541 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

That's, again, a very selective reading. They are quite clearly nasty SOBs in ME2 just like they were in ME1. They've never been a "pure black hat" organization, but they have never been anything resembling white or even light gray. The only "good" thing about Cerberus is that TIM believes Shepard's story about the Reapers, unlike the Council. He's still obviously plotting ickiness. He just realizes that he can't be the evil overlord himself if the Reapers take over first.

[Seboist]

Vormaerin wrote...

Its fun to be highly selective and only see what we want to see. Why, I can find proof of just about anything now. I just have to ignore all the things that don't agree with my point of view..

Renegade players are NOT getting the shaft. Renegade rewards are money, cool acts of violence, etc NOT people being friendly to you. WTF? You are a badass renegade who doesn't take crap from anyone and spits on everyone else. What about that makes you think your "reward" is extra friends?

The idea that Bioware is pushing the paragon path is a joke, considering that the default is mostly the renegade choices. If you don't import an ME1 save, its pretty straight renegade: Wrex dead, Rachni dead, Council dead, etc. I can't even think of a paragon choice default off the top of my head.

Pro Cerberus is not a renegade choice, its an anti-paragon choice. Renegades don't snivel at TIM's feet. They tell him to shut up and do what he's told because Shepard is the badass, not TIM. Sorry if you just want to be a bootlicker for the other team. That's not paragon OR renegade.

The reason why those Renegade choices are the default is for players who haven't played the first game not to get confused over things(ie "who's he and what's he talking about?!").

[DarthSliver]

Well ExtremeOne, you need to wait for more info before you can decide Bioware is making the wrong choice. I am under the impression the choice will be reasonable, Cerberus has never been painted in a good way. I mean Anderson tells you not to trust Cerberus when you see him on the Citadel. There are alot of hints in throughout the game that working with Cerberus is bad, i mean look at the operations that went wrong you had to save. Overlord comes to mind for one, look at the way they had that person set up. He only did what he did because he was trying to free himself from that hook up that was torture really.

But there is one thing i would point out and agree with you on. Right now it doesnt make total sense, even if you blow up the base and tell TIM to F-off you get the impression that TIM wont do anything. I mean i talked with Jacob and it did sound like they would take revenge but you get the impression it would be after the Reapers are defeated before he would gun for you.

[Seboist]

Moiaussi wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

How can any major choice in ME1 impact ME2 plot?


ME3 is going to be different since:

A) It's a last game in the series
ME1 and ME2 choices can impact ME3 do to it's plot

Also ME2 IS an RPG.

You could have had exactly the same plot working for the Council. They could have gotten information from spies in Cerberus, from their own agents in the field (the Spectres may be questionable, but the STG seems competent), and/or from the Shadowbroker.

It would have taken a little bit more voice acting, and likely a little more scripting, but the could have kept both paths similar, and stuck with most of the same animiation.

With respect to ME3, though, what is your belief based on? Just because it is the last game in the series doesn't mean they don't have the same issues with divergent paths requiring more work. The only place where the have any extra room is at the end. They can have events matter in an epilogue, which would likely be narrated ala Fallout or NWN2, but otherwise they would still have to do divergent paths during the game, something they insisted there was no budget for in ME2.

After ME1 came out, they said "Decisions matter! You have our word!." ME2 came out and veterans said "Hey wait a minute....." So suddenly it changed to "Decisions matter, but not til ME3!!!!"

Fool me once.....

Honestly, they should have done away with the working for Cerberus bit in ME2 if we're going to fight them no matter what in ME3.

[Vormaerin]

Seboist wrote...

The reason why those Renegade choices are the default is for players who haven't played the first game not to get confused over things(ie "who's he and what's he talking about?!").

Ehh, smells like rationalization to me.    Why would the player be more confused by a Council that gives them air quotes than by being told you wiped out the old one?  You still have to deal with Liara, Anderson, Udina, the VS, the death of Wrex, Tali and Garrus' past with you, and all kinds of other elements of ME1.

How would Wrex on Tuchanga be meaningfully more confusing than any other previous character you didn't actually interact with?

[Seboist]

Vormaerin wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The reason why those Renegade choices are the default is for players who haven't played the first game not to get confused over things(ie "who's he and what's he talking about?!").

