864 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

aimlessgun wrote...

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.

The overall greatest imbalance with the Paragon/Renegade system, besides ME2's mis-match of cameos, was how Paragon so far has systematically undercut nearly every Renegade alternative-reasoning by negating the rational for accepting the costs the Renegade action in the first place.

Either the reasons for the choice are undercut (Need all the data on the Collector attack: the Quarians will give supplementary data if you return Veetor. Zaeed's loyalty: Paragon Persuade anyway), the ultimate effects are indistinguishable (the Bhattia corpse delimma, or the various delimmas you can resolve in either way with both Paragon/Renegade), or the mitigation cost turns out to be unnecessary and even higher (save the Destiny Ascension and everyone still wins: spare the Rachni and you get anti-Reaper allies), or the Renegade path is actually harder when it's supposed to be easier (the Feros colonists).

When Renegade is about doing what's necessary, it never is. When Renegade is about hedging bets, it's the higher and unnecessary cost. And when Renegade is about making things easier, short term or long, it really doesn't.


There's nothing that, individually, wouldn't stand on its own. But as a general trend in decisions, there isn't a balance in results, both in terms of surrounding story (so far, the world's only better off for paragonism) and in rewards/content. Renegades don't get equivalent/equal cameos: there is no equal named character to anyone who could have died.

Renegade is fun for flavoring, but looking at the results of decisions (and not the rational) and so far there's really no reason not to go all Paragon all the way without looking at a case-by-case basis.

[AK404]

Well, if you look at it from a "at this very moment" point of view, Renegade always looks to be the right decision: can't trust the rachni queen, kill it. Can't trust that those silly grenades will really work, kill everyone.

Instead of looking at a situation from someone else's point-of-view, just plow your way through everything via force and intimidation and get Udina to clean things up. When playing as a Renegade, the consequences of your actions are always someone else's problem, so you just go and do them because, hey, someone else's problem.

Incidentally, Mass Effect was released in 2007. Anyone else remember the state of the world we were in at that moment?

[Xaijin]

Apparently some of you don't understand what "renegade" means.

Renegade is not Latin for "have your cake and eat it too".

Renegade is just that: renegade.

Someone who breaks rules and faces for instant effect, someone who does WHATEVER THEY WANT and whatever it takes to accomplish a task, whether or not it's the right thing to do or will result in negative consequences, because a renegade doesn't care about consequences after the fact, just results.

For people supposing renegades are total badasses, there's a hell of a lot of QQ in this thread.

Real renegades don't moan about consequences. They just get the job done.

Modifié par Xaijin, 15 avril 2011 - 12:43 .

[AK404]

Oh yeah, and if as a Paragon, you gave the Collector Base to TIM because he says it's for the good of humanity, you have to very carefully consider exactly what he has done for the good of humanity, and what he's put you through.  For a paragon, that's an incredible idiot ball moment.

You just do not trust TIM (who, I might add, is a picture-perfect Renegade).

Modifié par AK404, 15 avril 2011 - 12:41 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Meh, I just ignore the paragon / renegade simplistic dichotomy and focus on each decision individually, or as part of a larger reasoning that I personally don't really care if it's considered paragon or renegade. In ME1, my canon is slightly more renegade than paragon. In ME2, slightly more paragon than renegade.

What I would say however is that some paragon choices need to be punished, just like some renegade choices. But it seems that the former are not being punished.

[Xaijin]

Arijharn wrote...

Xaijin wrote...
Nope. BioWare provides the plot, and the plot has been shown in other venues, as well as the main game. There's nothing grey or "ambiguous" (ha) about Cerberus methods, goals or personnel for the most part, and of those personnel displayed, those with positive personality traits have been shown unilaterally to be new hires, or distinctly uncomfortable with the organization they serve, or souls with a grudge against a previous race or enemy Cerberus has dealt with in the past. If you wish ignore what is obvious and blatantly  portrayed in rather straight storytelling style, that isn't really germane to the discussion. That Cerberus "serves" humanity is equally dubious, and the Shadow Broker and Overlord provides direct OBJECTIVE information to Shepard about that, thus eliminating any idiotic argument about metagaming, or even ambiguity for that matter save for the reaper threat magnitude.

Miranda doesn't have an issue with Cerberus until straight at the end, which has probably more to do with the plot mechanics than anything else (and is somewhat strange considering the fact that Cerberus is the only thing protecting her sister). But hey, Shephard has his/her own Indoctrination field.

