, why shouldn't that one be?  Why would handing Veetor to Cerberus be at all useful?  It was made crystal clear at the time of the decision that only his data was really worth anything, that he almost certainly didn't know any more, and that he was mentally fragile.  Surprise!  He didn't know any more, and he found the experience of being poked at and interrogated by a bunch of strange humans in unfamiliar surroundings traumatizing. What. A. Shock.

Of course he'll come out traumatized, that's the downside of the Renegade decision. And whether or not he has useful info beyond his data is up in the air: you cannot know for sure at the time unless you're metagaming. But bringing him in and getting nothing new isn't bothersome: it was a just in case measure anyways.

It's the fact that the Quarians forward the information to Cerberus anyways if you give him to Tali that is annoying. Like a big "suck it Renegades" message from Bioware.

[lastpatriot]

Though it's already been discussed to some extent, I think the situation with the base comes down to two concerns:


#1.  Do you trust Cerberus enough (based upon their history) to allow them to have sole control over the most advanced technology known within the galaxy and to use this power for honorable intentions?


#2.  Is the destruction of the base and the possible loss of tactical intelligence on the Reapers enough of important enough to outweigh the other possibility of a post-Reapers galaxy with Cerberus coming out on top.

When I play ME, I have 2 Shepards that I play: 1 Male (primary, paragade) and a Female (secondary, renegade).  With these characters, my main Shepard chooses to destroy the base even though he is certain the technology contained inside will give them an edge in the war against the Reapers.  However, he also knows Cerberus’ past and should they get the chance, the will use this technology just as they have always done.

My FemShep though comes to the same conclusion as my main Shep though she feels betrayed by the Alliance as they left her for dead and then Anderson refusing to really do much to help.  After her conversation with Kaiden (her only friend), she pretty much has an emotional breakdown and completely resigns for the Alliance.  For that reason, and because she is so bitter now against the Alliance, my FemShep was willing to give the station over to TIM.  After the Reapers are dead, she doesn’t care what happens to the rest of the galaxy.

Modifié par lastpatriot, 14 avril 2011 - 07:23 .

[PaulSX]

there is no good or bad for this issue I guess. I kept the base on my first playthrough of ME2 (also will be imported to ME3 on the first playthrough), cause I am curious about what TIM will do with this base. Even if this base may result in some serious outcomes in ME3, but you know Shepard always can find a way to solve it .

[Almostfaceman]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The closest we get to 'humans don't appreciate Shepard's decision' is Al-Jilani, who was reduced to a literal punching ba[g] smear-reporter as opposed to someone who could actually challenge Shepard's decisions.

She wasn't "reduced".  That's what she always was.

I disagree. In ME1, Al-Jilani was a confrontational reporter, like many of them are, who asked pointed questions. Did she want to trip up Shepard? Sure. Most reporters with that sort of opportunity would love to.

Her number of questions were more than fair, however, and Shepard had  wide range in how to respond to them. It wasn't simply Paragon/Renegade/punch, but you could be diplomatically Paragon, bluntly Renengade, purely professional, and you could walk through or stumble. Whether you did well or did poorly in the interview was more about you than her, and you could well do a professional interview and part on perfectly good terms. Hostility was purely optional.

This is as opposed to one question, and the only way not to be smeared is to come off smelling like a rose and bullrushing her with a persuasion check. No nuance, forced hostility, and a laughable raising of any opposing opinion regardless of any choices made.

While you had a longer interview in ME1, she clearly had an agenda, and that agenda didn't change at all in ME2, Shep just didn't have to put up with it as long. She wasn't reduced.

[aimlessgun]

lastpatriot wrote...


Though it's already been discussed to some extent, I think the situation with the base comes down to two concerns:


#1.  Do you trust Cerberus enough (based upon their history) to allow them to have sole control over the most advanced technology known within the galaxy and to use this power for honorable intentions?


#2.  Is the destruction of the base and the possible loss of tactical intelligence on the Reapers enough of important enough to outweigh the other possibility of a post-Reapers galaxy with Cerberus coming out on top.

When I play ME, I have 2 Shepards that I play: 1 Male (primary, paragade) and a Female (secondary, renegade).  With these characters, my main Shepard chooses to destroy the base even though he is certain the technology contained inside will give them an edge in the war against the Reapers.  However, he also knows Cerberus’ past and should they get the chance, the will use this technology just as they have always done.

My FemShep though comes to the same conclusion as my main Shep though she feels betrayed by the Alliance as they left her for dead and then Anderson refusing to really do much to help.  After her conversation with Kaiden (her only friend), she pretty much has an emotional breakdown and completely resigns for the Alliance.  For that reason, and because she is so bitter now against the Alliance, my FemShep was willing to give the station over to TIM.  After the Reapers are dead, she doesn’t care what happens to the rest of the galaxy.

While a good summary, I hotly contest the idea of #1, because unless you are metagaming it is quite reasonable to believe that you can tell the rest of the galaxy about the base.

So if we introduce a bit of metagaming into evaluating the decision, and 'know' that we can only give the base to Cerberus, then this line of argument holds up. But if we're discussing the decision as if it really happened, and what decision would be made if you were there for real, in that moment, in a universe where you weren't going to be railroaded, the Cerberus angle is much less influential (you can't stop them from getting something, but you can limit their gains and have the rest of the galaxy cash in extensively).

[Almostfaceman]

aimlessgun wrote...

While a good summary, I hotly contest the idea of #1, because unless you are metagaming it is quite reasonable to believe that you can tell the rest of the galaxy about the base.

Well mileage varies on this point.  When I played the game, TiM pretty much didn't cooperate with the Alliance and made it clear he didn't want "Alliance interference" - like on Horizon I tell him point blank to bring in Alliance to help and he doesn't want to hear it.  When this goofball who's been monitoring my every move including bathroom breaks asks me to keep the base - it's clear to me that he's asking to keep it for HIM.  There's nothing he's done in the past that would leave me to believe he's going to start suddenly singing "We Are the World" with the Alliance and say "hey! Anderson! I found me one of them there Collector bases, wanna help me take a peek?" Sure I can leave and tell Anderson, but how fast can the Alliance integrate the IFF into their ships and get out to the base?  TiM's getting first crack no matter what. 

I didn't even know about the fleet of ships TiM has available to grab stuff off the base if you keep it intact - I saw it on a youtube video long after that first playthrough.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 14 avril 2011 - 08:59 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

didymos1120 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Paragon Shepards are seen as more of a traitor/sellout to humanity.

By who exactly?  Al-Jilani? Some Cerberus people?

Al-Jilani suggested it (and that it was done to preserve the status quo... which is also an issue humanity has complained about regarding the council).


Some say it's a question of whether people are okay with a Cerberus-run galaxy after the Reapers are destroyed.  Compared to the total extinction of all known life?...  Yeah, tyrants can always be overthrown... but total utter extinction can never be undone.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 avril 2011 - 09:04 .