Ehh, smells like rationalization to me.    Why would the player be more confused by a Council that gives them air quotes than by being told you wiped out the old one?  You still have to deal with Liara, Anderson, Udina, the VS, the death of Wrex, Tali and Garrus' past with you, and all kinds of other elements of ME1.

How would Wrex on Tuchanga be meaningfully more confusing than any other previous character you didn't actually interact with?

With the council being alive the player would be confused as to why they're acting the way they are; "Wait didn't Shepard save the citadel and these people back in the first game? Why aren't they being more supportive?!" and with Wrex " didn't kill each other on Virmire?! The hell is that place and why would Shepard kill him?".  The player misses a lot of context for these things that a veteran would know.

Not to mention all the minor cameos would have a new player completely scratching their heads. Bioware has to take into account the lowest common denominator who likely knows next to nothing about ME1 nor probably cares.

[CroGamer002]

Moiaussi wrote...

You could have had exactly the same plot working for the Council. They could have gotten information from spies in Cerberus, from their own agents in the field (the Spectres may be questionable, but the STG seems competent), and/or from the Shadowbroker.

That is a HUGE maybe for that.
Also Illusive Man gives you ship, crew, equipment and resources from start. Why would you refuse?

Also you think Council would love idea of you having AI on ship?

It would have taken a little bit more voice acting, and likely a little more scripting, but the could have kept both paths similar, and stuck with most of the same animiation.

Not really.

You would then have different ship, different crew, no EDI and different squadmate opinions and destroying CB would now be stupid.

Also what if I killed Council in ME1?
Then I would have different Council.

With respect to ME3, though, what is your belief based on? Just because it is the last game in the series doesn't mean they don't have the same issues with divergent paths requiring more work. The only place where the have any extra room is at the end. They can have events matter in an epilogue, which would likely be narrated ala Fallout or NWN2, but otherwise they would still have to do divergent paths during the game, something they insisted there was no budget for in ME2.

No budget for ME2?
HA?!

Also if budget is the case, ME2 sold lot more then ME1! I'm sure they have enough money now.

After ME1 came out, they said "Decisions matter! You have our word!." ME2 came out and veterans said "Hey wait a minute....." So suddenly it changed to "Decisions matter, but not til ME3!!!!"

In other words, they never said that choices will impact ME2 a lot.

Besides it makes sense what they did, otherwise ME3 would be very linear.
I mean it would have been literally destroy reapers in location A, then go destroy them in location B and later on C.

Fool me once.....

Next time have realistic expectations.

[Vormaerin]

You are ignoring the tons of minor cameos already in the place. The Council alive and doubting is not any more confusing that Anderson/Udina and the Council hating you. Wreav babbling about Wrex is not any simpler than Wrex babbling about himself. How would a Wrex scene be different than the Liara scene that is in the game?

[CroGamer002]

Who cares about default choices?!
Then again you have comic on PS3 and we will have it on every version of ME3.

[Vormaerin]

They are arguing that Bioware is forcing the paragon storyline on them. Which makes no sense given that Bioware's "default" version is the renegade path.

The problem is that they want extra loot and cool badassery *and* more friends out of being Renegade.   What would be left for the paragons if that happened?

Modifié par Vormaerin, 23 avril 2011 - 08:20 .

[CroGamer002]

^Oh, that.

[Moiaussi]

Mesina2 wrote...

That is a HUGE maybe for that.
Also Illusive Man gives you ship, crew, equipment and resources from start. Why would you refuse?

Also you think Council would love idea of you having AI on ship?

Funny, I seem to recall being given a ship (the SR 1, equipment (hello? Spectre gear?) from the Council. Resources? You still get the upgrades from non Cerberus sources and have to strip mine everything in sight to develop them. What game were you playing?

It could have been a VI in both cases and still been believable. The VI could have developed into an AI unintentionally. How does the lack change anything?

Not really.

You would then have different ship, different crew, no EDI and different squadmate opinions and destroying CB would now be stupid.

Also what if I killed Council in ME1?
Then I would have different Council.

If you killed the Council you could still just report to Anderson/Udina, just as you do in ME2 when you go to the Citadel. Why would it have to be a different crew? Why wouldn't the Council be able to develop the same list? Jack would even be more likely to work with you if you are anti-Cerberus. Samara too.