Gabby, Ken, Joker and presumably Dr. Chakwas are the only people we know for sure are 'new' hires , no one else that we know of are necessarily new (Mess Sergeant Gardner for example; Kelly for another).

How is Shadow Broker in any way 'objective'? Shadow Broker has been trying to break down Cerberus for quite a long period of time. Additionally, maybe that's just me, but a Black Ops organisation that assassinates people to me behaves rather what I'd expect to from a black ops organisation, so saying that they're bad for this is like saying you're bad for breathing. The only issue that I think could be considered bad was the Teltin facility, and that's because I don't see the point of studying on children when they could have done the same thing (as far as I can see) with actual alliance soldiers and by studying biotic responses from high stress situations (such as; live fire exercises).

Kelly says she's new, and again Gardner has a reason he states why he's here. and yes it's cool that you can JUSTIFY Cerberus within the framework of the game, by literally ignoring everything else, but as I've stated earlier and will say so again, the way the information is given to Shepard is decidedly unilateral, and part of it is from a self professed renegade, no less. Whatever you might think of Cerberus, BW apparently thinks they're pretty evil, and has portrayed them as such. You're free to confabulate that into whatever sky-is-falling ALALALALLA Zuluism you'd like, but that the core values of the organization is bad juju, regardless of whatever candy layers are affixed to the rest of it, and no amount of player derived rhetoric will change what BioWare intends, which is apparently something along the lines of "Cerberus is bad." Speaking of Miranda, you kinda glossed over the part where she says the ends justify the means after Shepard's "seen your monsters" spiel.

Modifié par Xaijin, 15 avril 2011 - 12:54 .

[aimlessgun]

Almostfaceman wrote...

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.

It's certainly reasonable to think either way. You don't have to outfit Alliance ships with the IFF when they can just intercept Cerberus salvage vessels leaving the O-4 relay , a relay they must use, and nobody else uses. Anyways there are many variables, ranging from whether TIM still controls EDI (but chooses not to exercise that control in the paragon ending), to the speed at which TIM can strip a gigantic base vs. the slowness of the Alliance/Liara to mobilize.

[aimlessgun]

Well said Dean.

Xaijin wrote...

Apparently some of you don't understand what "renegade" means.

Renegade is not Latin for "have your cake and eat it too".

Renegade is just that: renegade.

Someone who breaks rules and faces for instant effect, someone who does WHATEVER THEY WANT and whatever it takes to accomplish a task, whether or not it's the right thing to do or will result in negative consequences, because a renegade doesn't care about consequences after the fact, just results.

For people supposing renegades are total badasses, there's a hell of a lot of QQ in this thread.

Real renegades don't moan about consequences. They just get the job done.

No, paragon is latin for "have your cake and eat it too"   You get to feel good about yourself, and still get the best consequences.

The core idea of renegade, in my mind, is that you're doing morally shady things to get better results. It's not about being a 'badass', or doing something with ****tier consequences because screw the galaxy. Renegade is about removing the moral blinders that might prevent someone from taking the most effective path.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 15 avril 2011 - 01:10 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Arijharn wrote...

The only issue that I think could be considered bad was the Teltin facility, and that's because I don't see the point of studying on children when they could have done the same thing (as far as I can see) with actual alliance soldiers and by studying biotic responses from high stress situations (such as; live fire exercises).

It is stated somewhere (by Kaidan - ?) that the biotics must be trained from childhood. Even the Asari need to undergo training during young age or they lose their potential. Therefore, Alliance soldiers aren't any good for this.

[Arijharn]

Xaijin wrote...
Speaking of Miranda, you kinda glossed over the part where she says the ends justify the means after Shepard's "seen your monsters" spiel.

Where does Kelly say she's new? I remember her 'I love everyone spiel' and her talk about dogs and cats, but I never remember her saying that she's new to the organisation. She says she was handpicked for this assignment, but that's the only thing I remember.

As to Shephard's 'seen your monsters' spiel, that's personal mileage imo as to how 'evil' it is. I don't see ethical or moral dilemna's in studying Rachni, Husks or Thorian Creepers. If the Rachni experiments really was discontinued after they 'understood their intelligence' then good for them, but honestly, I wouldn't hold it against them eitherway. For some reason, I can't really think of individual Rachni as truly sapient (with the exception of the Queen, who I saved anyway) in the same way as say a Turian, or Asari or etc and that's probably because (my bad) I haven't really read the Rachni codex entry since I played ME1 for like the first time.

