Someone With Mass wrote...
When Renegades are doing what they do and are not expecting consequences for those actions, they're just fooling themselves.
But until I've seen more of ME3, I won't count any side as "unable to win".
ExtremeOne wrote...
every action has reacion but what was said in GI article seems like Bioware has clearly chosen a side and has no respect us renegade fans
Modifié par didymos1120, 20 avril 2011 - 12:08 .
didymos1120 wrote...
ExtremeOne wrote...
every action has reacion but what was said in GI article seems like Bioware has clearly chosen a side and has no respect us renegade fans
Yeah, "seems"...to you. You don't know; you're just assuming and then getting mad at them for what you've concocted in your own mind.
N085 wrote...
ExtremeOne your getting all worked up over a game that at the moment is months away from release and that we have only been given snippet of information about, we know virtually nothing about ME3 so why get all mad and angry? your only showing yourself up and making yourself look the fool.
TS2Aggie wrote...
I have faith that Bioware will make a really enjoyable game for both paragon and renegade players. Let's not all get our noses out of joint about this.
Seboist wrote...
N085 wrote...
ExtremeOne your getting all worked up over a game that at the moment is months away from release and that we have only been given snippet of information about, we know virtually nothing about ME3 so why get all mad and angry? your only showing yourself up and making yourself look the fool.
The "choices" haven't been shown to make a lick of difference besides comestic in two full games. It's more than enough reason to be concerned about the third entry.
This is stark contrast to a game like DA:O were within a sole title there's entire alternate missions and alliances you can make based on player choice.
Concerned yes. Acting like this is a certainly no. I was disappointed in the lack of difference you choices seem to make in ME2 but it has to import into ME3. That’s probably why they had to make it fairly linear. ME3 does not have to import into anything. They don’t have to worry about screwing themselves further down the line. Hopefully that will mean we will see more of a branching plot based on previous choices.Seboist wrote...
N085 wrote...
ExtremeOne your getting all worked up over a game that at the moment is months away from release and that we have only been given snippet of information about, we know virtually nothing about ME3 so why get all mad and angry? your only showing yourself up and making yourself look the fool.
The "choices" haven't been shown to make a lick of difference besides comestic in two full games. It's more than enough reason to be concerned about the third entry.
This is stark contrast to a game like DA:O were within a sole title there's entire alternate missions and alliances you can make based on player choice.
Modifié par Manic Sheep, 20 avril 2011 - 04:48 .
ISpeakTheTruth wrote...
JKoopman wrote...
ISpeakTheTruth wrote...
eternalnightmare13 wrote...
JKoopman wrote...
Just to make a point, imagine if it had been the Reapers and not the rachni that had nearly wiped out all life in the galaxy 2,000 years prior to the start of Mass Effect, and somehow the Council races had miraculously managed to resist them and win the war. Spectre Shepard then comes along two millenia later and finds the last surviving Reaper having been uncovered and brought to Noveria for study. It tells Shepard that it's totally not like all those other Reapers and pinky-swears via an indoctrinated scientist that it won't try to destroy the galaxy; it'll just go off, build a few more Reapers and peacefully coexist with the Council races.
Would you trust it? Would you pity it? Would you release it? Would that have been a good idea?
I suspect most would destroy it. The Reapers are an obvious threat after all. But somehow the rachni aren't despite having done almost exactly what the Reapers are trying to do now 2,000 years ago?
That depends - can the Reapers sing like the Rachni Queen?! I suspect that they can't even carry a tune or at the very least resort to the dreaded auto-tune...
But Reapers can sing
Also it isn't a fair example. If the Reaper were under the control of someone else than they wouldn't be responsible for what happened and if the Rachni were under the control of the Reapers when they started attacking than what they didn't isn't their fault either and they shouldn't be condemed to death for the sins of someone else.
But, again, the only evidence Shepard has to support this is the queen's word. And might I point out that the queen kind of has a vested interest in ensuring that you don't give her an acid bath?
One has to ask the logical question of if the Rachni are lying about wanting to help Shepard and lying about the Reapers being behind the first Rachni War than why go out of your way to find him in the first place? He's going to have his hands full with the Reapers its not like he's going to go out of his way to try and find the Rachni.
The Queen put herself out in front of Shepard I find it hard to believe that she did this only to turn on Shepard.
theelementslayer wrote...
I was a renegade that destroyed the base. Why? because it seemed like a bad idea to keep it. If you want something to bite you in the ass later on, keep it. Thats why the council is gone, the rachni, shiala, and well any thing else I thought could bite back if I kept it around. But just because Cerberus is after us doesnt mean that keeping the base will still be bad. We dont know the story, stop jumping to conclusions.
I actually think you can't recruit Morinth unless you were able to resist all levels of her domination, so that isn't an issue. And honestly I thought Morinth would end up causing less harm than Samara in the long run because I could keep her in line easily enough in regards to my crew, and in her entire life, she has probably killed less people than Samara probably did by interfering with Nihlus over that ridiculous code.eternalnightmare13 wrote...
Morinth on the other hand is the emobdiment of chaos and death. You say she's only a danger if Shep 'sleeps' with her, but the rest of Shep's crew isn't as strong willed as Shep. Heck, depending on how you play it even Shep almost falls prey to Morinth if weren't for Samara. Morinth's sociopathic tendancies and no concern for right/wrong makes her far more dangerous IMO.
The only way I see it being renegade rather then evil or insane is that Morinth is not hindered by any code. She's not tied down by what a Renegade Shep would percieve as antiquated and bothersome rules. If some civilans are killed in the process of going after the Collectors' - Morinth isn't going to have an issue with that. Morinth doesn't care who she kills and that may be dangerous but it's less complicated and political then Samara's Code and that's why it would be Renegade from an RP point of view.
GodWood wrote...
Feros isn't in the PS3 comic thing so I doubt it'll have any major impact in ME3.Ausstig wrote...
Saving Feros, though I did that as a renegade.
Guest_Aotearas_*
Rip504 wrote...
I will prove the Renegade sacrifices the "now" for the later "greater good".
Direct Renegade quote. ": Drink it! Or I will blind you one eye at a time.:"
Yes
this is the Renegade thinking beyond the here and now. The Renegade
would enjoy and have a wonderful time blinding the Batarian "one eye at a
time",but wouldn't get the great benefit of watching the Batarian drink
it's own poison. Sacrificing the "here and now" for the "Greater Good."
Awesome.!.
I
thought the Renegade was suppose to be a bad*ss character. But that
can't be true with all of these Renegades crying on these forums. I just
don't get it...
Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...
ddv.rsa wrote...
Paragon vs Renagade comes down to carrot vs. stick. You don't need to be antisocial little ass to be a renegade. Ultimately it's just the school of thought that says "ends justify means".
Fair point. I just find it odd that renegade players get so bent out of shape about potential consequences for their actions. I prefer paragon, and I always just assume that at some point some of Shepard's decisions will come back to haunt him, like letting Rana Thanoptis go free twice.
Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 juin 2011 - 08:18 .
Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Being that both are heroes, the "best" outcome would be a scenario where the most lives are saved at the least cost (as a major example).
You could personally like a "worse" ending, but that doesn't keep it from not being the "best" ending.
Here's a hard example:
One thing you could argue is what if Paragons save the galaxy but lose humanity as a species while the Renegades lose all other races even.. but humanity survives. Technically, Paragons have the better ending (with more lives saved) but some may personally prefer that Humanity pulls through.
Retour en haut