Why would destroying the CB be de facto stupid? There would be the same risks to keeping it.... the fact it might be dangerous to users, and that keeping it means it is intact if the Reapers recapture it.

No budget for ME2?
HA?!

Also if budget is the case, ME2 sold lot more then ME1! I'm sure they have enough money now.

Why don't you try a little reading comprehension? Obviously ME2 had a budget. It didn't have an unlimited budget.

In other words, they never said that choices will impact ME2 a lot.

Besides it makes sense what they did, otherwise ME3 would be very linear.
I mean it would have been literally destroy reapers in location A, then go destroy them in location B and later on C.

In other words, you have no clue what they actually said, and since what they did say is inconvenient to your arguement, they couldn't have said it. Right....  And why would that be neccessary in ME3? Appearantly you already know the script to ME3? You do realize that the order you do main quest elements in ME1 is up to you, don't you? If you pick up Liara last, she has extra dialogue resulting from her having been trapped so long. Appearantly ME1 was able to have more choices and be less linear, but in ME2 so much is so compartmentalized that it doesn't feel part of a main anything. The main quest is very linear to the point of forcing you to board a shuttle to nowhere simply to advance the plot. Oh, and Joker answers to TIM now instead of to you for the same reasons.

Next time have realistic expectations.

Translation, I should expect ME3 to be worse than ME2, since plot wise I consider ME2 worse than ME1 and they have said nothing that would lead me to believe otherwise. Thank you for agreeing with me that my current opinion is rational.

[Ashira Shepard]

ExtremeOne wrote...
*snip of OP rage*

How long ago was the GI info released? How far away is the game from release? How much do we actually know for sure?

I keep putting my faith in these forums and it's always shattered when people tend to b*tch pointlessly. <_<

Some things don't make sense? It's an RPG. It's your character. Make up reasons. Make up traits. Make up history, events, background.

In my head, my Shepard punched Kaiden for calling her a traitor and Cerberus suckup. Irritation avoided; see how easy that is?

[SalsaDMA]

DPSSOC wrote...

AngelicMachinery wrote...
I did notice that Paragon is able to manage a similar ending,  it is a bit eyebrow raising that the causality rate is so low.  I personally was surprised,  but,  come on if Paragon ended up getting slapped hard and suffering for their choices at the end of the game it’d be them here complaining that Bioware hates them,  their dog, and possibly their mothers.

I think at this point people would be happy with a slap on the wrist.  I'm not big on the "Paragon's should be punished too" idea but Paragons take a lot of chances, let a lot of dangerous people walk free, could it just once not work out?  Could we have just one of those people you show mercy to make you kind of regret it?  Nothing big you just find out that they wasted the second chance you gave them and are back to running with mercs or whatever.

Samaras recruitment mission.

Renegades shoot down the asari that pulls a gun, paragons let her go cause she claims she hadn't done anything but group with the mercs cause she felt they were cool.
You then find out she's a killer afterwards with a mean streak.

Renegades that shoot her down certainly are doing 'the right thing' in that case.

[Moiaussi]

Renegades have a bit of a double standard though in that half of them complain that paragon choices don't go wrong and the other half complain that paragon choices going wrong mean paragons get extra encounters cleaning up their own mistakes

[Seboist]

Vormaerin wrote...

They are arguing that Bioware is forcing the paragon storyline on them. Which makes no sense given that Bioware's "default" version is the renegade path.

The problem is that they want extra loot and cool badassery *and* more friends out of being Renegade.   What would be left for the paragons if that happened?

No, what we "renegades" want is an equal outcome for each choice.

Aliens hate Shepard for sacrificing council? Good, now have humans hate Shepard for sacrificing Alliance ships to save the council as a counter-balance.

Also to have suitable replacements for cameos such as killed Shiala? Have lizbeth Baynham replace her.

Paragon VS Renegade system(apart from rewarding meta-gaming over role-playing) ended up becoming a petty light vs dark mechanic where there's no benefits from choosing "dark".

[ExtremeOne]

Moiaussi wrote...