Husks are well... corpses cybernetically enhanced, so even if they can't say go around exhuming the dead to make cyber constructs of terror (which I would have issues with, because well... the dead should rest easy imo), I wouldn't have issues with them say, utilizing the studies for any other reason even if they were to use clones or whatever.

Thorian Creepers aren't human in the first place, they aren't really anything from what I can gather other than plant matter from the Thorian. They are humanoid but that's it. They aren't sapient, they are like white blood cells.

In other words, the monsters spiel is much less poignant to me than it was to you, so if I 'glossed' over it it's because I didn't think it was an 'issue.'

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Just finished reading the GI magazine article (came in today). Their goal with Mass Effect 3 is apparently to "reward" players for the choices they make (regardless of that choice). Whether that means Renegades get some legitimate (instead of implied) validation though has yet to be seen.

But you can't really deny that so far, the top right/top left options always have yielded the best overall results (regardless of the logic of that choice).

So far, the benefits of a renegade choice have primarily been relegated to ones of immediate satisfaction instead of actually making a beneficial/efficient/do what it takes decision.

[Saaziel]

I think it safe to assume that keeping the base will yield special weapons or armour. Giving Legion to Cerberus might do the same.

Modifié par Saaziel, 15 avril 2011 - 03:44 .

[Arijharn]

Legion escapes if you hand him to Cerberus apparently, it makes mention of this one of the Shadow Broker's dossier's iirc.

[Saaziel]

I wasn't aware of this. I haven't reach this part with my Renegade Shepard.

Sneaky little Geth isn't it ?

Modifié par Saaziel, 15 avril 2011 - 03:49 .

[Arijharn]

Legion's a dirty liar.

Geth can infiltrate (hell, his class is usually an Infiltrator... and what do you call a geth mobile platform that operates deep in 'enemy' lines?) and therefore it stands to reason that if a Geth can infiltrate, a geth can exfiltrate!

[Xaijin]

Arijharn wrote...

Xaijin wrote...
Speaking of Miranda, you kinda glossed over the part where she says the ends justify the means after Shepard's "seen your monsters" spiel.

Where does Kelly say she's new? I remember her 'I love everyone spiel' and her talk about dogs and cats, but I never remember her saying that she's new to the organisation. She says she was handpicked for this assignment, but that's the only thing I remember.

As to Shephard's 'seen your monsters' spiel, that's personal mileage imo as to how 'evil' it is. I don't see ethical or moral dilemna's in studying Rachni, Husks or Thorian Creepers. If the Rachni experiments really was discontinued after they 'understood their intelligence' then good for them, but honestly, I wouldn't hold it against them eitherway. For some reason, I can't really think of individual Rachni as truly sapient (with the exception of the Queen, who I saved anyway) in the same way as say a Turian, or Asari or etc and that's probably because (my bad) I haven't really read the Rachni codex entry since I played ME1 for like the first time.

Husks are well... corpses cybernetically enhanced, so even if they can't say go around exhuming the dead to make cyber constructs of terror (which I would have issues with, because well... the dead should rest easy imo), I wouldn't have issues with them say, utilizing the studies for any other reason even if they were to use clones or whatever.

Thorian Creepers aren't human in the first place, they aren't really anything from what I can gather other than plant matter from the Thorian. They are humanoid but that's it. They aren't sapient, they are like white blood cells.

In other words, the monsters spiel is much less poignant to me than it was to you, so if I 'glossed' over it it's because I didn't think it was an 'issue.'

And as I've been pointing out for like three posts you aren't the BW writers and licensors, whom have apparenlty come to a rather different conclusion about Cerberus's moral stance other than "nationalistic antiheroes with everyone's best interests in mind." Again, simply by going in game dialog and "selectively playing", ie passive aggressively laying over information, you could certainly paint that picture. Problem is all of the out of game material directly contradicts that.

[Aedan_Cousland]

MisterJB wrote...

Keeping the base was always a BAD idea, IMO.

This.
 
Keeping the base always has been a dumb move.

1. Cerberus can't be trusted with it.

2. There is no way Shepard (or Cerberus) could ever defend the base from a Reaper attack. It is better to destroy it than have the Reapers simply retake it and pick up where they left off.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 15 avril 2011 - 09:20 .

[Arijharn]

Xaijin wrote...
And as I've been pointing out for like three posts you aren't the BW writers and licensors, whom have apparenlty come to a rather different conclusion about Cerberus's moral stance other than "nationalistic antiheroes with everyone's best interests in mind." Again, simply by going in game dialog and "selectively playing", ie passive aggressively laying over information, you could certainly paint that picture. Problem is all of the out of game material directly contradicts that.

You know what, if you can't be bothered to read what I type or even answer my questions, there really is no point in me wasting my time 'talking' to you. That is, if it can be described as 'talking' (or conversing if you want to be anally-retentive) rather than taking part in one of those old typing exercises you used to do at high school.

Look, I see where you're coming from, but I also know what they've said prior to the game's ship. I also know that Cerberus was responsible for at least two instances of 'humanitarian' aid in game (post Horizon, and post-Aite which may or may not include someone letting a survivor of that situation gets in contact with you to thank you). Do these acts of charity expunge Cerberus' past? Of course not, but guess what? They don't need too. Cerberus is (for good or ill) out to help humanity (even though you don't think that works, but you know, that's kinda irrelevant to their aims). All I'm saying is perhaps it isn't as cut and dried or simplistic as many would believe.

But you know, don't listen to me again because I doubt you have at all ever. 

[PaulSX]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Just finished reading the GI magazine article (came in today). Their goal with Mass Effect 3 is apparently to "reward" players for the choices they make (regardless of that choice). Whether that means Renegades get some legitimate (instead of implied) validation though has yet to be seen.

But you can't really deny that so far, the top right/top left options always have yielded the best overall results (regardless of the logic of that choice).

So far, the benefits of a renegade choice have primarily been relegated to ones of immediate satisfaction instead of actually making a beneficial/efficient/do what it takes decision.

I dont think at last keeping the base is an 'immediate satisfaction', to me renegade is more like NEVER consider things other than myself

[Ferginator]

Akizora wrote...

It doesn't have to be, you could end up killing TIM and then owning the base yourself, it just means getting to him is harder and you might end up sacrificing something.

Wrong, the base holds valuble info on how to defeat the reapers. You think because TIM is after you that you assume it deals with the base. How about the fact that you are now working for the shadow broker and he found out? Ya or because the Alliance has his ship that he has spent billions on being taken apart by the alliance. GI said, 'That you wont know why til the game is released". So the keeping of the the base still is a good idea. Technology to beat the reapers is less lives to be lost. TIM is going to go after you whether or not you destroyed the base. But if you keep the base you will find something to destroy the reapers quicker but if you destroy it it will take longer for you to find a solution to the reapers and more lives will be lost.

Modifié par Ferginator, 15 avril 2011 - 09:09 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Keeping the base was always a BAD idea, IMO.

This.
 
Keeping the base always has been a dumb move.

1. Cerberus can't be trusted with it.

Cerberus can be trusted to do what Cerberus says it will do... and to use that knowledge against the Reapers as well.

2. There is no way Shepard (or Cerberus) could ever defend the base from a Reaper attack. It is better to destroy it than have the Reapers simply retake it and pick up where they left off.

They can always rebuild it if you destroy it, while they wouldn't be able to take advantage of it if you didn't without winning the war regardless.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

suntzuxi wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Just finished reading the GI magazine article (came in today). Their goal with Mass Effect 3 is apparently to "reward" players for the choices they make (regardless of that choice). Whether that means Renegades get some legitimate (instead of implied) validation though has yet to be seen.

But you can't really deny that so far, the top right/top left options always have yielded the best overall results (regardless of the logic of that choice).

So far, the benefits of a renegade choice have primarily been relegated to ones of immediate satisfaction instead of actually making a beneficial/efficient/do what it takes decision.

I dont think at last keeping the base is an 'immediate satisfaction', to me renegade is more like NEVER consider things other than myself

The mission comes first with Renegades, how they feel is a close second though.

[didymos1120]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The mission comes first with Renegades, how they feel is a close second though.

Well, except for when they're, like, shaking people down for extra cash or randomly punching them.  Not that you have to take those "Douchegade" options to play Renegade.

Modifié par didymos1120, 16 avril 2011 - 06:10 .

[Seboist]

didymos1120 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The mission comes first with Renegades, how they feel is a close second though.

Well, except for when they're, like, shaking people down for extra cash or randomly punching them.  Not that you have to take those "Douchegade" options to play Renegade.

Hey Paragon options sometimes involve dubious things too, in one of them Shep pushes a Volus and nearly assaults a C-Sec officer.

[didymos1120]

Seboist wrote...

Hey Paragon options sometimes involve dubious things too, in one of them Shep pushes a Volus and nearly assaults a C-Sec officer.

Never said they didn't.  Although the Biotic God one is sort of stretch. There's no actual harm involved. Not sure what you're referring to with the other one, though. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 16 avril 2011 - 06:20 .