Renegades have a bit of a double standard though in that half of them complain that paragon choices don't go wrong and the other half complain that paragon choices going wrong mean paragons get extra encounters cleaning up their own mistakes

   




Oh well we know the paragons are getting what they want . Look at the info for ME 3 . Bioware is rewarding paragons and anti Cerberus fans . So now who is using the double standard its Bioware . They talk about choice matters in ME games . Now comes ME 3 and the renegade choices from 1 and 2 Oh and especially 2 do not matter .  Its bull sh*t 

[Vormaerin]

Seboist wrote...

[
No, what we "renegades" want is an equal outcome for each choice.

Aliens hate Shepard for sacrificing council? Good, now have humans hate Shepard for sacrificing Alliance ships to save the council as a counter-balance.

Also to have suitable replacements for cameos such as killed Shiala? Have lizbeth Baynham replace her.

Paragon VS Renegade system(apart from rewarding meta-gaming over role-playing) ended up becoming a petty light vs dark mechanic where there's no benefits from choosing "dark".

So what you want is for it to be irrelevant what you choose.  If every decision turns out the same except for the stick figure spouting the dialogue afterwards, then who cares what you do?

Renegade speeches in places like Tali's trial are totally better than the paragon ones.   Renegades get to have Zaeed's loyalty and paragon's don't.    Renegades get Reegar's help against the Collosus, for what its worth. 

You are just cherry picking the outcomes you think favor the paragon and ignoring the other cases.   It would be pretty hard to go through the game and analyze the value of all the renegade interrupts vs the paragon ones.   Not to mention, we don't know the outcome of lots of the choices we made in ME2 (or some of the ones we made in ME1).  But unless someone does that, its all just blowing smoke.

[Vormaerin]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Oh well we know the paragons are getting what they want . Look at the info for ME 3 . Bioware is rewarding paragons and anti Cerberus fans . So now who is using the double standard its Bioware . They talk about choice matters in ME games . Now comes ME 3 and the renegade choices from 1 and 2 Oh and especially 2 do not matter .  Its bull sh*t 

The only "fact" in there is *maybe* the "rewarding anti cerberus fans".    The rest is just you inventing things out of thin air.   You don't know the outcome of even *one* of the major decisions of ME2 and little about any of the major decisions of ME1.

All you know is that the base giving didn't work out like you hoped.  That doesn't mean it was irrelevant or that it won't benefit you in some other way.   It just means you don't get to be on Team Cerberus.

And that has NOTHING to do with renegade or paragon.   Renegades are just as capable of telling TIM off as they are of licking his boots.   In fact, I think its far more likely that a true Renegade would give Cerberus the finger the same as they do everyone else.

Heck, you don't even know if pro Cerberus players are getting screwed.  For all you know, you could be leading the loyal Cerberus resistance against the indoctrination squads or something like that.

[didymos1120]

Vormaerin wrote...

 Renegades get to have Zaeed's loyalty and paragon's don't.   

Um, yes, paragons do get to have his loyalty.  It's just a persuasion check.

Modifié par didymos1120, 23 avril 2011 - 10:05 .

[Vormaerin]

Hmm, yeah, maybe if you metagame and delay his mission arbitrarily to where you can actually have that many paragon points. If you go anywhere near when you actually get the mission, that's practically impossible.

[didymos1120]

Vormaerin wrote...

Hmm, yeah, maybe if you metagame and delay his mission arbitrarily to where you can actually have that many paragon points. If you go anywhere near when you actually get the mission, that's practically impossible.

No, it's trivially easy so long as you've been choosing paragon consistently or imported and ME1 character.  All persuasion checks are relative to total points available up to that point.  They don't have fixed target numbers.

Modifié par didymos1120, 23 avril 2011 - 10:09 .

[Vormaerin]

Guess I've just never been able to "consistently choose" paragon then. My paragon play through only ended up about 80%.

[seirhart]

I always do every single quest and main quest exept for the one to go to the derelict reaper to do zaeds quest so that I have the necessary paragon points to do get him.

[Vormaerin]

seirhart wrote...

I always do every single quest and main quest exept for the one to go to the derelict reaper to do zaeds quest so that I have the necessary paragon points to do get him.

According to Didymos, you should be able to get him without all that.  It wasn't my experience, but who knows?  I certainly haven't looked at the code.